[Cherie]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

I pay my licence fee as I don't want people knocking on my door....I detest council tax far more than licence fees. The government take enough tax off me monthly without another £100+ a month to effectively have my bins emptied.

Indeed, I thought I was in my own with MTVN in paying the licence fee there for a bit

[MTVN]

Mind you I have no problem with council tax either considering how local government have bore the brunt of so many cutbacks

Just to throw another spanner into the works

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Mind you I have no problem with council tax either considering how local government have bore the brunt of so many cutbacks

Just to throw another spanner into the works

We had 1.60 or something ridiculous added for social care I wouldn't mind I'm paying anyway add a fiver and do a decent job

[Beso]

in my opinion it's not about value for money but more about morals. i mean how can any parent look themselves in the mirror after paying money to a private company whos senior staff has turned a blind eye and allowed paedophilia and paedophiles to flourish and operate in its buildings!

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Tom*

The BBC is ****- the only real thing we watch from it since they snatched away BBC3 was GBBO, some interior designer thing on BBC2 and I watch Eurovision annually.
I really don't think we should pay for such garbage and other countries get by just fine without one and also produce excellent TV
It's bizarre

The BBC have the best scripted dramas in the UK imo, if you took the License away a lot of people will lose their jobs because they'll be less wages to handout, there will also be a serious culling of shows that might be even slightly expensive, and of course a serious quality drop in the writing department due to less of a budget.

Without the BBC having extra funds to create quality scripted shows, what would the UK have apart from boring Soap Operas and the shadow of the former selves in Reality TV?

I however feel like the BBC could make a bit more shows for my personal tastes, and that there was a way to make quality shows without having to have adverts that go on for 8 minutes (which actually happened when my Nephew was watching Peppa Pig on Nick Jr) it's ridiculous and there's no need for it from these Channels other than pure greed, and it makes it harder for people to get into the episodes of these shows, or in my Nephew's case due to being really young he wants me to turn over to another Cartoon.

[bots]

Originally Posted by parmnion

in my opinion it's not about value for money but more about morals. i mean how can any parent look themselves in the mirror after paying money to a private company whos senior staff has turned a blind eye and allowed paedophilia and paedophiles to flourish and operate in its buildings!

That's not a problem with the concept of the BBC though, that's individuals that will change over time.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

I however feel like the BBC could make a bit more shows for my personal tastes, and that there was a way to make quality shows without having to have adverts that go on for 8 minutes (which actually happened when my Nephew was watching Peppa Pig on Nick Jr) it's ridiculous and there's no need for it from these Channels other than pure greed, and it makes it harder for people to get into the episodes of these shows, or in my Nephew's case due to being really young he wants me to turn over to another Cartoon.

There is, it's called Netflix, which has put out more quality scripted television in the last three years than the BBC has in the last 20, to watch whenever you want, with precisely zero ads.

It (or another service) would also snap up the likes of Doctor Who and other popular scripted BBC material in a heartbeat if the BBC was to go under.

The reason that the number and length of ads on commercial television is increasing is that they need to spam more ads to break even, because traditional broadcast telly is dying. There's a very good reason that the BBC is scrabbling to properly monetise iPlayer. Can't come soon enough. Bye bye BBC, bye bye ad breaks, hello 21st century, with on demand viewing of high quality scripted television that isn't reliant on a broken live viewing "ratings system" for survival. Ahhhh.

[edited to add] BTW it has peppa. As does YouTube, which is free! For the love of God, get a smartTV, or at least a Fire Stick or something.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

That's not a problem with the concept of the BBC though, that's individuals that will change over time.

it shouldn't be given the chance.

[T*]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

There is, it's called Netflix, which has put out more quality scripted television in the last three years than the BBC has in the last 20, to watch whenever you want, with precisely zero ads.

It (or another service) would also snap up the likes of Doctor Who and other popular scripted BBC material in a heartbeat if the BBC was to go under.

