RIP BBC

Ok, maybe a bit of an exaggeration but the coming years are going to totally change the beeb as we know it, as the tories wield the axe.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/sep/07/tony-hall-bbc-cuts-bbc4


Can anyone see any justification for these brutal cuts and is anyone looking forward to an even greater proportion of our media being provided by Murdoch and chums?

I can only hope there is something left of the BBC to be saved when PM corbyn takes the reigns in 2020.

#allHailtheBBC

Armando Ianucci made a brilliant speech about the BBC cuts some time ago which is well worth checking out. Whilst I don’t doubt, like most public services, there is waste and inefficiencies within the BBC it really is a wonderful institution and should be protected. If I was to think of what I consider to be the truly great TV shows a remarkable number, such as Alan Partridge, Fawlty Towers, The Thick of it, The Office and countless others have been made by the BBC. It is not just the main channels though, you can go onto BBC4 most nights and be pretty much guaranteed there will be a documentary that is worth watching. Their website is pretty much great for anything you are interested in, and when they have sport their coverage is normally excellent.
 
I am very much a fan of the BBC and it is something as a nation we should look on with pride and seek to protect.

Just get with the times and have

- sponsored programs, ie quick ad at the start

- or limited ads every 30 mins

Not difficult and along with the licence fee they'll be laughing

Whilst the BBC is a national institution if it completely folded and resulted in not having a TV licence to pay for then i'd be all for it, the TV service whilst producing some good shows is outdated.

Interesting test of how evenly posters will be treated....

The problem with taking advertising on board Sean is if it becomes your main or a too crucial revenue stream you become driven by it. Do this and you will make programmes exclusively from the perspective of what will generate the most advertising revenue and either sideline or not make the programmes that don’t generate the revenue. That will pretty much kill anything made for and shown on BBC 4, a good bulk of the arts and culture shows made by the BBC and so on. The BBC has a different brief, as a national broadcaster it has an obligation not solely to be driven by revenue considerations, but also to make a spectrum of shows that reflect all tastes. Over commercialising the model or means by which the organisation generates its revenue dilutes or impacts on this brief.

Just trying to clear this thread of this comment... wrote:...nothing to see here

I'm a fan of the BBC in principle but change is definitely needed. In my opinion, they need to go back to what they do best. Great drama, comedy and documentaries. Trying to compete with ITV in the race to the bottom is the wrong way to go about business.

What I love about the BBC is that it has consistently offered a viable alternative to the norm found on other channels. Do we really think that something like Radio 4 would exist commercially? No chance.

seanmichaels wrote:Just get with the times and have

- sponsored programs, ie quick ad at the start

- or limited ads every 30 mins

Not difficult and along with the licence fee they'll be laughing

+1

Sick and tired of old institutions refusing to acknowledge it's 2015 not 1915. Lifestyles change, demand profiles change, so supply must change.

Same BS as you get with black cab drivers and Trade Unions.

Look nobody has censored anything on this thread, if you want to express a view, express it. If you want to just come on and whinge about a bias after all of two comments (neither of which were edited or moderated I should add) you should probably find a better way to spend your afternoon.

Ironic that your entire threat was off-topic and bashing other people. Address the point of the thread or shut up.

The fact of the matter is that commercial TV is, as I stated above, racing to the bottom. Yes, there are areas that the BBC need to improve. Few shows like The Voice and more like Doctor Who is the way to go, in my opinion.

This has nothing to do with political allegiance, simply whether people think the BBC is a valued commodity or whether it's a money sapping waste of space.

The licence fee isn't exactly value for money for the quality of programming they currently offer. That being said, I don't think the governments solution is viable or practical.

What should not be forgotten is the very forum this topic is being debated on exists on the back of BBC cuts. Adam and Hero started this in direct response to the closure of the forum on the BBC website. That is one thing we clearly all enjoyed, dumped because it was not considered to generate revenue.

Get rid of the license fee, predominantly. The BBC also fails in its main commitment to be impartial to its audiences, meaning a huge review needs to be undertaken.

Prime Minister Corbyn?

Duty281 wrote:Get rid of the license fee, predominantly. The BBC also fails in its main commitment to be impartial to its audiences, meaning a huge review needs to be undertaken.

