please empty your brain below

Your last paragraph neatly sums up my feelings as well. Compare the BBC with every other broadcaster in the world and you will see just how good it is. Once it has been changed for the worse it will, I fear, be impossible to repair the damage.
You don't know what you've lost 'till it's gone.
"I do not understand how so many people can be against a broadcasting service that delivers so much for just 40p a day".

Personally, I think that 40p/day to watch the BBC channels is quite reasonable.

However the only reason it works out at 40p/day is because all TV viewers are forced to pay the license fee regardless of whether they watch any of the BCC channels or not.

If people could choose whether or not to pay to watch the BBC channels, many people would choose not to and so the daily fee would significantly increase for the rest of us.

My view is that the government should provide funding to the BBC to enable it to provide news and public information through general taxation (not a license fee) and let the BBC provide all other services by taking advertising or by asking users to pay a subscription fee.

Regards
We're getting what they voted for, another British treasure that won't be missed until it's gone.
How about a campaign from a trade union, because the government really likes them.

BECTU is running a 'love it or lose it' campaign, with a petition that I'm hoping is just the starting point of their work here. But if a petition saved 6 Music...
@ zin92 '. . . let the BBC provide all other services by taking advertising.' Have you ever watched commercial television? It's the advertising that makes it so dire/ unwatchable.
Well, I think we know where you are coming from, DG, and whilst I generally sympathise, I feel of late the BBC has, how shall I put it, lost the plot a bit. 5 examples: handling of the Savile affair, bloated management and excessive in the extreme payoffs including one for 'disappointment at not getting a top job', obsession with reality TV programmes,complete collapse of decent sports coverage and an expansion online into local news coverage that is wrecking local newspapers. Having said that, the BBC does many things brilliantly such political coverage eg the 'Daily Politics' programme and 'Question Time'. In summary, I feel they have spread too far and too thinly and a financial boot up the bum is needed.
"I do not understand how so many people can be against a broadcasting service that delivers so much for just 40p a day, but will merrily pay far more for a Sky subscription that's mostly repeats."

Because they have A CHOICE to pay for those Sky services. Thus, equally, they could choose not to pay for them. Instead, we are forced (by law) to prop up the BBC and their mixed services. Yes, some are good. No, not all of them are. By some distance.
Funny thing is, their election coverage was horrendously biased, which would have left them happily sitting as Weird Ed's favourite toy, had the opinion polls been correct. Karma can be a bitch though, ne?

"That would keep Auntie permanently on her toes"

You say that like a body funded with £3.6 BILLION of public money shouldn't expect to be held to account.
I was wondering how long it would take to get the first "the BBC is horrendously biased" comment.
Julian - The BBC's online news coverage of the London area is minimal (less than 20 stories in the last 24 hours, half of these sports-related, and most of the rest simply rehashed TV news content). They're not even close to competing with local newspapers.
Of course people who pay for Sky or other subscription service channels still get commercials in the pay to view programmes.

I cannot see the license fee funding continuing much longer.It was introduced when there was only the BBC, and that was radio. Back then because some of the BBC radio was not enjoyed by the public they tuned into Radio Normandy, and later radio Luxemboug but still had to pay the Radio license to the BBC. Another radio licence was needed for a radio fitted in a car!. Today there are hundreds of TV channels most of which are free to view. Of course the radio license was abolished so that is now free, and there are plenty of non BBC radio stations.
There are probably many homes that never watch BBC TV channels but are compelled to pay for them.
The BBC wasted much money forcing DAB radio onto the public. This means that, for example, Radio 4 is now transmitted on Long Waves 1500Khz UK wide, MW 720Khz London area, VHF UK wide, Freeview UK wide, DAB UK wide and Satellite UK wide. As well as on the internet. That is seven modes broadcasting the same program. I can receive all 7 but only use one, and one would be enough. This duplicity of broadcast is happening with many other stations.
I think that there are too many highly paid managers in the BBC.
I do not think that the BBC is greater for programme making, compared to other companies/broadcasters.
The USA which has always had commercial radio and TV has supplied many popular and respected series and programmes which get shown world wide.
Dragnet, Star Trek, Frasier etc.
Sky and ITV have also made/make some quality programming.

