To think it's a terrible idea to scrap the BBC licence fee?

[dellacucina]

Inspired by this article: www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1242927/BBC-News-Boris-Johnson-license-fee-subscription-British-Broadcasting-Corporation/amp

I'm recently naturalised and I think that the BBC is part of what makes Britain special. It makes me very sad indeed to imagine it being cut down.

I would totally prefer it to be a subscription service. I barely watch the TV as it is and think the BBC is a pile of shite with exception of some of the radio stations.

YABU for assuming that non commercial/publicly funded broadcasting means it is free from bias. The BBC news coverage has shown many times to favour a certain point of view.

So pleased people are finally questioning institutions like the BBC and NHS.

They have for years enjoyed a quasi religious status and even questioning them has been considered heretical. This has allowed them both to grow in scope and simultaneously to frequently fail to fulfill their core mission.

There is room for both taxpayer funded healthcare and public service broadcasting but exactly what their scope is, how they are funded and whom they are accountable to needs careful scrutiny and open and public debate.

Neither the NHS or the BBC are any longer regarded as a gold standard abroad.

@dellacucina I'd say that the Channel 4 equivalent to Panorama is Dispatches

www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/on-demand

But they also do some good quality documentaries like

www.channel4.com/programmes/the-battle-for-hong-kong

And dramas like

www.channel4.com/programmes/the-state

It depends on what floats your boat really.
It's hard to find the gems amongst the dross so I rely on word of mouth.

So pleased people are finally questioning institutions like the BBC and NHS.

Of all that I don't understand about the left, their characterisation of those who demand rationalisation of public spending budgets is the one I understand least. It's usually some combination of Trump/Daily Mail.

I expect there are a great many republicans on the thread who resent being told that the Royal Family is 'good for the country' and 'costs each of us only £1.24 a year' but are at the same time happy to say that the BBC is 'good for the country' and 'costs only £150 a year'.

People always cite local radio as flagship service. I live very rurally indeed and my one "local" BBC station has bugger all to do with where I actually live. There are though, 13 other local stations that actually do. On top of that, people also podcast music and local programmes. One of the most popular where I am is a retired farmer in his barn. Another is way out in the sticks but plays wonderful Northern Soul.

The whole way people listen to and make sound only broadcast has changed. If retired farmers know it, then the BBC should.

People always cite local radio as flagship service. I live very rurally indeed and my one "local" BBC station has bugger all to do with where I actually live.

I live in a city and our nearest BBC local radio is based around a city miles away and yes, there's usually very little of relevance to us at all, so it's not just rural areas poorly served.

Same with BBC regional TV - maybe one news item a week has any relevance to our city.

They're basically OK if you live in the same city, but once you're outside their immediate area, they're pretty irrelevant.

So pleased people are finally questioning institutions like the BBC and NHS.

Yes. Both need to be far more accountable. They get a very easy ride because they're regarded as some kind of religion that you're not allowed to question, but that status needs to stop. They should be fully answerable and they should have to justify their existence. Their "religion" status allows them to be inefficient and enables lower standards to become the norm.

They are London centric.

They tried to move a chunk to Salford but the ‘talent’ and extremely well paid off managers were having none of it. In 2013 the BBC spent £26,000 in taxis between London and Salford.

A drop in the ocean for them but will not create good will and definitely not in the spirit of public service.

So pleased people are finally questioning institutions like the BBC and NHS.

Thanks for confirmation that a slippery slope argument would be fair

I feel like I'm screaming into the wind here, but I PROMISE you that you do not want US style healthcare. Perhaps giving junior doctors reasonable working conditions and funding the NHS better could solve some of the problems with the NHS, rather than just complaining that it's not doing well enough. But I'm sure the Tories just wanted to privatise the lot.

People always cite local radio as flagship service. I live very rurally indeed and my one "local" BBC station has bugger all to do with where I actually live.

Exactly. Our local BBC Radio station is totally irrelevant to where I live - it's main base is a city two hours drive from here

If you break the cost of the license down per month it's half of what Sky costs. And for those who say they don't want to pay for what they don't use, that's a bit unrealistic isn't it? If you are supremely healthy, should you not be expected to pay for the NHS? I have no children so why should I be taxed to pay for schools? It's a horrendous argument and IMO the cause of a lot of what's going wrong with society today.

Della,

NHS is another thread but I will just post once.

