BBC licence fee

[meltonblue]

I appreciate that some of the content on bbc2 & both bbc4 and radio 4 is informative and often very well done. A lot of this stuff I think would be made by the commercial sector as it sells very well. However nothing about bbc1 or radio 1 appeals to me and it’s my money that is being spent on the latest eastenders set so I feel justified in having an opinion, whether it’s negative or not.
I think the fundamental difference between us is is that I don’t view it as a necessary public service. I think at a time it was but that time has gone. To compare the importance of it to health and education is little odd. But I respect your opinion and in a strange way admire both yours and rascals defence of it.
FWIW I have no respect or admiration for any of the political parties nor the royal family and I’d be happy for the union to be broken up. I’m all for modernising which is partly why I think the bbc is dated and either needs to catch up or fold.

Well I agree with your political views at least :)

 

[Pedestrian]

I would be interested to know how old you are and what field you are in.

I would also be interested to know how you will go about filling the skills gap when the BBC is reduced to a shell. Where will the technicians be trained? What happens to the UK film industry as result.

The Tory party are ideologically against the BBC and have been for decades, it suffered funding cuts and a lot of its programming was outsourced to companies like Mentorn, which slashed working conditions because it could after Thatcher all but destroyed Union power. This led to a drain of the brightest and best technicians from the UK to other countries and those who stayed were paid a lot less and their conditions were poorer. Where once it was a privilige and you could take pride in working for the BBC the Tories destroyed it and now they want the coup de grace helped by the shady organisations that suck Murdochs cock. As for cultural output how much of that do you get on other platforms? One of the biggest cultural events the BBC used to cover was the Eistedfodd, because as a national and regional broadcaster it had a duty to provide cultural programming for Wales. Can you see Netflix covering the Eistedfodd?

One of the reasons why cultural programming took such a hit was because the BBC was underfunded and it had to find other ways of making programmes. Its big sellers like Attenborughs docunmentaries still make the nation millions and BBC Bristol has some of the best wild life technicians in the world. Will Netflix be interested in that and if so will they pay the wages that the staff deserve or will they like so many of our former industries and skills be sold down the river for corporate greed.

I’m mid 40’s. 7 years military and 20 years a nurse.
The better cultural and wildlife programs would definitely be picked up by services like netflix because they are financially viable. The less popular events that are covered by the regional arms of the bbc would indeed suffer. However I’m not sure many folk outside of those regions would be too concerned.
A point about the training of technical film and tv staff. When the tories got rid of the nursing training burseries and introduced the yearly tuition fee for student nurses (who when qualified after 3 years start a job with a <£25k salary) myself and my colleagues were devastated and concerned for the future of nursing in this country. However people are still applying. Approximately 5% of places go unfilled yearly out of roughly 15000 available. Considering student nurses used to have there course funded as well as a free study bursery which was just enough to be able to live frugally without the need to work additionally and now they leave uni with upwards of £40k debt, folk are still applying. What I’m saying is that people find ways. Those folk that want to get into the technical side of tv/film will find there way to uni courses and the services that step in to take over the various bbc content that becomes available will still need the same crews to work on the projects.

 

[RabidCity]

The principle is the same though and everyone pays towards nuclear weapons because VAT is paid by everyone and that is a form of general taxation. Am I to refuse to pay VAT because I don't agree with nuclear weapons, I am to refuse to pay VAT because I don't use the M9, should I refuse to pay for schools because I no longer go.

The refusal to pay is purely driven by capitalist cranks who hate the thought of anything that is socialised. So what do we do after the BBC is given over to private ownership, do we privatise the Nuclear Subs, do We privatise the Police, Do we privatise all the roads, where does it end? We have already many national assets sold off to the capitalists and its about time it was stopped, because these national assets are our assets that we have paid for through years of taxation. I dont mind competiton being set up, but leave the last few remaining public institutions alone because we will have nothing left and live in a world where everything is owned by the capitalist cranks who can then exploit the working class for profit at every turn.

VAT is linked to your ability to pay, the richer you are the more luxury goods you pay and the more you contribute. A flat licence fee is unfair on the poorest in society and that's one of the reasons it's got to go.

I think retain the BBC in public ownership, but fund it through general taxation rather than a flat charge and it takes away the dispute about whether you watch 'live tv' or not.

 

[meltonblue]

VAT is linked to your ability to pay, the richer you are the more luxury goods you pay and the more you contribute. A flat licence fee is unfair on the poorest in society and that's one of the reasons it's got to go.

I think retain the BBC in public ownership, but fund it through general taxation rather than a flat charge and it takes away the dispute about whether you watch 'live tv' or not.

I agree with that.

