Why shouldn’t the bbc switch to a subscription service? If it’s so good it’ll survive. I personally feel that the content is crap. I don’t and never have listened to the radio and the website is comparable to the daily mail website imo. Therefore I think it’s outdated and in desperate need of modernisation.I used your argument against you, so why is it ridiculous.
If my argument is ridiculous so is yours.
Why don't we out source our nuclear submarines to Serco, I think they are crap. People who want nuclear missiles could pay a subscription to Serco, I have never seen a nuclear submarine so why should I pay for it/Why shouldn’t the bbc switch to a subscription service? If it’s so good it’ll survive. I personally feel that the content is crap. I don’t and never have listened to the radio and the website is comparable to the daily mail website imo. Therefore I think it’s outdated and in desperate need of modernisation.
You have no reasonable response so resort to being a muppet. Have a good evening.Why don't we out source our nuclear submarines to Serco, I think they are crap. People who want nuclear missiles could pay a subscription to Serco, I have never seen a nuclear submarine so why should I pay for it/
#DEFUNDNUCLEARSUBS
It’s an outdated service that has for many been surpassed by alternatives. The debate should be around funding of the outdated service. There is no valid reason that I can think of why it shouldn’t be a subscription service, that then gives folk the option of paying or not. Debating the actual content would be a never ending argument. Some folk love it and others don’t. Those folk that appreciate it and want it to continue can subscribe, those who don’t enjoy it can opt out. Everyone’s happy.It’s a public service. The debate should be about whether it is fulfilling its role as being that and whether it’s a service that we should have rather than just what you as an individual consume.
Unfortunately, the debate is more of the latter though. Suits the people that do want it to go if it stays that way too.
Some of us are trying to discuss its role but struggling to get heard over those that just want to shout out why it doesn't suit them.It’s a public service. The debate should be about whether it is fulfilling its role as being that and whether it’s a service that we should have rather than just what you as an individual consume.
Unfortunately, the debate is more of the latter though. Suits the people that do want it to go if it stays that way too.
It’s an outdated service that has for many been surpassed by alternatives. The debate should be around funding of the outdated service. There is no valid reason that I can think of why it shouldn’t be a subscription service, that then gives folk the option of paying or not. Debating the actual content would be a never ending argument. Some folk love it and others don’t. Those folk that appreciate it and want it to continue can subscribe, those who don’t enjoy it can opt out. Everyone’s happy.
Weird. I’m messaging the same as you are fella. Hilarious that you can’t come back with a response to my suggestion. A subscription service would be the fairest option.Some of us are trying to discuss its role but struggling to get heard over those that just want to shout out why it doesn't suit them.
Spoils the discussion for everyone.