To think the BBC license fee should be scrapped

[Flashbangandgone]

Don't get me wrong, I love the BBC, and would pay a subscription if required, but I can't see any justification in continuing with a licence fee in the age of satellite and youtube. It's a stealth tax that needs to go.

It would be a bit like British Gas charging everyone a flat fee for using gas irrespective of how much gas they used or whether they used oil, coal or electric to hear their homes. It's bat-shit crazy anachronism and must surely go.

At the very least it could be pared down drastically from its current excesses.

Since the millions in pay-offs and pensions must come in part from licence fee money

I'm not sure what the original issue was about either - sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick - but in response to the above, why must it? I'll admit I don't know payoff amounts, but were they really more than Top Gear's profits?

wasonthelist then you have misread me, quite comprehensively.

As Jesse said, the conflation of 2 separate issues has caused all sorts of misunderstandings.

Maybe my last couple of posts have made it clearer?

JessyRadlett - Apologies for not being clearer - I stopped paying my licence (and stopped watching live TV) in part because I was sickened by a series of payoffs to senior executives (nothing to do with Top Gear which I rarely watched and didn't much care for). In particular, Mark Byford received nearly a million pounds, plus a £3million pound pension, then popped up on Radio 5 plugging a book he'd written. Maybe all the money did come from TG profits, but it should have been going into all those wonderful things the BBC does, not giving massive gravy-train handouts to already wealthy execs and managers.

The fact is, if there was the political will to scrap the licence, it'd be done tomorrow. It really doesn't need years of faffing about.

Now that cannot be argued with

Sorry - thought you were just talking about Top Gear. As I've said - agree that there are many parts of the BBC that should be reformed but we fall on different sides of whether the bad outweighs the good - which is fair enough.

I suppose at least the licence fee enables an opt out, unlike other public sector bodies with inflated salaries and payouts? Though that's not a good enough reason to keep a broken funding model in my view.

JassyRadlett Yes, I did realise a while back that maybe I should be supporting the licence fee precisely because it allows me to "take my bat home" when I don't approve in way I couldn't if it was just part of general taxation.

I still consider it regressive and I am personally in favour of BBC by subscription - which I'd consider paying, especially of there was a radio only, or news only version.

Ironically, my Ma who is a dyed in the wool BBC fan, doesn't benefit from her licence for the 6 months a year she spends in France - and she can't even watch stuff on iplayer because it blocks her saying she's foreign, however I am free to watch iplayer content I haven't paid for. It's an out-of date mess.

Ironically, my Ma who is a dyed in the wool BBC fan, doesn't benefit from her licence for the 6 months a year she spends in France - and she can't even watch stuff on iplayer because it blocks her saying she's foreign, however I am free to watch iplayer content I haven't paid for. It's an out-of date mess.

She should get Hola or similar on her computer . But yeah, that's part of the rubbishness of the system - though of course not limited to the Beeb.

I'd quite like there to be a licence fee for other parts of govt spending so I can follow your example!

Nothing anyone has said here has persuaded me that the £15.00 a month that the government forces me to pay, with the threat of jail hanging over my head if I don't, is worth it.

The arguments for the BBC seem to hang solely on "Oh but it's the BBC - British Institution - envied all over the world" without any substance to back it up. There is nothing that the BBC does that cannot be done by other providers, and paid for by subscription.

People that want and use the BBC could still have and use the BBC if they pay a subscription (of £15.00) every month for it. People that don't want or use should be allowed to opt out. It's not a 'public service', it hasn't been for years. I don't resent paying for public services, but I do resent paying for what I see as sub standard TV.

People that watch Freeview and BBC probably get more out of it than people that use Sky or the like, however even when I didn't have Sky I still wasn't interested in the BBC - I don't watch that much TV and the programmes I do choose to watch are not made by or shown on the BBC.

Like I said before, I'd happily pay 'a bit' for the parts of the licence that arent TV or Radio. But why should I pay the rest?

Well, if you're not going to read my posts, I shan't bother reposting my reasons . However you've not touched on them at all, quite interesting.

For the record - I'm an immigrant with pretty much zero emotional reaction to the BBC.

Does your definition of what it takes to be a 'public service' (ie it has to meet certain standards/you have to like it) extend beyond the arts and entertainment, out of interest?

I think plenty of publicly funded services are substandard. It doesn't stop them being public services, they're just public services I don't like or think are any good.

But why should I pay the rest?

Well, if I didn't give a shit about great crested newts I'd probably get pissed off about the public wildlife conservation budget.

That's sort of how taxation and public services work. It's not really pick and mix.

Jassy, I haven't ignored your reasons - I just don't agree with them . No-one has posted any reasons for the continuation of the TV License Fee that I feel explains or excuses it.

General taxes, how the money from my wages is spent by the government, doesn't have as much of a personal impact. I don't 'see it go' so if a halfpenny from that is spent on saving Great Crested Newts (which are fabulous btw), then it doesn't make as much impact as £15 a month that I have to sign up to pay - under protest.

