NEWS: BBC TV licence fee to rise £3 from April

Many many people disagree with your analysis. Art is intrinsic to life and through art and culture we can find many many things. and those things are as important to happiness and well being as potholes - and increased happiness keeps people healthy.

As to the NHS: BBC Programs like Trust Me I'm a doctor do a great and what not to eat do things the NHS can't do which is educate people in huge numbers how to eat and live healthy reducing the burdens on the NHS.

The uptake of people attending dance classes has shot up since strictly, keeping people fit and healthy and finding new friends helping fight loneliness.

And its not single audiences that matter.

Enders research's latest figures show that 91% of the British public engage with some aspect of the BBC every week. Thats way above your 30%.

Your idea that the BBC is intrinsic to your life is a perfectly fine. I use other outlets for my art and culture than the BBc and millions of people do the same. The falling viewership of BBC services are a stark and real reminder of the undeniable fact that each year less and less people are looking to the BBC for their slice of art and culture. I already have part of my taxes distributed to the arts in Britain, that's enough for me thanks.
I don't need the BBC to act as a proxy health service, that is the job of of the NHS that we happily we pay our tax for, perhaps they could go back to playing public information films nannying the state to wash their hands and lag their pipes in the winter. When Lord Reith said it was the duty of the BBC to educate I don't think he was intending an hour long filler reality show pointing out the bleeding obvious to the couple of million viewers who were too lazy to turn over after that wonderfully artistic Eastenders episode.
Dancing classes? Really, we are defending the BBC by pointing out that watching strictly is giving a boost to your local Latin instructor?

People may look at the website or check the news, why not they are paying for it,but less and less people are watching and listening to the BBC and it will only decline further due to demographics. The young do not have any interest and the older viewers and listeners will pass away.

You and many others enjoy auntie and that's fine, I and many others don't. We are happy for you to continue paying for a service you enjoy, just allow those that do not want to get our art, culture and tango tips from the beeb to pay for it.
 
It really grates with me paying for the BBC to take the p!!s out of the working man. If they get any further left they will fall over. Making over 75s pay for there licence then decide to put it up as well. I for one will not miss the middle class elites mouth piece that's for sure.
 
Thinking about it, my son and his friends and my mates sons and daughters and friends 21 to 30 years old at least I am sure have no interest in the BBC whatsoever. Most of them just watch streams on their phones. They don't even use laptops. Maybe all the oldies who want the BBc should pay because they love and believe in it and let the young guys alone. You know it makes sense :cool:
 
There is a underlying idea that the BBC is somehow not a Media company providing TV and Radio services but a necessity akin to the NHS or our Education, Defence or Policing. We should all therefore realise that the tax we pay for the upkeep of this Media company will if removed destroy the very fabric of our nation.
This view is of course nuts. The BBC is of lower priority than pothole repairs and domestic refuse collections when it comes how and where our tax is spent. Putting aside this NHS/BBC claptrap for a moment ( recent polls suggest that people are willing to be happy for increased tax specifically for the NHS ) the question is simple, if the BBC is such a national treasure and so beloved by its viewers and listeners then a move to a subscription basis will have little or no damage to their financial position as everyone will be happy to continue to pay for the privilege. I somehow don't think that the populace will be so willing to increase tax for the BBC as they would for the NHS.
The writing is on the wall for the beeb, young people have no interest and its viewers dwindle year on year. Its average age is over 60. The only times the Beeb gets an audience that can be argued as signicant ( ie 30%+ of the population) is for England football games or a major national occasion like a royal wedding.
Whatever happens it is clear that the licence fee will be replaced or modified in the next contract discussions, what type of BBC that will emerge is the next question
The BBC is part of the fabric of this nation and if it was to disappear the nature of our country would change. Of course it's not as important as institutions such as The NHS, a better comparison is The Monarchy; both The Queen and The BBC have their detractors and supporters but if you got rid of either of them it would change the character of our country; some say for the better some say the worst, either way there's no denying Britain would change.
 
The BBC is part of the fabric of this nation and if it was to disappear the nature of our country would change. Of course it's not as important as institutions such as The NHS, a better comparison is The Monarchy; both The Queen and The BBC have their detractors and supporters but if you got rid of either of them it would change the character of our country; some say for the better some say the worst, either way there's no denying Britain would change.

Change is both inevitable and a constant in society, anyone or any group that try's to avoid it is inevitably left behind, it can sometimes seem cruel but at its best its chance to make things 'fairer.'
 
