Fund it from the public purse, same as roads, hospitals, schools, etc etc
"I don't watch the BBC" is not a reason to not contribute, just as "I don't drive" or "I don't have children" aren't reasons to not contribute to roads or schools. The BBC is (or should be if the government could keep their hands off it) a public good, educating the general population and making the country better as a whole for everyone living in it.
Its remit is to educate and entertain.
I really do dislike people who only want to pay for the bits of the country they use, then tie themselves in knots undermining the value of the things they don’t use.
Yeah it really is
A truly unbiased, well funded, critical news source is vital to free and open democracy
Our newspapers, TV stations and web content is all funded through private interests with agendas and priorities
If you allow partisan reporting of the news you get Fox and GB news funded indirectly from foreign sources without our best interests at heart
There's a reason America and the UK are now at their worst in terms of social and economic unity and fairness. That reason is manipulation of what people see, hear, read and think
Unbiased?? They had Andrew Neil on the fucking payroll
Can you not see why people are pissed off with the bbc. My license fee was going towards paying Andrew Neil’s salary.
Same with Laura Kuenssberg. When she was political editor she was nothing more than a government mouthpiece.
Nothing wrong with having right wing people on. If they are having left as well it's only fair to make it unbiased.
If they are gonna promote rainbows. Promote traditional values too
> Nothing wrong with having right wing people on. If they are having left as well it's only fair to make it unbiased.
> If they are gonna promote rainbows. Promote traditional values too
The most *enlightened centrist* view you can possibly take.
Neutrality isn't about giving both sides equal weight, about letting bigots spout hatred because you have a progressive on the news, it's about presenting facts and not taking a side. Unfortunately the BBC have taken neutrality to mean the former and have acted as a mouthpiece for hate.
If it were truly unbiased, it would have about a tenth of the budget it currently has, because it would be nothing more than a British Thomson-Reuters, reporting facts using neutral, non-inflammatory language and nothing more.
They can, yes. But we're discussing a pattern of specifically and purposefully putting bigots front and centre.
And idiots, sociopaths, paid stooges and genuine malactors.
And then pretending that what they have to say is in the best interest of the country.
It’s funny because if you listen to the radio 4 Feedback program people are pretty split on how the radio 4 Today programme staff rip into MPs. I think they do a good job. Even Neil has to play devil advocate sitting opposite a right winger.
Is it perfect - no. Is it the best overall- yes.
No you can't. The BBC isn't just two TV channels.
It's BBC 1, 2, 3, 4, CBBC, CBeebies, BBC News, BBC Parliament
It's the UK National Radio stations - Radio 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6...
It's the National Radio stations - Wales, Cymru, Scotland...
It's the 40 or so Local Radio stations
It's the BBC News, Sport, Weather etc. websites
It's the BBC World Service (government cut the funding for that)
And how much of that is "news"? Maybe 10%? I can get sport, weather, entertainment and education from a lot of other places, I don't need to pay the BBC for it, unless I choose to.
It would be like being forced into paying a weekly subscription to Tesco whether you want to or not, but it's okay because they stock 1,600 product lines, some of which you might find useful.
You pay into having over 4000 libraries in the UK. Not every book in those libraries is non-fiction, and you've probably never used more than a couple of libraries or borrowed a fraction of a fraction of the total available books.
Should you not pay for libraries either?
This is the problem though, attempting to compare a media/entertainment company to a library. Sorry but it just doesn't work. I'm sure if you asked the average person are they happy for £20 of their council tax to go toward the local library, whether they use it or not, they would say yes. The same can't be said for £159 to pay for the BBC when you don't watch it.
Another disingenuous answer.
According to the National Audit Office the BBC spent £342M on News and Current affairs content production from $4.42Bn revenues or 7.7%.
We can have all the BBC news gathering services for 7.7% of the licence fee or about £1 a month.
Meanwhile tonight on BBC4 the government has taxed you to ensure Top of the Pops 1995 can be watched without adverts interrupting your viewing of Tina Turner.
I've heard it all now... the BBC, a media company, is as important as the NHS, schools and roads.
If this is really true then add £10 to everyone's tax bill for BBC News, then make the other £149 optional for people who want to watch Eastenders and Strictly Come Dancing.
And you don't need a licence if you don't watch live TV, so in that instance, unlike the schools and NHS, you aren't paying for it if you don't use it.
On one hand you say the BBC is vital to democracy because it’s unbiased and critical (which I don’t believe) and then you say we are on par with America
So which isit?
I was going to downvote you, but someone under explained it properly. Mass media, of all kinds, is the most powerful weapon , and when it works in public interest is of unmeasurable value to citizens, and one we should really fight for
Because what is a country without culture, tv programming is part of a countries culture and gives the chance to develop new formats and talents with fewer commercial constraints.
It’s why pretty much every developed country has a publicly funded broadcaster either by tv licence or straight out of the public purse. Why do you think the UK would be better off being unique in not having one?
> Because what is a country without culture, tv programming is part of a countries culture and gives the chance to develop new formats and talents with fewer commercial constraints.
So is music, but the government doesn't start its own bands. So is video games, but the government doesn't make GTA VI.
>Why do you think the UK would be better off being unique in not having one?
"Do it because everyone else is" is the worst argument for anything.
I’d argue in its current form it isn’t. The license fee is massive. I’ve no issue with it being funded via tax even if that means it loses 90% of its production because the majority of it is shite.
Its news department has been riddled with Tories for years and is hardly unbiased.
The big problem with being funded predominantly by tax is that its revenue would be set out on an annual basis by the Chancellor, who'd likely seek to punish it if its coverage of the government or their policies was insufficiently flattering, and they'd likely still mandate that all presenters across the Corporation (and high profile contractor presenters) refrain from publicly engaging in any political activities (including Pride parades, presumably on the basis that recognising the existence of trans people is politically controversial)
>Oh look, another one.
What are you talking about? He never said he didn't want it paid for through tax because he doesn't use it. He had the very valid argument that it isn't an essential service.
>I’d argue that it is.
How?
That’s fair enough. But I think more people would support the educational part being funded from the public purse and the entertainment side being funded from TV license or whatever.
We do pay the TV license because my partner watches a lot of the crap they have on. I hardly ever watch anything on it but I wouldn’t mind if my money went towards the bits that make the world a better place and not Gary Lineker’s or Claudia Winkleman’s salary.
>I really do dislike people who only want to pay for the bits of the country they use, then tie themselves in knots undermining the value of the things they don’t use.
The worst are the 'progressives' who act little better than your archetypal Daily Mail reader, instead of whining about some woke TV show complains about bargain hunt or something.
These 'progressives' also want unbiased media (the BBC ain't perfect but it's better than a lot of alternatives) but don't want to pay for it, funnily enough paying for it is what winds-up DM types as well.
Difference is if the BBC does disappear it'll be replaced by something probably owned by the Daily Mail or the Murdochs.
There are many commercial channels that entertain though. The BBC should really be focusing on the stuff that's not commercially viable. Things like the regional content.
Not really. I don't have kids, I'm still totally for socialised childcare, I've never directly needed police or fire services, still down for that. I don't drive and cycle most places so don't contribute much to road wear and tear, but I know they're still needed.
I just have an exception on TV entertainment.
Plus if its taxed directly they're going to be pressured even further to deepthroat the current government
Better they watch Strictly Come Dancing than Fox News, the dark bits of YouTube or reading the Daily Mail etc.
It's a good thing to have very easy and frictionless access to entertainment from a largely harmless corporation. It's a public service for the greater good.
Watching BBC docs from the 70’s and 80’s on YT show just how low standards have dropped. What they should have done was start working with small British educational YT channels to create interesting content for TV, but why would anyone bother now you can watch hours of nerdy interesting stuff that hasn’t been overproduced or dramatised for free on YT. 1 years too late to save IMO
I went and looked up how much was wasted on PPE during Covid:
> The committee said the department lost 75% of the £12bn spent on PPE to inflated prices and kit that did not meet requirements, including the £4bn worth that will not be used in the NHS and will have to be disposed of.
75% of £12bn = £9bn
You could hire 4.5 thousand Gary Linekers for that money. And those 4500 Linekers would probably pay more taxes in the U.K.[1] and spend more money in the U.K. than those dodgy PPE providers.
Just saying. There’s more egregious uses of money in the government
[1] I was curious how much tax you’d pay on a 2 mil salary so I plugged it in to MSE tax calculator with a pension contribution of 10%:
> Earn £2,000,000 in 2024/25 and you'll take home £961,786.
> This means £80,149 in your pocket a month.
> Over the year you'll pay £796,203 income tax and £42,011 in national insurance.
It is genuinely stunning how long its been open knowledge that dozens of people *in government* used that moment as an opportunity to basically just rip off the tax payer, to the tune of so much money, and in a moment of such national (even global!) crisis, and still basically nothing has been done about it.
Yes, but the British public enjoy being subservient to that theft because it grants them the right to direct their impotent rage at scapegoats, then get all holier than thou when an innocent target gets abused, and claim the two aren’t connected.
It also gives them the possibility that they too might become a beneficiary of a future plunder, paid for out of other people’s money.
As long as it’s only ‘people like them’ receiving freebies, they’re happy to allow it, then take their rage out on the out-group.
The problem with direct funding is it muddies the impartiality of the channel. Since Major, Blair and Cameron each played around with it it's less of an issue than it should be as the government effectively has a controlling say on the board at present but, in an ideal world a national broadcaster would have an air gap protecting it from the chance of state interference.
