The Impartiality Of The BBC.

[Guest]

With all the various platforms of media these days, to have one, the BBC, funded by tax payers is not really justifiable any more. Someone at the top of the BBC needs to start thinking about a post-licence-fee BBC soon and make plans to phase it out gradually by maybe reducing the fee by 10% each year and replace it by inviting in alternative investment.

[ECCOnoob]

With all the various platforms of media these days, to have one, the BBC, funded by tax payers is not really justifiable any more. Someone at the top of the BBC needs to start thinking about a post-licence-fee BBC soon and make plans to phase it out gradually by maybe reducing the fee by 10% each year and replace it by inviting in alternative investment.

 

I would strongly suspect they already do hence why they have a massive commerical and distribution arm. If it was not for the BBC archive half of the channels on freeview and sky would not exist.

 

The BBC im sure would also be quite content working commerically as long as they dont have to maintain those pesky government set directives such as providing non profitable and minority interest religious programming or childrens programming or educational programming or schools programming or parlimentary broadcasts or minority language stations or 60 ad free local and national radio broadcasts. Im sure they would also be quite happy to not bother with all the specialist services such as AD and Subtitle, signers and translations services which the licence contributes towards or the freeview platform or the general broadcast infrastructure or the national broadband services or community television services which the licence fee monies all make a significnat contribution towards.

 

Some people need to be careful what they wish for. I dont know how many times I have to say this, the licence fee remit is far bigger than the simplstic attitute of just what people see on BBC One and a few headline stars.

Edited December 3, 2017 by ECCOnoob

[Car Boot]

Im sure people wont mind paying subscription for those things or lose them altogether would they.

 

Subscriptions would be considerably cheaper than the exorbitant BBC TV licence fee.

[ECCOnoob]

Subscriptions would be considerably cheaper than the exorbitant BBC TV licence fee.

 

Only until the government tasked ITV and SKY with providing all the other broadcast services currently funded by the licence. Then watch those prices rocket.

 

All to easy to take things for granted until you know what is actually involved.

[Car Boot]

Only until the government tasked ITV and SKY with providing all the other broadcast services currently funded by the licence. Then watch those prices rocket.

 

All to easy to take things for granted until you know what is actually involved.

 

The BBC is a many tentacled monster that is simply too big, too powerful and too expensive.

 

It needs to be cut down to the bone. Much of what it does is simply empire building, spreading out into every sphere and crushing competition. Local newspapers have been almost killed off by its gigantic online presence.

 

The BBC should be the television channels BBC 1 and BBC 2 and NOTHING ELSE.

 

David Dimbleby ('Question Time Chair') has stated: "If you have one organisation that controls so much of the airwaves, is that in the end democratic?"

 

---------- Post added 03-12-2017 at 17:08 ----------

 

The BBC im sure would also be quite content working commerically as long as they dont have to maintain those pesky government set directives such as providing non profitable and minority interest religious programming or childrens programming or educational programming or schools programming or parlimentary broadcasts or minority language stations or 60 ad free local and national radio broadcasts.

 

The BBC is extremely resistant and very hostile to any suggestion that a commercial motive replace the guaranteed huge income of the compulsory licence fee. It knows full well that if the British public were given the choice of paying for its mediocre services then its income stream would dramatically shrink overnight.

 

The BBC uses the public sector broadcaster remit to provide certain types of programming as a defence of keeping the licence fee in place. It has no desire or intention of ever giving up the licence fee.

 

Too many wealthy, out of touch, people depend upon the licence fee for their pampered, privileged lifestyles.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Car Boot

[Magilla]

The BBC is a many tentacled monster that is simply too big, too powerful and too expensive.

 

It needs to be cut down to the bone. Much of what it does is simply empire building, spreading out into every sphere and crushing competition. Local newspapers have been almost killed off by its gigantic online presence.

 

So basically, the BBC provides what people want, such that they don't have to actually go out and buy local papers, or put up with the low standards of local reporting and the proliferation of adverts (see The Star).... and this is somehow.. a bad thing.

 

Essentially, it's no good that people aren't paying more for, or being exposed to adverts while they get their news!

 

So much for your "anti-capitalist" claims over on the Brexit thread eh.

 

The BBC should be the television channels BBC 1 and BBC 2 and NOTHING ELSE.

