Is it time to defund the BBC ?

[Nomorefees]

Just that - is it time to defund the BBC (Biased Broadcasting Corporation) and make it subscription only?

Discuss

@Muddays
he took a pay cut a couple of years back from 1.75 million to now 1.36 goodness knows how’s coping with the increase in utilities
someone upthread said the revenue they receive is spent on programming, I would wager an enormous portion of that is wages, pension contributions, and jollies

No. It's time to reform it to make it a non-political appointment. Once Boris' cronies are removed, many of its problems will be sorted.

So the majority view is that it's not fit for purpose?

I don't think anything can change re the licence until 2027 as that is when the contract or whatever it is ends so I would probably expect to see changes then, hopefully

It’s not actually that easy as the licence people will constantly harass you with threatening letters and visits. You don’t actually have to allow them access to your home but they imply that you will be fined if you don’t let them in.

I get hundreds of these letters ,they can imply what they want ,but now in the days of the internet people can easily Google they have no authority and that you don't even have to engage with them ,it's a ridiculous archaic system imo.

IMO they should sack Lineker and all the presenters who came out in support of him. They could save millions and pay new presenters around £150,000 apiece, still too much IMO, but that would be a large sum for a few hours work per week.

The renegotiations will start in 2026, if it's a Labour government they will want to keep the licence fee but a Conservative government could tell them to go find ways of funding themselves after 2027. Either way I don't care because I haven't had a licence for 35 years.
In negotiations the BBC will try to say things like the BB speeds aren't fast enough for everyone too be able to stream BBC services, we need more time to get the service ready to go to streaming of their content. The fact is that in Sept. 2016 they were quick enough to add "I have/don't have a TV licence to the iPlayer screen before a person saw any content on the iPlayer, it took then less than a year, they could have easily required the licence number as the only way to watch BBC content through iPlayer but they didn't.

Do you know what would happen then? They would instantly be employed by another channel and all their fans would follow them, accompanied by the football rights that the BBC is currently hanging on to by the skin of its teeth. It would be an own goal.

Granted I know absolutely nothing about sports but are there genuinely sports channels around with millions and millions of pounds just waiting for Gary L and colleagues to work for them? Can all sports fans afford to pay for these channels? Isn’t GL a marmite figure so some fans would prefer a different presenter?
Didn’t match of the day get higher viewing figures last weekend without GL? Looks like some fans prefer the football without the chat.

are there genuinely sports channels around with millions and millions of pounds just waiting for Gary L and colleagues to work for them?

Yes.

Can all sports fans afford to pay for these channels?

Football fans are renowned for their willingness to part with obscene amounts of money to indulge their passion. The real losers would be those who couldn’t afford premium channels. And who would they blame? The BBC. As I said, own goal.

The viewing figures went up for the same reason that people slow down to look at an accident on the motorway. Disaster voyeurism.
We were in a cafe on Sunday morning and they had the football on the radio. Radio football with no commentary was hysterical.

GL isn't a marmite figure. Well, he might be with Tory MPs but generally he was an incredibly successful/very talented/well liked footballer and is a superb presenter.
He's smart and knowledgeable and very difficult to replace IMO.

As I said I know nothing about sport but I take you word for it that he is an excellent presenter.
However I disagree that everyone thinks he is wonderful, surely lots of people like me think he is ridiculously overpaid and resent having to spend my hard earned salary on paying a sports presenter 1.3 million. Can anyone genuinely be worth that much?

I don’t watch GL, unless he’s doing Euros / World Cup and I was more interested in game and ignored the presenting parts pretty much.

But I do recall on publishing BBC salaries there are a few threads where some are not happy.

But you don't like sport...so obviously you have no interest in what he does. I'm not really into science, so I'd be quite happy to be to never see Brian Cox again, but my husband, and many other people love him.
People get too hung up on salaries. In sure he could earn much more on Sky or whatever.

YANBU OP. I don't know if you are aware but recently a BBC presenter was critical of the government and his Tory bosses were unable to cancel him.

What is this country coming to? Defund the bastards! It's what Jacob Rees Mogg wants and he is all for The People.

surely lots of people like me think he is ridiculously overpaid and resent having to spend my hard earned salary on paying a sports presenter 1.3 million.

The license fee wouldn’t be any less if Lineker worked elsewhere. It’s an illogical argument.

If GL went elsewhere the BBC could well implode and then they'd have to find other ways of funding it.

Presumably Sky etc are paying that kind of salary to their top presenters and that's what the BBC have to pay to retain GL.

If a commentator is paid £1m then the money made by other people like the football TV broadcasters must be crazy figures. Why shouldn't the presenters have a slice of that giant pie?

I prefer GL types getting the money than BBC execs donating it to political parties or giving loans to PMs.

@Nomorefees Is that you Gary?

It already is? The TV license is literally a BBC subscription.
I only stream from other subscription services. I never watch TV live- streaming on demand has been so liberating, why would I go back to the days of tuning in at a set day and time for a show that cannot he paused?

So I don’t pay for it. No one is forced to pay for it if they do not use it.

It isn't a BBC subscription.

Without it, you can't watch any live TV at all, not just BBC. You can't watch TV on any TV service. You can't record TV either.

That's anything, even foreign services, not just BBC.

Irritating.

In no way do I want to defund the BBC, I think it still has a role in a society when not every family can afford multiple subscriptions and the licence fee is still v good value compared to the other offerings. However, I do think it’s wrong that certain presenters are paid soooo much money. I understand it’s part of the industry, but I think it just doesn’t sit right these days. If you are watching anything other than the public funded channel, then you know the salary has been paid for by sponsors etc. Look at how talent- like Gary Lineker can call the shots too. His salary is ludicrous paid for by public- if he’s such a talent, let someone else pay him. Talent should never be bigger than the broadcaster. It’s also good to have people doing several things for the BBC so it feels like their salary is justified, presenting across TV and Radio, for example, Sara Cox, Claudia Winkleman, Rylan types who are great presenting across all different shows. Not keen on the sport presenters who believe they are providing a skill akin to brain surgery, so they should be rewarded higher than the ultimate boss of the BBC and certainly more than their equally talented colleagues.

I'd be happy to. I don't watch any live tv and only watch Netflix and Now TV.
Dcs watch apprentice sometimes but we can do without it.