Privatisise the BBC?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian OReilly:
you make some good points, but re. the sex change - don't do it. I know you're having trouble losing your virginity...

---

Lost it in November

The sex change thing though - seriously - it's ridiculously expensive. How can the NHS justify doing that when people need heart ops, cancer care etc? Beggars belief IMHO (btw - I've got great legs but no t*ts, so my op'd be waaaaaay too expensive!)

Oh - re mast*rbation - my eyesight is getting better as I get older - I can't figure that out either, but I was born blind

__________________________
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!

Domf - I would forget getting tits anyway. You would never get any sleep because you would always be playing with them.

OK OK...I see the point and having thought some more about it, & I suppose you are right. The slippery slope does look like a long one with no ladder at the side, so I guess the "slide to chavdom" has to be resisted at all costs.
I wouldn't want to lose the BBC, and I wouldn't want it to change (except for the better).

It was fun though..

I was very touched by Matthew posting the Mick Parry standpoint in his absence. These old married couples eh!, they bicker like mad, but when they are apart...

quote:

---

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.

---

There really is no arguing with this except to point out a few omissions from even such a comprehensive list as Kevin's.

R&D - I'm still very happy with my LS3/5A's, and expect that the BBC's work on crossover design has significantly contributed to those boxes that enhance the daily dose of Kylie enjoyed by us all. Then of course there's Ceefax, DAB [all right, we may sniff at its audiophile quality here, but that may eventually change, and meanwhile it is in the process of rejuvenating radio & promises programme guides, a degree of interactivity and much else]. And what about BBC Online, one of the world's most visited sites, and its streaming which enables people across the world to share in our cultural achievements, or at least snigger with Humphrey Lyttelton and send emails to local radio breakfast programmes? Then there's 'Listen Again'. Don't know about you, but this has revolutionalised my listening, enabling me at a whim to complile R4 Heaven Sessions when I can giggle, be moved, rant and learn the most obscure and interesting things while I clean the cupboard under the sink. Guess what - it's about to get better - 'Watch Again' is coming very soon, and working within the constraints of rights clearance, we [and the rest of the world [v. important, this]] will have access to a fair amount of BBC past programming since the point when it was decided that tape was quite reasonably priced and you didn't need to wipe Not Only But Also to save 50p. Oh, and not content with defining virtualy every standard in broadcasting, the BBC are currently engaged in devising high quality royalty-free codecs for both audio & video which will be freely distributable and DRM free. Not many institutions would have the clout to accomplish this and get new standards accepted worldwide, but whatever the BBC comes up with will be taken notice of and has a pretty good chance.

Education - the BBC's Digital Curriculum Initiative is on course to supply high quality educational material devised by educators via broadband to schools. The commercial sector is pretty pissed off about this, but then of course they would be. I'd be quite happy with BBC stuff forming a big part of my child's education, and if you've had any experience of the paranoia inspired quickie drill & National Curriculum cash-ins on offer to schools, you will be too.

Talking of children, isn't it nice to know that there are a couple of children's channels that don't advertise Coke, crisps & Barbie every 5 mins? And a radio station that was prepared to devote its Christmas Day programming to a 6 hr reading by Stephen Fry aimed at 8-10 yr olds?

Can you imagine a commercial organisation devoting time & money to the divine folly that is h2g2? http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/

Recently I would agree that BBC programming has demonstrated a bit of slippage, being far to content to follow and exploit formats to chase ratings, but fads & fancies change very quickly, and more imprtantly the Dyke years have shown an unprecedented grasp of the nature of technology and the need to embrace it at some speed which [even for the BBC] will transform the way we are entertained. Wittering about a surplus of makeover & reality shows seems to me to display a very superficial grasp on the matter in hand.

Some things are so good and so important that the cost is largely irrelevant. The French seem to understand this, as so many grands projets demonstrate - why do we have such a problem? Even now Dame Thora has joined the Choir Eternal, there are innumerable things provided by the BBC that are worth the cost of the licence fee alone. Matthew's proposal is very tempting, but given that the Corporation is hated by the party in power without exception [Very Good Thing, BTW], surely that would make the BBC even more vulnerable?

I'm sure that the new Charter will bring changes, and probably quite a lot of good ones. I think that the BBC could exploit its assets to greater advantage [BBC DVD's, for example - too pricey, and released far too late] but stuff like this is largely irrelevant. World class excellence doesn't come cheapand a temporary aversion to Lawrence Llewellyn-Bowen seems a bit short sighted.

throb

Good point well made, Throb (and Kevin).