The reason that the number and length of ads on commercial television is increasing is that they need to spam more ads to break even, because traditional broadcast telly is dying. There's a very good reason that the BBC is scrabbling to properly monetise iPlayer. Can't come soon enough. Bye bye BBC, bye bye ad breaks, hello 21st century, with on demand viewing of high quality scripted television that isn't reliant on a broken live viewing "ratings system" for survival. Ahhhh.

[edited to add] BTW it has peppa. As does YouTube, which is free! For the love of God, get a smartTV, or at least a Fire Stick or something.

[billy123]

The time for the BBC to move to a subscription model is well overdue.
The outdated institution that is the BBC is hastening the death of broadcast TV the sooner it buggers off to a subscription only service the better. I have no interest in anything they have to offer purely because of the way they attempt to extort payment for their services.

[Cherie]

I would have no issue with a subscription service as long as it made provision for the current lot of over 75s who have a free licence and for those reaching that age say in the next ten years it would be unfair to take away this benefit from those who already have it. It would be a fairer system all round no payee no viewee : I found this thread very enlightening thanks for starting it Parmy

[Jack_]

The BBC has been criminally underrated in this thread. MTVN pretty much nailed it but I think it's on near enough the same pedestal as the NHS in terms of what Britons should be proud of.

There is so much to it and there should be something for everyone: its sports coverage is unrivalled, its drama is excellent, documentaries are top notch and go further than a lot of commercial ones do since they aren't chasing revenue and ratings, its radio networks blow the rest of the market out of the water in terms of quality, well targeted programming, it covers festivals and live music events like no others and its news coverage is the most nonpartisan of all the mainstream broadcasters and arguably printed press in the country.

The arguments against that last point are incredibly tedious too. You have people on the right complaining that the BBC is has a lefty liberal hand-wringing champagne socialist Marxist agenda, while its critics on the left think it's a centre-right Conservative/UKIP mouthpiece. What does this actually tell you? That's correct, that it's neither...or rather both. Yes Nigel Farage gets a hell of a lot of screentime, yes there are plenty of examples of how the Tories were let off the hook during the election campaign and how Jeremy Corbyn faces criticism that David Cameron does not under similar circumstances, but so too has there been a number of documentaries about tax avoidance and underhand tactics by the government...where would you find these on a commercial rival in amongst the newest inflammatory documentary about immigrants on benefits with ten kids? That's because it goes back to my earlier point - the BBC can produce this kind of programming as it's not chasing after revenue and ratings to the same extent that commercial rivals are.

Subscription services suck too. Don't get me wrong, there has been plenty of good programming offered by streaming outlets like Netflix, and there is definitely weight to the argument that viewers should be entitled to watch things when they want, but do I want this to replace live, scheduled television altogether? No I do not, because there is still and always will be something exciting and in-the-moment about scheduled TV, an experience that can be shared by everyone viewing at the time. Perhaps it will become the distant past in the future, but I sure hope it doesn't for a long time, and I begrudge people who wish it along.

There are many things the BBC are doing wrong at the minute - taking BBC3 off air, peddling an age-specific mantra on Radio 1, arguably being a mouthpiece for the government - but the blame for all of these things can either be placed at the hands of the awful BBC Trust, or indeed the government of the time who oversees its status. Is it any wonder that the BBC appears to be in favour of the government in its news coverage when it faces such stiff opposition and a threat to its existence by those very same people?

I understand why some people don't or don't wish to pay the licence fee, and hell as a student I've tried not to pay it too (but when I have more money I won't care at all), so do I think it should be compulsory? Not really, but scrapped altogether? Absolutely not. We should be really, really proud of the BBC - for all of its historical shortcomings, it's an incredible British institution that offers so much to so many people around the world. The day that is replaced by a monopoly of ratings and revenue seeking networks with shouty news and tacky, sensationalist programming - will be a rather bleak one.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Jack_

The BBC has been criminally underrated in this thread. MTVN pretty much nailed it but I think it's on near enough the same pedestal as the NHS in terms of what Britons should be proud of.