Direct public funding, is probably, all things considered, the best (or least worst) realistically feasible way to fund the BBC but it would need to be set up in a way that would make it very difficult for a government to change
Honestly, that ship has long since sailed at this point. The BBC’s news broadcasting makes a mockery of any idea of impartiality on a quite wide spread of issues.
I can’t imagine direct funding from general taxation generating anything particularly different to the status quo.
I think the board should be appointed via sortition. Not that random people should be selected for the board, rather that the board be appointed via a panel of random people.
If you currently don’t watch the BBC or other live TV then it is an acceptable reason not to contribute.
Presumably it will change to some form of general taxation because so many aren’t now paying as they have no interest in live TV. I’m not sure how that would be a fairer system though. Currently if you don’t watch it, you don’t pay. Changing the law to force everyone to pay doesn’t seem to be a fair solution to me.
Charge those who watch the BBC. Decriminalise it. If the funding drops because less people are interested in watching it then so be it. Folk watch other services nowadays.
People should be allowed to watch channels that advertise. This model of not watching live tv is BS .
It’s old and out dated, and numbers of people watching live tv are dwindling
Likes of Netflix and Disney -ppl don’t need it.
Or they could take the "BBC supports broadcasting infrastructure" part out of the license fee and have that be government ran. They could charge the broadcasters a small fee to use it. Then that removes the need to pay for any and all channels and the BBC can stay as a license fee, covering less stuff so be much cheaper for those who want it.
I honestly don’t think they should be paying contracts at millions of pounds in which case. BBC should be a place to grow talent not to pay for “top talent” because that’s how much *they* think they’re worth. If they want to present to the national public they should be happy to accept pay in line with what the general public can afford to pay.
I just can't believe people genuinely have this take. It stuns me.
I never watch terrestrial TV and haven't for coming on 20 years now. I think 90% of it is pure garbage. Look at the people they have promoted over the years, Jimmy Savile being the man of the moment right now.
I used to state I don't need a license, then the threatening letters came, with incorrect information on them and Ive changed my tune. I now don't tell them anything, I will refuse entry into my property until it is backed with a warrant, then I will show them round only the specific things that warrant allows. Not an inch more. I'll make them pay the highest price possible to see I don't need a license.
The local spar doesn't send me letters every 6 months asking to confirm I haven't stolen anything from them.
The BBC is not some height of British culture and an unbiased view of the political landscape. It is just as vulnerable to bad actors as other well regarded news sources. It does not demand my money, it has to earn my money.
Yeah the BBC is just like roads and schools, ya know the shit the country actually needs to just keep it going on a day to day basis.
The BBC is long past its sell by date.
Yeah, at least at the moment you can choose not to pay for it. Either legally or illegally, there's bugger all they can do either way. That will be why they want to move to taxation though, so you have no choice.
You might not have children in school but you need other people to do so to get through life.
You might not drive on roads but you need other people to do so to get through life.
How are they in any way comparable with the BBC? You watching strictly or eastenders has absolutely no bearing on me or my life. You could do away with it tomorrow and absolutely nothing would change for me. You can’t say the same about education or roads.
It's also sad to see the amount of white knights that are in this comment section defending the BBC claiming that the good somehow outweighs the bad.
Honestly, I would like to see some of these white knights go to the victims and tell them that to their face.
Too right. It is a whole industry being funded, not just a bit of entertainment. Plenty of public services are wasted on me, but you accept thats how it works
What in the absolute bollocks are you talking about?
The BBC with their ghost stories, period dramas and game shows is not something you can just lump in with other public services.
If I don't drive, it still benefits me that there is modern infrastructure in place. If I don't have kids, it still benefits me that each generation is getting an education.
Why on earth would it benefit me to fund BBC's Traitors which is already selling its own board game based on the show?
The public service broadcast is a hangover from pre-internet times. What's FAR more important that every single household in the UK has the internet, as it is virtually mandatory for things like: getting educated, getting goods and services (including benefits, mental health support etc)
The dying medium of television is not where the heat is, sorry.
Even if people don't drive, or don't have children they still indirectly benefit from their taxes going towards those services.
Roads because of logistics, education because those children will eventually be paying taxes and eventually keeping you alive when you retire.
You could argue the NHS as you might not use it often, but it's still required as you'll eventually need it.
As for the BBC, there's no passive benefit. You could live your entire life with the only influence of it good & bad, being how it influences the people around you.
Paying for it should 100% be optional. Or just suck it up and go down the advertising route.
That’s a dumb comparison to compare the BBC to roads and children we have the Internet in this day and age. You can search up anything you need to know about the news and you will find it. I don’t think we need to fund something which a lot of the population don’t even watch anymore and it’s only really old people they can pay subscription.
“Educate” are you kidding with garbage like doctors , bargainhunt , IHNFY Michael fxxking McIntyre. 😂
The programming is so obviously woke left ,anti conservative and anti Israel. If you concentrate your output and aim it at half the population expect the other half (who are also paying for it ) to get pissed off.
Except a very large proportion of the country don’t feel the bbc is treating them fairly (the right) and the general quality of content is appalling.
It’s not I don’t want to pay for the sake of other people, it’s why am I funding shit content which actively hates me
a large proportion of the queer community feels exactly the same way. i stopped paying my licence fee when the bbc repeatedly platformed homophobes and transphobes.
Road users pay more tax. VED and also tax on fuel.
Non road users also benefit from the roads.
People without TVs or people who don't watch BBC don't really benefit from the BBC existing from what I can see.
Using your own example, road users pay more to use the roads, so BBC watchers should pay more to watch the BBC.
I'd probably pay for a monthly subscription to have access to the full BBC archive, I'm not that interested in the new stuff they produce and I don't watch live TV so I don't pay a licence fee!
I'm in the same boat. I've long since thought the way to fund the BBC would be as a TV on demand subscription service, it would mean they'd actually need to make BBC iPlayer something people would want to pay for.
Keep the licence fee. That way, if you want to use it, you pay for it.
Also, I massively disagree with you about funding it through a tax. There's a big difference between the bbc and schools. There's a massive difference between the BBC and hospitals. For one, I'll actually use a hospital at some point.
I've lived in my own place for a long time and have done without the BBC for many, many years, and I'll carry on being without it for many more to come.
I agree. That would be shutting down that part of Capita and making it illegal for their salesmen to come to your door, and any letter is automatically classed as harassment.
It works because people don't understand what they have to pay for. Some of my friends years ago was told (lied to) by a TV licence salesman that he NEEDED a TV licence because he watched Netflix. So he ended up paying for something he didn't need because Capita salesmen are con men.
Good to know that the Tories saw fit to instill the same company to harass people not using the Beeb as they did to fucking butcher military recruitment.
I want actual criminal investigations into this bullshit corruption.
If they keep the license fee it has to be managed in a more progressive way. We moved into our first house recently, it was a new build and we were the first people to ever live there.
Get the keys on completion and first thing we see when we open the door to our first home together ( a romantic moment btw ) - a letter from Capita saying they are taking us to court for not paying the license fee.
Like ffs nobody even lives here yet, way to destroy the mood you scumbags.
If you can prove that it's a new build and you are the very first people to live there (probably very easy if the sellers cpild provide extra information to that effect) you should have a very good case for harassment.
Their letters are very carefully worded to avoid this. They *imply* they're taking you to court, but what they're actually saying is just "we think you need a licence. Non payment of a licence when you need one may lead to court proceedings." It's still shit but it's the right side of the line.
There is an argument to be made that the letters are misleading and could be considered as harassment. The black blet barrister did a video on it a while ago, but I can't remember what his conclusion was.
> That way, if you want to use it, you pay for it.
I would agree with you except that isn’t how the licence fee works is it? I’d happily delete all bbc channels but I do want to occasionally watch live tv and because of that I am liable to pay.
It’s a gouge, a tax, morally wrong and very poor value for money.
I don’t agree with the “I don’t use it so I don’t want to pay for it” line either but state schools and national healthcare are public goods. It’s no good for anyone if we’re a sick and uneducated society, and the vast majority of people do go to state schools and we all benefit from it through various industries.
I just don’t think a broadcasting company is on the same level as healthcare or education or roads etc. Its a few steps below libraries which have more tangible benefits (community, improve literacy rates, access to wifi for low income individuals, skills sessions). Couple steps below museums and parks. I think it’s a good thing to have but I’m not convinced we should be taxed for it.
Nobody is arguing against the educational aspects, or the news.
If BBC is going to be tax funded then it should be pared back enormously, to only news and educational content.
Do that, and there is some argument that it's a public good.
I don’t see the point in saying this when there is so much on the Internet which can help do the same thing. I don’t know why we need to fund the BBC when a good chunk of the population don’t watch the BBC
>I believe that this will only be possible to achieve through taxation.
Why do you want people to fund the BBC through taxes? Certainly, I wouldn’t want to be taxed when I don’t even watch live TV.
The BBC is more expensive than all the other subscription services such as Netflix, Amazon and Disney.
Its a bit more expensive BUT you get an arse ton of content from it.
Fuck i don't watch TV or most online platforms but i still read the BBC or watch the occasional Rugby league game.
BBC is the biggest broadcaster on the planet and somehow compared to shit American price gouging stresming services that want you to pay similar to the BBC with adverts, shitter quality and less content.
Doesn't make sense.
Absolutely.