I would be quite happy to see the BBC become commercial, or pay to view and the licence fee ended.
DG, I am not anti-BBC, I just hate the letters from tv licensing threatening with legal action and condescendingly reminding me of "the law" whileChris Evans makes more money in a year than I will in my entire life.
Very much with you on this one DG and as the first comment says your final paragraph is a pithy summary of how things stand.

The constant references to political bias are a softening up exercise that has worked frighteningly well but I still don't believe. The BBC is not perfect but it is outstandingly important and once dismantled will be impossible to rebuild.
The BBC is certainly a lot less po-faced than it once was, which is a good thing. Otherwise I'm in favour of it, and probably the licence fee.

If I want to watch programmes shown by other channels I invariably record them. That way I can skip through the ads, very few of which are of interest to me - though the ones with the meerkats aren't too bad!
1. No-one has mentioned the future funding of BBC pensions. A huge consideration.

2. The BBC News website in its latest incarnation is now so dumbed down that I don't bother reading it.

3. It amazes me how many people 'claim' not to watch live BBC and don't pay a TV licence, but now get away with watching live online (and this is a growing tred as many of the so-called money-saving websites are now actively encouraging this). I don't think there is any way to 'police' this, therefore, something has to change whether we like it or not.

4. Over 75s can always opt to pay the licence fee even if they are theoretically exempt.
re. the last para: because people can be persuaded to take a negative view that is actually against their interests. When compulsory competitive tendering was brought in to public sector activities I said the same and was poo-pooed. Stupid buggers lost their jobs, gained zero hours (you're on duty all time but we won't pay you) 'obligations' (Contracts! don't make me laugh), private (worthless) pensions and insecure working conditions. Go ahead you buggers vote against the TV licence fee and see what real crap you get.
Maybe the BBC could become one of the "good causes" under the Lotto? The Lotto could then be taken over by Virgin and all "our" troubles will be over!
For me, it's about choice. Sky is a waste of cash and Murdoch is pondlife, but it is my choice whether I give him my money or not. The BBC don't give me that luxury. If I want to watch one of their competitors then I have to give them £145 a year.

And what if I don't?

Well, the BBC has outsourced their enforcement to those paragons of virtue at, er, Crapita. And Crpaita are paid by results, so they hound, lie and bully innocent people into paying up. And those who don't get prosecuted and get sent to prison.

Now the BBC has many positive things going for it, but not a single one of them justifies giving them the power to send someone to prison for watching ITV.
As for BBC "bias", I think it depends on how you define it. I think the BBC has a definite tendency to suck up to whoever is in power, but because of the way they are funded that makes total sense.

When Labour were in they sucked up to Labour, now the Tories are in they suck up to them.

I don't think you can watch the BBC's political output without seeing the pro-Tory bias though. Andrew Neill is a Conservative member. Nick Robinson was the Conservative Party president at Oxford University. Paxman's a Tory. And so it goes on.

I don't think the BBC are biased though. I think they're just suck-ups. I think that's worse.
Please refrain form addressing that man as 'Chancellor' - it is too respectful, and connotes economic competence.

Call him what is is - Gideon.
If even DG's readers have fallen for the Murdoch/Mail nonsense of the BBC 'needing a lesson' because of bloated management/Saville (it happened 30 years ago!) then I fear for it.
The BBC about the best thing about the UK. Personally I use it dozens of times a week, through radio, TV, web. I watch ITV about twice a year, and that's for football.
Yes there is good US TV, but what we see is the very best, funded by a market 5 times as big as the UK. Go to France, Italy, Spain and tell us how good their private media is. It's dire crap.
+1 DG! Could not have said it better myself.
+1 DG! Could not have said it better myself.
I agree entirely.