There is so much to it and there should be something for everyone: its sports coverage is unrivalled, its drama is excellent, documentaries are top notch and go further than a lot of commercial ones do since they aren't chasing revenue and ratings, its radio networks blow the rest of the market out of the water in terms of quality, well targeted programming, it covers festivals and live music events like no others and its news coverage is the most nonpartisan of all the mainstream broadcasters and arguably printed press in the country.

The arguments against that last point are incredibly tedious too. You have people on the right complaining that the BBC is has a lefty liberal hand-wringing champagne socialist Marxist agenda, while its critics on the left think it's a centre-right Conservative/UKIP mouthpiece. What does this actually tell you? That's correct, that it's neither...or rather both. Yes Nigel Farage gets a hell of a lot of screentime, yes there are plenty of examples of how the Tories were let off the hook during the election campaign and how Jeremy Corbyn faces criticism that David Cameron does not under similar circumstances, but so too has there been a number of documentaries about tax avoidance and underhand tactics by the government...where would you find these on a commercial rival in amongst the newest inflammatory documentary about immigrants on benefits with ten kids? That's because it goes back to my earlier point - the BBC can produce this kind of programming as it's not chasing after revenue and ratings to the same extent that commercial rivals are.

Subscription services suck too. Don't get me wrong, there has been plenty of good programming offered by streaming outlets like Netflix, and there is definitely weight to the argument that viewers should be entitled to watch things when they want, but do I want this to replace live, scheduled television altogether? No I do not, because there is still and always will be something exciting and in-the-moment about scheduled TV, an experience that can be shared by everyone viewing at the time. Perhaps it will become the distant past in the future, but I sure hope it doesn't for a long time, and I begrudge people who wish it along.

There are many things the BBC are doing wrong at the minute - taking BBC3 off air, peddling an age-specific mantra on Radio 1, arguably being a mouthpiece for the government - but the blame for all of these things can either be placed at the hands of the awful BBC Trust, or indeed the government of the time who oversees its status. Is it any wonder that the BBC appears to be in favour of the government in its news coverage when it faces such stiff opposition and a threat to its existence by those very same people?

I understand why some people don't or don't wish to pay the licence fee, and hell as a student I've tried not to pay it too (but when I have more money I won't care at all), so do I think it should be compulsory? Not really, but scrapped altogether? Absolutely not. We should be really, really proud of the BBC - for all of its historical shortcomings, it's an incredible British institution that offers so much to so many people around the world. The day that is replaced by a monopoly of ratings and revenue seeking networks with shouty news and tacky, sensationalist programming - will be a rather bleak one.

While I remain at this time a solid anti TV licence individual, I can see the merits of all you have said and I also have to say your post above is one of the best I have ever read on TIBB.

Really strong post and I for one will think on it.

[zakman440]

What Jack said

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Jack_

The BBC has been criminally underrated in this thread. MTVN pretty much nailed it but I think it's on near enough the same pedestal as the NHS in terms of what Britons should be proud of.

There is so much to it and there should be something for everyone: its sports coverage is unrivalled, its drama is excellent, documentaries are top notch and go further than a lot of commercial ones do since they aren't chasing revenue and ratings, its radio networks blow the rest of the market out of the water in terms of quality, well targeted programming, it covers festivals and live music events like no others and its news coverage is the most nonpartisan of all the mainstream broadcasters and arguably printed press in the country.

