BBC licence fee

Your point about sitcoms is very true, BBC used to have some crackers, and
presented great comedy in general, I now never have any discussions with anyone
about last nights funny show, or comedian. Everything they put out now either focuses
on political satire,which is fine in small doses, but it's always, always
directed against one side, then there's some late night rants
by a bloke called Nish Kumar, or someone similar, who thinks endless banal quips
about Boris Johnson are eagerly lapped up by millions. Comedy is now non existent
on TV, and it's not solely the BBC, it's all main channels, which is why most folk
revert to Youtube, PC culture has killed it.

There's a lot of truth in that.

I think Ricky Gervais said something similar the other week.

The Office would never get made in this day and age because of the amount of snowflakes in society being given a voice by social media.

So that's why we've got a generation of Jack Whitehalls and Nish Kumars doing their safe-space comedy about their mum's cooking.
 
There's a lot of truth in that.

I think Ricky Gervais said something similar the other week.

The Office would never get made in this day and age because of the amount of snowflakes in society being given a voice by social media.

So that's why we've got a generation of Jack Whitehalls and Nish Kumars doing their safe-space comedy about their mum's cooking.
What's happened is a pandering to PC sensibilities, and an organisation
that's decided it wants to shape society into the way it believes it should be,
and not reflect the reality. That's why the above unfunny tossers, with their sanitised
versions of comedy are put forward, but all that happens is miniscule viewing figures
and no interest from the vast majority. The BBC can afford this though, as they
get their fees from us come what may, so press on with it, and introduce
more similar dreary crap.
 
I would far prefer it to return to its original remit and rid itself completely of political interference. Whilst politicians appoint the BBC executive it will always be open to manipulation when it should be a protection for the UK population against the poison that gets dripped into their ear 24 x 7 x365 by the 'popular' press.

I really don't think that will happen. in which case it could be split into 'parcels' and offered for franchise with specific guidelines about how it should be run. Those franchises renewed every say 5 years. In that way some of its crown jewels could be protected like its Natural History output.

That'd probably be the way to go, there's a sickness in it at the present time that needs exorcising.
 
There's a lot of truth in that.

I think Ricky Gervais said something similar the other week.

The Office would never get made in this day and age because of the amount of snowflakes in society being given a voice by social media.

So that's why we've got a generation of Jack Whitehalls and Nish Kumars doing their safe-space comedy about their mum's cooking.

Ah yes, Ricky Gervais. The man perpetually complaining about being silenced whilst promoting his latest series or Netflix special. Gervais' standup specials are much more recent have some much nastier stuff in them than The Office. Also some of Jack Whitehall's comedy is way more off colour than anything in The Office (Jack Whitehall's stuff is shit though whereas The Office was quite good)
 
One of the reasons why the BBC doesn't produce the shows it used too is because t doesn't have the money. Its grant has been continually cut in the name of austerity and when you continually cut you get rubbish. The best writers sell to the highest bidder, the top sports get swallowed up by the highest bidder, the top stars go the highest payer. The BBC cant compete because its grant is cut and the licence fee doesn't cover the outlay needed.

It will always be accused of bias because it is impossible to please everybody, but programming is only part of its reason to exist.

Its a public service, it has a role in society and that role is being undermined so it can be sold off to Murdoch or someone like him because that is the ideology that is current. public bad/private good. The BBC will end up like SERCO a total joke of a company getting millions for shit because its owned by a tory donor. The best technicians, the best writers, producers, stars that are left will go elsewhere and its downward spiral will continue. Its economic destruction, fucking insane destruction at that as its one of the worlds most recognised brands.

It wont improve if its sold off, you will get news like FOX, more shitty Yank shows, less local radio, less national radio, the skills will disappear and the nation will have lost a valuable asset.