But this is all becoming reminiscent of the "Not the Nine'O'Clock News" sketch - a take off of That's Life - in which, IIRC, people offered increasingly extreme things in support of the licence fee - their house, wife, liver etc

For my part, however Throb, even your comprehensive list lacks two things. The BBC Micro, one of which followed a ZX81 into my childhood home, and I think it fair to say changed my life. And the late, great Douglas Adams - no organisation other than the BBC would have tolerated his total lack of respect for any sort of deadline. I imagine that the BBC (H2G2 excepted) has probably ended up making profit out of Adams.

But no wholly commercial organisation would, or could, have been the hotbed of creativity that the BBC has been. That they get it wrong occasionally only reinforces this.

"I would willingly sell my cat to help support the BBC etc etc"

I walked in from work this evening to see an outtake programme on BBC1 hosted by Anne Robinson. If ever there was a better example of cheap crap at no cost this is it - I suppose it is literally the shit off the floor with canned laughter. It is extremely poor & pathetic. Maybe it's true that BBC1 & 2 give a poor example of what the BBC can offer.

Soul fans get their licence fee moneys worth tonight on BBC 4.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/listings/index.shtml?service_id=4544

quote:

---

there are innumerable things provided by the BBC that are worth the cost of the licence fee alone.

---

What I have a problem with is ME being FORCED (effectively) to pay for something just because YOU value it.


It`s a bit like the argument I`ve often heard that goes:

"I don`t mind paying a bit more tax so that the government can....blah blah".....(subsidise some special interest or other).

The implication here being that every one else (including ME) should also not mind paying more..and therefore be FORCED to


Mention has been made above of "thatcherite" and comparisons made with the poll tax....well we have a local by-election soon for our council, and the Lib Dem`s propose a local income tax...god knows how this would work.....it is claimed that it operates on the basis of "ability to pay".......presumably families with lots of children will, of course be the biggest beneficiaries of the revenue raised, and no doubt, will also be deemed able to afford to contribute least...no thank you!

I support many of the ideas behind the poll tax, however it had a fatal flaw...comparison with "buying a loaf of bread"..ie paying for USE....unfortunately for Thatcher this logic lacked the vital ingredient of CHOICE....choosing not to pay it resulted in prosecution, which I find amusingly ironic, given Thatcher`s war cry " freedom of choice", though thaere were many aspects of the poll tax that were fundamentally fair....the Tories blew it, because it was clumsily implemented


However good, benign, beneficial, etc etc the BBC is, I have a problem with being forced to pay for it whether I want it or not...I resent that the decision of choice being taken off me. True, the amount involved is trivial, and pragmatically I would want to keep the status quo..its just that I don`t buy the "benign dictatorship" argument...being benign does not reduce the "dictatorship" part



I also cannot understand those who seem to suggest that abolition of the licence fee means destroying the BBC in its present form.

Surely, if it tha BBC is as valued as is claimed, then it follows that there would be sufficient customers willing to pay a subscription to maintain it in its present form?....without the need to resort to advertising and all other forms of commercial horror

Laurie S

[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on Sat 03 July 2004 at 9:54.]

Parallels between the poll tax and the licence fee are way off the mark.

The poll tax (and most other kinds of tax) applies to everyone. You cannot escape income tax (unless you are Rupert Murdoch, of course) oor VAT. You are, bby contrast, not forced to pay for the BBC. If you don't have a telly, you don't have to pay the licence fee – and you still get to listen to Radios 3 and 4 for nothing!

The laws of this country state that if you have a television, you need to purchase a licence for it. What's wrong with that?

If you don't like the law, emigrate, or vote for someone who says they'll change it.

Kevin

quote:

---

Parallels between the poll tax and the licence fee are way off the mark.

The poll tax (and most other kinds of tax) applies to everyone. You cannot escape income tax (unless you are Rupert Murdoch, of course) oor VAT. You are, bby contrast, not forced to pay for the BBC.

---

and

quote:

---

The laws of this country state that if you have a television, you need to purchase a licence for it. What's wrong with that?

---

Read what I said above to find out....


Well what about road tax, or any other kind of tax levied on voluntary(?) goods and services. Are you going to argue that these are not taxes?


Try telling folk who berate road tax that they do not have to own a car

(I don`t, so I don`t pay it...well not directly anyhow)

What is wrong with forcing people to pay for a licence just because they have a TV?