The arguments against that last point are incredibly tedious too. You have people on the right complaining that the BBC is has a lefty liberal hand-wringing champagne socialist Marxist agenda, while its critics on the left think it's a centre-right Conservative/UKIP mouthpiece. What does this actually tell you? That's correct, that it's neither...or rather both. Yes Nigel Farage gets a hell of a lot of screentime, yes there are plenty of examples of how the Tories were let off the hook during the election campaign and how Jeremy Corbyn faces criticism that David Cameron does not under similar circumstances, but so too has there been a number of documentaries about tax avoidance and underhand tactics by the government...where would you find these on a commercial rival in amongst the newest inflammatory documentary about immigrants on benefits with ten kids? That's because it goes back to my earlier point - the BBC can produce this kind of programming as it's not chasing after revenue and ratings to the same extent that commercial rivals are.

Subscription services suck too. Don't get me wrong, there has been plenty of good programming offered by streaming outlets like Netflix, and there is definitely weight to the argument that viewers should be entitled to watch things when they want, but do I want this to replace live, scheduled television altogether? No I do not, because there is still and always will be something exciting and in-the-moment about scheduled TV, an experience that can be shared by everyone viewing at the time. Perhaps it will become the distant past in the future, but I sure hope it doesn't for a long time, and I begrudge people who wish it along.

There are many things the BBC are doing wrong at the minute - taking BBC3 off air, peddling an age-specific mantra on Radio 1, arguably being a mouthpiece for the government - but the blame for all of these things can either be placed at the hands of the awful BBC Trust, or indeed the government of the time who oversees its status. Is it any wonder that the BBC appears to be in favour of the government in its news coverage when it faces such stiff opposition and a threat to its existence by those very same people?

I understand why some people don't or don't wish to pay the licence fee, and hell as a student I've tried not to pay it too (but when I have more money I won't care at all), so do I think it should be compulsory? Not really, but scrapped altogether? Absolutely not. We should be really, really proud of the BBC - for all of its historical shortcomings, it's an incredible British institution that offers so much to so many people around the world. The day that is replaced by a monopoly of ratings and revenue seeking networks with shouty news and tacky, sensationalist programming - will be a rather bleak one.

Superb post, Netflix and it's ilk are fine and have their place but it's not very diverse and you can't beat viewing live TV maybe that's an old fashioned view these days

[zakman440]

Just to further the point about converting the BBC into a subscription service - Armando Iannucci and Russell T Davies have both argued against this move superbly:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34064794

https://www.facebook.com/radiotimes/...3556562046075/

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Jack_

The BBC has been criminally underrated in this thread. MTVN pretty much nailed it but I think it's on near enough the same pedestal as the NHS in terms of what Britons should be proud of.

There is so much to it and there should be something for everyone: its sports coverage is unrivalled, its drama is excellent, documentaries are top notch and go further than a lot of commercial ones do since they aren't chasing revenue and ratings, its radio networks blow the rest of the market out of the water in terms of quality, well targeted programming, it covers festivals and live music events like no others and its news coverage is the most nonpartisan of all the mainstream broadcasters and arguably printed press in the country.

The arguments against that last point are incredibly tedious too. You have people on the right complaining that the BBC is has a lefty liberal hand-wringing champagne socialist Marxist agenda, while its critics on the left think it's a centre-right Conservative/UKIP mouthpiece. What does this actually tell you? That's correct, that it's neither...or rather both. Yes Nigel Farage gets a hell of a lot of screentime, yes there are plenty of examples of how the Tories were let off the hook during the election campaign and how Jeremy Corbyn faces criticism that David Cameron does not under similar circumstances, but so too has there been a number of documentaries about tax avoidance and underhand tactics by the government...where would you find these on a commercial rival in amongst the newest inflammatory documentary about immigrants on benefits with ten kids? That's because it goes back to my earlier point - the BBC can produce this kind of programming as it's not chasing after revenue and ratings to the same extent that commercial rivals are.

Subscription services suck too. Don't get me wrong, there has been plenty of good programming offered by streaming outlets like Netflix, and there is definitely weight to the argument that viewers should be entitled to watch things when they want, but do I want this to replace live, scheduled television altogether? No I do not, because there is still and always will be something exciting and in-the-moment about scheduled TV, an experience that can be shared by everyone viewing at the time. Perhaps it will become the distant past in the future, but I sure hope it doesn't for a long time, and I begrudge people who wish it along.