There was recently an AIBU on just this and comments like yours predominated. However, many pointed out that there are a preponderance of models for healthcare and it is not US or UK (and, in addition, those with insurance in US said how much better it was than the UK,

A&E with 5 hour waits, people on drips in corridors, no GP appointments available for days, neglect of old people in overcrowded smelly wards etc etc. Not the envy of any of the 1st World. No slippery slope, just a cold hard look at the actual facts in the ground.

And the vote about how amazing the NHS still is, again about 2:1 against. The religious doctrine is failing.

People always cite local radio as flagship service. I live very rurally indeed and my one "local" BBC station has bugger all to do with where I actually live.

When I was stuck in traffic gridlock caused by floods in an unfamiliar area I tuned my car radio to the local station in the hope of some information/guidance (I was seriously considering checking into the nearest hotle I could find it was so bad). The BBC local station's programme was some bloke playing Elvis records.

BBC local radio consists of Alan Partridge sound-alikes playing lift music, pointless.

And for those who say they don't want to pay for what they don't use, that's a bit unrealistic isn't it? If you are supremely healthy, should you not be expected to pay for the NHS? I have no children so why should I be taxed to pay for schools? It's a horrendous argument and IMO the cause of a lot of what's going wrong with society today.

You can't compare education and health services with telly/radio surely?

@larrygrylls the NHS obviously has problems. They need to be fixed.

Yes, it is wonderful to be an American with good health insurance, but people regularly go bankrupt for medical bills there and many people with preexisting conditions can't get insurance. It's horrible. The model is completely broken unless you like a pay to play system where the poor are totally shafted.

Thing is OP, you value the BBC output - which is fine, if it become subscription only, you can choose to pay for it. But lots of people don't watch BBC output and I don't think its fair that they should be forced to pay.

Commercial sponsors (which typically would be large corporations) can decide to withdraw revenue if they don't like the content that is being aired

Trouble is so can governments, which is why the BBC can never expect their claims of impartiality to be taken seriously while they're dependent on ministerial approval

No doubt the licence was justifiable when we had only 3 or 4 channels, but in today's world of endless media choice it makes no sense at all ... time to move on

I also think the nhs / education comparison is moot. Regardless of whether you have children or not, at some point you have benefitted from free education. Whether you are healthy ir not, or have private healthcare or not, at some point you will have used the NHS or may have to use it.

Perhaps a fairer example might be the way in which we all fund and need free education, but the private schools - which only a tiny percentage of us use - are able to claim massive tax breaks. I don't agree with that either.

The BBC has paid millions in remuneration and settlements to a cosy club of senior people. They try to act like commercial providers for salaries but then demand special treatment on source of income.

I feel the BBC is part of British culture and I don't begrudge paying for it because we always have and we predominantly watch programmes on the been over other channels including Netflix and Amazon. We also listen to BBC radio stations and use their websites.

I feel the BBC is part of British culture and I don't begrudge paying for it because we always have and we predominantly watch programmes on the been over other channels including Netflix and Amazon. We also listen to BBC radio stations and use their websites.

Right. But why should others who don't watch/listen to the BBC be forced to pay for it?

@slashlover

Totally agree, it's state-run TV and they make the public pay for the privilege.

The BBC Tax is one I haven't wanted to pay for a long time. The BBC has lost faith with the people, the Jimmy Saville cover up, bloated salaries for so called "talent", use of production companies to conceal how much "stars" are actually being paid (on top of quoted salary), jobs for children and friends of friends, even their BAME programmes seem to give preference to independent school educated people. (yes, there are exceptions). I feel the news coverage is biased. They spend a fortune but the same stuff is trotted out all day on the main bulletins and I'm usually left with more questions than answers after a report. Fed up of presenters/reporters interviewing other reporters and repeating the same low quality information or glossing over difficult subjects (e.g. grooming gangs) but lots of time given over to promoting some red carpet event for a film (so much for not allowing advertising). Don't frighten the sheeple.

Programming isn't new or innovative. They churn out dross such as the sherrifs are coming, wanted down under, flog it, bargain hunt, animal park etc all day long. Utter crap that is then regurgitated (sold on at bargain basement prices) to various satellite channels.

I think the BBC is absolutely comparable to education and healthcare - , but if you like, how about municipal services? Who needs swimming pools or libraries? And living in the US as I do, even with good health insurance, I genuinely worry about being ill at some point and running up massive medical bills. Nothing is perfect, but I maintain that the BBC is a tremendous bargain for what people are charged for it, especially compared with subscription channels now.