Perhaps this government would like the BBC to return to its pre-Reith remit of transmitting just for 7 minutes at a time, then waiting 3 minutes for possible instructions to shut down...
Arctic Troll:
The maximum penalty for TV licence evasion, contrary to s363 of the Communications Act 2003, is a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (currently £1000 max).
You cannot be sent to prison for not paying a TV license.
200,000 people were prosecuted in 2012/13 for not paying TV license.
Even though the fine can be up to £1000, the average fine is less than the TV licence.
50 people were jailed for not paying a fine. That's an offence against the court - nothing to do with the BBC or license payment organisation.

As for "hound, lie and bully innocent people" - I'm pretty sure if people turn up in court with an explanation as to why they legally don't need to pay the licence fee, they will not be found guilty and Capita will be in the sh!t.
Wholeheartedly agree with this DG. I'm happy to pay a TV licence, because I don't want a BBC that is in hock to advertisers.

I'm not sure why today's BBC is somehow responsible for the mistakes of completely different executives and managers 30 years ago in the Jimmy Savile affair.

Also strange that the government isn't imposing external controls on the tabloid press, despite their disgusting behaviour, illegal phone-hacking, etc, etc, over the years. No - they still get to "police" themselves. Yeah. Right.

Accusations of bias are laughable. Newspapers throw this around all the time yet have no responsibility to be unbiased. Yet all parties complain that the BBC is biased against THEM. If anything, that shows the beeb are getting the balance right.

Someone said there are too many reality shows on the Beeb, and that's why they shouldn't pay a tv license?
Big Brother - not BBC
X Factor - not BBC
TOWIE - not BBC
Geordie Shore - not BBC
BGT - not BBC
Made in Chelsea - not BBC
Dancing on ice - not BBC
Storage Wars - not BBC
Ice road truckers - not BBC


Apprentice - BBC
Masterchef - BBC
Strictly - BBC
The Voice - BBC

For every BBC reality show (and I'll watch most of them - except for the ones with teenagers being on holiday), I'll find you 10 or 20 piles of crap on commercial channels that I wouldn't touch with a bargepole.

If people want to make the BBC more commercial they will get MORE crappy reality shows, so if you don't like them, you should be pressing FOR the licence fee!
John @ 0843: You mention the multiple ways you can receive Radio 4. While you're right that you can only listen to one at at time, they're there to ensure the whole country is covered (and can receive both the FM and LW schedule, which can differ quite significantly.)

The distribution cost on all these platforms is marginal compared to the cost of running the network itself, and there are economies of scale with all the other radio stations the BBC runs.
With you Peter Moore. There are countless programmes I have enjoyed/been annoyed at (in a +ve sense), been enchanted by, been informed and educated by, been stopped-dead-in-my-tracks by, had the blinkers taken off by, made to think by from the BBC in all its formats radio-TV-internet, publications. The TV licence is a very very small price to pay. And, I can't see how else really interesting subjects would ever get covered if the only motive is profit to the producer/provider.
For my sins, I used to work in Brussels where they show a Franco-german arts channel called Arte which is cast in the mould of the highest standards of public service broadcasting (what the BBC was back in the days of Kennethmont Clarke's 'Civilisation' and Bronowski's 'ascent of Man'. Oddly, any programme in 'British English' was ascribed to the BBC - and my protestations the the Jersey Bretton 'Sherlock Holmes' had nothing to do with them was met with polite incomprehension.

Arrived back in London, the grotesque Savile story gets forced out and I tear up my TV licence in disgust. No TV since then. I do not feel that I am missing anything. Nothing at all.
BBC not biased?