There are many things the BBC are doing wrong at the minute - taking BBC3 off air, peddling an age-specific mantra on Radio 1, arguably being a mouthpiece for the government - but the blame for all of these things can either be placed at the hands of the awful BBC Trust, or indeed the government of the time who oversees its status. Is it any wonder that the BBC appears to be in favour of the government in its news coverage when it faces such stiff opposition and a threat to its existence by those very same people?

I understand why some people don't or don't wish to pay the licence fee, and hell as a student I've tried not to pay it too (but when I have more money I won't care at all), so do I think it should be compulsory? Not really, but scrapped altogether? Absolutely not. We should be really, really proud of the BBC - for all of its historical shortcomings, it's an incredible British institution that offers so much to so many people around the world. The day that is replaced by a monopoly of ratings and revenue seeking networks with shouty news and tacky, sensationalist programming - will be a rather bleak one.

Nobody accuses the BBC of having a left wing bias, except a right wing govt.

'Accusations of a left-wing bias were often made against the Corporation by members of Margaret Thatcher's 1980s Conservative government. Norman Tebbit called the BBC the "Stateless Person's Broadcasting Corporation" because of what he regarded as its unpatriotic and neutral coverage of the Falklands War, and Conservative MP Peter Bruinvels called it the "Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation."[1] Steve Barnett wrote in The Observer in 2001 that in 1983. Stuart Young, the "accountant and brother of one of Thatcher's staunchest cabinet allies", David Young, was appointed as BBC chairman. After him, in 1986, came Marmaduke Hussey, a "brother-in-law of another Cabinet Minister. ... According to the then-Tory party chairman, Norman Tebbit, Hussey was appointed 'to get in there and sort the place out'".[2]'

Former political editor Andrew Marr argued in 2006 that the liberal bias of the BBC is the product of the types of people the Corporation employs, and is thus cultural not political.[8] In 2011, Peter Oborne wrote in his Daily Telegraph blog, "Rather than representing the nation as a whole, it [the BBC] has become a vital resource – and sometimes attack weapon – for a narrow, arrogant Left-Liberal elite".[12]

Speaking to journalists at a Broadcasting Press Guild lunch in 2009, Jeremy Hunt, the Shadow Cabinet Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, claimed that BBC News needed more Conservatives: "I wish they would go and actively look for some Conservatives to be part of their news-gathering team, because they have acknowledged that one of their problems is that people who want to work at the Corporation tend to be from the centre-left. That's why they have this issue with what Andrew Marr called an innate liberal bias."[13]

Other commentators have taken the opposite view and criticised the BBC for being part of The Establishment. The commentator Mehdi Hasan in the New Statesman pointed out the right-wing backgrounds of many BBC presenters and journalists, querying why even many "liberals and leftists" accept the right's description of BBC bias.[14] Guardian columnist Owen Jones is also of the opinion that the BBC is biased towards the right owing to numerous key posts being filled by Conservatives.[15]

A study by Cardiff University academics, funded by the BBC Trust, was published in August 2013, examining the BBC's coverage of a broad range of issues. One of the findings was the dominance of party political sources. In coverage of immigration, the EU and religion, these accounted for 49.4% of all source appearances in 2007 and 54.8% in 2012. The data also showed that the Conservative Party received significantly more airtime than the Labour Party. In 2012 Conservative leader David Cameron outnumbered Labour leader Ed Miliband in appearances by a factor of nearly four to one (53 to 15), while Conservative cabinet members and ministers outnumbered their Labour counterparts by more than four to one (67 to 15).[16]

Former Director General of the BBC, Greg Dyke, has criticised the BBC as part of a "Westminster conspiracy" to maintain the British political system.[17]

During times of conservative rule there is a distinct shift to the right in organisational structure, staffing and programming.
Tory mouthpeice Marr is secure in his employment currently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Jack_

The BBC has been criminally underrated in this thread. MTVN pretty much nailed it but I think it's on near enough the same pedestal as the NHS in terms of what Britons should be proud of.