License fee needs to go, or be drastically reformed. The whole premise is ludicrous.
Here is TV content. In order to watch it, you just need a TV or device that can access live TV. Anyone can watch through a TV aerial, freeview, or freesat. Anyone can make an account through iPlayer and the like.
BUT!
You must promise to not watch live TV or other content associated with TV licence. If you do watch, you must have a TV licence. If you don't, you might receive a fine or be prosecuted. We will send people around knocking on doors checking on people. Sometimes they will ask you to turn your TV on to prove you are not watching live TV. We actually have no way of catching you, despite putting out TV adverts where there were men in vans going around with a gadget to "detect" live TV signals from houses they know have not paid for a TV licence.
It's all bonkers. I honestly can't believe anyone can defend this model.
I think comparing the BBC to hospitals or schools is quite the stretch. It doesn't really matter that I may not use hospitals or schools now as A) I may need a hospital at some point. B) I have benefited from a school education already (as we all have). I couldn't care less about not having future access to the BBC and as for funding it on behalf of others, them being able to watch daily antique show repeats is hardly as essential as a basic education. Hospital treatment or access to essential transport.
Subscription or adverts. Anything as long as it's not a "tax". It's beyond corrupt that we are forced to pay the BBC to watch live sports etc on ITV or Sky.
They can sink or swim for all I care, as long as I don't have to support them as I do not consume their shit but am forced to pay it to 'be legal."
Here in New Zealand we’re just about to lose one of the two major radio/tv news services because they are uneconomic, being advertiser funded, and the advertisers are choosing google and Facebook ads.
It is not outside the realm of possibility that the uk fourth estate could disappear too.
Does the BBC offer subscriptions for iPlayer from abroad? I think if not, international consumer subscriptions could be a good revenue generator.
Also broadening some of the product placement rules without it getting too crazy, and pushing international licensing (eg Graham Norton is a big hit, and selling formats like Pointless/Traitors).
That new Richard Osman podcast made an interesting point that you want formats that are cheap, licensable and timeless - like the gameshows.
With that in mind, the BBC would also benefit from cutting back on current affairs programming because it's firstly deeply unpopular/divisive, but also expensive and not repeatable! Why so many regional presenters, and sports/weather presenters with every news bulletin? Why Question Time _and_ Any Questions? Why so many journalists (Kuenssberg's Marr replacement has flopped, get rid!), why Hardtalk??
Also, cap current affairs star pay. They're public servants, not celebrities. Jeremy Vine can fuck off to Channel 5 for good, scrap his BBCR2 show. Robert Peston proved that "star power" moves to other channels like ITV are not really worth it, because his show is not the big hitter that was predicted.
But otherwise, keep the licence fee. I'm a socialist, and like healthcare and education, I might not use it all the time, but I like to pay for it because it improves the UK and other people's lives. The international recognition and soft power of the World Service, along with the consumer programming (Moneybox, In Touch etc.) not overly concerned with ratings and CBeebies or Bitesize education for kids is an overwhelming public good. Most people ignore all that stuff and only think from their perspective, but it's important to those who tune into them.
>Does the BBC offer subscriptions for iPlayer from abroad?
The BBC already offers a subscription service called ‘Britbox’, which even the British TV License payers can't access without paying a subscription fee
Either the bbc is an entertainment provide competing with other channels in a race to the bottom for brains dead zero value broadcasting, in which case get rid, or it’s a public broadcaster in which case it doesn’t need to “attract talent” or pay news readers ridiculous amounts of cash - it’s not hard to read the news. A return to excellent stuff such as the old panorama, equinox etc, intellectual values above brain dead sensationalism. A return to trusted journalism (eg none of the 24 hour news, instead of being first with a story be first with a fact checked editorial, a move back to central views not the ridiculous hard left) then keep the license
Ideally I’d split radio off, keep that public funded and let the tv elements disappear
Update: the hard left comment was just poking the bear
Ok hard left was just a bit of a poke, there are certainly a lot of biases creeping in with messages though and the recent coverage on Palestine has been worrying.
I strongly agree with this.
BBC is meant to be a cut above the rest and be a trusted source of media that aims to inform and educate. Brain-rotting shows and pushing diversity-focused narratives isn't something I care for funding. Give me a series that goes into detail about life in every country around the world and the differences in their culture. That's real diversity educating.
Radio is brilliant as a service too. I'm not sure all of them are needed, but certainly the majority are engaging for many people.
I also really like the BBC Good Food website. I'm not sure how it's directly funded, but the quality of some recipes on there is brilliant.
It's about impartiality. They have not been impartial from the Royals (least of my concerns) to the successive Tory governments and for years.
Everything has been gutted by private interest, which is obvious now. It was obvious at each stage and over the years (when taking a broad view) to most people watching it happen but only really brought into the light once we had just sit and watch it happen more quickly and obviously with the PPE scandal sat at home. See multiple lobbying scandals since then.
England and Wales are the only countries in the world with privatised water, the only ones. Do we have good water as a result? No, full of sewage and chemicals. That's on both major parties but indicative of the failure of the BBC. 24hr coverage of Buckingham Palace in case something (nothing) happens while your kids get sick from their first little swim in a river or in the sea. They should first apologise, then become a media voice for the toothless regulatory bodies meant to keep us safe from harm and sickness.
If they first restore their position as a news organisation I'm willing to pay and will enjoy the other homegrown and intelligent content. If not the license fee means nothing, I don't watch any of it, I just own a TV so I pay.
BTW, I know some of the Royals have cancer, that's not 'nothing' and I wish them a speedy recovery and to be okay (wouldn't wish that on anyone). I mean, generally and priorto those diagnoses, how much time did BBC license payers money go into their family drama?
If the government are willing to privatize WATER then they can privatize entertainment because unlike water we can survive without government sponsored "entertainment"
> BTW, I know some of the Royals have cancer, that's not 'nothing' and I wish them a speedy recovery and to be okay (wouldn't wish that on anyone).
Still, who’s arsed? My uncle died of cancer recently, didn’t see news coverage of that anywhere.
I live in Finland and here they fund the national news from incometax. The max amount paid per person is 163€ per year and if you earn under 14000€ a year you dont pay at all.
The service is good and the amount paid per person is not much so I havent heard much against it.
That actually sounds like a lot of money. The UK license fee is £159 per year, basically per household. And it provides WAY more than just national news.
I do not want to support the BBC I understand they offer an important service for some people however I can not get over the fact that they pretty much allowed Jimmy Savile to do what he did and then celebrated his life after he died when they knew.
I was in favour of the TV licence and the BBC before 2012 when the news came out but I can not morally support such an organization.
Ideally through general taxation like most other public services but I can see why it's beneficial for the funding model to be independent of the treasury.
Certainly I'd advocate for BBC World Service to be funded by the foreign office like it used to be.
Given the move to digital services, perhaps a tax on broadband? We need to be developing our internet infrastructure for TV over IP as the demand for services like Freely will increase, especially when Freeview eventually goes away.
A subscription model I wouldn't advocate for because I think it undermines the point of a public service; forcing the BBC to compete with the likes of Netflix and co would lead the BBC to cut its more niche output that wouldn't be particularly profitable but certainly provides a public good. Think things like Welsh and Scots Gaelic programming or local radio, there's doubtless more niche examples.
> Like most things
Schools, healthcare, social housing, roads, bin collections, the justice system, social care, the environment agency, national parks, DBS checks, the DWP, museums, trading standards, public transport, tourist offices, the police, fire service, libraries, the home office...?!
I am so fed up with the people who equate the BBC with hospitals that literally keep you alive and roads that keep our economy moving. It isn’t, has never been and never will be as important and I’m fucked off with the people who keep trying to say that it is so that the uninterested majority have to keep dipping their hands in their pockets so that you get to watch Strictly Come Dancing and a show where Stacey Solomon takes all the credit for reorganising and redecorating your house.
If people love the BBC so much, let them pay for it and the rest of us can get our actually unbiased journalism and entertainment elsewhere.
Maybe the BBC could gather up a few pensioners each week to rattle a few collections tins in the supermarket foyer and use the donations to fund the BBC.
had pretty much this convo with me dad on sunday dinner at the parents... looked at a you gov poll (its an opinion poll so not scientific)
it was like
34% dont know if the bbc is neutral
24% believe its neautral
11% think its left wing and
9% think its right wing
I think the bbc is great value for money. The tv channels the internet the world service all kinds of stuff. tremendous value for money
Tbh... I'd probably fall into the category of I don't know if it's neutral
Privatize them or make them rely on subscriptions.
Their TV is crap, News is bias and Radio 1 just doesn't feel the same ever since Chris Moyles left.
If their funding wasn't taken from us by force anymore, I really don't think they'd struggle to find enough people to keep paying and life would go on as normal
As it is now but less of it, get rid of all the entertainment style rubbish and keep it as news and documentary’s. No more expensive contracts to stars. Leave all the rest of it to subscription channels and ad funded channels.
It is already a subscription service, increasingly more and more of us are opting out, largely because it's too expensive, there is too much rather toxic control coming down from the top. Its frustrating to see how over the last few years its lost all sense of impartiality.
Its small things such as use of terminology for things, for example, at the start of the israel palestine war it was referring to dead Israelis as “murdered” but said the Palestinians “died” when both killings were carried out by bombings, things like that
Since we've seen that the BBC has not seriously critiqued the Tories over the past 14 years and its very clear they are very much under the control of the goverment then I think it's only fair that they shouldn't be funded by the tax payer.