Prime Minister Corbyn?

I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC fails to be impartial. Please explain.

Surely i'm not the only one reading these comments mentioning BBC as something completely different.

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Get rid of the license fee, predominantly. The BBC also fails in its main commitment to be impartial to its audiences, meaning a huge review needs to be undertaken.

Prime Minister Corbyn?

I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC fails to be impartial. Please explain.

Well there's this quote from Andrew Marr who, as we all know, has worked on the BBC for a number of years:

"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities, and gay people. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."

It has also received large sums of money from the European Union over the last eight years, meaning that any neutrality on its reporting of the EU referendum, and other related matters, will surely be put into severe doubt.

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Get rid of the license fee, predominantly. The BBC also fails in its main commitment to be impartial to its audiences, meaning a huge review needs to be undertaken.

Prime Minister Corbyn?

I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC fails to be impartial. Please explain.

Well there's this quote from Andrew Marr who, as we all know, has worked on the BBC for a number of years:

"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities, and gay people. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."

It has also received large sums of money from the European Union over the last eight years, meaning that any neutrality on its reporting of the EU referendum, and other related matters, will surely be put into severe doubt.

So other than the thoughts of one - admittedly important - individual and some flimsy conjecture, you have absolutely nothing.

Yes, other than one important, experienced employee, and an application of common sense, I have absolutely nothing.

And in the cricket today, other than the 299 runs Australia have racked up, they have absolutely nothing.

Funny, but come on. Even you must the crappy argument you just made.

Have you had a little peek at the list of the heads of the BBC Trust over the last 60 years? Go on, have a look. They're all Tories apart from on Labour who was in charge for less than a year.

Paxman - Tory. Robinson - Tory. Dimbleby brothers - both Tory (and former Bullingdon boys).

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Alistair wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Interesting test of how evenly posters will be treated....

I'm sure they probably care very little.

Your comment was pointless and unnecessary, as Prawn said, contribute or go away. You tend to disrupt numerous threads with your anti-mod, 'look at me, i'm hard done by', pointless and inane propaganda.

This has nothing to do with political allegiance, simply whether people think the BBC is a valued commodity or whether it's a money sapping waste of space.

The licence fee isn't exactly value for money for the quality of programming they currently offer. That being said, I don't think the governments solution is viable or practical.

Have you never seen anything McLaren has ever post before??

3 threads on OT - one about arch-socialist and establishment hater Tony Benn and how 'wise' he is; one about how we should be ashamed to be British because we don't blindly accept 100,000 phoney refugees and now 1 about how a poor old state-backed institution would presumably be better off nationalised with the blame for its 'downfall' levelled firmly at the Tories (actually quoted).

Yeh, nothing political there at all......

Is he not entitled to his opinion?

Rowley wrote:What should not be forgotten is the very forum this topic is being debated on exists on the back of BBC cuts. Adam and Hero started this in direct response to the closure of the forum on the BBC website. That is one thing we clearly all enjoyed, dumped because it was not considered to generate revenue.

And it has flourised in the hands of the private individuals that have sought the enjoy and benefit from it, without others suffering whom have no interest in it as it gets kept afloat to appease a minority.

You're right, great example, Rowley, bravo.

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Get rid of the license fee, predominantly. The BBC also fails in its main commitment to be impartial to its audiences, meaning a huge review needs to be undertaken.

Prime Minister Corbyn?

I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC fails to be impartial. Please explain.

Refused to show the Gaza appeal, as an example?

Buried its own report into the NHS post 2010 as the result didn't implicate the Tory-right government as it had been designed to (resulting in a fine and admonishment from the regulator).

Yes but we have been fortunate that private individuals have been driven to give up their own time and their own money to put this together. Setting up and running an online forum is one thing, but with the greatest of respect to Adam and Hero in terms of workload does not even compare to setting up an online news platform or TV station. If the cuts led to BBC4 being shut, who is likely to replace the niche content they broadcast

Alistair wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Alistair wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Interesting test of basic thuganomics

So, you think you're untouchable?