 

[Rascal]

I’m mid 40’s. 7 years military and 20 years a nurse.
The better cultural and wildlife programs would definitely be picked up by services like netflix because they are financially viable. The less popular events that are covered by the regional arms of the bbc would indeed suffer. However I’m not sure many folk outside of those regions would be too concerned.
A point about the training of technical film and tv staff. When the tories got rid of the nursing training burseries and introduced the yearly tuition fee for student nurses (who when qualified after 3 years start a job with a <£25k salary) myself and my colleagues were devastated and concerned for the future of nursing in this country. However people are still applying. Approximately 5% of places go unfilled yearly out of roughly 15000 available. Considering student nurses used to have there course funded as well as a free study bursery which was just enough to be able to live frugally without the need to work additionally and now they leave uni with upwards of £40k debt, folk are still applying. What I’m saying is that people find ways. Those folk that want to get into the technical side of tv/film will find there way to uni courses and the services that step in to take over the various bbc content that becomes available will still need the same crews to work on the projects.

Ok if you say so.

Your hatred of the BBC is clear, I am not going to change that and you are the most vocal anti BBC person i have come across.

You carry on with your points. I look forward to all the University educated crew on set doing the jobs. I just wish i was there to see it.

 

[Fame Monster]

VAT is linked to your ability to pay, the richer you are the more luxury goods you pay and the more you contribute. A flat licence fee is unfair on the poorest in society and that's one of the reasons it's got to go.

I think retain the BBC in public ownership, but fund it through general taxation rather than a flat charge and it takes away the dispute about whether you watch 'live tv' or not.

I think a lot of people, both sides of the debate, agree with that as a bare minimum if the BBC continues to receive public funding.

With regard to funding it from general taxation though, there must come a point where the actions of the BBC means that it is no longer a public service, no longer any better than a rival free-to-air channel, and no longer deserving of public money?

 

[Rascal]

VAT is linked to your ability to pay, the richer you are the more luxury goods you pay and the more you contribute. A flat licence fee is unfair on the poorest in society and that's one of the reasons it's got to go.

I think retain the BBC in public ownership, but fund it through general taxation rather than a flat charge and it takes away the dispute about whether you watch 'live tv' or not.

Even if you retain the BBC in public ownership paid for by taxation, the licence fee will still exist. Because you need a TV licence to watch live TV on ITV, SKY and BT

As a proportion BTW , VAT is more likely to be paid by those with least as they have the greater propensity to spend, so more of their income goes in VAT.

I am still convinced though that is all a purely political move done for underhand purposes.

There is, let us be honest, something prurient about demanding the BBC publish the broad salary details of its highest-paid employees and contractors. And like most prurient things, it is fascinating even if it is also, at some level, demeaning and an invasion of the “talent’s” legitimate privacy.
Of course this is justified by the manner in which the BBC is funded. Because it is “our” money, the BBC must argue the case for the manner in which it spends – forgive me the cliche – “taxpayers’ hard-earned” cash. Well, maybe. There is, as is always the case when puritans indulge their prurience, a danger of confusing the price of something with its value.
Nonetheless, some of those salaries are eye-popping. Is John Humphrys really worth nearly three times the salaries paid to his co-presenters Nick Robinson and Mishal Hussein – even when you factor in his Mastermind appearances? Is Gary Lineker really worth six Clare Baldings?
Some of the more extravagant contracts were doubtless signed before the BBC began to feel the need to restrain spending on “Talent” and it is notable that relatively few presenters based in Manchester feature on the list of high-earners. But even so, it is hard to avoid the fact that the BBC often pays more than it might need to since having a plum spot on the BBC is worth a lot in itself. That doubtless helps explain why the likes of Andrew Neil or Laura Kuenssberg prefer to work for the corporation even though they could almost certainly earn more at one of the BBC’s commercial rivals.

We might also agree that if an organisation such as the BBC were proposed today, we would not create an organisation which looked very much like the BBC we have now. Nor would it be funded by a licence fee, the payment of which can be enforced through the courts. If we were starting from the beginning, the BBC would have to take its chances on the open ocean of the free market. But of course we are not starting from scratch. The BBC makes no sense and by making no sense it proves its incorrigible Britishness. This is a country in which the anomaly is the rule. If we were building a new national health service, we would not organise, and fund, it in the way we organise the NHS. If we were constructing – and even, novelty of novelties, writing! – a new constitution, we would not create a second chamber which looked very much like the current House of Lords. A chamber in which, you will need no reminding, some hereditary peers still sit and in which bishops of the Church of England continue to enjoy mystifying privilege. Hell, if we were starting again we might not even site parliament in London.

Be that as it may, we are where we are – and that’s a place in which we muddle along as best we can. Illogicality is acknowledged, but straitening the crooked timber from which Britain’s public institutions are constructed is more trouble than it’s worth, not least since it is far from obvious that doing so would lead to any appreciable improvement. Tories, in particular, should be wary of the bracing gales of ideological purity and consistency. Something need not make sense to be important and valuable.