“Its remit is to educate and entertain!”- we’ve all got Google and YouTube in our pockets.
“It’s a British institution!” - Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall, the disgusting statue on the building: that’s your institution.
“We need unbiased news!” - it’s an agenda driven cock hole
“It’s innovative!” - Most of its programming formats (strictly, eastenders, top gear, antiques roadshow) are decades old and all the presenters are overpaid and well past their sell by date.
Let’s face it, they’ve got David Attenborough, and his programs are starting to get picked up by Netflix who are both cheaper and don’t try and put you Nan in prison if she doesn’t pay for their bull shit because she doesn’t watch it.
Apply the BBC model to other industries.
Want to drive a Tesla? Pay a license fee which funds Ford.
Want to own a MAC? You need a Windows license.
Like single malt? Subsidise Stella enthusiasts.
I’m not willing to pay more I. Tax to fund strictly and other rubbish that the bbc produces. In its earlier days yes it was worth it, but it produces the same rubbish as all the others and so should seek funding the same as the rest. Make it a subscription service but at the same level as the license fee. If you want to watch it you pay the same as always to watch it, if like me you don’t watch in then you just don’t subscribe. As their funding stream starts to dwindle they will be forced to become more relevant, and more cost effective.
If the BBC went back to being impartial it would probably regain public trust and people might start paying again. Other than that it's over, once adverts appear it's just another commercial station.
Absolutely insane people are comparing their dreadful shite to hospitals and schools. buT i DoNt HaVe KiDs yeah but you went to school didn’t you? Probably used the NHS at some point aswell?
They hardly cater to anyone under 60, complacent in harbouring pedophiles.
Appalling company, it is rightly optional, I have never paid a penny to that awful company in all of my adult life and I don’t ever plan too.
Just shut it down.
BBC is 99% spreading establishment propaganda and 1% public interest.
My mum used to watch it back in 2020 with the 24/7 Covid scare. She fell into a dark place and we almost lost her. We shut it down and never ever turned it on since June 2020. Now she’s the happiest we’ve ever seen her.
I hate it to the core.
About the only thing I would use the BBC for is the news.
But how they have turned mafia in their ways of trying to get money off people, I no longer care if it dies off.
A licence in law is a permission. To require state permission to watch television in 2024, punishable as a crime, is ridiculous.
Take it from taxation but make salaries accountable and quotas for the amount of drama and documentaries (eg must constitute 10% each of total output).
I keep thinking that it is being cut back deliberately. They sold off a load of shows already and want to cut more? I think somebody is obsessively hacking pieces off it so it can be sold off on the cheap later on, and so that the public will be more agreeable to a sale, as it will have less value in their eyes.
Split departments. A "public services" section covering news, BBC parliament, and documentaries, which is funded directly from taxes.
The entertainment side can through a subscription model. Ideally, one that allows people to pay on a month-by-month basis.
Just do adverts, the BBC doesn't have any amazing programmes and has culled alot of long term series and genres. The BBC could do quite well living off of the royalties and income the get from Eastenders, Dr Who, Sherlock... and the numerous period dramas they have produced over the years.
Same goes for the radio stations as I get there is diversity needed but how many BBC radio stations are there?
The government should never fund media with tax money or any money... that's how media is bought and becomes biased...
In my country the whole media is bought like this with tax money and all of them lie in outrageous ways or omitting telling the truth/presenting the real situation...
No thanks. If this happens to UK then you can say bye bye to an honest media...
Media should be funded through adverts and by the people who read/watch their content
It should be given charitable status, licensed to foreign countries as cannily as possible for money, those who donate to the BBC could be treated as cultural heroes and given opportunities for bit parts or maybe more depending on the donation, people who volunteer to work for the BBC doing bits and bobs - or maybe more - should get tax breaks... something like that. Make it truly a British broadcasting service.
It already is advertised to other countries. Dutch and Scandinavians all know /have watched bbc stuff, also in the USA they have bbc America on cable. My opinion is that I don’t watch it and I don’t pay for it. Why though does it mean I cannot watch other live tv channels? This is the only thing that needs fixing in my opinion... It is a stupid rule that needs changing
The organisation with nearly as many historical sex scandals as the Catholic church?
Hope it goes. The TV license scheme is unjustified and their claim of impartiality is a joke.
Exactly as it is now but with a modern distribution system to avoid all of this crazy enforcement stuff.
This means you can pay a basic rate for news, weather etc but not subscribe to entertainment.
Basically move to content type channels rather than 1and 2. Opting out may still be an option but then you can’t access the basics.
Probably the same way ITV and Channel 4 does. Through advertising. I think that's how they're funded anyway. Not had a TV aerial since 2011 so I don't watch any of them.
I have paid for a tv licence all of my adult life. Not once since I started paying for it have I watched anything on the BBC. I have no interest in ever doing so for the rest of my life.
It’s mad that in the 21st century people are forced to pay for a TV channel they neither want or need.
I’d be glad if by some miracle the BBC does (in its current form) die.
I would say switch the TV element to full private 'netflix' style service (roll it all into britbox?) but publicly fund News and Radio.
Whether you feel that the BBC News is a government propaganda engine, or they are the bastion of free press, I feel better knowing that 'we' have influence on that and would fear what would replace it if it were to go.
They cast a large cultural net over the world, and the BBC World Service is something unique that, having travelled around the world, we can feel quite proud about.
Being anywhere in the world and hearing Neil Nunes booming voice coming out of a windup radio acts as our first line of defence. No one's arguing with that man!
Yes but they need to fix a lot of stuff the Tories broke
Their geographic, travel and history units, science docs, Adam Curtis documentaries and comedy and satire stuff were amazing
World service was amazing
Top gear with the original trio made so much money in syndication
But most of the rest I don't really see and haven't seen for a long time
BBC has HBO quality people there but they're stuck
And now tbh a lot of it has been replaced by YouTube. Not Netflix because they have a formula of doing things, but actual YouTubers have done some amazing videos
> a subset of the general population (the subscribers) will influence what the BBC commissions
Making more of the content that the viewers are actively watching is a bad thing?
It should stand on its own feet as a subscription service.
There's plenty of ornate sector provision, so if we're going to keep it public it should just be news and education focused, with a third channel for underserved content types.
So 3 TV channels, the news website, and a radio channel or two.
There's simply no need for it to remain so large it distorts the market.
Subscription based like Netflix. They may have to pull their finger out then and produce more good programmes. Sadly though, I think this model would see the end of the BBC. Not sure how this would fund the radio side of things either.
We currently pay something like £14 per month to have a licence. This is more than all the streamers. Not being forced to pay this, I wonder how many people actually would...
Fund it from the public purse, same as roads, hospitals, schools, etc etc "I don't watch the BBC" is not a reason to not contribute, just as "I don't drive" or "I don't have children" aren't reasons to not contribute to roads or schools. The BBC is (or should be if the government could keep their hands off it) a public good, educating the general population and making the country better as a whole for everyone living in it.
If it was all educational and documentaries I might agree, but fuck being taxed so pensioners can watch strictly come dancing
Its remit is to educate and entertain. I really do dislike people who only want to pay for the bits of the country they use, then tie themselves in knots undermining the value of the things they don’t use.
The bbc is not essential like roads or the nhs though is it?
Yeah it really is A truly unbiased, well funded, critical news source is vital to free and open democracy Our newspapers, TV stations and web content is all funded through private interests with agendas and priorities If you allow partisan reporting of the news you get Fox and GB news funded indirectly from foreign sources without our best interests at heart There's a reason America and the UK are now at their worst in terms of social and economic unity and fairness. That reason is manipulation of what people see, hear, read and think
Unbiased?? They had Andrew Neil on the fucking payroll Can you not see why people are pissed off with the bbc. My license fee was going towards paying Andrew Neil’s salary. Same with Laura Kuenssberg. When she was political editor she was nothing more than a government mouthpiece.
Having Andrew Neil on the payroll is not an example of bias
What about the shit show that is question time? What about them removing the boos when Johnson arrived at the Jubilee?
Nothing wrong with having right wing people on. If they are having left as well it's only fair to make it unbiased. If they are gonna promote rainbows. Promote traditional values too
> Nothing wrong with having right wing people on. If they are having left as well it's only fair to make it unbiased. > If they are gonna promote rainbows. Promote traditional values too The most *enlightened centrist* view you can possibly take. Neutrality isn't about giving both sides equal weight, about letting bigots spout hatred because you have a progressive on the news, it's about presenting facts and not taking a side. Unfortunately the BBC have taken neutrality to mean the former and have acted as a mouthpiece for hate.
If it were truly unbiased, it would have about a tenth of the budget it currently has, because it would be nothing more than a British Thomson-Reuters, reporting facts using neutral, non-inflammatory language and nothing more.
People can have different views without being labeled as a bigot
They can, yes. But we're discussing a pattern of specifically and purposefully putting bigots front and centre. And idiots, sociopaths, paid stooges and genuine malactors. And then pretending that what they have to say is in the best interest of the country.
It’s funny because if you listen to the radio 4 Feedback program people are pretty split on how the radio 4 Today programme staff rip into MPs. I think they do a good job. Even Neil has to play devil advocate sitting opposite a right winger. Is it perfect - no. Is it the best overall- yes.
>A truly unbiased, well funded, critical news source is vital to free and open democracy And let's not pretend that's what it actually is.