The BBC is part of the fabric of this nation and if it was to disappear the nature of our country would change. Of course it's not as important as institutions such as The NHS, a better comparison is The Monarchy; both The Queen and The BBC have their detractors and supporters but if you got rid of either of them it would change the character of our country; some say for the better some say the worst, either way there's no denying Britain would change.

Nobody is saying it’s got to disappear completely. It just needs the way it’s funded changing.
 
The only things i watch on bbc now are the text on the news with the sound down as I do not like the chatter and 2 or 3 of the 6 nations games every year. Sometimes i dip into wimbledon in the second week if i am not streaming this through another source. And I am an old guy ! Well worth the fee for me :cool: I am very selfish i know :)
 
It could be argued that comparing the BBC to the likes of Netflix is unfair, because they’re not the same animal. Yet nearly every BBC advert for something carries the iPlayer message. Either the BBC wants to be a Netflix, or it doesn’t. The subscription model, if suitably tiered, is attractive to many, but it will never work if it means relying on the archaic iPlayer that delivers low-rent HD and stereo audio, whilst the competition is moving to 4K as standard, with multichannel audio. I complained to the BBC about the lamentable quality of iPlayer, and the missive that I received by way of a reply stated that the quality improvements were frequently requested by viewers, yet what we have prevails. The debacle over BBC Three is another case in point. It’s removed from DSAT/DTT and made an Internet-only channel because millennials stream everything nowadays. Yet we now find the BBC1 schedule carrying BBC3 material in order to increase linear TV viewings by those very same millennials that stream everything. The point that I’m making, perhaps badly, is that the BBC is riddled with waste, but whilst that guaranteed licence fee keeps on rolling in nothing will change. I want the BBC to survive, but not in its current form. It needs to evolve.

Clem

You need to separate out content delivery and content creation.

I think I am right in saying Sweden has shut down its OTA DTV network. And I totally agree the iplayer is well behind Netflix in terms of A/V quality but streets ahead of ITV hub and C4. But then again Netflix have to make it work as its their sole method of delivery. They are also up to their necks in debt.

Netflix originals makes up a small proportion of its content and when you compare what kind of content they make compared to the BBC there is no contest. No live sport, no news, no big shiny floor shows like Strictly, no current affairs, no radio shows like Infinite Monkey Cage, Womans hour, podcasts like brexitcast etc. And literally world beating Natural History programming. And thats without all the other stuff.

The debate should be do we want to fund a content creator with a public service remit to inform, educate and entertain that (even in its current state) continues to be the envy of the world and whose tentacles reach into almost all corners of the country and beyond, or do we want our content to come solely from market driven providers with a completely different set of priorities.

I for one believe our nation would suffer culturally if we chose the latter.
 
Change is both inevitable and a constant in society, anyone or any group that try's to avoid it is inevitably left behind, it can sometimes seem cruel but at its best its chance to make things 'fairer.'
I'm not arguing against change, I was responding to the claim the BBC is just a content provider, it much more than that. It's part of the British psyche, it's as Britsh as The Monarchy, red post boxes or The NHS. It's not as important as The NHS but like The NHS, The BBC is amongst the British institutions most valued by British people, it's one of the most admired institutions throughout the world and gives our country a presence and degree of influence across the world. To claim it's just another Netflix is patently wrong.
 
I'm not arguing against change, I was responding to the claim the BBC is just a content provider, it much more than that. It's part of the British psyche, it's as Britsh as The Monarchy, red post boxes or The NHS. It's not as important as The NHS but like The NHS, The BBC is amongst the British institutions most valued by British people, it's one of the most admired institutions throughout the world and gives our country a presence and degree of influence across the world. To claim it's just another Netflix is patently wrong.

The BBC has been a much cherished British Institution. I no longer believe it is. You obviously think it still holds this mythology. If it is so valued as you say, then the move to a subscription based service will have little or no difference to its funding. The British people will just like the NHS feel more than happy to support it. A new BBC will emerge knowing that by the British people voluntarily paying for this venerated institution they can face the future with a new mandate.
A win/ win solution.
 
The BBC has been a much cherished British Institution. I no longer believe it is. You obviously think it still holds this mythology. If it is so valued as you say, then the move to a subscription based service will have little or no difference to its funding. The British people will just like the NHS feel more than happy to support it. A new BBC will emerge knowing that by the British people voluntarily paying for this venerated institution they can face the future with a new mandate.
A win/ win solution.