Word life--this is Basic Thugonomics

Word life--I'm untouchable but I'm forcin' you to feel me

Whether fightin' or spittin' my discipline is unforgiven. Got you backin' up in a defensive position. An ass-kickin' anthem, heavyweight or bantam. Holdin' camps for ransom, the microphone phantom

New DeadMan Inc., and we about to make you famous. Takin' over Earth and still kickin' in Uranus

You ain't advanced enough to process,potential for medical concepts
Some objects are foreign, like Loch Ness
Arts and sex are complex regardless of your finesse or fitness is the condition of business

Rowley wrote:Yes but we have been fortunate that private individuals have been driven to give up their own time and their own money to put this together. Setting up and running an online forum is one thing, but with the greatest of respect to Adam and Hero in terms of workload does not even compare to setting up an online news platform or TV station. If the cuts led to BBC4 being shut, who is likely to replace the niche content they broadcast

Niche content?

So every single household in the country has to fork out the best part of £150 a year so a few old dullards can watch some 'niche content' that'd I'd be extremely surprised not to see in some shape or form on Sky??

Pr4wn wrote:Funny, but come on. Even you must the crappy argument you just made.

Have you had a little peek at the list of the heads of the BBC Trust over the last 60 years? Go on, have a look. They're all Tories apart from on Labour who was in charge for less than a year.

Paxman - Tory. Robinson - Tory. Dimbleby brothers - both Tory (and former Bullingdon boys).

I'm not saying the bias is a Tory/Labour one.

Rowley wrote:The problem with taking advertising on board Sean is if it becomes your main or a too crucial revenue stream you become driven by it.

Well, that and the commercial broadcasters would throw a fit.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Rowley wrote:Yes but we have been fortunate that private individuals have been driven to give up their own time and their own money to put this together. Setting up and running an online forum is one thing, but with the greatest of respect to Adam and Hero in terms of workload does not even compare to setting up an online news platform or TV station. If the cuts led to BBC4 being shut, who is likely to replace the niche content they broadcast

Niche content?

So every single household in the country has to fork out the best part of £150 a year so a few old dullards can watch some 'niche content' that'd I'd be extremely surprised not to see in some shape or form on Sky??

The brief of the BBC is to attempt to cater for everyone. I personally don't like a lot of what it broadcasts but I am glad it does. Am not arrogant enough to believe it should only show stuff I want to watch and personally would think it would be a lesser institution if it was only interested in making the big viewing figure stuff, because the likes of Eastenders, the Voice etc have little interest to me.

The fact that both sides of the political spectrum complain of bias illustrates to me that the organization is as impartial as it can be. You're never going to get a truly impartial news service, ever. It's run by human beings, not robots.

I'm no Scot and I'm no supporter of Scots independence, but the BBC coverage of the referendum was shocking, in my opinion. Former leader of the Young Conservatives Nick Robinson's attempts to cover it fairly were a disgrace. He clearly had his own agenda and his own personal misgivings about Alex Salmond and he let that affect his professionalism.

Equally, I'm sure you can come up with plenty of arguments about other situations where the BBC has been "wrong" but the other way, so to speak.

I think that they broadly do a good job. The Tories have, rather ironically, set up a panel of entirely private-sector people to judge on the BBC's future while accusing the BBC of being impartial.

I am all for the BBC to go commercial and start having advertisements. but then I grew up in a system where commercial TV channels ruled the roost and there wasn't any more bias in those channels than the is in the BBC. I guess we humans have a propensity to think what we are used to is the best system.

having said all that I think the BBC going fully commercial is a very remote possibility. we are used to 'free' in this country. it is in our DNA.

WORD LIFE

Alistair wrote:...The licence fee isn't exactly value for money for the quality of programming they currently offer....

You're serious? Really? £145.50 per year isn't good value? ~£12 per month isn't decent value? Less than 50p per day isn't good value? Seriously??? Let's see, BBC1-4, BBC News, CBBC, Cbeebies, all the radio channels, iPlayer, the BBC web site...

To put the cost in perspective it costs the same as boxnation over the course of a year.

Well that does it then, I'm not paying for Boxnation this year.

Duty281 wrote:Well there's this quote from Andrew Marr who, as we all know, has worked on the BBC for a number of years:

"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities, and gay people. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."

