How long until the License Fee is dropped?

What a bizarre argument.

We must pay out of our money for the BBC because if we don't then an even worse private broadcaster that nobody watches will go under (even though they won't - Channel 5 offers unique and commercially attractive international content because of Paramount).

It also completely ignores the fact that the BBC competes commercially with Channel 5 already - the UKTV suite of channels like Dave, Gold etc all have advertising and are all owned by the BBC.

Surely the solution then is to get rid of both the licence fee and those BBC owned commercial channels?

You’re not comparing like for like, Channel 5 secures funding through advertising - if the BBC did the same Channel 5 likely wouldn’t exist because the BBC has bigger viewing figures, advertisers would spend their money there instead.

So other broadcasters would go under, and it’d impact the UK media industry as a whole, which the government won’t want to happen.

I was trying to frame it in a tactful way, but what I was driving at was that I - and many, many other people - simply do not trust the BBC's version of 'accuracy' and their claims of impartiality in many, many areas.

And the meaning of accuracy is not up for debate. Dont be ridiculous.

What they pay for is what they want to listen to. Alternatively, what billionaires pay for is what THEY want you to listen to, and believe. That is the path of authoritarianism, and if you want to see how it pans out go sign up to Musk’s X and the porn AI debacle, or Trumps Truth Social, and understand the meaning of misinformation.

You’re not comparing like for like, Channel 5 secures funding through advertising - if the BBC did the same Channel 5 likely wouldn’t exist because the BBC has bigger viewing figures, advertisers would spend their money there instead.

So other broadcasters would go under, and it’d impact the UK media industry as a whole, which the government won’t want to happen.

When it is pushed by people within certain contexts it is 'left wing' agreed.

But people are complaining about just seeing or hearing presenters who use pronouns, or dress in clothes stereotypically associated with certain genders etc.

The point I am making is simply employing people to present on the radio or the news who chose to identify as Trans or dress gender alternatively is not automatically the BBC being 'left wing' neither does it mean those people are. It is employing people who, like it or not, make up the British population. As has been said, EVERYONE is compelled to pay the licence fee. So the BBC cannot jolly well not employ some of the people included in that demographic. Hosting a debate on what is a trending social issue also is not the BBC being left wing.

I strongly recall when all pro-gay conversation was perceived as 'left wing' but today no one would assume that merely featuring a gay person or a gay person presenting the radio or the news is automatically 'left wing' nor is say, debating gay marriage seens as strictly a left or right wing issue.

There has been an unwelcome and in my opinion a deliberate, strategy of focusing on identity which is highly emotive as opposed to the very critical problems of structural inequality, like class, the K economy, the deplorable situation where people are using food banks regularly, billionaires taking huge amounts of wealth the UK selling off vast amounts of it's assets abroad without scrutiny and the housing market being almost a rigged Ponzi scheme, the dangers of soft digital ID systems being implemented. The rise of cashless payment systems and so on.

The BBC the so called state broadcaster that supposedly serves all it's licence fee holders, addresses none of these things in any focused way, and in fact, has a disgusting record of perpetuating cycles of poverty by prosecuting overwhelming numbers of poor women, often immigrants or single parents or students who are less able to make a case for themselves, for not paying for the privilege of merely watching TV, whilst paying a few special people who work for it millions of pounds a year, which is why it's laughable that anyone calls it intrinsically left wing.

Debating trans issues is not left wing in and of itself. The debate is just being had. Has the BBC been partial or biased on the issue? Absolutely and it has been rightly called out on it. But the BBC is also biased on other topics, particularly when it comes to how it reports foreign conflicts for e.g. I find it to be pedalling towards the right increasingly and editing certain things when it wants to and leaving certain things in when it wants to. I honestly cannot watch it very much anymore. That's not to say it doesn't also produce great programming, it absolutely does. But I cannot choose what I pay for and that is the problem.

Other people may have a different interpreation of 'integrity / accuracy of information' from you...

But regardless of that, who is actually suggesting 'losing' the BBC? That's playing into their hands, really: them pushing the idea that, if the government doesn't force everybody to pay for them - or otherwise justify under threat of prosecution why they haven't paid for them - then they will cease to exist.

Channel 5 has managed to exist for the best part of 20 years and secured the necessary funding to do so - even making a decent profit into the bargain. Are you (and the BBC themselves) genuinely claiming that the mighty BBC isn't as business-competent, or have as good content that people will want to pay for, as Channel 5?

The abolishment of the licence fee will be a massive loss?!

The BBC is more than just BBC 1 and 2. Look on iplayer and sounds. There's nothing else like Radio 4 that I can find.

Other people may have a different interpreation of 'integrity / accuracy of information' from you...

But regardless of that, who is actually suggesting 'losing' the BBC? That's playing into their hands, really: them pushing the idea that, if the government doesn't force everybody to pay for them - or otherwise justify under threat of prosecution why they haven't paid for them - then they will cease to exist.

Channel 5 has managed to exist for the best part of 20 years and secured the necessary funding to do so - even making a decent profit into the bargain. Are you (and the BBC themselves) genuinely claiming that the mighty BBC isn't as business-competent, or have as good content that people will want to pay for, as Channel 5?

If we lose the BBC we have basically kissed the concepts of freedom of information and of integrity / accuracy of information goodbye. Britain is very close to that already, following America.

I reckon by the end of this year, it will begin being phased out.

I am sad about it.

Apparently the BBC now spends about £30 million a year in postage sending threatening letters to people who don't pay the TV licence, and this only leads to them recouping a fraction of that £30 million.

What a spectacularly silly organisation!

But what good is the BBC doing if we already live in a dumber, less informed society?

Actually it was in the BBCs founding charter to educate, inform and entertain. I loathe the fact that we live in an ever dumber, less well informed society where experts are derided and passed over in favour of 'personalities' or random person on the street view of x. Anything that reduces access to high level content is not a good thing in my view.

The BBC is more than just BBC 1 and 2. Look on iplayer and sounds. There's nothing else like Radio 4 that I can find.

Actually it was in the BBCs founding charter to educate, inform and entertain. I loathe the fact that we live in an ever dumber, less well informed society where experts are derided and passed over in favour of 'personalities' or random person on the street view of x. Anything that reduces access to high level content is not a good thing in my view.