In immunisation there is whats called Herd Immunity. So the more people that get immunised the greater the effect. Already we are seeing the effects of people deciding it doesn't matter if they don't get their kids immunised and diseases like Measles are starting to re-appear.

Everyone chipping in to fund the BBC is similar. The range and breadth of services that it can provide are only doable because we all chip in. Remove that requirement and people will think Oh I don't need to pay for its others will - but I'll still get the benefit. And then it all starts to fall apart.

Its easy to find stories all around the UK of people who benefit from the BBC in tiny ways. Add them all up and its fairly obvious to see the BBC is a pretty integral part of our nation.

At some point you just have to put personal views aside and ask whats best for the nation.
 
The BBC has been a much cherished British Institution. I no longer believe it is. You obviously think it still holds this mythology.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe the BBC is a club for middle-class white men, it doesn't reflect the diversity of British society and doesn't serve minority communities well. It's tried to address it's lack of diversity by, for example, promoting female presenters many of whom aren't very good. This is just window dressing. The BBC needs to commission programming from a diverse source of programme makers and not just their white male Oxbridge buddies. This why I resent paying the TV Licence because the BBC either ignores the community to which I belong or portrays it in an ignorant or stereotypical fashion. It's still better than Netflix though.
 
Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe the BBC is a club for middle-class white men, it doesn't reflect the diversity of British society and doesn't serve minority communities well. It's tried to address it's lack of diversity by, for example, promoting female presenters many of whom aren't very good. This is just window dressing. The BBC needs to commission programming from a diverse source of programme makers and not just their white male Oxbridge buddies. This why I resent paying the TV Licence because the BBC either ignores the community to which I belong or portrays it in an ignorant or stereotypical fashion. It's still better than Netflix though.

actually behind the scenes the BBC has changed a lot . a large proportion of the production teams i work with are very heavily female, predominantly white but not exclusively, A large number have been to oxbridge but not all and personally I don’t have a problem with people going to a super good university.

as to commissioning works from more a more diverse background it is moving in the right direction but slowly. But the entire industry not just the BBC is at fault in this respect,
 
They should produce content that is good, not because of how diverse a background it comes from. That should be irrelevant.
 
Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe the BBC is a club for middle-class white men, it doesn't reflect the diversity of British society and doesn't serve minority communities well. It's tried to address it's lack of diversity by, for example, promoting female presenters many of whom aren't very good. This is just window dressing. The BBC needs to commission programming from a diverse source of programme makers and not just their white male Oxbridge buddies. This why I resent paying the TV Licence because the BBC either ignores the community to which I belong or portrays it in an ignorant or stereotypical fashion. It's still better than Netflix though.

I dunno, they seem to be working very hard on it to me


Of course far from perfect but it's not like they're not trying to identify the issues and get rid of them. There is also a danger of over representation too. Being a minority means getting some proportional voice, not getting a disproportionately large voice.

As for working at the BBC mechanisms such as positive discrimination are a very slippery slope that can potentially lead to not the best person getting the role. That, of course, opens up the whole debate over the predominance of privately educated (mainly white) people getting the jobs too but that's a whole separate discussion.

All I will say on that is very few people really appreciate how much better private education is than the state sector. It's so vastly superior that it's incredibly difficult for a state school educated person to compete on any level. Not that they are in any way less intelligent or capable but the education, resources and opportunities just don't compare. Until the state education system comes within 50% (as opposed to the 5% it does today) of the private sector most high level jobs in most industries are going to continue to be filled by the (predominantly) white middle class who can afford it. But that's not really for the BBC to sort out.

G
 
@Mjsanders400: Everyone chipping in for the BBC is fine so long as everyone then gains a sense of value and that they're getting something for their money. Not everyone feels that way. The BBC no longer provides as much content as it once did -- a lot of it is now produced by external agencies, which in turn governs how long material ends-up being visible on iPlayer before it finds a new home on Amazon Video or Netflix. Everyone has their own ideas as what the BBC is and what value it has to them.