Still, like those other British idiosyncrasies, the BBC is hardly perfect. Its critics have a point when they complain about the manner in which the BBC, which is now a publisher just as much as it is a broadcaster, distorts the commercial market. The licence fee gives the corporation a privileged position within that market and the effect on newspapers – at both a national and, especially, a local level – has been profound. Those of us who toil in inky vineyards have reason to think the BBC is in danger of abusing that privileged position

Nevertheless, it is also the case that the BBC has become adept at doing more with less. The licence fee has not increased – in real terms – in 20 years. By any reasonable estimation it remains a bargain even if it is, inescapably, funded as a kind of household poll tax. No other country receives as much for so little from its national broadcaster. (It seems worth mentioning that people from other countries are constantly astonished by, and envious of, the BBC.)


There is a danger of thinking that because the BBC is anachronistic and far from perfect we must make it logical and worse. Some of its enemies complain about the manner in which the corporation chases ratings – how now, Lord Reith? – but, let us be frank, those same critics would condemn the BBC if it failed to make programmes the public wanted to watch. In the latter situation, the licence fee would become ever harder to justify. Which, of course, is precisely the point.

All this is comforting, however. The BBC is attacked by the Right and Left alike which is both a tribute to its importance and a suggestion that, on the whole and broadly speaking and at least in terms of its news coverage, it is getting it right. Certainly it is hard to imagine Britain without it and hard to imagine that any replacement service forced to operate on a purely commercial basis could offer so much across so many platforms and to so many different audiences.


And that matters too, not least because societies need institutions that command some respect and some authority. The BBC is a vital part of the glue which holds an increasingly diverse – and even, if you must, “atomised” – society together. It is a meeting place for everyone. That, increasingly, is its enduring value. The BBC has become one of our permanent things, the worth of which may sometimes only be properly appreciated in its absence.


Of course it must change so it may remain the same, but the corporation gets a lot more right than it gets wrong. How it survives the challenges of a new era in which its competition is Amazon and Netflix is another matter. The BBC, for all its wealth, is a pauper in comparison to the American tech giants and if we recognise this we might also recognise that, for all its waste and questionable extravagance, there is a strong argument for sharply increasing the licence fee.

No, the BBC doesn’t make sense. That is its beauty and its strength. Long may it continue to infuriate us; long, more importantly, may it continue to matter.

Thanks to CAPX for the copy, it summed up my thoughts far better than I ever could and yes I do have a vested interest having worked once upon a time for the BBC and saw the organisation as a force for good and worked with brilliant people dedicated to making great programmes and enhance peoples lives. I make no apology for that, because working for them I saw the power and influence and respect the BBC was held in. Also as an avowed anti-capitalist and Socialist my political beliefs mean I value organisations like the BBC which are outside capitalist control and are funded in a Socialistic manner. What baffles me is why Conservatives who are almost preternaturally against change wish to debase a great British institution, it makes a mockery of the claim they are patriotic, what it shows is that they are now as laisse faire as even the most rampant vestiges of capitalism anywhere in the world. The whiff of corruption hangs heavy in the air.

 

[Fame Monster]

I know a few gammons will go pink at the idea of Farage being quoted on here but it does seem like more are cottoning onto the BBC's MO of not reporting on news that fits uncomfortably with their worldview. Happened with Grimes and seems to be happening with their US coverage too.

Maybe BBC bosses spotted that tweet from Farage but they've since put out this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54552101

Personally, I couldn't care less about US politics and would prefer the BBC not to spend its money covering whatever the story is with Biden but I think if you are going to do that, you have to do it for both sides of the spectrum.

And before anyone excuses the BBC by saying they couldn't report on the Biden story becomes it's from hacked information, look at the way that egg Roan reported on City's FFP case.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Good to see in these tottering times this topic remains front and centre - nobody will be paying the fucker soon - UC doesn't provide you with enough money to

 

[Rascal]

I know a few gammons will go pink at the idea of Farage being quoted on here but it does seem like more are cottoning onto the BBC's MO of not reporting on news that fits uncomfortably with their worldview. Happened with Grimes and seems to be happening with their US coverage too.

Maybe BBC bosses spotted that tweet from Farage but they've since put out this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54552101

Personally, I couldn't care less about US politics and would prefer the BBC not to spend its money covering whatever the story is with Biden but I think if you are going to do that, you have to do it for both sides of the spectrum.

And before anyone excuses the BBC by saying they couldn't report on the Biden story becomes it's from hacked information, look at the way that egg Roan reported on City's FFP case.

I wish the pasty faced poisonous **** would fuck off to America and stay there. I despise him, he is one horrible obnoxious twat.