BBC Licence fee to be abolished in 2027

[knark]

Fucking Tories. Why do people vote for them? Why isn't there a viable opposition?

I would protest against this decision, but, oh, they've abolished that too.

This bunch of grasping bootleggers will sell all our grandmothers if they think there's a vote in it and a few quid for their mates. If you've bought into this claptrap about the terrible bbc then I despair.

@longwayoff

This bunch of grasping bootleggers will sell all our grandmothers if they think there's a vote in it and a few quid for their mates. If you've bought into this claptrap about the terrible bbc then I despair.

I despair that those who think the BBC is so marvellous can't understand that others don't ,there is so much choice these days ,the BBC really isn't the be all and end all that some posters seem to think it is ,in my opinion at least ,but that's the beauty of choice ,we can choose to watch the BBC or not.

@PolkadotsAndMoonbeams

with it's own sodding orchestra ... belongs about 40 years in the past.

The BBC provides employment to some fantastic British musicians and singers, and in return, the British public gets access to really high quality live music, very cheaply. You could go to some recordings (pre-covid) at Media City for free, and the BBC orchestra tours and recordings often have tickets at around £20, so it's much more accessible than other orchestras.

I think (and my job is firmly in the science area, so it isn't like I'm a musician) that having world class musicians is something a country should be pleased about! And the BBC means that more people can afford to be professional musicians. We can't all be accountants (although maybe the BBC does need some better ones of those!).

I'm sure it's all wonderful to those who care, but as someone who literally never watches BBC channels I fail to see why I should be paying £160 odd a year to fund such things so I am allowed to watch the odd bit of live sport on amazon prime.

You can argue whether the BBC should exist but I don't think you can argue the current funding model is in any way fair.

I think it's because in the past the BBC were the ones who maintained all the transmitters for all live television, and although it's different today the digital switchover stuff was paid for by the license fee.

Perhaps there should be a separate live television tax.

Your original post says only the BBC holds the government to account. I've countered that and you're now going 'what about public engagement, what about regional news', etc

No, my original post stated that there is no comparable media organisation that produces as much political analysis and invites public debate. I’m happy to hear of one. I added the regional news in later but that’s also something that would be lost with little commercial appetite to fill the gap.

And you can Google who owns Sky News, do you really need me to update you? confused

I can and have, just thought you might want to pad out your rather pithy reply with some facts alongside the contempt.

I’m not convinced one billionaire owner of a media empire being replaced by another billionaire owner of media empire is much better whatever their political leanings. It’s still a commercial news channel with the same vulnerabilities as any commercial endeavour.

Note that I’m not saying the BBC in its current form doesn’t have its own vulnerabilities but I don’t believe they will be resolved with removing the license fee. There’s not much evidence that’s the case for commercial channels currently. There is a line of accountability and recourse that disappears if the BBC is removed from public ownership.

Sky News is not going to cover local news.

The licence fee doesn’t actually go to the BBC. It goes to the government. The government then produces a grant, which goes to the BBC, S4C and C4.

I think there is a lot of dross on the beeb but also a lot of value in some of the children’s outputs, documentaries etc. I’ve been watching Chanel 4 news for a while because I hate the BBC’s insistence of having two contrary points of view even if one is utterly wrong and ridiculous. I also don’t care what Barbara from Stevenage thinks about a complex piece of legislation. I’d quite like an expert to explain it properly and analyse the implications.

People use tv very differently. Both my parents and in-laws will turn the BBC on for background. We’ll watch something specific on a streaming service. My in-laws got excited because frozen was on the tv and my kids couldn’t give a monkeys given they can watch it whenever they want on Disney plus.

Great news imo. Iplayer should become a subscription service like Netflix or prime and they can advertise like every other channel. Ridiculous that people are forced to pay a fee for channels they may never watch.

Okay we will be left with US and Korean drama and comedies with the only British stuff being a very occasional good show but nearly all dross. Look at ITV to get an idea of what we will get.