The diversity/positive discrimination attitudes of the BBC annoys many for differing reasons. If you're from a minority, whatever it might be, then you may well feel that the BBC is not representing you and your views. But the BBC has taken this too far. Featuring people just to fill diversity quotas at the expense of real talent or skill is wrong. The hectoring, patronising view is also wrong. By chance, I caught a bit of last week's Dr Who. In the space of ten minutes or so we'd touched on global warming, how the seas were filling-up with plastic, gay love, and so on. Entertainment programmes like this, are not, in my opinion, the correct platform for these sort of messages, important as they are. But that, to me, seems to be what the BBC is all about nowadays. But even when it does try and produce a documentary for example, detailed content is frequently dumbed-down. Language is simplified, and depth of detail is scant. If the BBC is all about educating the masses, then how about treating us like adults (for the appropriate content) rather than simpletons? At present, it seems to me that the BBC is hell-bent on chasing millenials, who have no real interest in what the BBC is or does, and casting aside those of us that would still like to watch and listen to its output, if it was relevant to them. The BBC can't be all things to all people. I accept that. But the relentless chase to the bottom, with patronising output, misplaced attempts at dealing with diversity issues, a clear left-leaning, London-centric view of things alienates many, who question why they should pay for something that offers them little in return. As I said earlier, the BBC needs to change. It needs to listen to what its viewers and listeners are telling them. It needs to appeal to all of society, not just sections of it. If the licence fee guaranteed that, I'd have no problems paying it, but whilst I consume so little of the BBC's output, simply because there's nothing for me, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify, compounded by the recent announcement of a £3/month increase. For me, it's no biggie, but for those on a limited budget it could well be. Yet if they don't pay, a possible criminal record is on offer. In 2020? Really?

Clem
 
In immunisation there is whats called Herd Immunity. So the more people that get immunised the greater the effect. Already we are seeing the effects of people deciding it doesn't matter if they don't get their kids immunised and diseases like Measles are starting to re-appear.

Everyone chipping in to fund the BBC is similar. The range and breadth of services that it can provide are only doable because we all chip in. Remove that requirement and people will think Oh I don't need to pay for its others will - but I'll still get the benefit. And then it all starts to fall apart.


Immunisation has a single, pure and critical purpose that it achieves.

The BBC is bloated and doesn't as it try's to be everything to everyone.

Reality tv, shiny floor entertainment, Gary Lineker, soap operas, Mrs Browns Boys ... heck even some of their more acclaimed dramas like 'The Bodyguard' all have an incredibly weak claim to being made in the public interest at a HUGE expense from their publicly funded budget when commercial broadcasters and internet broadcasters can do the same job.

I do have much more sympathy for the arguments of Local news, minorities programming and educational documentary being publicly funded, however it painfully clear that these are not the primary focus of the BBC or the lion share of its expenditure. Heck even commercial broadcasters like C4 do a good job at providing some of this.
 
Last edited:
I dunno, they seem to be working very hard on it to me


As for working at the BBC mechanisms such as positive discrimination are a very slippery slope that can potentially lead to not the best person getting the role.

G
Positive discrimination has been going on for a very very long time, people refuse to recognise it because it's positive discrimination in favour of middleclass white men. You're right it doesn't lead to the best getting the job, just look at who the Prime Minister is.

All I will say on that is very few people really appreciate how much better private education is than the state sector. It's so vastly superior that it's incredibly difficult for a state school educated person to compete on any level. Not that they are in any way less intelligent or capable but the education, resources and opportunities just don't compare.
G
We 're talking about the creative industries and you can't teach creativity in a classroom, no matter how expensive and elitist it is.
 
[/QUOTE]

In immunisation there is whats called Herd Immunity. So the more people that get immunised the greater the effect. Already we are seeing the effects of people deciding it doesn't matter if they don't get their kids immunised and diseases like Measles are starting to re-appear.

Everyone chipping in to fund the BBC is similar. The range and breadth of services that it can provide are only doable because we all chip in. Remove that requirement and people will think Oh I don't need to pay for its others will - but I'll still get the benefit. And then it all starts to fall apart.

Its easy to find stories all around the UK of people who benefit from the BBC in tiny ways. Add them all up and its fairly obvious to see the BBC is a pretty integral part of our nation.

At some point you just have to put personal views aside and ask whats best for the nation.

This point of us all "chipping in"" for the BBC being for the greater good of the British people is sorry, claptrap. We are going round in circles. The BBC is not the NHS, or our Education system, or our Police force or any one of the services this country needs to function. It is not "an integral part of our nation", although it still clings to that belief as its viewing and listening figures continue to decline.

The people that don't want to pay for BBC services do not also do not want the benefit of them. By not paying for a subscription for the BBC I would have thought it is obvious that they have no interest in using those services. They are quite happy for you to continue to do so.
 