Because it is possible to argue all the points I have raised above....without repeating them

Laurie S

I've had to brick up all me winders, cos I's skint ?
Fritz Von Fenetretaxinnit

How much is the licence fee now - £118?

If I enjoy just one programme a week not messed up with predominantly crappy adverts; it's cost me £2.27

Cheap!

I know I'm in the minority, but lack of advertising gives the Beeb a standard all its own.

I'm sure it won't last and Auntie Beeb will eventually have to support herself. It will be a sad day, like permitting shops to open on a Sunday - another of my pet hates.

JN
I know what you mean but, there are interruptions all the time now, the radio is as bad - there are 3 minutes "advertising" and plugging at both the beginning and end of every bloody program and it drives me nuts. I would pay more in license fee if they’d only shut up and put the program on, if it was worth watching. I get the papers on Saturday and look through the telly bit; I only ring about 2 or 3 things a week I might watch. I purposely tape these so I can silence or wind through the drivel. I watch very little TV now.
Martin

quote:

---

I know I'm in the minority, but lack of advertising gives the Beeb a standard all its own.

---

No-one( that I can tell) is suggesting any change to the BBC, other than from IMPOSED licence tax to VOLUNTARY subscription. If the BBC in its present form is sowidely and highly valued, then surely there will be sufficient willing to cough up the amount required, .....which will be , in effect, a voluntary licence fee

All this sentimental talk about the Beeb "dying" is completely missing the point, IMHO

Laurie S

A current pet hate of mine is the 60 second 'news-felch' in the middle of a programme on Channel 5.

If I want to see the bloody news, I'll watch the telly at the relevant time.

I still like the Radio Times though. It is THE quality publication, without doubt.

I loved 'The Day Today' by Chris Morris, which mercilessly ripped the piss out of TV news programmes. Even the intro sequence was an hilarious piss-take. It's available on DVD if you're interested?

Having been an avid B.B.C. listener for several decades,I must confess that I am getting to be very worried about their top brass.Yesterday morning the lead story on the 7am news was "Asian stop and search up by 300%"We were then told that 87% of these searches were fruitless and therefore the whole process was a waste of time.Imagine a murder investigation where 13% of interviews were "productive" wow aren't our cops great.Who will carry the can if/when we have a bomb go off in a UK town or city?

quote:

---

If the BBC in its present form is sowidely and highly valued, then surely there will be sufficient willing to cough up the amount required, .....which will be , in effect, a voluntary licence fee

---

That's the problem Laurie - not enough people are prepared to pay for quality. They want their telly cheap.

How many people would voluntarily cough up £118 to keep the Beeb 'ad-free'. A very small percentage I'd guess.

Still; we souldn't moan - I suppose our TV is a whole lot better than in the USA, and some other countries.

quote:

---

That's the problem Laurie - not enough people are prepared to pay for quality.

---

but THIS is the REAL problem:

Are you saying that paying customers are not best qualified to judge for themselves what constitutes quality viewing for them?

Are you suggesting people be forced pay for something they do not value, but you or I do...does this not amount to telling folk what the should like?

A number of comments above refer to the "descent into chavdom"....much as I concur, surely if the paying majority want this, what right have we, "an elite minority" to override them

Laurie S

PS.....I hear today on the news that the BBC is going to have a "clearout" and that more of its resources are to be focussed on its prime role, ie better programmes. Sounds like good news!(if I have the story right)

laurie S

Maybe the governors have been reading this thread.

Having just watched the first two episodes of "The Long Firm" those of you who begrudge your £10 a month can sod off.

Matthew

quote:

---

A fair point on one hand, but an organisation has to be run by an elite.

---

Agreed.

BY an elite (almost by definition) yes, but not (primarily) FOR that elite, surely?


Laurie S

quote:

---

but (ideally?) aims to raise standards,

---

Is it not rather arrogant to tell a paying customer that their preferred choice in viewing is not of a suitably high standard?

I once had a similar experience in a (very well known) hi-fi dealer during a dem. When I criticised some aspect of the performance of an amplifier that the demonstrator obviously loved, he suggested that my (implied: poor) choice of artiste was being exposed for what it really was. I wound up the dem very quickly and noted that I would never use that dealer again

( for the record , the amplifier was I think a Musical Fidelity A1000...I criticised it for sounding undynamic)

Laurie S