Should we pay BBC licence fee

Thanks. Non-commercial total BBC employees come from the 23/24 BBC annual report (source, p.205). Numbers (3,200) for Media City are here (source, BBC) but this does not disaggregate the numbers in terms of PSB, commercial, private contractors, apprentices, etc., so true numbers for directly employed PSB-only staff is likely to be lower, although still in the same 'ball park'. I don't know about other regions.

London is the centre of both government and finance in the UK. As in other countries those two dominate the location of news and current affairs staff.

Yes, and that's really the crux of my complaint and where my desire for change sits. It's not really about the distribution of jobs, but the distribution of power. Via the BBC (and, yes, other broadcasters) the culture and ideology of London/SE asserts an overwhelming and unrepresentative influence on all aspects of life in the UK. The consequence of this can be seen in our politics since 2015-16.

We no longer live in a society where such centralisation is necessary. It is quite possible, if broadcast journalists wished it, to do their work from anywhere in the UK although I do agree there will be a small number of occasions where being in London is necessary. But, unless there is change - and of course this goes beyond the BBC - we are going to feel and think as a country more divided than together.

Re. funding, where this debate started. I don't know what other models are being seriously considered. The 'noise' from the BBC is mostly about continuing the status quo, alongside some (rather bizarre) suggestions about hypothecating council tax to fund the BBC. Personally, I think most of the BBC output, with the possible exception of Children's TV and Education, could be served by the private sector.

Thanks for your reasoned response.

We probably won't agree, but I sincerely hope someone in the BBC is listening to the range of discussion about this.

Btw, I used to love the BBC, and wouldn't hear a word against it. But times have changed and so must the BBC.

Viewing figures for the BBC are declining because of the amount of competition from streaming services, not because they covered the Queen’s death on one of their channels. The Queen’s funeral had the highest viewership of any BBC programme in the whole of 2023 and the Coronation in 2024.

I was going to dignify your points with reasoned, sensible and evidence-based responses, but you also say "I'm not really interested in your views", so I won't.

Enjoy your weekend

I’m talking about the BBC not the monarchy, which is what this thread is about. Viewership and support for the BBC has been dropping for quite a while hence why the government is looking into the funding model as it is unsustainable.

I think the BBCs time is coming to an end. Most of the young people I work with barely even know what it is and are aghast that you are supposed to pay for it to watch any kind of TV.

Sorry OP, I know you love the Beeb but I can’t see the current model of a licence fee lasting much longer.

So many people I know are opting out and just watching streaming services so they don’t need a licence. Can you really imagine your children paying a TV licence? Mine certainly won’t.

That isn’t true. Despite the extremely misleading headline, support has gone up and down for the last 30 years.

https://natcen.ac.uk/news/british-social-attitudes-support-monarchy-falls-new-low

Balanced in their reporting? Ha.. what planet do you live on?

I have always watched BBC television when I felt like it and I have never ever paid the BBC licence fee, it's not exactly hard to avoid is it!

The difference is the group that is dissatisfied is growing and the group that is satisfied is dwindling.

I’m really not interested in your views, but are you really unaware there are places outside Salford and London?

There are offices and studios all over the U.K. and geographically dispersed in different countries in the U.K.

85% of young people in this country use Bitesize for their GCSEs.

BBC content is used up and down the country.

To compare Netflix and the BBC is comparing apples and oranges. Are you expecting Netflix to run a sophisticated news operation? You are talking through your hat.

I regularly listen to R3, R4 and R6. I know you don't have to pay it just for radio, but I'm happy to do so. I watch some things on iPlayer (last thing was that detective on a submarine thing), and also use the news, sport and weather apps. For me it is good value and I have no problem with paying.

People say it is very biased- oddly they seem to be 'it's woookkkkeee' Reform voters or die-hard Corbynites who saw any criticism of St Jeremy as an unacceptable attack. So I take that with a pinch of salt. I think it's news is quite centrist and bland really.

