To think they should reduce the size of the BBC and cut the license fee?

[bluewedge]

I think BBC 4 is great for example... but would those shows not have fitted on BBC 2 in previous years...

I worked at the BBC until a couple of years ago. It’s one of the most inefficient places I have ever worked in. Loads of highly laid people doing very little, terrible processes, money spent like water. The place will never change, it’s unable to change, leadership is just woeful

I sometimes think a lot of the supportive posts are by BBC staffers-and there are plenty of them with plenty of time on their hands to do so.

Nope. I genuinely like some of what the BBC has to offer. I like the fact that there is an eclectic mix of programmes, not just drama and films.

I'm not arguing for or against the TV licence as I would be happy to pay for the BBC regardless of what model they choose. I just get frustrated by people who say that the BBC never, ever has anything worth watching - usually by people who watch programmes originally made by the BBC that are now on Netflix.

It's like paying a set price for a buffet I suppose. I won't like everything there is to offer, but will partake of more of the things I do like.

The BBC shouldn't get into bidding wars against other free-to-air operators (I'm calling the BBC an FTA operator here even though that's not strictly correct).

If the BBC makes a programme that becomes successful it should sell it off to a commercial broadcaster. This would allow them to still take risks with new programmes but mean "big" shows like Strictly Come Dancing or Mrs Brown's Boys or Michael Fucking Mcintyre, the lowest common denominator stuff, can be flogged to ITV or Sky. This would create a double bonus for the BBC, income from the sale plus decrease in presenters' salaries. The BBC used to make a big claim of being there to make television that wouldn't work on the commercial model, that's what it should continue to do.

The BBC News Channel and BBC Parliament should continue, as should the online presence. It would be nice if the news could become a little more impartial, the bias is becoming more evident over time. (Or maybe as I get older I'm just better at noticing it.)

Don't the BBC sell many of their programmes anyway? I wouldn't care if they sold the aforementioned shows, especially if it allows them to make "riskier" programmes.

I don't understand why I don't notice the political bias. I do tend to not watch anything political though.

@contrmary

The BBC shouldn't get into bidding wars against other free-to-air operators (I'm calling the BBC an FTA operator here even though that's not strictly correct).

If the BBC makes a programme that becomes successful it should sell it off to a commercial broadcaster. This would allow them to still take risks with new programmes but mean "big" shows like Strictly Come Dancing or Mrs Brown's Boys or Michael Fucking Mcintyre, the lowest common denominator stuff, can be flogged to ITV or Sky. This would create a double bonus for the BBC, income from the sale plus decrease in presenters' salaries. The BBC used to make a big claim of being there to make television that wouldn't work on the commercial model, that's what it should continue to do.

The BBC News Channel and BBC Parliament should continue, as should the online presence. It would be nice if the news could become a little more impartial, the bias is becoming more evident over time. (Or maybe as I get older I'm just better at noticing it.)

why should the BBC do that. They have created these shows. They have made them massive - why should ITV reap the dividends of this? The BBC belongs to the licence fee payer and so does Strictly. Our licence fee pays for the show and in return we get to watch it without adverts on a Saturday night.

A lot of programmes aren't actually made by the BBC anymore anyway - loads are made by outside production companies that then use the BBC to make their programme successful and then go off to Channel 4 for a larger fee - Bake Off a good example of this.

The BBC has already been part privatised by stealth. A bit like what is happening to the NHS, private providers providing services but under the NHS banner.

I think the licence fee is worth it for radio 2 and match of the day.
They could cover the free over 75s by ditching their Glastonbury coverage. Nobody cares, apart from those that are actually there.

I pay it for R4 and R6

I rely on them during the day and ok to pay the fee to get them
(Even though you don’t have to)

I can assure you I don't work for the BBC ! But we do watch a lot of their programmes. CBBC especially. My husband likes the crime/thriller stuff (Killing Eve etc). I like things like Countryfile. There are many programmes on there I dislike and would never watch but that's the same for any TV channel.

@Janaih

I think the licence fee is worth it for radio 2 and match of the day. They could cover the free over 75s by ditching their Glastonbury coverage. Nobody cares, apart from those that are actually there.