OK, find coverage on this minor story for me on their web pages.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/07/16/counter-terror-police-foil-army-general-beheading-plot-as-france-burns/
will- If we shared the same language we would probably see French/Italian programs more often here, as we do US programs.
Australian shows seem to be popular in the UK as well as US productions.
Years back there was a French Robinson Crusoe series shown in UK, what of Tin Tin?.

martin, the whole country (indeed the whole of Europe is/can be covered by one satellite and the single LW R4 transmitter at Droitwich covers England,Wales and Northern Europe. (198Khz)
For VHF, Freeview and DAB multiple transmitter sites are needed to cover the UK. For the periods when Radio 4 is split with 2 programmes AM or FM used to be the method.
Where I see waste is in Freeview and DAB both being digital terrestrial systems and broadcasting the same Radio programmes. The BBC hope to start to close the AM/FM services around 2017 and save money that way. Digital broadcasting using less power than AM or FM, so cheaper electricity bills for the broadcaster, but conversely digital receivers use more power so the user pays more to receive.


TV viewing figures are in decline as the younger generation spend time on tablets, laptops and mobile telephones and not watching TV.
I am of the 70 years age and for many days never switch the TV on, lots of channels now, but nothing worth watching.

One day all TV and Radio may be only on satellite or internet. The internet being a very cheap way for the BBC (or others) to broadcast.

Channel 4 is also a public service broadcaster,publicly-owned yet commercially-funded. Perhaps a future funding way for the the BBC.

There are many examples of commercial TV quality dramas and documentary's.
Material on the BBC now is frequently produced by outside companies.

I think LBC a UK commercial radio station has recently received the Sony Radio Academy's Gold Award for Speech Broadcaster of the Year, for one of its morning shows.

The UK is not the only country where a fee has to be paid to use a TV but many have abolished the scheme.
I would have thought that with revenues getting on for £4 billion the BBC could produce better quality programmes than it does.

The BBC is not some sort of public good - mostly it produces mere entertainment, and I don't see why everybody should subsidise your entertainment.
To be free from adverts pushing money at people for a mere 1000% interest makes the licence fee worth paying.
To watch programmes develop without having to recap what happend 'before the break' makes the licence fee worth paying.
To allow programmes to develop and build their audiences makes it worth paying the licence fee.

If you want to ditch some things, I would start with the World Service. I am watching BBC World News as I type this, and it's very good. But It is generally not watched by licence fee payers, so why are they funding it? I reckon this should be the BBC's pressure point.

As for the UK debate, it's no good trying to get a campaign with any print or broadcast media - why would they want the BBC to be strong competition? I suspect however that they wouldn't want the BBC taking advertising as this would lead to lower advertising fees.
@burntweenie
"Please refrain form addressing that man as 'Chancellor' - it is too respectful, and connotes economic competence.

Call him what he is - Gideon. "

I would not call him "The Chancellor" because he is merely "a" chancellor. There are at least two others in the Government: The Lord Chancellor and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and many others in other posts (Universities, the High Court, etc)

But he is not Gideon: any 13-year-old who has the enterprise to change his name by Deed Poll deserves to have that decision respected.
Max Roberts: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33537345
Max Roberts:
And even if the BBC didn't carry part of that story (the part with no attribution or quoted source), what evidence of bias does that show? Biased against whom?
BTW - searching for the 'beheading' story on the BBC News site (using their own search engine, not Google) delivers 3 links to external news sources reporting that story. If the BBC was biased, would it do that? It doesn't have a duty to deliver search results outside its own content. I can use Google if I want to do that.
PS Many BBC world TV stations broadcast outside the UK have adverts - that seems to be how they are funded.
I am glad they are making catch up be included as it is the biggest loophole going.
The BBC does need trimming in terms of management which seems to be going ahead with 3 out of the 7 layers going.

Sky (no prem sport or films) costs me £1.12 a day which I think is a very good deal for the amount I watch.
I do agree though that the BBC is a very good deal when you include radio as well and the lack of a yearly price hike though I watch less than I used to but still more than the rest of FTA channels.
I do think BBC pays its top stars too much but no doubt it is the going rate.