@Hemingwayzcatz so no BBC radio stations? No BBC4? No local news?

The population will become ever more ill educated and ignorant in the absence of the bbc with Murdoch and his media mates and minions churning out even more drivel. Look at today's newspapers, utterly shameless in supporting its friends in No 10, desperate to insist Keir's beer is the equivalent of the industrial quantities of booze shipped into No 10 for a perpetual series of knees ups. And the number of people desperate to persuade us suckers that they're exactly the same thing is worrying. Fortunately, the majority of the women of Mumsnet know a slimeball when they see one and mostly pay no attention.

I remember when March of the Penguins was lauded by the Americans I knew as an amazing nature documentary. It is good, but fairly standard fare for the BBC.
Go on holiday to places like the Galapagos, and the CDs they sell are of BBC documentary productions.
No one will replace what the BBC is doing. Quality costs. Easier and more profitable to do shows like Naked Attraction.

I think there is a lot of dross on the beeb

I don’t disagree but that’s part of their remit, they’re are meant to appeal to and represent all sections of the population so there will always be bits of the BBC that hold no interest whatsoever to individuals because it’s not designed to appeal wholly to one audience demographic.

People will complain after its gone.
When it is too late.

I am an outsider, so here's my take. In the US, we have listener supported NPR, and PBS, and they do a lot of good things. The quality of commercial television has gotten more and more creative in recent years. BBC productions are by no means measurably better than the most innovative shows created by HBO or Netflix or Amazon Prime. I absolutely love many of the things that BBC does. But that doesn't mean that it hasn't suffered intellectual capture by TRAs, and British subjects are forced to pay for that. And the worst part is that women have gone to JAIL for watching television. As wonderful as an institution as the BBC is, that is inexcusable to me.

The BBC is the biggest pile of dog toffee ever.
It's offerings are laughable.
I'm glad I threw my TV out years ago when it gave up and died over the rubbish it was forced to show.
EastEnders, the apprentice, strictly etc. Insulting to the average intelligence.
Then there's the spending of millions on salaries.
Not to mention their paedophile protection.
Then if that's not enough, they send thugs out to extort money from terrified people, and if they don't pay, they get fined and if they can't pay the fine, they end up in prison....what kind of civilised society jails someone for not having a TV licence!!!
Imagine, you're a young mum, struggling to make ends meet, you get hauled to court for not having a licence where you get fined.
Now this struggling young mum is even more desperate because she can't afford to pay the fine and get a TV licence, so it's off to prison you go.
Which costs the state a fortune in costs.
Her kids are inconsolable because mum has gone away and she's got a criminal record. Apparently that's called justice!
Despicable!

Amazing how the Daily Mail prints one tweet from Nadine Thick-As-Mince Dorries and everyone expects it to happen.

@ZenNudist

There is no need for a state broadcaster in todays world. Dh and I seriously considered deregistering from the licence fee but I watch the occasional live Facebook of church service and apparently that is covered by the licence fee (cheekily, nothing to do with BBC).

I can't justify the cost for one channel. No other broadcaster gets to tax the public.

I do like some BBC drama right now but we've had years and years of not using it at all and that's at least £1,000 down the drain.

The BBC is revered around the World. What a sad tin pot little country we're become.

@PrincessNutella

I am an outsider, so here's my take. In the US, we have listener supported NPR, and PBS, and they do a lot of good things. The quality of commercial television has gotten more and more creative in recent years. BBC productions are by no means measurably better than the most innovative shows created by HBO or Netflix or Amazon Prime. I absolutely love many of the things that BBC does. But that doesn't mean that it hasn't suffered intellectual capture by TRAs, and British subjects are forced to pay for that. And the worst part is that women have gone to JAIL for watching television. As wonderful as an institution as the BBC is, that is inexcusable to me.

As I say, many of the messages on here are pro-Trump Americans who will gladly empty their pockets for Fox TV or the latest schlock ‘muricans and expect the British to do the same.