It has also received large sums of money from the European Union over the last eight years, meaning that any neutrality on its reporting of the EU referendum, and other related matters, will surely be put into severe doubt.

Ah yes, as if you're comparing like with like in anything you're saying here. Pray tell, which other media outlet do you know of that has zero bias? Perhaps the Daily Mail? Or the Express? Or what about Murdoch's horrendous empire?
It's traditional for the right to lambast the BBC simply because they have the temerity to publish articles that might not agree with a right-wing slant on something. That's life I'm afraid; sometimes others disagree with you.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Well there's this quote from Andrew Marr who, as we all know, has worked on the BBC for a number of years:

"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities, and gay people. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."

It has also received large sums of money from the European Union over the last eight years, meaning that any neutrality on its reporting of the EU referendum, and other related matters, will surely be put into severe doubt.

Ah yes, as if you're comparing like with like in anything you're saying here. Pray tell, which other media outlet do you know of that has zero bias? Perhaps the Daily Mail? Or the Express? Or what about Murdoch's horrendous empire?
It's traditional for the right to lambast the BBC simply because they have the temerity to publish articles that might not agree with a right-wing slant on something. That's life I'm afraid; sometimes others disagree with you.

Entirely different.  

The BBC licence fee is enshrined in law, and therefore has a clear and apparent duty towards being impartial.

Pray tell, which other media outlet do you know of that has a licence fee enshrined in law?

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Well there's this quote from Andrew Marr who, as we all know, has worked on the BBC for a number of years:

"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities, and gay people. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."

It has also received large sums of money from the European Union over the last eight years, meaning that any neutrality on its reporting of the EU referendum, and other related matters, will surely be put into severe doubt.

Ah yes, as if you're comparing like with like in anything you're saying here. Pray tell, which other media outlet do you know of that has zero bias? Perhaps the Daily Mail? Or the Express? Or what about Murdoch's horrendous empire? Or The Guardian.
It's traditional for the right to lambast the BBC simply because they have the temerity to publish articles that might not agree with a right-wing slant on something. That's life I'm afraid; sometimes others disagree with you.

Some hilarious irony in your post though.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Alistair wrote:...The licence fee isn't exactly value for money for the quality of programming they currently offer....

You're serious? Really? £145.50 per year isn't good value? ~£12 per month isn't decent value? Less than 50p per day isn't good value? Seriously??? Let's see, BBC1-4, BBC News, CBBC, Cbeebies, all the radio channels, iPlayer, the BBC web site...

For me? No.

I watch BBC Three, generally for Family Guy repeats that I can catch on Fox.

Eastenders, Strictly, The One Show, GBBO, The Apprentice etc, all crap that I wish to never have to see or hear about doesn't fill me with any sense of value.

It's my opinion though.

I do know that a lot of countries envy us having the BBC.

Would the beeb be better off financially with an advertising funded system? Considering the huge sums companies chuck at ITV just to show an ad during the X-Factor final, I can imagine the BBC would make a s**-load if it wanted.

Duty281 wrote:Entirely different.  

The BBC licence fee is enshrined in law, and therefore has a clear and apparent duty towards being impartial.

Pray tell, which other media outlet do you know of that has a licence fee enshrined in law?

A valid point. However, you seem to be ranting at the BBC for lack of (perceived) impartiality but would propose what in its stead? A private entity? That would somehow be more impartial how exactly? As Pr4wn (I think) mentioned, the Beeb gets ranted at by both political persuasions so it probably isn't doing a bad job.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Well there's this quote from Andrew Marr who, as we all know, has worked on the BBC for a number of years:

"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities, and gay people. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."

It has also received large sums of money from the European Union over the last eight years, meaning that any neutrality on its reporting of the EU referendum, and other related matters, will surely be put into severe doubt.

Ah yes, as if you're comparing like with like in anything you're saying here. Pray tell, which other media outlet do you know of that has zero bias? Perhaps the Daily Mail? Or the Express? Or what about Murdoch's horrendous empire? Or The Guardian.
It's traditional for the right to lambast the BBC simply because they have the temerity to publish articles that might not agree with a right-wing slant on something. That's life I'm afraid; sometimes others disagree with you.

Some hilarious irony in your post though.