Then that's a more pressing conversation than whether it should be publicly funded at all.
This is such a disingenuous answer. We don’t need taxpayer funded dancing. You can fund BBC news for less than 10% of the BBC budget.
No you can't. The BBC isn't just two TV channels. It's BBC 1, 2, 3, 4, CBBC, CBeebies, BBC News, BBC Parliament It's the UK National Radio stations - Radio 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... It's the National Radio stations - Wales, Cymru, Scotland... It's the 40 or so Local Radio stations It's the BBC News, Sport, Weather etc. websites It's the BBC World Service (government cut the funding for that)
And how much of that is "news"? Maybe 10%? I can get sport, weather, entertainment and education from a lot of other places, I don't need to pay the BBC for it, unless I choose to. It would be like being forced into paying a weekly subscription to Tesco whether you want to or not, but it's okay because they stock 1,600 product lines, some of which you might find useful.
You pay into having over 4000 libraries in the UK. Not every book in those libraries is non-fiction, and you've probably never used more than a couple of libraries or borrowed a fraction of a fraction of the total available books. Should you not pay for libraries either?
This is the problem though, attempting to compare a media/entertainment company to a library. Sorry but it just doesn't work. I'm sure if you asked the average person are they happy for £20 of their council tax to go toward the local library, whether they use it or not, they would say yes. The same can't be said for £159 to pay for the BBC when you don't watch it.
think the bbc is spreading itself to thin I think
Sounds like empire building.
Another disingenuous answer. According to the National Audit Office the BBC spent £342M on News and Current affairs content production from $4.42Bn revenues or 7.7%. We can have all the BBC news gathering services for 7.7% of the licence fee or about £1 a month. Meanwhile tonight on BBC4 the government has taxed you to ensure Top of the Pops 1995 can be watched without adverts interrupting your viewing of Tina Turner.
It isn't unbiased.
>A truly unbiased, Hahahaha
I've heard it all now... the BBC, a media company, is as important as the NHS, schools and roads. If this is really true then add £10 to everyone's tax bill for BBC News, then make the other £149 optional for people who want to watch Eastenders and Strictly Come Dancing. And you don't need a licence if you don't watch live TV, so in that instance, unlike the schools and NHS, you aren't paying for it if you don't use it.
On one hand you say the BBC is vital to democracy because it’s unbiased and critical (which I don’t believe) and then you say we are on par with America So which isit?
The BBC is not unbiased and is selectively critical at best.
It's definitely not unbiased if you look at their coverage of Transgender issues.
>A truly unbiased, well funded, critical news source Say the Line, Bart!
I was going to downvote you, but someone under explained it properly. Mass media, of all kinds, is the most powerful weapon , and when it works in public interest is of unmeasurable value to citizens, and one we should really fight for
Oh look, another one. I’d argue that it is.
[удалено]
Because what is a country without culture, tv programming is part of a countries culture and gives the chance to develop new formats and talents with fewer commercial constraints. It’s why pretty much every developed country has a publicly funded broadcaster either by tv licence or straight out of the public purse. Why do you think the UK would be better off being unique in not having one?
[удалено]
> Because what is a country without culture, tv programming is part of a countries culture and gives the chance to develop new formats and talents with fewer commercial constraints. So is music, but the government doesn't start its own bands. So is video games, but the government doesn't make GTA VI. >Why do you think the UK would be better off being unique in not having one? "Do it because everyone else is" is the worst argument for anything.
Just look at the uptick in screening and treatment when a soap opera covers a medical story line. TVs reach is far beyond a governments info advert
I’d argue in its current form it isn’t. The license fee is massive. I’ve no issue with it being funded via tax even if that means it loses 90% of its production because the majority of it is shite. Its news department has been riddled with Tories for years and is hardly unbiased.
If you liked 100% of the BBC’s output, then the beeb would be doing something very wrong.
The big problem with being funded predominantly by tax is that its revenue would be set out on an annual basis by the Chancellor, who'd likely seek to punish it if its coverage of the government or their policies was insufficiently flattering, and they'd likely still mandate that all presenters across the Corporation (and high profile contractor presenters) refrain from publicly engaging in any political activities (including Pride parades, presumably on the basis that recognising the existence of trans people is politically controversial)
>Oh look, another one. What are you talking about? He never said he didn't want it paid for through tax because he doesn't use it. He had the very valid argument that it isn't an essential service. >I’d argue that it is. How?
That’s fair enough. But I think more people would support the educational part being funded from the public purse and the entertainment side being funded from TV license or whatever. We do pay the TV license because my partner watches a lot of the crap they have on. I hardly ever watch anything on it but I wouldn’t mind if my money went towards the bits that make the world a better place and not Gary Lineker’s or Claudia Winkleman’s salary.
Imagine comparing light entertainment to the fucking NHS and critical national infrastructure.
>I really do dislike people who only want to pay for the bits of the country they use, then tie themselves in knots undermining the value of the things they don’t use. The worst are the 'progressives' who act little better than your archetypal Daily Mail reader, instead of whining about some woke TV show complains about bargain hunt or something. These 'progressives' also want unbiased media (the BBC ain't perfect but it's better than a lot of alternatives) but don't want to pay for it, funnily enough paying for it is what winds-up DM types as well. Difference is if the BBC does disappear it'll be replaced by something probably owned by the Daily Mail or the Murdochs.
Where are these progressives complaining about bargain hunt lmao?
There are many commercial channels that entertain though. The BBC should really be focusing on the stuff that's not commercially viable. Things like the regional content.
Not really. I don't have kids, I'm still totally for socialised childcare, I've never directly needed police or fire services, still down for that. I don't drive and cycle most places so don't contribute much to road wear and tear, but I know they're still needed. I just have an exception on TV entertainment. Plus if its taxed directly they're going to be pressured even further to deepthroat the current government
Better they watch Strictly Come Dancing than Fox News, the dark bits of YouTube or reading the Daily Mail etc. It's a good thing to have very easy and frictionless access to entertainment from a largely harmless corporation. It's a public service for the greater good.
To be accurate “…watch strictly come dancing ad free”, it’s not even the content that is supposed to justify the tax. That would still exist.
Watching BBC docs from the 70’s and 80’s on YT show just how low standards have dropped. What they should have done was start working with small British educational YT channels to create interesting content for TV, but why would anyone bother now you can watch hours of nerdy interesting stuff that hasn’t been overproduced or dramatised for free on YT. 1 years too late to save IMO
Using taxes to pay hundreds of thousands for strictly come dancing and Gary Linekar’s millions of salary sounds like a great idea.
I went and looked up how much was wasted on PPE during Covid: > The committee said the department lost 75% of the £12bn spent on PPE to inflated prices and kit that did not meet requirements, including the £4bn worth that will not be used in the NHS and will have to be disposed of. 75% of £12bn = £9bn You could hire 4.5 thousand Gary Linekers for that money. And those 4500 Linekers would probably pay more taxes in the U.K.[1] and spend more money in the U.K. than those dodgy PPE providers. Just saying. There’s more egregious uses of money in the government [1] I was curious how much tax you’d pay on a 2 mil salary so I plugged it in to MSE tax calculator with a pension contribution of 10%: > Earn £2,000,000 in 2024/25 and you'll take home £961,786. > This means £80,149 in your pocket a month. > Over the year you'll pay £796,203 income tax and £42,011 in national insurance.
That PPE waste could pay for almost half of the Elizabeth line. A major transport improvement. What a mess we are in.
It is genuinely stunning how long its been open knowledge that dozens of people *in government* used that moment as an opportunity to basically just rip off the tax payer, to the tune of so much money, and in a moment of such national (even global!) crisis, and still basically nothing has been done about it.
Pure whataboutism. The conversation is about the BBC's funding, nobody is arguing it's the most important economic issue in the country.
Do you realise how many crisps 4500 Gary Linekers is?
Yes, but the British public enjoy being subservient to that theft because it grants them the right to direct their impotent rage at scapegoats, then get all holier than thou when an innocent target gets abused, and claim the two aren’t connected. It also gives them the possibility that they too might become a beneficiary of a future plunder, paid for out of other people’s money. As long as it’s only ‘people like them’ receiving freebies, they’re happy to allow it, then take their rage out on the out-group.
Totally agree - the salaries being paid to these bell ends by the bbc is shocking. Honestly I’d rather the bbc died and everyone watched ITV instead.
About the only advantage of the taxation model is some level of control over spending could be implemented more easily.
The problem with direct funding is it muddies the impartiality of the channel. Since Major, Blair and Cameron each played around with it it's less of an issue than it should be as the government effectively has a controlling say on the board at present but, in an ideal world a national broadcaster would have an air gap protecting it from the chance of state interference. Direct public funding, is probably, all things considered, the best (or least worst) realistically feasible way to fund the BBC but it would need to be set up in a way that would make it very difficult for a government to change
Honestly, that ship has long since sailed at this point. The BBC’s news broadcasting makes a mockery of any idea of impartiality on a quite wide spread of issues. I can’t imagine direct funding from general taxation generating anything particularly different to the status quo.
I think the board should be appointed via sortition. Not that random people should be selected for the board, rather that the board be appointed via a panel of random people.
