Page 8 | How long until the License Fee is dropped?

mumofoneAloneandwell · 2026-03-30T21:07:50+00:00

I reckon by the end of this year, it will begin being phased out. I am sad about it.

Changingplace · 02/04/2026 22:18

RhaenysRocks · 01/04/2026 11:34

The BBC is more than just BBC 1 and 2. Look on iplayer and sounds. There's nothing else like Radio 4 that I can find.

Or 6 music, I can’t deal with the repetitive boredom and irritating advertising on commercial radio stations.

ACynicalDad · 02/04/2026 22:21

I don’t think it’s sustainable, it will go eventually or the BBC will fail. The idea it must provide a bit for everyone made sense when it was the only platform now it’s just a behemoth. It should fill the gaps where commercial media isn’t viable. Add in news and dramas they can make profit from.

Denim4ever · 02/04/2026 22:26

Fiosgrass · 30/03/2026 22:21

The abolishment of the licence fee will be a massive loss?!

Show quote history

Abolition

Denim4ever · 02/04/2026 22:36

£180 - that's not many £50 shopping trips. Can't see what the fuss is about

WaryCrow · 02/04/2026 22:51

AntiqueBabyLoanSmurf · 02/04/2026 20:41

Other people may have a different interpreation of 'integrity / accuracy of information' from you...

But regardless of that, who is actually suggesting 'losing' the BBC? That's playing into their hands, really: them pushing the idea that, if the government doesn't force everybody to pay for them - or otherwise justify under threat of prosecution why they haven't paid for them - then they will cease to exist.

Channel 5 has managed to exist for the best part of 20 years and secured the necessary funding to do so - even making a decent profit into the bargain. Are you (and the BBC themselves) genuinely claiming that the mighty BBC isn't as business-competent, or have as good content that people will want to pay for, as Channel 5?

Show quote history

What they pay for is what they want to listen to. Alternatively, what billionaires pay for is what THEY want you to listen to, and believe. That is the path of authoritarianism, and if you want to see how it pans out go sign up to Musk’s X and the porn AI debacle, or Trumps Truth Social, and understand the meaning of misinformation.

WaryCrow · 02/04/2026 22:53

And the meaning of accuracy is not up for debate. Dont be ridiculous.

Tauranga · 03/04/2026 00:33

TightlyLacedCorset · 31/03/2026 00:56

When it is pushed by people within certain contexts it is 'left wing' agreed.

But people are complaining about just seeing or hearing presenters who use pronouns, or dress in clothes stereotypically associated with certain genders etc.

The point I am making is simply employing people to present on the radio or the news who chose to identify as Trans or dress gender alternatively is not automatically the BBC being 'left wing' neither does it mean those people are. It is employing people who, like it or not, make up the British population. As has been said, EVERYONE is compelled to pay the licence fee. So the BBC cannot jolly well not employ some of the people included in that demographic. Hosting a debate on what is a trending social issue also is not the BBC being left wing.

I strongly recall when all pro-gay conversation was perceived as 'left wing' but today no one would assume that merely featuring a gay person or a gay person presenting the radio or the news is automatically 'left wing' nor is say, debating gay marriage seens as strictly a left or right wing issue.

There has been an unwelcome and in my opinion a deliberate, strategy of focusing on identity which is highly emotive as opposed to the very critical problems of structural inequality, like class, the K economy, the deplorable situation where people are using food banks regularly, billionaires taking huge amounts of wealth the UK selling off vast amounts of it's assets abroad without scrutiny and the housing market being almost a rigged Ponzi scheme, the dangers of soft digital ID systems being implemented. The rise of cashless payment systems and so on.

The BBC the so called state broadcaster that supposedly serves all it's licence fee holders, addresses none of these things in any focused way, and in fact, has a disgusting record of perpetuating cycles of poverty by prosecuting overwhelming numbers of poor women, often immigrants or single parents or students who are less able to make a case for themselves, for not paying for the privilege of merely watching TV, whilst paying a few special people who work for it millions of pounds a year, which is why it's laughable that anyone calls it intrinsically left wing.