I expect the future will be the funding of the more non-commercial elements through taxation and commercialisation of the rest

I think it still provides a very important service and am happy to pay. Any organisation that size will have a few people who don't meet the standards they should

Totally disagree.

I watched none of that coverage, because I care not a whit about the Royal Family - but I know plenty of people who were glued to it. because it matters to them. It was a national event and the national broadcaster should cover it.

Same with the Proms, Wimbledon, various marathons. Me, I don't care at all - but I'm happy to pay for it because lots of people do care.

And, of course, the TV licence funds BBC Radio too. I don't listen to the radio - and I positively loathe Radio 4 - but I think this is a service that should be provided, without advertising, free of commercial considerations.

As to the political bias of the BBC - well, the left think it biased towards the right, and the right think it's biased towards the left, and as long as it's irritating both sides, I think it's doing fine.

I pay the licence, I watch a few shows, and a lot of archive and I think it's worth every penny - both for what I consume and what I don't care about much.

No it demonstrates that the main BBC bias is, as always, toward the status quo for the establishment.

Even now it is still dominated by white public schoolboys making white public schoolboy decisions. Women are still underpaid compared to male peers, its track record on abusive behaviour is poor and nepotism runs rampant. Whilst all of these are problems industry wide the BBC has performed poorly on even just those measures and is funded by public money.

Where it used to be the default place for fact checked news it is now frequently regurgitating press releases but with the “authority” of the Beeb. Science and Tech coverage is frequently shockingly bad and formerly great science programmes are dumbed down to pop science. What is the point of having a public service remit if you churn out the same old dumbed down nonsense as self produced youtube videos?

How old are those figures? The latest published I could find on their website reports nearly 3.2K in Salford. Old FoI numbers also have about 1500 in the Cardiff base, 1600 Pebble Mill/Birmingham base, 1300 Glasgow and another 1700 in South but outside SE bases (which seems to include Bristol, Exeter, Borehamwood and other specialist centres). That was more than a decade ago before the BBC exited White City and moved a ton more jobs out of London and into the regions.

London is the centre of both government and finance in the UK. As in other countries those two dominate the location of news and current affairs staff. If you look at distribution of staff in ITV (who have taken over White City) it will be similar, ditto C4, Sky et al.

There are plenty of problems with the BBC but distribution of staff is likely to worsen, not improve if it becomes a private company as it will have no government set responsibility to support the regions.

The BBC has around 2,700 staff in Salford. The total number of public sector BBC staff is around 17,000. So that's 15% on a good day as many of them will be WFH or commuting to/from London/SE.

By far the majority of the BBCs staff are based in an around London. The BBC is culturally and ideologically based in London. Simply moving a small amount of it's work to Salford has not changed this.

Don't get me wrong, I used to be a big BBC supporter. Sadly, the last two decades has seen the BBC forget that it is meant to represent the whole UK. Yet, increasingly, they patronize and disrespect us.

So it's time for the BBC to move to a subscription model. The irony is that the BBC knows that a majority of (young, urban) people no longer bother with a licence fee, but will happily buy Netflix ...

Many people felt it was entirely appropriate. So the BBC satisfied part of its audience and displeased another part. It was ever thus. With over 100 free view channels in the UK nobody was left with little alternative.

The global audience access BBC content via the BBC commercial arm which people around the world pay to see along side their regular channels, most via a monthly cable subscription which is exactly what we are talking about. If they weren’t interested they can simply switch to anyone of a hundred other channels. In the UK where many people still only have a limited selection of channels, the wall to wall coverage was beyond excessive and left many with little alternative. Also many took exception to the implication of a mass forced participation in public morning which is archaic and a relic of the BBC of 50 years ago. Just another example of how the BBC hasnt kept up with its audience.

Just read the last twenty or so comments and baffled that the Op thinks it’s Ralph that should leave her alone. Rather than completely the other way round.

I can see you’re being deliberately goady. I don’t think this is genuine.