Actually I really enjoy their Glastonbury coverage and so do lots of viewers who like to watch the bands and not get caked in mud. I’m not fussed about football but I don’t begrudge those who are. The problem here is the vastly different nature of the BBC’s output means that people who watch it for one type of program stumbling over something different and being annoyed that it’s not for them, compared to other channels whose output is very similar. I might not like everything that the BBC cover but I like that it has variety.

I listen to Glastonbury rather than watch it usually but I really enjoy it. R6 did a throwback this time was quite moving hearing it.

It's like paying a set price for a buffet I suppose. I won't like everything there is to offer, but will partake of more of the things I do like.

But the difference is that those people who dont want to go to the restaurant or eat anything from the buffet still have to pay for it.

Ok I concede some people like to watch/listen to Glastonbury. But their budget for it is vastly out of proportion. It needs to be trimmed. Ditto podcasts.

I think the licence fee is worth it still... but that opinion is hanging on by a thread. I've been shocked at how highly politicised issues are presented as accepted fact on the children's channels. I think it's outrageous that the over 75s free licence is being removed at a time when loneliness and isolation in our ageing population is becoming a pressing issue. I think there is too much poor programming arising from the chasing of ratings - something a broadcaster funded by a tax and a public service mandate should never do.

But there is, still, lots of fabulous stuff to watch and listen to!

Actually I really enjoy their Glastonbury coverage and so do lots of viewers who like to watch the bands and not get caked in mud.

I would far rather watch Glastonbury from the comfort of my settee than be crushed in a crowd, covered in mud, and hating the loos

I don't disagree with your point melj1213. The analogy was me justifying why I like the BBC.

Channel 4 used to show Glastonbury.

Radio 4 (rebranded The Home Service)
CBeebies
CBBC
BBC News Channel
The World Service
BBC Online

And a TV channel cherrypicking the best bits of BBC 1/2/3/4 that probably wouldn't work on commercial tv...

Not sure we need much more than Radio 4, The World Service & the kids channel these days...

I must admit that people who say they never watch any BBC output whatsoever mystify me. Do they never watch comedy, music, sport, films, documentaries, David Attenborough, travel shows, drama, crime drama, cookery shows, other lifestyle TV, news, quiz shows, soaps, reality TV, children's TV, educational programmes, religion, wildlife programmes, big events?

Which of those categories are only on BBC?

I watch maybe one or two BBC drama series a year. Probably less than five hours of BBC documentaries per year. I do turn on BBC 24-hour news fairly frequently, but seldom pay any attention to it once it's on. It's only better than Sky News in the sense that I don't have to put up with irritating adverts, if it weren't for that I'd probably watch Sky. Per hour of viewing, I think the BBC works out considerably more expensive for me than Sky, or BT Sport, or Netflix.

If the licence fee were a voluntary subscription, and I wanted to save money, then I think I would drop BBC before I dropped Sky, BT Sport or Netflix.

(I don't watch that much Neflix myself, but DW watches hours of non-English content on it every day.)

It should be a subscription service. Those who think it’s worth every penny can pay for it.

And yes, it’s grossly inefficient- people always are with other people’s money.

The only BBC service I ever use is BBC News online. Don’t watch TV much (and when I do it’s not BBC), don’t listen to radio. They concentrate too much on sport, children’s TV and ITV competition.

The end of the licence fee can’t come soon enough for me. I’d subscribe to the bits I use - but there’s too much that is of no interest or relevance. And the local provision is awful (and mainly about sport)

We hardly watch anything on BBC except Peaky Blinders, Casualty and Line of Duty. We never listen to BBC Radio. There are far too many overpaid people such as Gary Lineker who is awful. Charlie in Casualty is the highest paid actor he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag.

Agree. So many threads on here and everywhere else advising people when they are struggling to cut out the luxurys. The first things people say is sky netflix. Why is the tv license classed as essential when its not. It a luxury and should be a choice

I watch top gear , news, strictly , killing eve, David Attenborough documentaries, death in paradise , Glastonbury , pearly blinders probably more , I also listen to bbc radio because I hate adverts on the radio . I they should get rid of all the overpaid presenters