Privatisise the BBC?

Kevin-W

Hear Hear - well said - totally agree with you.

Derek

<< >>

Laurie -- Take away the licence fee and Radio 3 becomes Classic FM. Is that what you want? Henry Kelly taking a Tchaikovsky symphony off before the final movement?

Or you can keep R3 and R4 as they are and you and the other 2m listeners can pay £30 a month for them.

Kevin,
Fantastic post.
Simon

Kevin - please do not call me small minded. I was only putting forward a scenario.

Oh yes, a legal challenge. It would work, wouldn't it - they would only use the licence payers money (our money) to defend the action and then that would mean less cash to provide the service. I could also imagine me trying to find the cash to mount such a claim !

The simple fact is that we cannot get a democratic choice. Yes, the BBC makes some fantastic programmes and provides unparalleled coverage of the minority issues that would otherwise be ignored and that standard should be maintained or implemented by all networks. On the other hand, a lot of the material produced is drivel.

Justifying the £121 by comparing it to our personal spending is a bit unfair as we choose to do this. The licence is forced upon us.

I could also elect to smoke but I don't.

FWIW - I only watched one programme tonight - the football on ITV. 33p down the drain today then ...........

I take it that all those who don't like paying for something they don't personally use, object to the NHS?

I mean, if I'm not ill, why should I pay for Mr. Joe Nextdoor's operation?

The method of taxation is different as it is obtained at source - not by request.

I have no objection to paying for the BBC (or the EBC during Euro 2004 and SW19 ) but I feel it could be funded differently, allowing the poor, infirm and elderly to view without fear of starvation etc.

"And don't tell me it's a matter of principle. If you cared that much about principles, you would accept that the BBC, for all its faults, has played, and continues to play, a vital part in the life of this country. In fact, it is probably the most important cultural institution in Blighty"

What a load of rubbish, the output of the BBC is now 99.9% bullshit to feed to the masses. No program starts at the stated time any more due to the inane drivel about what’s next/tomorrow/in a minute/over on the other side/BBCi WWW/ zzzzzzzzzzzz We sat to watch a prog the other evening and had ceefax on at the same time to check the time, the "08.30" program started at 8.33 and ended at 8.57 why? for the lost bits to be filled with drivel and its happening to the radio as well. As for "plays a vital in the life of this country" do you work them or something? Sorry Kevin I don't see how you arrive at your statement. It’s got to go pay per view so I can spend the difference on something useful.
Martin

Kevin - You imply that the BBC would cease if it had to be funded by other means, but as you so rightly say, the Beeb is so revered worldwide. So it isn't exactly going to have trouble raising revenue by other means is it! I would have thought that allowing brand names on props would be a good source (remember Fairy Liquid bottles on Blue Peter with the name blanked out ), amongst many others like programme sponsership. Doesn't have to be ad breaks. I would have thought that ads on the BBC would be worth far more than existing commercial channels, so I hardly think that the Beeb is under threat. Anyway...
What I find interesting is that you head your post by implying that LTD & myself are Thatchers devil spawn, when you have the more right wing leaning forum members backing you up here. HHmmm... Here I was likening the elitist BBC to the Freemasons and you suggest I am a Tory! Unless you see this as a stance to get a tax cut, in which case you must agree it is a backdoor tax. I'm sure Thatcher would defend the BBC to the end - but maybe I missed something.
Bloody good post though Kevin, even if I disagree with its contents.

quote:

---

but I feel it could be funded differently, allowing the poor, infirm and elderly to view without fear of starvation etc.

---

There is no need for anyone to starve in our rich Britain.

quote:

---

Originally posted by count.d:
I take it that all those who don't like paying for something they don't personally use, object to the NHS?

---

No Count - that is paid for by Taxation - called Taxation and accountable through government which is democratically elected.

quote:

---

No Count - that is paid for by Taxation - called Taxation and accountable through government which is democratically elected.

---

It's taken out of your wages each month and you have basically no choice whatsoever. Call it democratically elected or whatever you like, you will still pay for Joe's operation.