 

David Dimbleby ('Question Time Chair') has stated: "If you have one organisation that controls so much of the airwaves, is that in the end democratic?"

 

Mail article from 2013, having read it I can see why you didn't link to the full article

 

Apparently, its "rueful" he wasn't asked to present the Diamond Jubilee River Pageant coverage aswell.. bless.

 

I notice you didn't mention that Dimbleby does *not* advocate the removal of the license fee, instead saying that part of it should be used to fund local satellite TV and Radio stations.

 

He doesn't appear to have a problem with the fee, neither does his brother:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jun/14/jonathan-dimbleby-warns-of-powerful-vested-interests-attacking-bbc-licence-fee

 

The BBC is extremely resistant and very hostile to any suggestion that a commercial motive replace the guaranteed huge income of the compulsory licence fee. It knows full well that if the British public were given the choice of paying for its mediocre services then its income stream would dramatically shrink overnight.

 

So you claim, yet poll after poll shows most people in the UK value the BBC and use its services everyday.

 

A commercial motive would, obviously, undermine it's ability to deliver on its public service remit, and remain impartial.

 

As before, it's not for nothing that in nations where the system you advocate is already in place, the BBC is more trusted by citizens than their own national and local providers. Why could that be I wonder?

 

Also, I'll wager that if you offered the option of not paying for any public service, even the NHS, a decent proportion would take the risk and not pay (but of course, still try to use the service when they needed it).

 

The Dimblebys certainly don't have a problem with it.

 

And they aren't saying the BBC's output is mediocre either, in the article you failed to link, Dimbleby states "very good high quality programming done on a shoe string, really on a shoe string"

 

So much for that theory eh... and the value for money one also

 

The BBC uses the public sector broadcaster remit to provide certain types of programming as a defence of keeping the licence fee in place. It has no desire or intention of ever giving up the licence fee.

 

It's a good defence because their programming in this regard is second to none. Excellent and world leading. Since you claim you don't watch, you wouldn't know.

 

While the majority value the BBC and use its services there is no need to change to an alternative to the license fee. The Dimblebys agree.

 

Too many wealthy, out of touch, people depend upon the licence fee for their pampered, privileged lifestyles.

 

Sounds like Farage with his EU pension. Not bad considering he couldn't be bothered to turn up most of the time.

 

It's odd that you would use one of these "wealthy, out of touch, pampered, privileged" people when it suits you. I guess you don't mind them and they're not that "out of touch" after all.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Magilla

[I1L2T3]

No one is forced to purchase any product are they? and just how the hell do you link peoples purchasing directly with advertising they were exposed to by watching ITV?? This is a risible attempt at justifying the BBC licence fee.

 

ITV is independent, in that it has to go out there and actively seek funding for itself.

 

Rubbish. I’m not trying in this case to justify the licence fee.

 

Read my posts very carefully: I am just stating the facts that independent television is not free. And I haven’t even included the advertising revenue that Sky gets for example, and that on top of subscription fees.

 

Now imagine that BBC did allow advertising as a replacement revenue source. Two things could happen:

1. It is successful and matches or even eclipses ITV advertising revenue. That’s £106 a household, practically the same as the licence fee.

2. It turns out the pot of advertising money is too small. ITV suffers a reduction in its revenue and the BBC doesn’t make enough either. You nobble both successful national broadcasting institutions in one go.

 

Again....none of it is free. And tinkering with a successful model without understanding the consequences is usually a bad idea. But we’re getting good at that in the U.K. aren’t we.

[alchresearch]

You haven't provided anything other than some stats that women are caught more than men, there could be any number of fairly obvious reasons why that might be.

 

I saw the article where those stats were taken from. The main reason is that the TV licencing offers visit the premises during the day, when more women are at home than men.

[chalga]

I saw the article where those stats were taken from. The main reason is that the TV licencing offers visit the premises during the day, when more women are at home than men.

 

I think that they have deliberately waited while the men have gone out,because they hate women.

[melthebell]

I saw the article where those stats were taken from. The main reason is that the TV licencing offers visit the premises during the day, when more women are at home than men.

exactly what i said days ago, more women than men generally are in during the day so the tv is on longer and more chance of getting caught.

But he either doesnt, or cant see further than his own blind rage about such things (at the moment BBC, EU)