I have worked for the BBC and I know the power of the BBC pass, if you want rid because it likes the scousers winning the title, or because Nish Kumar makes jokes about Johnson then you are a fucking clown. You may not miss a lot of its output, but some people will and once its gone it aint coming back, it will end up just like any other national asset that has been sold off, a tool for the wealthy to make money, cut costs and cut jobs.

It takes a special kind of conservative who wants to destroy a national institution, because a national institution is the epitome of conservatism and should be treasured and conserved, instead its me a lefty defending it from the Tories. The worlds gone fucking mad.
 
One of the reasons why the BBC doesn't produce the shows it used too is because t doesn't have the money. Its grant has been continually cut in the name of austerity and when you continually cut you get rubbish. The best writers sell to the highest bidder, the top sports get swallowed up by the highest bidder, the top stars go the highest payer. The BBC cant compete because its grant is cut and the licence fee doesn't cover the outlay needed.

It will always be accused of bias because it is impossible to please everybody, but programming is only part of its reason to exist.

Its a public service, it has a role in society and that role is being undermined so it can be sold off to Murdoch or someone like him because that is the ideology that is current. public bad/private good. The BBC will end up like SERCO a total joke of a company getting millions for shit because its owned by a tory donor. The best technicians, the best writers, producers, stars that are left will go elsewhere and its downward spiral will continue. Its economic destruction, fucking insane destruction at that as its one of the worlds most recognised brands.

It wont improve if its sold off, you will get news like FOX, more shitty Yank shows, less local radio, less national radio, the skills will disappear and the nation will have lost a valuable asset.

I have worked for the BBC and I know the power of the BBC pass, if you want rid because it likes the scousers winning the title, or because Nish Kumar makes jokes about Johnson then you are a fucking clown. You may not miss a lot of its output, but some people will and once its gone it aint coming back, it will end up just like any other national asset that has been sold off, a tool for the wealthy to make money, cut costs and cut jobs.

It takes a special kind of conservative who wants to destroy a national institution, because a national institution is the epitome of conservatism and should be treasured and conserved, instead its me a lefty defending it from the Tories. The worlds gone fucking mad.

Is it really underfunded?

Netflix made $20b last year whereas the BBC made £5bn, Netflix reaches out to 200m subscribers and one could easily argue that it has far better original content.

Despite this, the BBC has 23,000 employees whereas Netflix makes twice as much money reaching out to far more people with its 8,000 employees...

If anything, for £157 a year license fee payers aren't getting any bang for their buck that's for sure.

What the BBC needs is to be cut down, given fresh management, a fresh hierarchy and a new fee model to fund it. There is no benefit to keeping it going in it's current form because all it clearly does with at least some of it's money is waste it.
 
Is it really underfunded?

Netflix made $20b last year whereas the BBC made £5bn, Netflix reaches out to 200m subscribers and one could easily argue that it has far better original content.

Despite this, the BBC has 23,000 employees whereas Netflix makes twice as much money reaching out to far more people with its 8,000 employees...

If anything, for £157 a year license fee payers aren't getting any bang for their buck that's for sure.

What the BBC needs is to be cut down, given fresh management, a fresh hierarchy and a new fee model to fund it. There is no benefit to keeping it going in it's current form because all it clearly does with at least some of it's money is waste it.

Netflix is a totally different model to the BBC and has no requirement to fulfil certain obligations. Netflix's programmes are made by independents rather than in house, although the BBC do now use independent production companies as well because they can after Thatcher destroyed the Unions power and led to huge changes in terms and conditions for employees. The problem is the BBC lost a lot of talent due to these changes and freelancing became the norm and in an industry where continuity in production helps produce better made programs it was always going to hinder the BBC and favour the likes of NETFLIX who now use ex BBC staff to make programs of inferior quality whilst paying a lot less wages. Capitalism in action. Also Netflix don't make much in the UK, but if you want a diet of crappy yank drama etc then Netflix is ideal, if you want good British drama then the BBC is still brilliant and doing it without the resources that Netflix have.