And that is the democratic process - it's the civilised way in my opinion.
Unfortunately people do starve in our rich (for some) Britain. Mostly children that depend upon disfunctional parents - but that's not for this topic.
Hey Kevin - you sure you got this left-wing, right-wing thing around the right way?

Kevin

I'm not right wing, left wing or centre wing.

All politicians are lying scum - look at their manifestos - they never stick to their pre-elective promises.

I therefore do not vote for any of them.

PS: Good argument - and still civil !

long-time-dead said "The method of taxation is different as it is obtained at source - not by request"

What utter twaddle.

(Although personally I would scrap the licence fee and replace it with a hypothected BBC specific increase in income tax that was index linked at current levels. Although it's a relatively small amount a licence fee is still regressive.)

Martin D said "the output of the BBC is now 99.9% bullshit to feed to the masses"

You snob!

PS Newsnight, Today, BBC4, Radio 4, Radio 3, 3 or 4 high end dramas a year, numerous documentaries, News24, etc. etc. That's a) rather more than .1% and b) staggeringly good value for £10 a month.

Rasher said "You imply that the BBC would cease if it had to be funded by other means"

It would. It would be like ITV.

"so I hardly think that the Beeb is under threat"

It absolutely is under threat. And not from people who love TV & Radio (who are all in favour of it) but from people who are intellectually or ideologically opposed to a licence fee.

"through government which is democratically elected"

The same democratic government that holds the BBC to account and is responsible for the regular review of its charter.







There is plenty wrong with the BBC -- although it's much broader than it was it rarely hits the heights it used to, it was rather buggered up by John Birt, etc. etc. -- but it is, as Kevin said, absolutely an essential part of our national identity and culture. And arguing about the £10/month fee seems such a pissy little thing to get annoyed about in the grand scheme of things. If you got rid of it 90% of people would pay substantialy more for a lower quality services and I am fairly sure that includes most people who moan about it.

Matthew

PS You can argue that Post-War/Post-Imperial Britain is pretty much defined by the BBC + the NHS.

Rasher/LTD

I didn't mean to call you small-minded as an insult, but s Matthew says, it's such a tiny sum of money to get worked up about. I'm sure you know what I'm getting at.

Politically, I am a rampant Scargillian ultra-leftie with a very strong libertarian streak (which may be why I was booted out of no less than 3 parties when I was a callow youth).

Martin D

Did you actually read my post? I said I didn't work for the BBC. in fact, most of my working life I have spent with organisations that were/are in competition with Auntie. But I do admit that I adore the BBC in spite of its myriad faults and recognise – as do millions of others – its contribution to our lives and our way of life. If you choose to ignore that contribution, then that's your right. Free country, innit?

Kevin - listening to BBC Radio 4

Oh I forgot to mention that the BBC is one of the biggest nurturers of young new talent (writers, dramatists, musicians, etc) in the UK. But hey - that (or the orchestras, or the festivals, or the Proms, or the educational initiatives, or the broadcasting of the OU, or the community projects, or the oral history projects, or the local radio stations etc) doesn't really matter does it, as long as a few of you (and Kelvin MacKenzie) don't have to shell out £2.32 a week.

[This message was edited by Kevin-W on Fri 02 July 2004 at 2:24.]

[This message was edited by Kevin-W on Fri 02 July 2004 at 2:44.]

Believe me on this, you'd miss it if it wasn't there anymore.

Converting to pay-per-view or to funding through advertisements would be the slippery slope to more "even lower than the lowest common denominator" programming. I assume the BBC still has to be competitive with the independent broadcasters in terms of viewing figures.

Losing a financially independent broadcaster would be the final step to chavdom.

Brian OReilly

quote:

---

the final step to chavdom

---

Now you really have put the frighteners on me. What a chilling thought.

quote:

---

I take it that all those who don't like paying for something they don't personally use, object to the NHS?

---

There are indeed some activities undertaken by the NHS, in my opinion, where public funding is not appropriate.