At least they are not paying eye watering prices for sport which has pushed Sky Sports ever higher but they do cover excellently on radio.
It should be noted that Breitbart is beneath even the Daily Mail in terms of the routine factual incorrectness and massive obvious rightwing bias of their stories, and that anyone citing it as a source (as Max Roberts did) is inadvertently outing themselves as someone whose opinions on any matter can safely be discounted.

I've heard that site described as "the gutter that runs into Fox News", or the original source for much conservative folklore which later gets echoed as fact by a thousand pundits. Which incidentally is the exact media model that's coming to the UK if Whittingdale gets what he wants.
According to this survey 60% of UK public would like the license fee abolished.
http://advanced-television.com/2015/07/16/60-of-brits-want-bbc-licence-fee-scrapped/
Well said, DG. Watching US and Canadian TV gives me a daily reminder of just how good the BBC really is.
I do not understand how people can pay for the industrially produced piss-water that is Becks when they can drink Bordeaux. Perhaps if we were all forced to subsidise some Chateaux (say 40p per day) we could all drink the wine that is the envy of the rest of the world.
The BBC has to try to be all things to all people. The thing is - it's not possible to do that.

And people - because people are people - will use politics or personal stuff to stamp the BBC down.

Oh - such and such gets paid way more than me! And?

The 40p a day you spend to fund the BBC actually funds a whole host of things - and you fractionally contribute to Chris Evans or whomevers pay - and even if it was a whole 1p (and it's actually not) - you'd actually flush the whole fucking thing down the toilet to prove your point?

That's actually sort of fucking pathetic. To be honest with you.
Can we also tidy up those frequencies? The prefix kilo has the symbol k (K is for kelvin, the unit of temperature) and hertz is Hz, thus kilohertz is kHz.
I'd happily pay more to keep the BBC.
+1 DG
I agree wholeheartedly with DG. And I find it depressing how many people appear not to. Oh dear.
Life in the UK is a ripoff anyway.
Council tax, line rental, car insurance, TV licence... we all pay because we have to but actually I have never got anything in return.
Greg,
"line rental"? You don't HAVE to pay line rental. Cancel your landline and get a mobile phone.
If you pay line rental then it pays for... the rental of your phone line. Even if you don't make a single call on that line, the infrastructure still needs to be paid for, so we pay a line rental for that bit, and the rest (a pittance in comparison) for the amount of calls we make.

You've never got anything in return for your council tax? Really?

So...
You don't have street lights in your road? Your council don't collect the bins, or mend the roads? You don't have a fire brigade or police force where you live? You've never registered a birth, marriage or death?
You've never taken rubbish to the tip? Or built an extension to your house? You've never been a tenant for an unfair landlord and felt the need to ensure that he keeps your property in good order?
You've never asked for someone to remove a wasps nest from your loft?
Or complained about a noisy or inconsiderate neighbour?
And you've never had a stray dog removed from your road? Or had the road cleaned where that dog had shat everywhere?
Do you never walk on footpaths? Or use pedestrian crossings? Or appreciate the flowers on the local roundabout?
Have you never been to the park and played on the swings? Or had a kickabout with your mates? Or played tennis on the free courts?
Perhaps you've never been to the local theatre, which will have been given local council funding?
You probably don't have pubs or nightclubs where you live. Because the council won't have licensed them.
It's probably also impossible to breathe where you are as there's no-one monitoring air quality and holding local industry to account on their waste and pollution.
Presumably all the restaurants where you live are never inspected by the local environmental health people, so they're free to carry on serving sub-standard food, which explains why you've somehow been poisoned and it's turned your brain to mush and hence you sit down and spout a load of complete bollocks...
Either that, or you're a fucking moron because your local council didn't provide any schools.
Twat.
Pete, you forgot parking attendants which keep the roads clear. I work in Parking.

Increasingly the BBC isn't providing a service to everyone in the way that it did as people choose to go elsewhere. The 'choice' though is mainly awful in comparison, I mean how many of the 100s of channels available do you really watch? I'm a bit confused by the argument that the BBC should concentrate less on ratings chasing TV - I thought that sounded a good idea and would leave more room for quality programming, however it's been portrayed as underhand way of diminishing the BBC's influence.
Sorry SJM - it was getting late!