Debating trans issues is not left wing in and of itself. The debate is just being had. Has the BBC been partial or biased on the issue? Absolutely and it has been rightly called out on it. But the BBC is also biased on other topics, particularly when it comes to how it reports foreign conflicts for e.g. I find it to be pedalling towards the right increasingly and editing certain things when it wants to and leaving certain things in when it wants to. I honestly cannot watch it very much anymore. That's not to say it doesn't also produce great programming, it absolutely does. But I cannot choose what I pay for and that is the problem.

Edited

Show quote history

What a load of rubbish. There are such a minority of trans people that they should not be represented on TV at any point. Literally, a gaelic speaking granny would be employed before a man kidding on he is a woman in that case. Weird.

AntiqueBabyLoanSmurf · 03/04/2026 01:27

Changingplace · 02/04/2026 22:16

You’re not comparing like for like, Channel 5 secures funding through advertising - if the BBC did the same Channel 5 likely wouldn’t exist because the BBC has bigger viewing figures, advertisers would spend their money there instead.

So other broadcasters would go under, and it’d impact the UK media industry as a whole, which the government won’t want to happen.

Show quote history

So we agree, then, that the BBC has nothing whatsoever to fear from the removal of the licence fee as its funding method... and thus that the suggested scrapping of the licence fee and the potential loss of the BBC are two completely unrelated matters?

AntiqueBabyLoanSmurf · 03/04/2026 01:31

WaryCrow · 02/04/2026 22:51

What they pay for is what they want to listen to. Alternatively, what billionaires pay for is what THEY want you to listen to, and believe. That is the path of authoritarianism, and if you want to see how it pans out go sign up to Musk’s X and the porn AI debacle, or Trumps Truth Social, and understand the meaning of misinformation.

Show quote history

Who are the 'they' in the first sentence? Do you mean the licence fee-paying public - including those who never watch or listen to the BBC but are nevertheless forced to pay for it?

AntiqueBabyLoanSmurf · 03/04/2026 01:35

WaryCrow · 02/04/2026 22:53

And the meaning of accuracy is not up for debate. Dont be ridiculous.

I was trying to frame it in a tactful way, but what I was driving at was that I - and many, many other people - simply do not trust the BBC's version of 'accuracy' and their claims of impartiality in many, many areas.

moto748e · 03/04/2026 01:42

AntiqueBabyLoanSmurf · 03/04/2026 01:35

I was trying to frame it in a tactful way, but what I was driving at was that I - and many, many other people - simply do not trust the BBC's version of 'accuracy' and their claims of impartiality in many, many areas.

Show quote history

Agree, and I'm someone who has always supported the licence fee, on the basis that the BBC was broadly a force for good in the world. But lately, I feel that the BBC has lost the trust of the public, and frankly, deservedly so.

ProudAmberTurtle · 03/04/2026 07:38

Changingplace · 02/04/2026 22:16

You’re not comparing like for like, Channel 5 secures funding through advertising - if the BBC did the same Channel 5 likely wouldn’t exist because the BBC has bigger viewing figures, advertisers would spend their money there instead.

So other broadcasters would go under, and it’d impact the UK media industry as a whole, which the government won’t want to happen.

Show quote history

What a bizarre argument.

We must pay out of our money for the BBC because if we don't then an even worse private broadcaster that nobody watches will go under (even though they won't - Channel 5 offers unique and commercially attractive international content because of Paramount).

It also completely ignores the fact that the BBC competes commercially with Channel 5 already - the UKTV suite of channels like Dave, Gold etc all have advertising and are all owned by the BBC.

Surely the solution then is to get rid of both the licence fee and those BBC owned commercial channels?

EasternStandard · 03/04/2026 09:19

ProudAmberTurtle · 03/04/2026 07:38

What a bizarre argument.

We must pay out of our money for the BBC because if we don't then an even worse private broadcaster that nobody watches will go under (even though they won't - Channel 5 offers unique and commercially attractive international content because of Paramount).

It also completely ignores the fact that the BBC competes commercially with Channel 5 already - the UKTV suite of channels like Dave, Gold etc all have advertising and are all owned by the BBC.

Surely the solution then is to get rid of both the licence fee and those BBC owned commercial channels?

Show quote history

It is bizarre.