Cancelling tv licence: stop funding misogyny

[Victoriapestis]

I do appreciate the recent panorama programme showed some progress in the BBC’s trans coverage. But overall my impresssion is that the BBC has sadly become an unbalanced, pro gender stereotype, misogynistic organisation that is actively damaging women’s rights, deliberately silencing gender critical voices, and thereby normalising oppressive and damaging behaviour. (I’m feeling cross.)

I feel very uncomfortable about the fact my payments are subsiding this and really want to stop. I would not fund pornhub, because of the damage it does, normalising stereotypes, etc, and similarly don’t want to fund the bbc.

So, has anyone else cancelled on this ground? Did you contact tv licensing to say why? And what hoops does one need to jump through?

You're making stuff up and being very wriggly.

You have accused me of wanting to bring down teh BBC because of call the midwife. You're the one who brought that prog onto the thread, I was simply pointing out what a shit example it was for your argument!

What are you waiting for now?

I can't see a question in your last couple of posts anywhere.

"Web of my own fiction" is good though I'll give you that

Glad that you have admitted that raising "Call the midwife" as a reason women should want the BBC was a shit example though, given what happened re abortion and them pandering to pro life zealots. And admitting that they showed bias.

Why the BBC only? Surely any misogynist organisation. That would include almost every industry you can think of. I fail to see the point of this action

BBC is a public service which is supposed to be unbiased, is what others on the thread have said in answer to this question. On the thread. Already. Which you would have seen it you'd read it, before coming in with your killer argument (and so looking a bit silly).

I think you're about the 4th person to make this argument

No the BBC is and always has been a government led and controlled broadcaster. The fact that BBC world service is funded by the foreign office is proof of this. It's not exactly news. I can take it as it is.

The fight against them is futile

So you're not going to admit that you didn't bother reading the thread then.

Your argument isn't with me, I'm not boycotting them.

No. My response is to the OP. Didn't realise I had to do personal responses

It's usual to read the thread on MN before commenting.

If you don't it is usual to write "Not RTFT" (read the fucking thread) to disclaim that you might be rehasing things already covered and understand you may come across clueless and arrognant (wading in without bothering to read the conversation),

It's only really OK to do that on really long threads - I don't know that I would do it on one this long (not mega long yet).

Thanks thread police. I am well aware. Your agression is noted

Goodness, I thought no one would be interested in this. But on sitting down with a cup of tea after a long day, I see they are.

So what I’m taking from this discussion is that the argument against cancelling is:

1. If enough women cancel their tv licence, the bbc will be broken up;
2. This will mean valuable services that appeal to a minority (such as S4C) will be lost;
3. We’ll be left with alternative news and entertainment services that will in many ways be equally biased, and potentially worse- a world of back to back Love Island;
4. Whereas if in fact the actions of a few women, in cancelling licences, have no effect whatsoever, cancelling your licence is completely pointless.

So, the counter argument is: cancelling your licence is at best pointless, at worse destructive.

This doesn’t work for me because, notwithstanding 1-4, I object to my money being spent on a service that I have moral objections to ( and yes, I complained about the Nic Williams thing, and got a disingenuous and I think dishonest response from the BBC, which is what pissed me off so much.) I think the influence the BBC wields is huge, and that brings responsibility: which has not been lived up to. Power without responsibility, etc.

And in terms of pointlessness, well I don’t spend money on meat - but am under no illusions that my decision will affect the meat industry. It’s a moral choice.

But in addition there are a whole lot of interesting and questionable issues hidden in 1 to 4, aren’t there? About compulsory subsidies of minority interests, freedom to ‘opt out’, the way the BBC makes money, the effect of alternative funding models, the way in which media responds to as opposed to creates social mores, etc etc.

Ultimately of course what will kill the BBC’s funding model is the existence of the subscription services. The writing is probably on the wall already. But I can’t see that anyone is under a social or moral duty to give money to an organisation they think is failing to exercise responsibility and influence properly, acting dishonestly, and damaging women’s interests by marginalising gender critical views.

Well said OP

S4C
That's not due to be funded by the licence fee until 2022, right now it uses advertising and government money (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport). It does get 6 million for programming made by BBC wales though, which is basically 10 hours a week free content.

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport would probably take over BBC Parliament, news, and maybe sport and if the licence fee was scrapped.

Agree OP. Thread went really odd! I am a natural BBC supporter and hate the state the BBC has got into, dumbed down, chasing popularity and more misogynist than ever. And completely unaccountable. It just sounds sensible (and necessary) to use spending power to achieve what regulations and laws should do but don't, re the BBC?

Its easy to say just don't pay the BBC and ignore if you don't like it but if affects all broadcast TV, even sport streamed online if it is also broadcast on a TV channel. .Its just too damned restrictive and so much worse since the regs changed. There is no choice. Have it come from central tax if needs be, but don't pretend there is any real choice here. If it were a relationship, most would be saying "LTB", you shouldn't just put up with this better the devil you know.

My DH is ill and following a couple of sports is one of the few things keeping his spirits up, and yet if he and we don't want to support the BBC, even if we watched no other TV at all, not Netflix, not catch up TV not anything, he could not even watch sport streamed live over the computer from a dedicated sports (only) broadcaster without needing to pay the BBC. Its far too restrictive. I would also miss the occasional live TV prog, and its hard on kids to have to miss out on what their friends might watch in the evening.

Pretty much all of us enjoy TV and have come to rely on it maybe more than we might like to admit. Its not an easy sacrifice to make so obviously I want the sacrifice to mean something and make a difference, and then we can have the BBC and normal TV life back again. I make ethical shopping choices all the time but the benefits are more tangible even if happening across the world somewhere, and I don't want to be a martyr to going without all live TV ever just to feel personally righteous whilst being a mere drop in the ocean.

So why wouldn't anyone publicise their idea and try to gain support? (FPFW Tanith?!) Which here is to address the Beeb's misogyny and help women out BTW, not to destroy the BBC for no good reason.

I find it strange that a poster on a women's rights forum would object to anyone wanting to raise some support for what they think will help women. I'm happy to debate pros and cons, repercussions, unintended consequences etc, but to be called 'overinvested' , and dismissed as a silly ineffective waste of time just sounds like the things some men say to women who talk about sexism and women's rights. Lets all just give in now shall we? Er, no!

OP VictoriaPestis says it all much more eloquently :)

And Channel 4 is publically owned but commercially funded and has a social mandate in law to "Be innovative and distinctive
Stimulate public debate on contemporary issues
Reflect cultural diversity of the UK
Champion alternative points of view
Inspire change in people's lives
Nurture new and existing talent" etc, etc.

If needs be the BBC could follow this model and have the mandate of keeping the World Service, and making loss-making high brow progs, or whatever it is supposed to do (but doesn't - looking at you Panorama and Breakfast News) that is supposedly commercially unviable. But whatever the alternatives, I personally am happy to keep the BBC funded by a legal obligation to pay the licence fee but IF an only if, it is truly accountable to the public.

Funny enough Tommy Robinson has started a campaign for people to cancel their licence after his panodrama scoop.
( Check it out on YT)
Perhaps if they are pissing off everybody here as well as Tommy Robinson and his supporters, they are more even-handed than we know.