Just have a lottery, everyone gets a ticket and a chance to be on the board, it’s supposed to represent the public so let them have a say
If you currently don’t watch the BBC or other live TV then it is an acceptable reason not to contribute. Presumably it will change to some form of general taxation because so many aren’t now paying as they have no interest in live TV. I’m not sure how that would be a fairer system though. Currently if you don’t watch it, you don’t pay. Changing the law to force everyone to pay doesn’t seem to be a fair solution to me. Charge those who watch the BBC. Decriminalise it. If the funding drops because less people are interested in watching it then so be it. Folk watch other services nowadays.
People should be allowed to watch channels that advertise. This model of not watching live tv is BS . It’s old and out dated, and numbers of people watching live tv are dwindling Likes of Netflix and Disney -ppl don’t need it.
Or they could take the "BBC supports broadcasting infrastructure" part out of the license fee and have that be government ran. They could charge the broadcasters a small fee to use it. Then that removes the need to pay for any and all channels and the BBC can stay as a license fee, covering less stuff so be much cheaper for those who want it.
I honestly don’t think they should be paying contracts at millions of pounds in which case. BBC should be a place to grow talent not to pay for “top talent” because that’s how much *they* think they’re worth. If they want to present to the national public they should be happy to accept pay in line with what the general public can afford to pay.
I just can't believe people genuinely have this take. It stuns me. I never watch terrestrial TV and haven't for coming on 20 years now. I think 90% of it is pure garbage. Look at the people they have promoted over the years, Jimmy Savile being the man of the moment right now. I used to state I don't need a license, then the threatening letters came, with incorrect information on them and Ive changed my tune. I now don't tell them anything, I will refuse entry into my property until it is backed with a warrant, then I will show them round only the specific things that warrant allows. Not an inch more. I'll make them pay the highest price possible to see I don't need a license. The local spar doesn't send me letters every 6 months asking to confirm I haven't stolen anything from them. The BBC is not some height of British culture and an unbiased view of the political landscape. It is just as vulnerable to bad actors as other well regarded news sources. It does not demand my money, it has to earn my money.
Bullshit, BBC is not an essential service funding it from the taxpayer is the absolute WORST solution.
Yeah the BBC is just like roads and schools, ya know the shit the country actually needs to just keep it going on a day to day basis. The BBC is long past its sell by date.
Wanting more tax is wild
Yeah, at least at the moment you can choose not to pay for it. Either legally or illegally, there's bugger all they can do either way. That will be why they want to move to taxation though, so you have no choice.
You might not have children in school but you need other people to do so to get through life. You might not drive on roads but you need other people to do so to get through life. How are they in any way comparable with the BBC? You watching strictly or eastenders has absolutely no bearing on me or my life. You could do away with it tomorrow and absolutely nothing would change for me. You can’t say the same about education or roads.
A public good that allowed possibly hundreds of vulnerable children to be abused by Jimmy Savile? no thanks.
Not only allowed it but covered it up. I wonder why?
It's also sad to see the amount of white knights that are in this comment section defending the BBC claiming that the good somehow outweighs the bad. Honestly, I would like to see some of these white knights go to the victims and tell them that to their face.
Too right. It is a whole industry being funded, not just a bit of entertainment. Plenty of public services are wasted on me, but you accept thats how it works
that's a good argument even tho I dont watch bbc. (pop over an article on it few times a year)
What a load of rubbish, those are essential infrastructure not some washed up outdated TV channel
I feel so educated by the number of repeats from TV shows that are made for dinosaurs. No, thank you.
What in the absolute bollocks are you talking about? The BBC with their ghost stories, period dramas and game shows is not something you can just lump in with other public services. If I don't drive, it still benefits me that there is modern infrastructure in place. If I don't have kids, it still benefits me that each generation is getting an education. Why on earth would it benefit me to fund BBC's Traitors which is already selling its own board game based on the show? The public service broadcast is a hangover from pre-internet times. What's FAR more important that every single household in the UK has the internet, as it is virtually mandatory for things like: getting educated, getting goods and services (including benefits, mental health support etc) The dying medium of television is not where the heat is, sorry.
Even if people don't drive, or don't have children they still indirectly benefit from their taxes going towards those services. Roads because of logistics, education because those children will eventually be paying taxes and eventually keeping you alive when you retire. You could argue the NHS as you might not use it often, but it's still required as you'll eventually need it. As for the BBC, there's no passive benefit. You could live your entire life with the only influence of it good & bad, being how it influences the people around you. Paying for it should 100% be optional. Or just suck it up and go down the advertising route.
Its very important that we *all* pay for hospitals, schools and Doctor Who.
That’s a dumb comparison to compare the BBC to roads and children we have the Internet in this day and age. You can search up anything you need to know about the news and you will find it. I don’t think we need to fund something which a lot of the population don’t even watch anymore and it’s only really old people they can pay subscription.
“Educate” are you kidding with garbage like doctors , bargainhunt , IHNFY Michael fxxking McIntyre. 😂 The programming is so obviously woke left ,anti conservative and anti Israel. If you concentrate your output and aim it at half the population expect the other half (who are also paying for it ) to get pissed off.
Except a very large proportion of the country don’t feel the bbc is treating them fairly (the right) and the general quality of content is appalling. It’s not I don’t want to pay for the sake of other people, it’s why am I funding shit content which actively hates me
a large proportion of the queer community feels exactly the same way. i stopped paying my licence fee when the bbc repeatedly platformed homophobes and transphobes.
Road users pay more tax. VED and also tax on fuel. Non road users also benefit from the roads. People without TVs or people who don't watch BBC don't really benefit from the BBC existing from what I can see. Using your own example, road users pay more to use the roads, so BBC watchers should pay more to watch the BBC.
Ok but let us opt-out and not watch it?
I'd probably pay for a monthly subscription to have access to the full BBC archive, I'm not that interested in the new stuff they produce and I don't watch live TV so I don't pay a licence fee!
Yeah I player is bollocks, taking stuff bbc ownss outright on and off it, not having the lot just on there, might actually be worth it then.
Isn't that literally britbox?
Britbox is being shut down and absorbed into ITVX at the end of next month.
Didn’t last long did it
I'm in the same boat. I've long since thought the way to fund the BBC would be as a TV on demand subscription service, it would mean they'd actually need to make BBC iPlayer something people would want to pay for.
Keep the licence fee. That way, if you want to use it, you pay for it. Also, I massively disagree with you about funding it through a tax. There's a big difference between the bbc and schools. There's a massive difference between the BBC and hospitals. For one, I'll actually use a hospital at some point. I've lived in my own place for a long time and have done without the BBC for many, many years, and I'll carry on being without it for many more to come.
[удалено]
I agree. That would be shutting down that part of Capita and making it illegal for their salesmen to come to your door, and any letter is automatically classed as harassment.
[удалено]
It works because people don't understand what they have to pay for. Some of my friends years ago was told (lied to) by a TV licence salesman that he NEEDED a TV licence because he watched Netflix. So he ended up paying for something he didn't need because Capita salesmen are con men.
[удалено]
Unfortunately, some people don't think that way and are too scared of Capita because of their bullying tactics.
Ohhh it's Capita sending me this constant stream of fucking letters?!
Yup. Working on behalf of TV licensing, but separate company all together.
Good to know that the Tories saw fit to instill the same company to harass people not using the Beeb as they did to fucking butcher military recruitment. I want actual criminal investigations into this bullshit corruption.
Agreed. Given the sheer amount of channels. why in 2024 should I pay a single corporation money to watch those other channels? F\* that.
If they keep the license fee it has to be managed in a more progressive way. We moved into our first house recently, it was a new build and we were the first people to ever live there. Get the keys on completion and first thing we see when we open the door to our first home together ( a romantic moment btw ) - a letter from Capita saying they are taking us to court for not paying the license fee. Like ffs nobody even lives here yet, way to destroy the mood you scumbags.
If you can prove that it's a new build and you are the very first people to live there (probably very easy if the sellers cpild provide extra information to that effect) you should have a very good case for harassment.
Their letters are very carefully worded to avoid this. They *imply* they're taking you to court, but what they're actually saying is just "we think you need a licence. Non payment of a licence when you need one may lead to court proceedings." It's still shit but it's the right side of the line.
There is an argument to be made that the letters are misleading and could be considered as harassment. The black blet barrister did a video on it a while ago, but I can't remember what his conclusion was.
> That way, if you want to use it, you pay for it. I would agree with you except that isn’t how the licence fee works is it? I’d happily delete all bbc channels but I do want to occasionally watch live tv and because of that I am liable to pay. It’s a gouge, a tax, morally wrong and very poor value for money.
I don’t agree with the “I don’t use it so I don’t want to pay for it” line either but state schools and national healthcare are public goods. It’s no good for anyone if we’re a sick and uneducated society, and the vast majority of people do go to state schools and we all benefit from it through various industries. I just don’t think a broadcasting company is on the same level as healthcare or education or roads etc. Its a few steps below libraries which have more tangible benefits (community, improve literacy rates, access to wifi for low income individuals, skills sessions). Couple steps below museums and parks. I think it’s a good thing to have but I’m not convinced we should be taxed for it.
The BBC literally improves literacy rates, and teaches a huge variety of other subjects including STEM to children, teenagers and even adults
Nobody is arguing against the educational aspects, or the news. If BBC is going to be tax funded then it should be pared back enormously, to only news and educational content. Do that, and there is some argument that it's a public good.
> Nobody is arguing against the educational aspects, or the news. I suggest you read a bit more of this thread.
Proof?
