TheRemainsOfTheDave
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 16 Mar 2017
- Messages
- 6,491
Where in my response did you get the notion that I watch it much or agree with the licence fee? I was explaining what the model was with relation to everyone funding a public service broadcaster because you said you don't understand it. My mother and father watch the BBC a lot and they know lots that do the same. Millions watch some of the programmes on there, but because you don't want to see any of it you want to complain about how unfair it is - to you. Ever thought about others who can't afford Netflix, Amazon, BT, Sky, Apple etc.Again Andrew neil announced his Fox News type tosh yesterday so it’s already enroute.
My council tax covers many essential services inc those I already use and ones I may need at times. The bbc provides a service I don’t ever use. The bbc website is shit. That’s already been mentioned. The partisan football coverage is embarrassing. I shouldn’t be forced to pay for something I don’t want. The fairest way is to make it a subscription service then folk like you can enjoy Zoe ball and Laura kuenssberg and folk like me will be better off financially. I’m not particularly against it as a service, I equate it to the metro free newspaper. It suits certain types and I don’t have any issue with that. It’s the compulsory licence that I object to especially since I don’t use anything it provides. I also think it’s dated and would benefit from a new direction. Turning it into a optional subscription service would give it an opportunity to modernise.
By all means remove the fee, but as I've said before in this thread, what I've see abroad doesn't fill me with expectation that quality would improve. A public funded service might provide something you might use in the future - who knows.