I have repeatedly tried to explain that it is not as simple as a change to the law.

Blanche - I believe the BBC is governed by a royal charter, but this doesn't make the whole licence fee thing carved in granite like it was the Ten Commandments. I accept that the broadcasting infrastructure needs investment and someone has to pay... To say that MUST be done through the existing licence fee arrangements for all time is nonsense.

Some interesting stuff on here... But those who support the status quo seem to have two key faults in their position:

1. the view that it necessarily follows that a publicly BBC must be funded via the current licence fee arrangements, as the only alternative is advertising, Murdoch dominance and poor quality.

Would those who so intransigently support the idea also support a similar licence arrangements (as in "poll tax without any remission for the poorest" arrangements) for gas, telecoms, council services? I'd be very surprised if so. If not, why on earth is TV a special, unique, case.

2. why should someone who likes the BBC, as it is with all its many and varied services, and is prepared to pay the licence fee (believing it to be great value to boot), believe they have the right to expect everyone else who uses a TV to pay for this as well (not just the essential public service broadcasting elements, but everything, iplayer, all online content, the weather app, BBC food cookery tips etc etc)

Eve - from your posts, I'm still really unclear whether your problem is with a publicly funded broadcaster, or with the method of tax collection?

You can't have read any arguments from me on the continuation of the licence fee as it currently operates - I haven't made any!

As I've said - I'm not in favour of the the current tax allocation and collection model. I've posted extensively about why I'm in favour of a public broadcaster. I don't think the two are in any way indivisible.

Your post is a really good illustration of why the method of collection is such a clever PR trick by successive governments - it deflects any and all criticism away from them by making it 'special' and obvious, and psychologically distinct from other publicly funded services.

However, it's still a tax.

(I also am in favour of GCNs. But I know plenty of folk who don't give a shit about them, and would happily see people pay a subscription if they want them protected.)

By the way. I do love what the BBC produce and gladly pay the fee personally...

Jassy

I generally agree with your comments by and large... I just think it could be paid by general tax if protected from political interference via the Charter in the same way the licence fee is.

the view that it necessarily follows that a publicly BBC must be funded via the current licence fee arrangements, as the only alternative is advertising, Murdoch dominance and poor quality.

I think that's a massive misrepresentation. You're taking people's arguments in favour of a public sector broadcaster and applying them to the current licence fee model - which is conflating two distinct issues.

I find it curious that you've listed two completely privatised services in your list, though. What's the relevance?

2) why should someone who likes the BBC, as it is with all its many and varied services, and is prepared to pay the licence fee (believing it to be great value to boot), believe they have the right to expect everyone else who uses a TV to pay for this as well (not just the essential public service broadcasting elements, but everything, iplayer, all online content, the weather app, BBC food cookery tips etc etc)

Why should someone who likes the idea of a nuclear deterrent expect everyone else to pay for it, even if they don't like it or want it?

Pretending the licence fee isn't a tax (albeit a hypothecated tax on need of reform to make it more progressive) is a bit silly.

I generally agree with your comments by and large... I just think it could be paid by general tax if protected from political interference via the Charter in the same way the licence fee is.

I'm not sure, but I've been burnt by the Australian experience of the public broadcasters being funded from general taxation. Even in the absence of editorial interference, funding threats can be used as a de facto. Which is why I think there must be a middle way.

Flash - who is saying payment must be made via the existing model? I am not and don't think anyone else has argued against the need for change.

I'll restate it again: Because of what currently exists and MUST be covered when, not if, changes are made, it is not as simple as changing to a subscription model. Other facets of what currently exists need to be addressed. That is one of the reasons why the select committee that is looking at it right now cannot make immediate changes. It is a given that as they are governmental by nature it will take longer than strictly necessary.

I have stated all of that over and over again.

Anything else you have presumed has not been proposed by me. You seem to have taken an entrenched view and ignored anything I (and jesse) have actually said in favour of a somewhat mangled form, in order to make your point about general taxation being the right way to go. Another thing I have not disagreed with as I have no fixed idea of how it should be changed, other than change it must!

Apologies, Jassy. I seem to have a block on spelling your username

Oh, and Flash that is why I have not answered your questions I m not ignoring them, they just don't apply to how I view the BBC and its funding as I don't support the status quo. I just disagree with some of the viewpoints put across here.

No worries re username my own fault for having an odd one!

Jassy/Ourblanche - I wasn't suggesting that what I stated were your views... It's the throwaway comments from some who appear to say 'I love the BBC, I hate adverts, I'm happy to pay the licence fee, case closed'.

As for tax.... If the Government agree the scope of the licence fee and what it funds, then as a citizen, I accept the legality of that in the same way I accept that I must pay taxes to pay for things that I may not wish to support. I accept you can't pick and choose.... BUT I am within my rights in a democratic society to question and challenge the licence fee, it's basis and how it is used, specifically whether we should all have to pay a flat rate for all the things it currently funds. That's what I'm doing...

LtEve, why do you keep giving an exaggerated figure for what you're paying for the licence?