Seriously? That's the level of your 'argument'??? I couldn't give a stuff what private media enterprise was mentioned in my earlier post. The reason they were right-wing was because of the post's target - Duty. Does that compute?

Alistair wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Alistair wrote:...The licence fee isn't exactly value for money for the quality of programming they currently offer....

You're serious? Really? £145.50 per year isn't good value? ~£12 per month isn't decent value? Less than 50p per day isn't good value? Seriously??? Let's see, BBC1-4, BBC News, CBBC, Cbeebies, all the radio channels, iPlayer, the BBC web site...

For me? No.

I watch BBC Three, generally for Family Guy repeats that I can catch on Fox.

Eastenders, Strictly, The One Show, GBBO, The Apprentice etc, all crap that I wish to never have to see or hear about doesn't fill me with any sense of value.

It's my opinion though.

All fine to have opinions but I think it's hard to say that 50p a day isn't decent value for a service that's meant to cater for all sorts. Now, if the argument is about whether you should pay for content that others want to see, that's another thing altogether. I submit that the fact you don't like the idea really is typical of today - what am I getting out of it? What's in it for me?

I watch the very occasional series on the BBC; the only two worth watching in recent years for me have been Sherlock and Luther and I use their website for sport but I could quite as easily use Skysports. For me that does not represent value and i'm ultimately paying for a service I do not use.

I think I mentioned this somewhere on here recently that being impartial is not about hearing from two sides in equal amounts but it is more to do with analyzing the information available in an objective manner.

The bbc like all news outlets occasionally has terrible analysis when the "experts" don't fully understand the subject in question, but are there many examples of the BBC having outright political bias?

I just view it as a tax, we pay countless taxes for things we don't use. Guess a lot of taxpayers pay towards libraries they will never set foot in, other however do use them, we pay for services we will use above and beyond how much we pay for them and some we pay less than the value of our usage. The BBC is no different, for some of us it is poor value, for other it represents terrific value.

I love your BBC......If anyone wants to see biased slanted news one only has to watch networks like MSNBC or Fox.. Even CNN are slanted...

You won't know what you've got till it's gone..

Rowley wrote:I just view it as a tax, we pay countless taxes for things we don't use. Guess a lot of taxpayers pay towards libraries they will never set foot in, other however do use them, we pay for services we will use above and beyond how much we pay for them and some we pay less than the value of our usage. The BBC is no different, for some of us it is poor value, for other it represents terrific value.

Oh come on! That's far too sensible. When I pay for something, I expect to get something out in direct proportion otherwise I'm not interested in contributing! :sarcasm:
It's trendy to slag off the BBC and say it's biased/scheiss/not worth the license fee.
I wonder how many who think the BeeB license fee isn't justifiable will be on the end of a serious chronic illness? Or maybe know someone who is? What about the PTS-affected veteran who can no longer serve or even work? Or the child with terminal cancer who'll never get to pay into the NHS? I wonder whether they think it's worth paying in for others to get more benefit than those others had contributed towards or that they themselves might ever require?

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Entirely different.  

The BBC licence fee is enshrined in law, and therefore has a clear and apparent duty towards being impartial.

Pray tell, which other media outlet do you know of that has a licence fee enshrined in law?

A valid point. However, you seem to be ranting at the BBC for lack of (perceived) impartiality but would propose what in its stead? A private entity? That would somehow be more impartial how exactly? As Pr4wn (I think) mentioned, the Beeb gets ranted at by both political persuasions so it probably isn't doing a bad job.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Well there's this quote from Andrew Marr who, as we all know, has worked on the BBC for a number of years:

"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities, and gay people. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."

It has also received large sums of money from the European Union over the last eight years, meaning that any neutrality on its reporting of the EU referendum, and other related matters, will surely be put into severe doubt.

Ah yes, as if you're comparing like with like in anything you're saying here. Pray tell, which other media outlet do you know of that has zero bias? Perhaps the Daily Mail? Or the Express? Or what about Murdoch's horrendous empire? Or The Guardian.
It's traditional for the right to lambast the BBC simply because they have the temerity to publish articles that might not agree with a right-wing slant on something. That's life I'm afraid; sometimes others disagree with you.

Some hilarious irony in your post though.