Thinking about it, my son and his friends and my mates sons and daughters and friends 21 to 30 years old at least I am sure have no interest in the BBC whatsoever. Most of them just watch streams on their phones. They don't even use laptops. Maybe all the oldies who want the BBc should pay because they love and believe in it and let the young guys alone. You know it makes sense :cool:
I'm sure the twenty&thirtyomethings and younger are interested in the BBC. If it wasn't for the 20 year olds in my office I wouldn't have given Fleabag or Killing Eve a chance.

Also when you say leave the young ones alone, leave them alone to do what? Consume content without paying for it? The ones I work with think I'm mad because I spend money on blu rays. They don't pay for Netflix or Sky or so they say, they tell me they share login details with each other or simply download stuff and not pay for it. My kids, nephews, nieces and their friends are the same, they belong to a generation that listen to music they don't pay for and watch tv content and films they don't pay for. What's worse they don't think what they're doing is in any way wrong.
 
No one else noticed its timed with the minimum wage going up, I have a feeling we all going to be worse of over all when everyone puts up there costs to accommodate it.

As for the licence fee, scrap it biggest con being forced on the public.
Only thing I still watch on there is top gear and the occasional drama.
From what i understand top gear makes it money by being sold to other countries.

The last drama I watched was Dracula, which shows what is wrong with most of the shows being made on the BBC now. All look the same with PC issues pushed at the cost of the story.
Now that was a waste of public funding, even if it was made with Netflix,
 
No one else noticed its timed with the minimum wage going up, I have a feeling we all going to be worse of over all when everyone puts up there costs to accommodate it.

As for the licence fee, scrap it biggest con being forced on the public.
Only thing I still watch on there is top gear and the occasional drama.
From what i understand top gear makes it money by being sold to other countries.

The last drama I watched was Dracula, which shows what is wrong with most of the shows being made on the BBC now. All look the same with PC issues pushed at the cost of the story.
Now that was a waste of public funding, even if it was made with Netflix,
The BBC is a left wing establishment every programme they make is pushing wokism all there political programmes are the same. The BBC are being run by people who are pushing there own personal agendas they are not neutral anymore. Look at brexit night the studio made out in the European colours. I'll bet if the BBC goes subscription only they will be finished a large majority of Joe public are fed up with there patronising bull crap.
 
Last night’s Dr Who topic, which I had on in the background whilst I was having dinner, was mental health issues. The programme was followed-up by one of those “If you’ve been affected by ...” announcements. Enough! This is supposed to be entertainment, but then most people’s ideas about entertainment are clearly at odds with what the BBC considers entertainment.

Clem
 
Last night’s Dr Who topic, which I had on in the background whilst I was having dinner, was mental health issues. The programme was followed-up by one of those “If you’ve been affected by ...” announcements. Enough! This is supposed to be entertainment, but then most people’s ideas about entertainment are clearly at odds with what the BBC considers entertainment.

Clem
Like I said its just about taking over the BBC in every aspect. BBC made a horrible history's show which perpetratored that Britain never did any good in the world and encouraged slavery even though Britain played a big part in slavery getting abolished. Surprised worzel gummidge wasn't changed to wurzelina gummidge and made female. It's madness but they won't stop.
 
We 're talking about the creative industries and you can't teach creativity in a classroom, no matter how expensive and elitist it is.

Creativity that is unfocussed and unharnessed is about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Creativity which lacks education, training, funding and practice leads at worst nowhere and at best to rubbish.

Furthermore harnessing interest and desire in the young should be a core part of the education they all receive and is vital for diversity and interest in the arts. Instead, state education has systematically reduced or even removed funding for music and the arts for years. Local educational music tuition for example is now almost exclusively left to those more affluent who are able to afford private tuition as most school run tuition (if it exists at all) is private and paid for by the students. This gives you some idea of the scale of the problem in state education.


While creative ability may be argued to be a natural trait the opportunity, resources and training to harness and enthuse that creativity is almost unrecognisable between the state and private sectors and it's getting worse. This means a grossly disproportionate number of people who are trained and interested in music and the arts will be from this "elite" background. That isn't their fault and neither is it the BBC's who have to choose the best candidates from the available pool of those who are interested.

In my life I've been heavily involved in arts and the media. I've seen first hand what that gap in training and education causes when I've worked with creative people. My personal experience has been that creativity and talent come from all backgrounds but those who come from a better educated, better trained and more nurtured background tend to be "better" than those that don't. That is absolutely true early in their career if not throughout. Given the same advantages, training and education I have no doubts everyone would be equally capable but to suggest it has no effect or impact at all just suggests you have little experience of actually working in those industries, with creative people or with the creative process in general.

G
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom