but those who don't, for whatever reason, pay the TV license are getting BBC Radio free because WE pay . Is that fair?
To support a cultural British institution that will be dead without us, yes. We pay for the NHS even if people have private heath insurance. We pay to support primary schools even if we don't have children.
To kill the BBC seems another form of national self harming. I'm not sure there is much left to hack.
but those who don't, for whatever reason, pay the TV license are getting BBC Radio free because WE pay . Is that fair?
To support a cultural British institution that will be dead without us, yes. We pay for the NHS even if people have private heath insurance. We pay to support primary schools even if we don't have children.
To kill the BBC seems another form of national self harming. I'm not sure there is much left to hack.
I think the BBC lost its way some time ago, when it started trying to compete with commercial tv stations. I thought the idea was that the licence fee would be used to provide content not available elsewhere. Once the BBC started paying over the odds to prevent losing ‘talent’ to commercial stations, they betrayed their viewing public. If a commercial station wants to pay a small fortune to secure the ‘talents’ of the likes of Gary Lineker or Laura Kuenssberg , then let them. Their input will still then be available for people to watch, while the BBC can put the money saved towards the excellent drama, comedy and wildlife programmes that they used to be famous for.
I also personally object to public money being used to pay glorified autocue readers to present tonight’s lead ‘story’, wearing clothing paid for from their expenses budget, while being paid considerably more than our NHS doctors and nurses.
Does Venessa Feltz "deserve" £300K for a radio programme which finished at 6.30am ( before most folk are even out of bed?) Does anyone know how much Monty is paid ?
I don't think you can compare the BBC to the NHS or Education , you don't need a tv license for a nation to function unlike a health / education service , lots of countries don't have a TV license like Italy / Spain / Sweden and others .
I agree with how much some on the BBC earn crazy amount of money. I can't find out how much Monty gets paid I am curious though .
I think the license fee is the simplest structure that allows people on the lowest incomes to maintain access to information they need to have.
Consider where, during the pandemic, people would have been getting information on what was happening, what the rules were? There are enough who were getting their 'news' from facebook for us to be able to see how it may have gone had we all been doing that, instead of only a minority of us. Making David Attenborough's programmes pay per view may be viable as a way to keep making them. Making sport pay per view would be a positive blessing, from my point of view. But you end up with a BBC output that is cut right down to just core public service - news, weather forecasts, open university programmes, radio. Which would be a shame for many people on low incomes who enjoy the better programmes that they would have to pay for.
I also think it's all a bit of a red herring, knowing that the BBC wouldn't be able to resist making it a top story and thereby displacing Boris's partygoing further down the headlines and at the same time cheering up some of the more rabid elements of the Conservative party
Gardening on the edge of Exmoor, in Devon
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
There are some things the BBC does really well and which are socially valuable - news, documentaries, serious drama, big national events. It would make sense for the BBC to concentrate on that on a main free to view channel (with a much reduced license fee to cover it I hope), and roll over any extras onto additional subscription or advertiser based channels.
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour".
Perhaps a hybrid approach might be worthwhile, adverts between but not during programmes….and a much reduced licence fee, might be a better compromise for most?
Posts
As with every thing these days, there are too many freeloaders
I also personally object to public money being used to pay glorified autocue readers to present tonight’s lead ‘story’, wearing clothing paid for from their expenses budget, while being paid considerably more than our NHS doctors and nurses.
Does anyone know how much Monty is paid ?
I agree with how much some on the BBC earn crazy amount of money. I can't find out how much Monty gets paid I am curious though .
Consider where, during the pandemic, people would have been getting information on what was happening, what the rules were? There are enough who were getting their 'news' from facebook for us to be able to see how it may have gone had we all been doing that, instead of only a minority of us. Making David Attenborough's programmes pay per view may be viable as a way to keep making them. Making sport pay per view would be a positive blessing, from my point of view. But you end up with a BBC output that is cut right down to just core public service - news, weather forecasts, open university programmes, radio. Which would be a shame for many people on low incomes who enjoy the better programmes that they would have to pay for.
I also think it's all a bit of a red herring, knowing that the BBC wouldn't be able to resist making it a top story and thereby displacing Boris's partygoing further down the headlines and at the same time cheering up some of the more rabid elements of the Conservative party
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”