A general thought on the TV issue:

We may percieve that the quality of BBC1 & 2 has declined....perhaps in fact the TOTAL "quality" output has not dropped, but now it is being spread more thinly amongst more channels, ie the real problem is the "dilution" effect arising from having more channels.

This was predicted at the time more channels were proposed, and we had plenty of warning about this from what happened in the USA....the air time has to be filled with something and that surely implies more "padding"......a lot of the quality programmes now available on BBC3 and 4 used to be "squeezed" into BBC1 and 2


As suggested above, since the amount of BBC licence is relatively trivial, I personally waould probably vote for maintaining the status quo, despite my philosophical difficulty with it. Perhaps a case of the "devil you know".....and I agree totally that when it tries, the BBC can be unbeatable

Laurie S

What a load of complete twaddle is being written by you anti-BBCers. First its illegal, next its contributing to poverty among the elderly, next its got too many adverts(possibly the most insane argument of all considering what the BBC would look like under an alternative funding regime), then its output is 99.9% rubbish.
If BBC becomes a subscription channel what are these poor elderly people that are being driven to starve by the licence fee going to watch? Isn't the answer some additional exemptions for the poor, rather than the privatisation of the Beeb?
Although some timeslots on the BBC have dumbed down, there's still plenty of quality programming on both 1 and 2. For instance, recently on 1 I have enjoyed a documentary on Edward Hopper and another on DBC Pierre.
Does anyone have a good arguments for its privatisation?
Simon

Simon
That was the 0.1%

RE the TV licence as taxation - unlike other taxation (eg road fuel tax) I know that the TV licence is going to be spent by the BBC - apart from the collection costs. Whereas only a minimal amount (if any) of road fuel tax is spent on the roads (transport infrastructure)

Assuming that the amount of money spent by the advertising industry remained constant, having the BBC funded by commercials would reduce the amount of money available for the existing commercial channels and they would have to lower their costs and quality of output.

Derek

<< >>

quote:

---

Originally posted by long-time-dead:
Suppose I buy a TV set and a DVD player and have no intention of watching BBC television or any other commercial station............ I love movies and buy DVD's.

.....and I also need to buy a TV license as the TV is capable of receiving the signal.

---

You can buy Pro VHS machines and standard video (not computer) monitors, and you'd then not have ANY means of receiving a TV terrestrial signal. When they "detect" your CRT emissions, they'd be able to corroborate that you have no means to receive TV.

If you HAD to watch a TV programme, you could then invest in a pocket TV which uses internal batteries, and thus get round the TV licence cost. I did this in Uni, and wired the headphone out thru the hifi - I caused quite a stir when I had Casualty on rather loud; someone stormed in demanding to know where my telly was, then burst out laughing at me squinting at a 2.1 inch screen while having excellent (considering!) sound quality

I'd prefer pay-per-view as well, but as others have said, there's nothing you can do re the chavdom slide... Plus, if you have no TV but use a radio, a radio licence seems fair to me.

Re the NHS - don't go there re funding that's not appropriate - sex changes and IVF are two minor gripes of mine (but then I'll get the usual grief re kids etc if we go there, so let's not!).

__________________________
Don't wanna be cremated or buried in a grave
Just dump me in a plastic bag and leave me on the pavement
A tribute to your modern world, your great society
I'm just another victim of your highrise fantasy!

quote:

---

Originally posted by domfjbrown:
[Re the NHS - don't go there re funding that's not appropriate - sex changes and IVF are two minor gripes of mine (but then I'll get the usual grief re kids etc if we go there, so let's not!).

---

domf,

you make some good points, but re. the sex change - don't do it. I know you're having trouble losing your virginity, but honestly, a sex change is too extreme. Don't worry, you'll meet someone soon (and meantime there's always m*sturbation).

Best wishes,

Brian

You need a license for a portable player, too. You can use them outside your home but you have to have a license covering your home to use a portable player.

Oh, and Kevin W gets my vote as the poster of the year for his defence of the BBC.

Cripes! (blush)

Kevin (listening to Robert Elms on BBC Radio London)