The BBC probably has an audience reach in excess of Netflix as well if you include the World Service and other foreign language stations that promote UK soft power, you cant put a price on soft power. Although the Tories have closed lots of them to pave the way for privitisation. Its an ideological drive that comes from the public bad private good hive mind of thinking.

All this defund the BBC stuff has come from the right wing/pro Brexit minded people in the UK, who are quite happy to have a UK version of FOX News as they see the BBC as biased, how the fuck it can be seen as biased when Farage the **** and a plethora of right wing tanks have permanent seats on QT is beyond me.
 
Netflix is a totally different model to the BBC and has no requirement to fulfil certain obligations. Netflix's programmes are made by independents rather than in house, although the BBC do now use independent production companies as well because they can after Thatcher destroyed the Unions power and led to huge changes in terms and conditions for employees. The problem is the BBC lost a lot of talent due to these changes and freelancing became the norm and in an industry where continuity in production helps produce better made programs it was always going to hinder the BBC and favour the likes of NETFLIX who now use ex BBC staff to make programs of inferior quality whilst paying a lot less wages. Capitalism in action. Also Netflix don't make much in the UK, but if you want a diet of crappy yank drama etc then Netflix is ideal, if you want good British drama then the BBC is still brilliant and doing it without the resources that Netflix have.

The BBC probably has an audience reach in excess of Netflix as well if you include the World Service and other foreign language stations that promote UK soft power, you cant put a price on soft power. Although the Tories have closed lots of them to pave the way for privitisation. Its an ideological drive that comes from the public bad private good hive mind of thinking.

All this defund the BBC stuff has come from the right wing/pro Brexit minded people in the UK, who are quite happy to have a UK version of FOX News as they see the BBC as biased, how the fuck it can be seen as biased when Farage the **** and a plethora of right wing tanks have permanent seats on QT is beyond me.

Like I said, they have 23,000 staff and £4bn in expenditure yet somehow they apparently can't produce anything of any quality so now need more money to do so?

All I know is I spend 99% of my time watching Netflix, Amazon Prime or non-BBC Sky channels. I spend 1% of my time watching BBC channels yet the BBC costs the second most out of all of them, this can't be right.

If it hadn't been for the demand letters and legal obligation to prove you don't watch the BBC then I'd pack in paying it altogether as would many people I think.

They can either adapt or die and so far they are getting busy dying, that's why they are losing the best talent. The BBC isn't the gravy train it used to be, it's just an old ageing dinosaur that is slowly being replaced by things that are so much better.
 
Apparently on a left wing pinko rolling news channel...

*Rolls Eyes*

That's the crux aint it.

Imagine the RW, those purveyors of free speech wanting to get rid of something they don't agree with it. What's it called now....cancel culture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat
That's the crux aint it.

Imagine the RW, those purveyors of free speech wanting to get rid of something they don't agree with it. What's it called now....cancel culture.

Not sure why we have two threads on this but I don't think people are trying to get rid of the BBC, they just want to change its funding model.
 
One of Murdoch's greatest triumphs. Get the British public to hate our treasured national broadcaster while getting them to fork out £100 plus every month for hundreds of channels they don't watch.
 
That's the crux aint it.

Imagine the RW, those purveyors of free speech wanting to get rid of something they don't agree with it. What's it called now....cancel culture.
The right don’t want to cancel it, they just don’t want to be forced to pay for something they don’t want to, that’s not a necessity for our society (like a hospital or roads etc.)
 