There is so much to it and there should be something for everyone: its sports coverage is unrivalled, its drama is excellent, documentaries are top notch and go further than a lot of commercial ones do since they aren't chasing revenue and ratings, its radio networks blow the rest of the market out of the water in terms of quality, well targeted programming, it covers festivals and live music events like no others and its news coverage is the most nonpartisan of all the mainstream broadcasters and arguably printed press in the country.

The arguments against that last point are incredibly tedious too. You have people on the right complaining that the BBC is has a lefty liberal hand-wringing champagne socialist Marxist agenda, while its critics on the left think it's a centre-right Conservative/UKIP mouthpiece. What does this actually tell you? That's correct, that it's neither...or rather both. Yes Nigel Farage gets a hell of a lot of screentime, yes there are plenty of examples of how the Tories were let off the hook during the election campaign and how Jeremy Corbyn faces criticism that David Cameron does not under similar circumstances, but so too has there been a number of documentaries about tax avoidance and underhand tactics by the government...where would you find these on a commercial rival in amongst the newest inflammatory documentary about immigrants on benefits with ten kids? That's because it goes back to my earlier point - the BBC can produce this kind of programming as it's not chasing after revenue and ratings to the same extent that commercial rivals are.

Subscription services suck too. Don't get me wrong, there has been plenty of good programming offered by streaming outlets like Netflix, and there is definitely weight to the argument that viewers should be entitled to watch things when they want, but do I want this to replace live, scheduled television altogether? No I do not, because there is still and always will be something exciting and in-the-moment about scheduled TV, an experience that can be shared by everyone viewing at the time. Perhaps it will become the distant past in the future, but I sure hope it doesn't for a long time, and I begrudge people who wish it along.

There are many things the BBC are doing wrong at the minute - taking BBC3 off air, peddling an age-specific mantra on Radio 1, arguably being a mouthpiece for the government - but the blame for all of these things can either be placed at the hands of the awful BBC Trust, or indeed the government of the time who oversees its status. Is it any wonder that the BBC appears to be in favour of the government in its news coverage when it faces such stiff opposition and a threat to its existence by those very same people?

I understand why some people don't or don't wish to pay the licence fee, and hell as a student I've tried not to pay it too (but when I have more money I won't care at all), so do I think it should be compulsory? Not really, but scrapped altogether? Absolutely not. We should be really, really proud of the BBC - for all of its historical shortcomings, it's an incredible British institution that offers so much to so many people around the world. The day that is replaced by a monopoly of ratings and revenue seeking networks with shouty news and tacky, sensationalist programming - will be a rather bleak one.

Yep very strong post particularly the bolded part. The BBC is pretty much constantly caught between a rock and hard place in its attempts to appear impartial and it can be such a subjective business that its no wonder that those on both the left and right end up accusing it of bias. It's almost impossible for them to get it right every time but we should be pleased that we have a broadcaster who at least tries to be neutral. It's really not in their interests to be politically prejudiced - if they do have a bias then it is mainly towards 'the establishment' because they always have to be wary of upsetting the status quo.

[Amy Jade]

I don't mind that you have to pay, when I move into my own home I will gladly pay because honestly the BBC have some cracking TV like Eastenders, Casualty etc

They televise the Eurovision, too. That's worth the fee alone!

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

There is, it's called Netflix, which has put out more quality scripted television in the last three years than the BBC has in the last 20, to watch whenever you want, with precisely zero ads.

It (or another service) would also snap up the likes of Doctor Who and other popular scripted BBC material in a heartbeat if the BBC was to go under.