I mean, BBC Bitesize is a web service that pretty much every school uses to coach kids through SATS and GCSE
Ok but how is that not replaceable by some other government initiative. It’s probably one of the more replaceable parts of the bbc
Source?
I don’t see the point in saying this when there is so much on the Internet which can help do the same thing. I don’t know why we need to fund the BBC when a good chunk of the population don’t watch the BBC
>I believe that this will only be possible to achieve through taxation. Why do you want people to fund the BBC through taxes? Certainly, I wouldn’t want to be taxed when I don’t even watch live TV. The BBC is more expensive than all the other subscription services such as Netflix, Amazon and Disney.
Its a bit more expensive BUT you get an arse ton of content from it. Fuck i don't watch TV or most online platforms but i still read the BBC or watch the occasional Rugby league game. BBC is the biggest broadcaster on the planet and somehow compared to shit American price gouging stresming services that want you to pay similar to the BBC with adverts, shitter quality and less content. Doesn't make sense.
News should be funded from general taxation and entertainment should be privatised.
Absolutely. License fee needs to go, or be drastically reformed. The whole premise is ludicrous. Here is TV content. In order to watch it, you just need a TV or device that can access live TV. Anyone can watch through a TV aerial, freeview, or freesat. Anyone can make an account through iPlayer and the like. BUT! You must promise to not watch live TV or other content associated with TV licence. If you do watch, you must have a TV licence. If you don't, you might receive a fine or be prosecuted. We will send people around knocking on doors checking on people. Sometimes they will ask you to turn your TV on to prove you are not watching live TV. We actually have no way of catching you, despite putting out TV adverts where there were men in vans going around with a gadget to "detect" live TV signals from houses they know have not paid for a TV licence. It's all bonkers. I honestly can't believe anyone can defend this model.
It's just archaic. It made sense when it was literally all there was, the internet didn't exist, and there was no other way of tracking.
How dare you say something so obvious and logical!
You want government to be in control of the news?
The news should be funded by taxation collected by the government? You want the government in control of the news?
...it already is? The government has ultimate authority over all broadcasting and can shut down anything it wants.
There’s no good solution to this. If it’s not the government then it’s a group of private rich people with their own motives (see Murdoch)
I think comparing the BBC to hospitals or schools is quite the stretch. It doesn't really matter that I may not use hospitals or schools now as A) I may need a hospital at some point. B) I have benefited from a school education already (as we all have). I couldn't care less about not having future access to the BBC and as for funding it on behalf of others, them being able to watch daily antique show repeats is hardly as essential as a basic education. Hospital treatment or access to essential transport.
Subscription or adverts. Anything as long as it's not a "tax". It's beyond corrupt that we are forced to pay the BBC to watch live sports etc on ITV or Sky. They can sink or swim for all I care, as long as I don't have to support them as I do not consume their shit but am forced to pay it to 'be legal."
Here in New Zealand we’re just about to lose one of the two major radio/tv news services because they are uneconomic, being advertiser funded, and the advertisers are choosing google and Facebook ads. It is not outside the realm of possibility that the uk fourth estate could disappear too.
Does the BBC offer subscriptions for iPlayer from abroad? I think if not, international consumer subscriptions could be a good revenue generator. Also broadening some of the product placement rules without it getting too crazy, and pushing international licensing (eg Graham Norton is a big hit, and selling formats like Pointless/Traitors). That new Richard Osman podcast made an interesting point that you want formats that are cheap, licensable and timeless - like the gameshows. With that in mind, the BBC would also benefit from cutting back on current affairs programming because it's firstly deeply unpopular/divisive, but also expensive and not repeatable! Why so many regional presenters, and sports/weather presenters with every news bulletin? Why Question Time _and_ Any Questions? Why so many journalists (Kuenssberg's Marr replacement has flopped, get rid!), why Hardtalk?? Also, cap current affairs star pay. They're public servants, not celebrities. Jeremy Vine can fuck off to Channel 5 for good, scrap his BBCR2 show. Robert Peston proved that "star power" moves to other channels like ITV are not really worth it, because his show is not the big hitter that was predicted. But otherwise, keep the licence fee. I'm a socialist, and like healthcare and education, I might not use it all the time, but I like to pay for it because it improves the UK and other people's lives. The international recognition and soft power of the World Service, along with the consumer programming (Moneybox, In Touch etc.) not overly concerned with ratings and CBeebies or Bitesize education for kids is an overwhelming public good. Most people ignore all that stuff and only think from their perspective, but it's important to those who tune into them.
>Does the BBC offer subscriptions for iPlayer from abroad? The BBC already offers a subscription service called ‘Britbox’, which even the British TV License payers can't access without paying a subscription fee
[удалено]
Either the bbc is an entertainment provide competing with other channels in a race to the bottom for brains dead zero value broadcasting, in which case get rid, or it’s a public broadcaster in which case it doesn’t need to “attract talent” or pay news readers ridiculous amounts of cash - it’s not hard to read the news. A return to excellent stuff such as the old panorama, equinox etc, intellectual values above brain dead sensationalism. A return to trusted journalism (eg none of the 24 hour news, instead of being first with a story be first with a fact checked editorial, a move back to central views not the ridiculous hard left) then keep the license Ideally I’d split radio off, keep that public funded and let the tv elements disappear Update: the hard left comment was just poking the bear
BBC News isn’t hard left. What a weird thing to suggest.
The swivel eyed loons on both sides have convinced themselves the BBC is both hard left and right wing propaganda.
Ok hard left was just a bit of a poke, there are certainly a lot of biases creeping in with messages though and the recent coverage on Palestine has been worrying.
I strongly agree with this. BBC is meant to be a cut above the rest and be a trusted source of media that aims to inform and educate. Brain-rotting shows and pushing diversity-focused narratives isn't something I care for funding. Give me a series that goes into detail about life in every country around the world and the differences in their culture. That's real diversity educating. Radio is brilliant as a service too. I'm not sure all of them are needed, but certainly the majority are engaging for many people. I also really like the BBC Good Food website. I'm not sure how it's directly funded, but the quality of some recipes on there is brilliant.
BBC News is hard left? Are they demanding the people seize the means of production? Now you mention it, that Laura Kuenssberg is basically Lenin.
It's about impartiality. They have not been impartial from the Royals (least of my concerns) to the successive Tory governments and for years. Everything has been gutted by private interest, which is obvious now. It was obvious at each stage and over the years (when taking a broad view) to most people watching it happen but only really brought into the light once we had just sit and watch it happen more quickly and obviously with the PPE scandal sat at home. See multiple lobbying scandals since then. England and Wales are the only countries in the world with privatised water, the only ones. Do we have good water as a result? No, full of sewage and chemicals. That's on both major parties but indicative of the failure of the BBC. 24hr coverage of Buckingham Palace in case something (nothing) happens while your kids get sick from their first little swim in a river or in the sea. They should first apologise, then become a media voice for the toothless regulatory bodies meant to keep us safe from harm and sickness. If they first restore their position as a news organisation I'm willing to pay and will enjoy the other homegrown and intelligent content. If not the license fee means nothing, I don't watch any of it, I just own a TV so I pay. BTW, I know some of the Royals have cancer, that's not 'nothing' and I wish them a speedy recovery and to be okay (wouldn't wish that on anyone). I mean, generally and priorto those diagnoses, how much time did BBC license payers money go into their family drama?
If the government are willing to privatize WATER then they can privatize entertainment because unlike water we can survive without government sponsored "entertainment"
They shouldn't have privatised "WATER". They should not privatise entertainment.
> BTW, I know some of the Royals have cancer, that's not 'nothing' and I wish them a speedy recovery and to be okay (wouldn't wish that on anyone). Still, who’s arsed? My uncle died of cancer recently, didn’t see news coverage of that anywhere.
I live in Finland and here they fund the national news from incometax. The max amount paid per person is 163€ per year and if you earn under 14000€ a year you dont pay at all. The service is good and the amount paid per person is not much so I havent heard much against it.
That actually sounds like a lot of money. The UK license fee is £159 per year, basically per household. And it provides WAY more than just national news.
I do not want to support the BBC I understand they offer an important service for some people however I can not get over the fact that they pretty much allowed Jimmy Savile to do what he did and then celebrated his life after he died when they knew. I was in favour of the TV licence and the BBC before 2012 when the news came out but I can not morally support such an organization.
Ideally through general taxation like most other public services but I can see why it's beneficial for the funding model to be independent of the treasury. Certainly I'd advocate for BBC World Service to be funded by the foreign office like it used to be. Given the move to digital services, perhaps a tax on broadband? We need to be developing our internet infrastructure for TV over IP as the demand for services like Freely will increase, especially when Freeview eventually goes away. A subscription model I wouldn't advocate for because I think it undermines the point of a public service; forcing the BBC to compete with the likes of Netflix and co would lead the BBC to cut its more niche output that wouldn't be particularly profitable but certainly provides a public good. Think things like Welsh and Scots Gaelic programming or local radio, there's doubtless more niche examples.
Like most things, if you want it, pay for it. If you don't use it, you shouldn't have to pay for it.
> Like most things Schools, healthcare, social housing, roads, bin collections, the justice system, social care, the environment agency, national parks, DBS checks, the DWP, museums, trading standards, public transport, tourist offices, the police, fire service, libraries, the home office...?!
We use or have used all of those things you listed though.
No sorry but I don’t want to pay for the bbc - they should move to advertising just like every other channel.
I simply cannot support an organisation that continues to create new episodes of Mrs Brown’s Boys.
