BBC licence fee should be scrapped, says thinktank - The Guardian

Dan:_4

lucylucky wrote: »

But not enough to support the BBC it would appear, which was your original assertion.

Who knows? If its not enough to support the BBC maybe they should consider advertsinig?, or subscription fees for those that want it?

lucylucky

Dan: wrote: »

Who knows? If its not enough to support the BBC maybe they should consider advertsinig?, or subscription fees for those that want it?

Obviously not you.

Dan:_4

lucylucky wrote: »

Obviously not you.

That ain't my point. The current 'tax all' system belongs to 1950s Russia.

lucylucky

Dan: wrote: »

That ain't my point. The current 'tax all' system belongs to 1950s Russia.

But it was your point "the worldwide sales of BBC programs could easily fund the BBC without a TV licence tax"

Anyhow...

I think the licence fee, as it stands,will be gone in a few years and the BBC will be forced to reduce the number of things it does.

Also it needs to reduce the number of managers and execs who clog up the buildings.

I wonder if the genius who decided to relocate the sports department to Manchester just in time for the Olympics being held in London got a bonus?

marklv

The BBC needs to earn its keep, just like any other channel.

Dan:_4

lucylucky wrote: »

But it was your point "the worldwide sales of BBC programs could easily fund the BBC without a TV licence tax"

Its probarly a fair statement. All the license fee covers is the vast salarys of the likes of Johnathan Ross etc... something we could live without?

lucylucky wrote: »

Anyhow...

I think the licence fee, as it stands,will be gone in a few years and the BBC will be forced to reduce the number of things it does.

Also it needs to reduce the number of managers and execs who clog up the buildings.

I wonder if the genius who decided to relocate the sports department to Manchester just in time for the Olympics being held in London got a bonus?

Agreed.

StevieJ

Pennywise wrote: »

But they've not been "hard hitting" for years. It's like a love-in when the lefties are interviewing other lefties and the lion's den when you have a right winger on.

The BBC isn't impartial - I never realised how far they'd gone to the left until I was watching the last Labour Budget in the Gym during my lunchtime workout.

Strange that their political editor was a former chairman of the Young Conservatives and president of the Oxford university Conservative association.

FTBFun

People only spot bias if they're looking for it.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

People should go and read up on the early history of the BBC. It was not supposed to be a profitable, ruthlessly commercial enterprise. For a relatively modest sum people with radio sets could listen to plays, opera, concerts- things that would ordinarily be financially out of reach (theatre still very expensive these days IMO), and more crucially, culturally out of reach. You don't accidentally wander into a theatre, after parting with £40 on the way in, but you might come across something on the airwaves while fiddling with the dial. Also, the BBC has a long and proud history of collaboration with the Open University. What commercial broadcaster is going to put unphotogenic bearded profs talking about quantum physics on in the small hours?

Obviously it's unrealistic to totally ignore the commercial pressures of the modern market, but I firmly believe that programmes should continue to be made for minority audiences and those that don't fit high-profit advertising demographics (eg pensioners). While it's licence-funded, there's still a chance the plebs might flick over and learn something. Subscription-only would mean only those who already value quality signing up.

That doesn't mean the BBC should not be more rigorously audited for value for money and quality.

lynzpower

Good point you make there Vile Jelly about pensioners. What would happen to them if they had to pay per view? Many of them like to have the TV on for company