The reason that the number and length of ads on commercial television is increasing is that they need to spam more ads to break even, because traditional broadcast telly is dying. There's a very good reason that the BBC is scrabbling to properly monetise iPlayer. Can't come soon enough. Bye bye BBC, bye bye ad breaks, hello 21st century, with on demand viewing of high quality scripted television that isn't reliant on a broken live viewing "ratings system" for survival. Ahhhh.

[edited to add] BTW it has peppa. As does YouTube, which is free! For the love of God, get a smartTV, or at least a Fire Stick or something.

I watch most of my TV Shows through what some people would call dubious means as I don't have to pay to watch a TV Show that I might not even like, like some of these services like to do.

But I was thinking like a UK version of Netflix's quality.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Jack_

The BBC has been criminally underrated in this thread. MTVN pretty much nailed it but I think it's on near enough the same pedestal as the NHS in terms of what Britons should be proud of.

There is so much to it and there should be something for everyone: its sports coverage is unrivalled, its drama is excellent, documentaries are top notch and go further than a lot of commercial ones do since they aren't chasing revenue and ratings, its radio networks blow the rest of the market out of the water in terms of quality, well targeted programming, it covers festivals and live music events like no others and its news coverage is the most nonpartisan of all the mainstream broadcasters and arguably printed press in the country.

The arguments against that last point are incredibly tedious too. You have people on the right complaining that the BBC is has a lefty liberal hand-wringing champagne socialist Marxist agenda, while its critics on the left think it's a centre-right Conservative/UKIP mouthpiece. What does this actually tell you? That's correct, that it's neither...or rather both. Yes Nigel Farage gets a hell of a lot of screentime, yes there are plenty of examples of how the Tories were let off the hook during the election campaign and how Jeremy Corbyn faces criticism that David Cameron does not under similar circumstances, but so too has there been a number of documentaries about tax avoidance and underhand tactics by the government...where would you find these on a commercial rival in amongst the newest inflammatory documentary about immigrants on benefits with ten kids? That's because it goes back to my earlier point - the BBC can produce this kind of programming as it's not chasing after revenue and ratings to the same extent that commercial rivals are.

Subscription services suck too. Don't get me wrong, there has been plenty of good programming offered by streaming outlets like Netflix, and there is definitely weight to the argument that viewers should be entitled to watch things when they want, but do I want this to replace live, scheduled television altogether? No I do not, because there is still and always will be something exciting and in-the-moment about scheduled TV, an experience that can be shared by everyone viewing at the time. Perhaps it will become the distant past in the future, but I sure hope it doesn't for a long time, and I begrudge people who wish it along.

There are many things the BBC are doing wrong at the minute - taking BBC3 off air, peddling an age-specific mantra on Radio 1, arguably being a mouthpiece for the government - but the blame for all of these things can either be placed at the hands of the awful BBC Trust, or indeed the government of the time who oversees its status. Is it any wonder that the BBC appears to be in favour of the government in its news coverage when it faces such stiff opposition and a threat to its existence by those very same people?

I understand why some people don't or don't wish to pay the licence fee, and hell as a student I've tried not to pay it too (but when I have more money I won't care at all), so do I think it should be compulsory? Not really, but scrapped altogether? Absolutely not. We should be really, really proud of the BBC - for all of its historical shortcomings, it's an incredible British institution that offers so much to so many people around the world. The day that is replaced by a monopoly of ratings and revenue seeking networks with shouty news and tacky, sensationalist programming - will be a rather bleak one.

All you've really said here is that you like it and what it has to offer. I don't mean to be flippant here but... so what? I'm fully accepting of the fact that SOME people like it and would like for it to continue as the stealth-tax-funded behemoth that it is, but likewise, there are plenty of people who don't enjoy any of the content that's on offer and, given the choice, would happily do without the BBC. The only right, and fair, way to continue is for those who do want the BBC to pay to have the BBC, and those who aren't interested to pay nothing and do without the BBC. Via an optional subscription model.