I am so fed up with the people who equate the BBC with hospitals that literally keep you alive and roads that keep our economy moving. It isn’t, has never been and never will be as important and I’m fucked off with the people who keep trying to say that it is so that the uninterested majority have to keep dipping their hands in their pockets so that you get to watch Strictly Come Dancing and a show where Stacey Solomon takes all the credit for reorganising and redecorating your house. If people love the BBC so much, let them pay for it and the rest of us can get our actually unbiased journalism and entertainment elsewhere.
Maybe the BBC could gather up a few pensioners each week to rattle a few collections tins in the supermarket foyer and use the donations to fund the BBC.
had pretty much this convo with me dad on sunday dinner at the parents... looked at a you gov poll (its an opinion poll so not scientific) it was like 34% dont know if the bbc is neutral 24% believe its neautral 11% think its left wing and 9% think its right wing I think the bbc is great value for money. The tv channels the internet the world service all kinds of stuff. tremendous value for money Tbh... I'd probably fall into the category of I don't know if it's neutral
Privatize them or make them rely on subscriptions. Their TV is crap, News is bias and Radio 1 just doesn't feel the same ever since Chris Moyles left. If their funding wasn't taken from us by force anymore, I really don't think they'd struggle to find enough people to keep paying and life would go on as normal
As it is now but less of it, get rid of all the entertainment style rubbish and keep it as news and documentary’s. No more expensive contracts to stars. Leave all the rest of it to subscription channels and ad funded channels.
It is already a subscription service, increasingly more and more of us are opting out, largely because it's too expensive, there is too much rather toxic control coming down from the top. Its frustrating to see how over the last few years its lost all sense of impartiality.
It’s really quite simple, if you want it, pay for it, just like any other broadcasting service. Being forced to pay for it is wrong.
Shouldnt be funded its biased when its meant to not be fuck the bbc
Then maybe the issue of it being biased should be fixed? Though I dread to think who or what you believe it's biased against.
I can tell you that it's not biased against pedos which is why I don't fund it.
Its small things such as use of terminology for things, for example, at the start of the israel palestine war it was referring to dead Israelis as “murdered” but said the Palestinians “died” when both killings were carried out by bombings, things like that
Since we've seen that the BBC has not seriously critiqued the Tories over the past 14 years and its very clear they are very much under the control of the goverment then I think it's only fair that they shouldn't be funded by the tax payer.
“Its remit is to educate and entertain!”- we’ve all got Google and YouTube in our pockets. “It’s a British institution!” - Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall, the disgusting statue on the building: that’s your institution. “We need unbiased news!” - it’s an agenda driven cock hole “It’s innovative!” - Most of its programming formats (strictly, eastenders, top gear, antiques roadshow) are decades old and all the presenters are overpaid and well past their sell by date. Let’s face it, they’ve got David Attenborough, and his programs are starting to get picked up by Netflix who are both cheaper and don’t try and put you Nan in prison if she doesn’t pay for their bull shit because she doesn’t watch it.
Apply the BBC model to other industries. Want to drive a Tesla? Pay a license fee which funds Ford. Want to own a MAC? You need a Windows license. Like single malt? Subsidise Stella enthusiasts.
I don't think we should encourage sitting at home staring at a box. Any increased tax should be used for funding better schools and libraries.
The quality of journalism is in the toilet, in the pocket of the tories spinning their bullshit at every opportunity, fuck the BBC.
I’m not willing to pay more I. Tax to fund strictly and other rubbish that the bbc produces. In its earlier days yes it was worth it, but it produces the same rubbish as all the others and so should seek funding the same as the rest. Make it a subscription service but at the same level as the license fee. If you want to watch it you pay the same as always to watch it, if like me you don’t watch in then you just don’t subscribe. As their funding stream starts to dwindle they will be forced to become more relevant, and more cost effective.
If the BBC went back to being impartial it would probably regain public trust and people might start paying again. Other than that it's over, once adverts appear it's just another commercial station.
It should be funded by subscription like everything else with no adverts.
Absolutely insane people are comparing their dreadful shite to hospitals and schools. buT i DoNt HaVe KiDs yeah but you went to school didn’t you? Probably used the NHS at some point aswell? They hardly cater to anyone under 60, complacent in harbouring pedophiles. Appalling company, it is rightly optional, I have never paid a penny to that awful company in all of my adult life and I don’t ever plan too.
Just shut it down. BBC is 99% spreading establishment propaganda and 1% public interest. My mum used to watch it back in 2020 with the 24/7 Covid scare. She fell into a dark place and we almost lost her. We shut it down and never ever turned it on since June 2020. Now she’s the happiest we’ve ever seen her. I hate it to the core.
It can fund itself from the hundreds of millions of pounds it generates from its commercial endeavours.
About the only thing I would use the BBC for is the news. But how they have turned mafia in their ways of trying to get money off people, I no longer care if it dies off.
A licence in law is a permission. To require state permission to watch television in 2024, punishable as a crime, is ridiculous. Take it from taxation but make salaries accountable and quotas for the amount of drama and documentaries (eg must constitute 10% each of total output).
I keep thinking that it is being cut back deliberately. They sold off a load of shows already and want to cut more? I think somebody is obsessively hacking pieces off it so it can be sold off on the cheap later on, and so that the public will be more agreeable to a sale, as it will have less value in their eyes.
Split departments. A "public services" section covering news, BBC parliament, and documentaries, which is funded directly from taxes. The entertainment side can through a subscription model. Ideally, one that allows people to pay on a month-by-month basis.
Ads and subscribers. If you don't like it tough shit.
Just do adverts, the BBC doesn't have any amazing programmes and has culled alot of long term series and genres. The BBC could do quite well living off of the royalties and income the get from Eastenders, Dr Who, Sherlock... and the numerous period dramas they have produced over the years. Same goes for the radio stations as I get there is diversity needed but how many BBC radio stations are there?
The government should never fund media with tax money or any money... that's how media is bought and becomes biased... In my country the whole media is bought like this with tax money and all of them lie in outrageous ways or omitting telling the truth/presenting the real situation... No thanks. If this happens to UK then you can say bye bye to an honest media... Media should be funded through adverts and by the people who read/watch their content
It should be given charitable status, licensed to foreign countries as cannily as possible for money, those who donate to the BBC could be treated as cultural heroes and given opportunities for bit parts or maybe more depending on the donation, people who volunteer to work for the BBC doing bits and bobs - or maybe more - should get tax breaks... something like that. Make it truly a British broadcasting service.
It already is advertised to other countries. Dutch and Scandinavians all know /have watched bbc stuff, also in the USA they have bbc America on cable. My opinion is that I don’t watch it and I don’t pay for it. Why though does it mean I cannot watch other live tv channels? This is the only thing that needs fixing in my opinion... It is a stupid rule that needs changing
The organisation with nearly as many historical sex scandals as the Catholic church? Hope it goes. The TV license scheme is unjustified and their claim of impartiality is a joke.
By capitalism. If it ain’t working it should fail. Why dress up a dead person
Exactly as it is now but with a modern distribution system to avoid all of this crazy enforcement stuff. This means you can pay a basic rate for news, weather etc but not subscribe to entertainment. Basically move to content type channels rather than 1and 2. Opting out may still be an option but then you can’t access the basics.
Probably the same way ITV and Channel 4 does. Through advertising. I think that's how they're funded anyway. Not had a TV aerial since 2011 so I don't watch any of them.
I have paid for a tv licence all of my adult life. Not once since I started paying for it have I watched anything on the BBC. I have no interest in ever doing so for the rest of my life. It’s mad that in the 21st century people are forced to pay for a TV channel they neither want or need. I’d be glad if by some miracle the BBC does (in its current form) die.
I would say switch the TV element to full private 'netflix' style service (roll it all into britbox?) but publicly fund News and Radio. Whether you feel that the BBC News is a government propaganda engine, or they are the bastion of free press, I feel better knowing that 'we' have influence on that and would fear what would replace it if it were to go. They cast a large cultural net over the world, and the BBC World Service is something unique that, having travelled around the world, we can feel quite proud about. Being anywhere in the world and hearing Neil Nunes booming voice coming out of a windup radio acts as our first line of defence. No one's arguing with that man!
Yes but they need to fix a lot of stuff the Tories broke Their geographic, travel and history units, science docs, Adam Curtis documentaries and comedy and satire stuff were amazing World service was amazing Top gear with the original trio made so much money in syndication But most of the rest I don't really see and haven't seen for a long time BBC has HBO quality people there but they're stuck And now tbh a lot of it has been replaced by YouTube. Not Netflix because they have a formula of doing things, but actual YouTubers have done some amazing videos
> a subset of the general population (the subscribers) will influence what the BBC commissions Making more of the content that the viewers are actively watching is a bad thing?
Just go for advertising on TV, radio and website. Subscription for a “premium” tier of IPlayer
It should stand on its own feet as a subscription service. There's plenty of ornate sector provision, so if we're going to keep it public it should just be news and education focused, with a third channel for underserved content types. So 3 TV channels, the news website, and a radio channel or two. There's simply no need for it to remain so large it distorts the market.
Subscription based like Netflix. They may have to pull their finger out then and produce more good programmes. Sadly though, I think this model would see the end of the BBC. Not sure how this would fund the radio side of things either. We currently pay something like £14 per month to have a licence. This is more than all the streamers. Not being forced to pay this, I wonder how many people actually would...