I also don't understand the mooted concept that we have to change the way the BBC is funded so it can be in 'competition' with other broadcasters.

Why? Why do you HAVE to have competition? The BBC is special and different and having a non-competitive funding model guarantees that difference, along with its Royal Charter and the BBC Trust.

It's an ideological bias against something that people love. That's it.

People don't LOVE ITV. They don't love C4, C5 or fucking Food TV! Let them compete. Look what a good job competition does - all those channels churning out programmes which are a higher quality than the Beeb's... Not.
Hyperbolic nonsense DG. You lose all respect when you resort to base insults like you do in the last paragraph.

Was the BBC not fulfilling its obligations to the public pre-BBC 3 and BBC4? What about prior to the founding of all of those increasingly niche radio stations post Radio 4?

It is right and proper that we take a look at what we want the BBC to do. Feel free to disagree as to the terms of the review, or the results of the review, but stop attacking the Conservatives in such ridiculous personal terms just because you disagree with them.

One of the options is to link the licence fee more closely to income/wealth - how can you possibly disagree with that, given the current licence fee is entirely regressive?

This is one of the most unbalanaced posts I have seen on your blog for a while and it's only right that someone should call you out on it.
Unlike the BBC, DG doesn't have an obligation to be balanced. If you don't like it, you can always stop paying your DG licence fee and stop reading every day.
Chris - I'm calling you out on your comment because it makes laugh that for some reason you think that DG's posts should balanced?

No, it's his own blog with his own point of view which is the beauty of a personal blog - it's personal. Which bit of that do you not get?

I lived outside the UK for a long period of time and gave up watching TV because it was nowhere near the standard that we are very fortunate to have here with Beeb. It find it utterly dispairing that people don't get it.

Keep going with the 'hyperbole' DG. We
respect you. :-)
I love the bbc
Well said DG.
@ Geoff

And I calling you out for calling out Chris for calling out. What sad world this would be if the only comments were ones that always agree with the blogger...

@ martin

Of course...
I don't understand why the license fee in its current format is so supported when it is so regressive. Your banker on a million pounds a year has to pay the same amount as a family on minimum wage.

If we postulated replacing council tax with a regressive flat fee we would have riots. (Ask Maggie...)
Because, Messiah, the family on minimum wage have access to the full range of BBC services as the banker.
Poll tax was unfair because you paid the same amount regardless of the size of your property, and therefore the presumed burden you presented to your local authority.
If the idea of "regressive " taxes is unfair per se, you should also be complaining about fishing licenses, or the fact that someone who drives 1,000 miles annually pays the same vehicle excise duty as a salesman who racks up 40,000 miles.
I don't earn a lot, but the BBC costs me around half as much as my quite basic Sky package, yet I watch only a handful of shows (mostly produced in the US and not by Sky) on satellite and consume a huge amount from the BBC.
It's a bargain.
If I could get the BBC in Australia I'd happily pay the licence fee ... :(. It is one of my highlights of visiting the UK - excellent docos and wonderful current affairs / news programs. No wonder the fascists currently in charge want to obliterate it.
Pete - I disagree with all regressive taxes, what makes you think that I don't. The topic of conversation is however the BBC license fee, so I thought I would stick to that.
The licence fee isn't a tax: it's a fee. No-one is forced to pay it and those who do pay it, as has been pointed out, have the same access to services as everyone else
@ BeefQueen, sometimes I feel I'm being forced to pay for a licence because of repeated correspondence from the TV Licensing Authority who refuse to believe that I have NO TV SET.
@ Amber, just ignore the letters, I always did, they never visited. Have TV now (pesky children, not sure why they need a TV, but apparently they do) and therefore licence.
The big difference from a normal fee is that you need to pay it whether or not you want to consume the bbc's services or not.










TridentScan | Privacy Policy