British patriots will continue to support British television and radio.

@Cornettoninja

Your original post says only the BBC holds the government to account. I've countered that and you're now going 'what about public engagement, what about regional news', etc

No, my original post stated that there is no comparable media organisation that produces as much political analysis and invites public debate. I’m happy to hear of one. I added the regional news in later but that’s also something that would be lost with little commercial appetite to fill the gap.

And you can Google who owns Sky News, do you really need me to update you? confused

I can and have, just thought you might want to pad out your rather pithy reply with some facts alongside the contempt.

I’m not convinced one billionaire owner of a media empire being replaced by another billionaire owner of media empire is much better whatever their political leanings. It’s still a commercial news channel with the same vulnerabilities as any commercial endeavour.

Note that I’m not saying the BBC in its current form doesn’t have its own vulnerabilities but I don’t believe they will be resolved with removing the license fee. There’s not much evidence that’s the case for commercial channels currently. There is a line of accountability and recourse that disappears if the BBC is removed from public ownership.

The main point of your post was that only the BBC challenges the govt, which just isn't true.

You didn't even know who owns Sky News so maybe you should check your general knowledge before trying to get people to pad out their facts.

@sst1234

BBC is a symbol of Britain’s soft power. An invaluable asset in that’s sense. But in the last two decades or so, it has become increasingly partisan and left wing and quality of programming is shockingly bad. It turned itself into a dinosaur. A valuable lesson that public sector organizations fail to learn, time and time again.

Funny that, because although I love it, I most definitely don't see it as Left Wing. Witness political journalists kowtowing to the Govt & falling over themselves to interrupt any politician of a different colour.

@j712adrian

Amazing how the Daily Mail prints one tweet from Nadine Thick-As-Mince Dorries and everyone expects it to happen.

I agree this is Tory deflection and Nadine is an idiot, but think there is a bit more to it than a tweet:

The decision, confirmed by government sources, was briefed to the media as part of a range of measures designed to shore up public support for Boris Johnson after he has faced calls to resign as prime minister.

@PrincessNutella

I am an outsider, so here's my take. In the US, we have listener supported NPR, and PBS, and they do a lot of good things. The quality of commercial television has gotten more and more creative in recent years. BBC productions are by no means measurably better than the most innovative shows created by HBO or Netflix or Amazon Prime. I absolutely love many of the things that BBC does. But that doesn't mean that it hasn't suffered intellectual capture by TRAs, and British subjects are forced to pay for that. And the worst part is that women have gone to JAIL for watching television. As wonderful as an institution as the BBC is, that is inexcusable to me.

What is this quality commercial TV that has become more creative? The UK is a small island. We have a commercial TV station already - ITV.

Just because you can dip into the likes of Netflix or HBO or whatever for one series....now imagine that you have to keep producing that level of programming scheduling 24 x 7 x 365 and make some of it local but not affect the bottom line. They wouldn't be able to do it yet the BBC does.

But why does anyone need 24 x 7 x 365
Nobody I know (except my Grandad) watches TV like that, as in checking the TV guide and choosing from the list of what's currently on. Even my Grandma goes through to the bedroom and watches what she wants when she wants to watch it.

I don't think my children fully comprehend the concept of "live TV" and certainly wouldn't recognise the way my family used TV when I was their age in the 90s / 00s (which appears to be what many people are arguing for). It's ridiculous to think that over the next 5-10 years they'll be expected to pay for something SO outdated that they literally don't understand it - or the point in it.

There is SO MUCH media out there to consume anyone claiming "we're going to be left with ITV and reruns" is living in denial, or the past.

The whole "but where is the public engagement" argument I assume the pp is talking about Question Time. I think QT is probably one of the few things I miss about opting out of the BBC (and possibly The Apprentice) but lets not pretend it actually achieves anything other than a bit of entertainment and validation (or rage) that's forgotten about come Friday and can't be found by shouting into the void on Twitter or reading Youtube comments or participating in a MN thread.