As Black Lives Matter protests swept through parts of Britain after the killing of George Floyd in the US, a self-described Conservative student, James Yucel, became so disillusioned with what he interpreted as left-wing bias at the BBC that he established a campaign that he christened “Defund the BBC”. The Twitter handle, @DefundBBC, was presumably in ironic homage to the BLM campaign to #DefundThePolice.
As just a “student in his room”, on the evening of Sunday June 7, he invited fellow anti-BBC sympathisers to “share the hashtag … because, let’s be honest, they can’t ignore us forever”.
With Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s chief adviser – known to be a longstanding BBC critic – and the government having quickly launched a consultation on decriminalising non-payment of the licence fee, both the BBC itself and its funding model were already under attack. A campaign that urges viewers to (legally) cancel their licence payments might therefore expect to find sympathy in Downing Street.
Yucel’s call to arms – supposedly a spontaneous grassroots expression of anger directed towards “anti-government” coverage of the London protests – is an object lesson in how activists both create and inflate a campaign in which “ordinary people” appear to share their own political agenda. A Twitter analysis of what happened next – and how the flames were fanned by mainstream media with their own anti-BBC agenda – is very instructive.
Late on that Sunday evening a deluge of tweets began to appear using the hashtag. One of the first was from @willowwyse – apparently an anti-vaccination activist – who, like many of the tweets that followed, tagged high-profile Brexit supporters and anti-BBC campaigners. As most of the country slept, the campaign quietly amassed followers: by around 8am on Monday morning more than 20,000 accounts were following @DefundBBC and its hashtag was trending.
Almost all of these early followers appeared to be very small accounts – more than two-thirds of them had fewer than 50 followers, a metric used to assess the likelihood of an account being a bot or part of a click farm. The early hours of a Monday morning are, to put it mildly, a strange time for an enraged nation to be mobilised into action.
Movers and shakers
So who were the prime movers in this allegedly grassroots campaign? The first diagram below – which shows by volume who included @defundBBC or retweeted @defundBBC in their posts – reveals that by far the biggest fan was an anonymous account by the name of @PollyIce2 who tagged the campaign nearly 150 times.

https://images.theconversation.com/...lib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip
Tweets and retweets: who used the hashtag. Steven Barnett/Doug Specht, University of Westminster, Author provided (No reuse)
Among the retweets from this account are also several in support of former EDF leader Tommy Robinson and one picturing Enoch Powell under the title: “Enoch Powell was right!” Another retweet contained a silhouette of a retreating Churchill with the words “without Churchill … Hitler would have won! BAME people would have been next for the shower!” The retweeted account had written above the picture: “Why did we bother”.
Another account, @UnionJa18432081, featuring the British flag but apparently keener on tweeting support for Donald Trump, was also heavily engaged in the early hours. This account had just eight followers and appears to have been set up in May 2020. Another, under the name of @jamie_sense, who retweeted the hashtag more than 60 times, included on his timeline a retweet of someone stating that: “African gangs of violent young men are terrorising our communities with impunity.”
These small accounts also appeared coordinated in their approach. While strong ties to the DefundBBC account would be expected, they also systematically tagged the Twitter accounts of the official Leave campaign (@LeaveEUOfficial) and the former Labour MP and arch-Brexiteer Kate Hoey (@CatherineHoey) in order to draw these high-profile accounts into retweeting their support.
Connections
The second diagram shows how accounts supportive of #DefundtheBBC are related to each other. On average each account only “knows” (follows or is followed by) 1.6 other accounts within the network. Around 80 small clusters of accounts were detected, but most accounts “know” one of three main high-profile accounts. Apart from the @DefundBBC account itself, these were the actor Laurence Fox, who has become a standard bearer for the right – and whose controversial remarks on television helped him to gain 187,000 followers on Twitter. Another was Mahyar Tousi (39,000 followers), who has stood in local elections as a Conservative candidate and who describes himself as a “classical liberal conservative YouTuber”, “Free Trade Brexiteer” and “Free Market Fundamentalist”.
The vast majority of campaign followers, judging by their Twitter history, were committed Brexiteers and followers of the Leave campaign, which itself has a long history of hostility towards the BBC.

