Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
I don't think it is right to compare entertainment in the home with essential public services such as social care, public health, waste services, etc.
These services benefit everyone either directly or indirectly. Even if you don't have children, you still benefit from education services because this ensures that society can continue to develop and function properly when we get old.
Personal entertainment is not in the same category, and given the resentment that some feel because they don't watch or listen to the BBC and so they are effectively paying for others to be entertained, the licence fee is not the best way to fund the BBC.
I don't know where the objection to a subscription funded BBC comes from. If the cost is about the same as a licence fee, what is there to complain about?
Judging by the reports on the popularity of the corporation, most people would choose to subscribe anyway. So what is the big deal?
|
You seem to be only using one part of what the BBC is designed to do:
No wonder you don't see it's full value if you're only considering the entertainment part.
Quote:
I don't know where the objection to a subscription funded BBC comes from. If the cost is about the same as a licence fee, what is there to complain about?
|
Are you serious? The BBC could never provide the breadth of content it does now on a £12.50 p/m subscription model.
Quote:
|
Judging by the reports on the popularity of the corporation, most people would choose to subscribe anyway. So what is the big deal
|
Given that the licence fee was retained because of the overwhelming support for it in surveys prior to the white paper, that makes the above statement nonsense.
I think your determination to privatise the BBC, which is perfectly in line with what this government would like to do (fortunately held back by a sensible public, who put reason before political dogma), makes your views and mine so far apart, that it's pointless clogging up this thread with more discussion.