The license fee

[Spandaubaggie]

Attenborough,
World leading coverage of love sporting events (Olympics, World Cups/Euros, Wimbledon, etc)
Glastonbury coverage,
BBC Radio (especially 6 Music)
BBC Drama,
Match of the Day,
CeeBeebees (a fucking lifesaver sometimes)
The online content,

For these reasons and more I’m happy to pay.

And that’s why it should be subscription. My list is literally nil, apart from maybe radio wm in the car about 2 hours a year.

I tell a lie, I do watch some of Wimbledon, but the coverage gets worse every year with sue barker fawning and giggling none stop.

You're sounding like a lone voice BacksideBaggie.

[cornishbaggie]

Is this where I post #defund the BBC whilst getting a stiffy at the thought of Fox ahem sorry GB News channel? A channel I’m sure that will be impartial and tell the truth.

If it's so good, why don't you and your ilk pay for it through subscription and leave those that want a choice of what we pay for, do so.

---

Attenborough,
World leading coverage of live sporting events (Olympics, World Cups/Euros, Wimbledon, etc)
Glastonbury coverage,
BBC Radio (especially 6 Music)
BBC Drama,
Match of the Day,
CeeBeebees (a fucking lifesaver sometimes)
The online content,

For these reasons and more I’m happy to pay.

And this is the perfect post, someone that really rates the BBC to the point of championing it and is happy to pay for it and I am sure there are many like him, so I'm sure you would all be happy to subscribe to it and leave those that aren't to spend their money elsewhere.

[Fido]

Like Spandau, I'm a huge fan of the BBC.  For 40p a day or whatever it is, what you get is astonishing. Quality high, breadth wide, and I think mostly spotlessly impartial. Derek's point above that they are criticised by both left and right suggests they get it right most of the time.

There are issues, but on the whole, I'm absolutely all for it.

+1

[Brentbaggie]

The envy of the world? Really? I doubt many in the world give a toss about it.

And again, for a lot of people there are no pros. For those that like it, subscribe! It’s value is not excellent if you don’t use it. It’s a tax for nothing.

The idea that a thing is only of value if you as an individual use it is specious nonsense.  A philistine is a person who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

In the case of media, I disagree. It’s a tax for nothing. Stick adverts on it or subscription.

So you decide what is a worthwhile tax and what is not?  On that basis I presume you are going to write to your local council and tell them you only intend to pay rates for those things the council provides that you use?

Lol. Society can’t function without council tax, and you know it. Society can function easily without a tv licence.

I return to my point. You seem to want the right to decide what is and what isn’t valuable or necessary? You don’t. Society does. And society decides whether or not we pay for it.

[Borin' Baggie]

The BBC have one of the most established back catalogues of entertainment in the world, maybe if they weren't hamstrung by the government and the archaic charter system they would be able to properly commercialise it. As it is, a fair proportion of their income is from BBC Studios which is the commercial arm and isn't publicly funded, and that's with it being kneecapped.

[cornishbaggie]

The idea that a thing is only of value if you as an individual use it is specious nonsense.  A philistine is a person who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

In the case of media, I disagree. It’s a tax for nothing. Stick adverts on it or subscription.

So you decide what is a worthwhile tax and what is not?  On that basis I presume you are going to write to your local council and tell them you only intend to pay rates for those things the council provides that you use?

Lol. Society can’t function without council tax, and you know it. Society can function easily without a tv licence.

I return to my point. You seem to want the right to decide what is and what isn’t valuable or necessary? You don’t. Society does. And society decides whether or not we pay for it.

That went down well with the poll tax didn't it.

---

The BBC have one of the most established back catalogues of entertainment in the world, maybe if they weren't hamstrung by the government and the archaic charter system they would be able to properly commercialise it. As it is, a fair proportion of their income is from BBC Studios which is the commercial arm and isn't publicly funded, and that's with it being kneecapped.

Britbox ???

[backsidebaggie]

Attenborough,
World leading coverage of love sporting events (Olympics, World Cups/Euros, Wimbledon, etc)
Glastonbury coverage,
BBC Radio (especially 6 Music)
BBC Drama,
Match of the Day,
CeeBeebees (a fucking lifesaver sometimes)
The online content,

For these reasons and more I’m happy to pay.

And that’s why it should be subscription. My list is literally nil, apart from maybe radio wm in the car about 2 hours a year.

I tell a lie, I do watch some of Wimbledon, but the coverage gets worse every year with sue barker fawning and giggling none stop.

You're sounding like a lone voice BacksideBaggie.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/media/tracke...-be-funded

Clearly not....

[Brentbaggie]

If people end up rioting over the license fee we will be fucked.

[Duffers]

If people end up rioting over the license fee we will be fucked.

Who’s going to broadcast it though?

[GunsOfNavarone]

I haven't got a problem with the licence fee. Drop in the ocean for what's provided. Not a fan of certain programmes so I don't watch them. That's it really.