https://images.theconversation.com/...lib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip
How accounts supporting the campaign relate to each other. Steven Barnett/Doug Specht, University of Westminster, Author provided (No reuse)
No anti-BBC campaign would be complete without certain national newspapers – with a commercial self-interest in trying to undermine a freely available and trustworthy news source – piling in to celebrate a “grassroots uprising”. The Daily Express was first into the fray with a typically overblown headline: “BBC crisis: 30,000 sign up to Twitter campaign to ‘DEFUND THE BBC’ - ‘It’s time!’”
Rupert Murdoch’s Sun immediately joined the kicking party – executive editor Dan Wootton was quick to express his amazement at the “huge momentum” gained by the campaign, and to give Yucel time on his drivetime show on TalkRadio (also owned by Murdoch) to promote his non-payment campaign.

From the very beginning, the campaign wanted to look like a spontaneous eruption of popular anger. In practice, it looks like a suspiciously coordinated operation, linking together several pro-Brexit, free-market (and in a few cases far-right) social media accounts.
Any politician tempted to take this at face value should ask themselves, to what extent is this another confected campaign in a long-running culture war against the BBC? And does it really reflect the massive increase in consumption of BBC programming during the lockdown?
Much better to rely on representative surveys from reliable, impartial sources which continue to show the BBC as one of the most trusted sources of information.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I thought the above was worthy of consideration in this debate and it shows the growing power of social media and influence of certain people over the general population. I support the BBC and having worked for it know a fair bit about it and how it works. The arguments over the licence fee have grown because of the above and it saddens me that people only think of the BBC in terms of output rather than what I have argued for on the threads, such as its soft power and technical expertise being vital to the country.

I believe the Government have been complicit in the movement against the licence fee for the ideological reason that they prefer the free market to any public owned institution and they would rather it was privatised. Osbornes shuffling of responsibility for the free licence for the OAPs was imho an obvious attack on BBC funding. I would rather the BBC was fully funded by the state and we didn't have to have a licence fee because many in this country cant afford a subscription to a pay TV service and as they have always paid towards it, why should a private company benefit from the investment of the likes of my mum who has paid for licence nearly all her life. As others have said vital local radio services would probably be lost and an institution that should be a national treasure would be reduced to third rate version of SKY with a news service reminiscent of FOX
 
The right don’t want to cancel it, they just don’t want to be forced to pay for something they don’t want to, that’s not a necessity for our society (like a hospital or roads etc.)

Haven't the government recently forced the BBC to save money which has manifested as making people who did get free licences now pay for them?

It's been obvious over the last 10 years that marginalising, weakening and reducing the BBC has been a bigger aim of the government than defending/improving it. @Rascal is right in my opinion - the BBC image abroad is incredibly powerful and burning it is basically vandalism for political gain.
 
Haven't the government recently forced the BBC to save money which has manifested as making people who did get free licences now pay for them?

It's been obvious over the last 10 years that marginalising, weakening and reducing the BBC has been a bigger aim of the government than defending/improving it. @Rascal is right in my opinion - the BBC image abroad is incredibly powerful and burning it is basically vandalism for political gain.

It’s image in the UK is dropping like a brick at sea, it’s problem is those who now work for it, not the institution itself.

I am more pissed off about the football coverage than political to be honest with you, in that I’m paying for a start broadcaster that acts as a propaganda piece for certain football clubs.
 
It’s image in the UK is dropping like a brick at sea, it’s problem is those who now work for it, not the institution itself.

I am more pissed off about the football coverage than political to be honest with you, in that I’m paying for a start broadcaster that acts as a propaganda piece for certain football clubs.

There has always been bias towards certain clubs, that's nothing new. I just laugh at it now
 
There has always been bias towards certain clubs, that's nothing new. I just laugh at it now
There has you’re right but if I’m being forced to pay £170+ a year for a service I’m not particularly interested in, certainly wouldn’t pay it if there was a choice, I expect them to be impartial at the very least.

The CAS and spending stuff recently has been a total disgrace, Dan Roan is particularly bad.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top