The problem is, the reason it offers (supposedly) higher quality viewing than others is because it has so much funding. Funding that it would lose A LOT of if it gained that money through voluntary subscription rather than through extortion and threatening letters sent to people's homes.

Essentially what I'm saying is, how is it in any way morally right for everyone to have to pay for something because you happen to enjoy it? By all means, those of you enjoy it, continue to pay for it. I hope you continue to enjoy the content. Just please leave the rest of us who do not want or enjoy BBC content, out of it? Give us the option to not have to pay for your enjoyment?

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

All you've really said here is that you like it and what it has to offer. I don't mean to be flippant here but... so what? I'm fully accepting of the fact that SOME people like it and would like for it to continue as the stealth-tax-funded behemoth that it is, but likewise, there are plenty of people who don't enjoy any of the content that's on offer and, given the choice, would happily do without the BBC. The only right, and fair, way to continue is for those who do want the BBC to pay to have the BBC, and those who aren't interested to pay nothing and do without the BBC. Via an optional subscription model.

The problem is, the reason it offers (supposedly) higher quality viewing than others is because it has so much funding. Funding that it would lose A LOT of if it gained that money through voluntary subscription rather than through extortion and threatening letters sent to people's homes.

Essentially what I'm saying is, how is it in any way morally right for everyone to have to pay for something because you happen to enjoy it? By all means, those of you enjoy it, continue to pay for it. I hope you continue to enjoy the content. Just please leave the rest of us who do not want or enjoy BBC content, out of it? Give us the option to not have to pay for your enjoyment?

I already said I don't think people should have to pay for it in my last paragraph? And the options for people who don't wish to pay it and the reality that they don't is well documented in this thread...if people really hate the licence fee that much, then they can find out about these methods themselves. That I have no issue with.

What I do have an issue with is handing and publicising such an easy out to most of the licence fee payers who, given the choice, would probably choose to opt-out of paying simply because it's money out of their pocket, and yes, you're right, that would damage the BBC's incredible content. We'd then be left with an all-out monopoly of commercial networks peddling shouty news, inflammatory programming, trash TV, piss poor radio all to pursue ratings and revenue...dreadful. I do not trust such an important decision with most Britons to be quite honest. These are people who voted for a Conservative government to begin dismantling the other great British institution the NHS, I definitely don't want them doing that to the BBC too.

Most people, IMO, are naive to the value of the BBC - and so therefore I don't wish to hand them the option of ruining it. If they don't wish to pay, they can find out how not to by their own doing. No problem with that.

[user104658]

There are ways to not pay it, yes, but for one they're already trying to change that and for another, if you do choose that route, you are hounded with harassing / threatening letters about fines and prison terms, and told that they will come and enter your home to inspect your entertainment set-up. Like a loan shark's heavies. Perhaps when we can "opt out" without being threatened and intimidated things will look a little fairer.

But of course, as you say, if opting out was "that easy" too many people would do it... Perhaps because the BBC's content isn't all that transcendent at all. Plenty of it, considering the sort of money they rake in from their extortion, is frankly dire.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

But of course, as you say, if opting out was "that easy" too many people would do it... Perhaps because the BBC's content isn't all that transcendent at all.

Or rather more basically, if given a simple option of a "free lunch" most people would opt to not pay anything regardless of how much they enjoy the BBC services.

Making payment optional isn't a sufficient measure of the quality of the BBC.

[MTVN]

'Essentially what I'm saying is, how is it in any way morally right for everyone to have to pay for something because you happen to enjoy it?'

Like Cherie made the point though, you could apply this logic to a lot of public services. We're not only obliged to fund 'essential services' like health care and welfare, we also pay for the upkeep of libraries, museums, sports grounds, and numerous other public buildings or things which, like the BBC, have a cultural importance.