Seriously? That's the level of your 'argument'??? I couldn't give a stuff what private media enterprise was mentioned in my earlier post. The reason they were right-wing was because of the post's target - Duty. Does that compute?

Alistair wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Alistair wrote:...The licence fee isn't exactly value for money for the quality of programming they currently offer....

You're serious? Really? £145.50 per year isn't good value? ~£12 per month isn't decent value? Less than 50p per day isn't good value? Seriously??? Let's see, BBC1-4, BBC News, CBBC, Cbeebies, all the radio channels, iPlayer, the BBC web site...

For me? No.

I watch BBC Three, generally for Family Guy repeats that I can catch on Fox.

Eastenders, Strictly, The One Show, GBBO, The Apprentice etc, all crap that I wish to never have to see or hear about doesn't fill me with any sense of value.

It's my opinion though.

All fine to have opinions but I think it's hard to say that 50p a day isn't decent value for a service that's meant to cater for all sorts. Now, if the argument is about whether you should pay for content that others want to see, that's another thing altogether. I submit that the fact you don't like the idea really is typical of today - what am I getting out of it? What's in it for me?

"It's traditional for the right to lambast the BBC simply because they have the temerity to publish articles that might not agree with a right-wing slant "

speaks to a very different mindset that simply "Duty is right therefore I used right media in my resposne".

typical dismissive leftism. Why the Beeb bury it's NHS report when it didn't come out badly for the Tories?? Being annoyed by that is nothing to do with a 'right wing slant', it's everything to do with the Beeb, despite its legal objective to be neutral, purposefully going out to attack the incumbent Tory government and then, when its own report failed to achieve this, bury the evidence.

Hence the fine and admonishment it received from the regulator.

McLaren wrote:I think I mentioned this somewhere on here recently that being impartial is not about hearing from two sides in equal amounts but it is more to do with analyzing the information available in an objective manner.

The bbc like all news outlets occasionally has terrible analysis when the "experts" don't fully understand the subject in question, but are there many examples of the BBC having outright political bias?

Yes, which I've quoted twice on here already.

I would chuck in Gaza too - though I couldn't attribute that to a party it did feel overtly political.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Rowley wrote:I just view it as a tax, we pay countless taxes for things we don't use. Guess a lot of taxpayers pay towards libraries they will never set foot in, other however do use them, we pay for services we will use above and beyond how much we pay for them and some we pay less than the value of our usage. The BBC is no different, for some of us it is poor value, for other it represents terrific value.

Oh come on! That's far too sensible. When I pay for something, I expect to get something out in direct proportion otherwise I'm not interested in contributing! :sarcasm:
It's trendy to slag off the BBC and say it's biased/scheiss/not worth the license fee.
I wonder how many who think the BeeB license fee isn't justifiable will be on the end of a serious chronic illness? Or maybe know someone who is? What about the PTS-affected veteran who can no longer serve or even work? Or the child with terminal cancer who'll never get to pay into the NHS? I wonder whether they think it's worth paying in for others to get more benefit than those others had contributed towards or that they themselves might ever require?

What a rambling bunch of nonesense.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Rowley wrote:I just view it as a tax, we pay countless taxes for things we don't use. Guess a lot of taxpayers pay towards libraries they will never set foot in, other however do use them, we pay for services we will use above and beyond how much we pay for them and some we pay less than the value of our usage. The BBC is no different, for some of us it is poor value, for other it represents terrific value.

Oh come on! That's far too sensible. When I pay for something, I expect to get something out in direct proportion otherwise I'm not interested in contributing! :sarcasm:
It's trendy to slag off the BBC and say it's biased/scheiss/not worth the license fee.
I wonder how many who think the BeeB license fee isn't justifiable will be on the end of a serious chronic illness? Or maybe know someone who is? What about the PTS-affected veteran who can no longer serve or even work? Or the child with terminal cancer who'll never get to pay into the NHS? I wonder whether they think it's worth paying in for others to get more benefit than those others had contributed towards or that they themselves might ever require?

What a completely ridiculous viewpoint, if i'm paying a licence fee to use the BBC services then yes I do want value for money and I see no reason why I wouldn't while comparing it to the NHS does not make it justifiable. One of the worst arguments i've seen on here.