Funding of the BBC

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Wait a minute, haven't we been through all this before? So how can you say with a straight face that it ain't broke?

There is nothing broke about the TV license and the BBC apart from yourself who keeps deluding himself that there is a better model out there that will be cheaper when it will be nothing of the sort..

---------- Post added at 18:08 ---------- Previous post was at 18:08 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

At least, I assume you have a straight face! .

They don't call me poker face for nothing.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Er, I do know what a public service broadcaster is, Mr K. However, it is a very old fashioned innovation and it's about time the concept was thoroughly reviewed.

The last thorough review began in 2015 and led to the charter renewal of 2017. That charter expires in 2028 so it’s likely the next thorough review will commence in about 2026.

Every time the BBC’s charter has been renewed over almost 100 years (each charter lasting around 10-15 years) its remit has been reviewed and revised.

I get that your opinion is that public service broadcasting - most especially as performed by the BBC - is an old fashioned idea, but it is an idea that has been thoroughly reviewed and renewed eight times since the first one was issued in 1927. So yours is not an opinion that has any significant traction among the experts whose job it is to investigate these things, even though I have no doubt they receive submissions similar to your opinion on each occasion.

You and other naysayers keep on saying that the cost of a subscription would be more than the cost of a TV licence. I disagree. The freedom the Beeb would gain from breaking away from government control (including not having to fund free licences for the elderly) would make up for the slightly smaller number taking up the subscription.

Slightly smaller number, hmm? What is this number? And what is your source?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

The last thorough review began in 2015 and led to the charter renewal of 2017. That charter expires in 2028 so it’s likely the next thorough review will commence in about 2026.

Every time the BBC’s charter has been renewed over almost 100 years (each charter lasting around 10-15 years) its remit has been reviewed and revised.

I get that your opinion is that public service broadcasting - most especially as performed by the BBC - is an old fashioned idea, but it is an idea that has been thoroughly reviewed and renewed eight times since the first one was issued in 1927. So yours is not an opinion that has any significant traction among the experts whose job it is to investigate these things, even though I have no doubt they receive submissions similar to your opinion on each occasion.



Slightly smaller number, hmm? What is this number? And what is your source?

As I said, old fashioned. There comes a point when sticking plaster is just not going to work any more.

As for my source...nobody who disagrees with my point of view ever provides a source to back up their views, so why should I? I've provided a link to many of my arguments over time but the same guys just carry on ignoring them and protesting the opposite.

Strange, that.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

As I said, old fashioned. There comes a point when sticking plaster is just not going to work any more.

As for my source...nobody who disagrees with my point of view ever provides a source to back up their views, so why should I? I've provided a link to many of my arguments over time but the same guys just carry on ignoring them and protesting the opposite.

Strange, that.

Something that is regularly reviewed and updated to take account of current circumstances before being allowed to continue is by definition not old fashioned. Much the same way as a suit bought last week from Marks and Spencer’s Spring 2019 collection isn’t old fashioned, just because they’ve been selling suits for over a century.

From the rest of your post I deduce that you cannot cite any research that backs up your assertion that switching the BBC to a subscription funding model would result in only a slightly smaller number of subscribers compared to licence fee payers.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Something that is regularly reviewed and updated to take account of current circumstances before being allowed to continue is by definition not old fashioned. Much the same way as a suit bought last week from Marks and Spencer’s Spring 2019 collection isn’t old fashioned, just because they’ve been selling suits for over a century.

From the rest of your post I deduce that you cannot cite any research that backs up your assertion that switching the BBC to a subscription funding model would result in only a slightly smaller number of subscribers compared to licence fee payers.

If you say so, Chris.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

Something that is regularly reviewed and updated to take account of current circumstances before being allowed to continue is by definition not old fashioned. Much the same way as a suit bought last week from Marks and Spencer’s Spring 2019 collection isn’t old fashioned, just because they’ve been selling suits for over a century.

From the rest of your post I deduce that you cannot cite any research that backs up your assertion that switching the BBC to a subscription funding model would result in only a slightly smaller number of subscribers compared to licence fee payers.

OB has got it totally wrong. A subscription model would be compared with the offerings of Netflix and be cast aside. The BBC is TV of last resort and do a reasonable job - save for the leftie news team.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

OB has got it totally wrong. A subscription model would be compared with the offerings of Netflix and be cast aside. The BBC is TV of last resort and do a reasonable job - save for the leftie news team.

Ah the old bias thing, your left is somebody elses right... They can never win on that one.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

OB has got it totally wrong. A subscription model would be compared with the offerings of Netflix and be cast aside. The BBC is TV of last resort and do a reasonable job - save for the leftie news team.

Don't leave out the leftie brexit hating politics live fiasco.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

OB has got it totally wrong. A subscription model would be compared with the offerings of Netflix and be cast aside. The BBC is TV of last resort and do a reasonable job - save for the leftie news team.

l agree with most of what you say but lets keep the politics out of this thread.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by denphone

l agree with most of what you say but lets keep the politics out of this thread.

That's difficult when they have a clear political bias.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Ah the old bias thing, your left is somebody elses right... They can never win on that one.

BBC can never win no matter what they say Mr K.

---------- Post added at 10:48 ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

That's difficult when they have a clear political bias.

So if it does not suit your own personal political agenda it must be bias against your own beliefs.


There are guidelines which all BBC news output has to adhere to.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguide...s/impartiality

https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguide...factual-output

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

That's difficult when they have a clear political bias.

If anything, I'd honestly say it's the other way, so maybe they are getting it right. (Andrew Neil has worked for the Cnservative party, and their coverage of Corbyn has hardly been balanced)

Who would you call unbiased ? Your beloved Express, Fox news??

There is certainly an element of the Govts. of the day threatening BBC funding unless they are 'nice' to them. All Govts. hate media outlets they can't control/ influence.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Mr K

If anything, I'd honestly say it's the other way, so maybe they are getting it right. (Andrew Neil has worked for the Cnservative party, and their coverage of Corbyn has hardly been balanced)

Who would you call unbiased ? Your beloved Express, Fox news??§

There is certainly an element of the Govts. of the day threatening BBC funding unless they are 'nice' to them. All Govts. hate media outlets they can't control/ influence.

Given Corbyn’s position in Parliament and his historical support for terrorists and commie regimes, plus his support for ant-Semitic causes, there’s nothing to balance out the bad that’s said about Corbyn.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Given Corbyn’s position in Parliament and his historical support for terrorists and commie regimes, plus his support for ant-Semitic causes, there’s nothing to balance out the bad that’s said about Corbyn.

It's a point of view, there are others, which should be heard. I think you and many others want a broadcaster that only reflects your views.

The Govt. has done nothing less than try to bully the BBC since 2010, with the threat of hitting funding if they don't comply. It'lll be a sad day if they submit and we don't have independent reporting any longer.

Getting back to funding, freezing the licence fee for 6 years has led to more repeats and the loss of BBC3. As with everything else pay less, get less. Blame HM Govt., not the BBC.

[Jimmy-J]

'Netflix effect' sees nearly a MILLION Britons cancel their TV licence in last year as viewers ditch BBC in favour of streaming services

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ence-year.html