the BBC isn't it time we just got shot of it?

(427 Posts)
southeastastra Thu 22-Nov-12 22:51:42

it's very middle class blue peter biased in my view

not to mention the cover ups of late

i know that the majority wouldn't agree but a subscription service for radio 4 etc would ensure that's continuity

Smudging Sun 25-Nov-12 19:46:58

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Hulababy Sun 25-Nov-12 20:50:35

I don't want adverts int he middle of my programmes.
The BBC generally have the best programmes and are generally a higher standard imo. We watch BBC channels fr more than any others.
The difference between watching the Olympics on the BBC and the Paralympics on C4 was massive!

Heroine Sun 25-Nov-12 21:54:01

I have never suffered fools gladly.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Flatbread Mon 26-Nov-12 00:26:52

I don't know any one who envies BBC. And I have lived in five countries over three continents.

No one has given a reasoned argument yet on why the BBC funding should not move to a subscription or donation model.

If BBC is great, then people will subscribe or donate to keep it going
If it is the ads free part is so appealing, then people subscribe or donate to keep it that way

I suspect you know that BBC is neither great nor particularly appealing. And that if we give people choice, they will vote with their money for a trimmed down BBC, at best.

aufaniae Mon 26-Nov-12 00:34:31

All my American friends envy the BBC!

CarrotCruncher Mon 26-Nov-12 01:15:59

I'm sick of paying for rubbish i don't like watching I.E Eastenders for starters and i think there should be more flexibility in what you view like different packages.
I'm also very upset with the lack of sport the BBC put on , they seem to be losing all the decent things to view

suburbophobe Mon 26-Nov-12 03:17:06

lack of sport?? Pisses me off when both channels (1 & 2) have it on simultaneously.....

"Folk around the world" don't matter, they don't have to pay the licence fee. We do. The BBC should serve the people of Britain, not "people around the world".

I live in continental Europe where we have BBC 1 & 2 (thank god!) and we certainly do pay for it in our subscription.

Like my dad used to say "there is no free lunch"...

Heroine Mon 26-Nov-12 07:45:48

Do you really think that with Sky you only pay for what you watch?!

SamuelWestsMistress Mon 26-Nov-12 08:13:49

Imagine if it did? Channel Five might buy Doctor Who. That in itself is the most disturbing and dark thought I've had for a whole...

LtEveDallas Mon 26-Nov-12 08:50:32

Heroine "I have never suffered fools gladly"

As I assume that you believe you are not a fool - can you give a reasoned arguement?

No one has given a reasoned argument yet on why the BBC funding should not move to a subscription or donation model

If BBC is great, then people will subscribe or donate to keep it going

If it is the ads free part is so appealing, then people subscribe or donate to keep it that way

The BBC's own report suggests that 96% of the UK actively watch BBC channels. So only 4% of the UK would, in that case, NOT subscribe.

Now that everyone is Digital, it would be easy to 'block' channels from non-subscribers televisions. This would also free up the money spent on 'catching' those without licences. If consumers didn't subscribe - they wouldn't receive the service.

In 2011, the BBC spent £2,351million (66% of the licence fees collected) on TV. That is a awful lot of money, and I'd be quite interested to see how much of that money went on the actual programmes; there seems to be a high quantity of repeats on BBC.

aufaniae Mon 26-Nov-12 09:09:54

"The BBC's own report suggests that 96% of the UK actively watch BBC channels. So only 4% of the UK would, in that case, NOT subscribe."

That's a very strange statement!

Surely you don't really believe that if it was a subscription service, 96% of people would subscribe?! The figure would be much, much lower than that and it would change the nature of the BBC entirely.

Don't forget that it's not just the BBC that benefits from license fees, but the other "terrestrial" channels too.

LtEveDallas Mon 26-Nov-12 09:25:21

Surely you don't really believe that if it was a subscription service, 96% of people would subscribe?!

Why not? Most of the people on this thread seem to think that the BBC is the bees knees, so why wouldn't they?

Unless of course its not actually good enough to pay for?

If people are already paying a Sky/Virgin subscription for the channels they want to watch, the BBC could be added to that. If people do not watch BBC, they could be blocked. Same for iPlayer / BBC Online services etc.

I don't however, have the answer to BBC radio - I don't know how that would be paid for. I suppose they would have to instigate a Radio Licence

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

larrygrylls Mon 26-Nov-12 10:28:08

Still don't get it.

Are you all happy for an unelected quango to decide what is good for your viewing and charge you for it? Why?

How about a national theatre license where some of the National Theatre and Old Vic (+ other main regional theatres) are government run and they can pay management and actors whatever they like? Might lead to more adventurous scheduling and more access to the theatre?

Unless you are an unreconstructed Soviet era communist, I cannot see any justification for the BBC. "I like what it puts on" is not very convincing to me. I may well like going to the National and would like it even more if everyone else had to share in my ticket price, regardless of whether they went or not.

piprabbit Mon 26-Nov-12 10:48:29

Elections tend to lead to the most mainstream, middle of the road policies being chosen - the ones that appeal to the broadest mass of people.

In the world of broadcasting, commercial stations already moderate their output to appeal to the broadest audience, in order to maximise their advertising revenue. I'm not sure we need the BBC to do the same just because the safest policies win an election.

larrygrylls Mon 26-Nov-12 10:50:48

Pip,

"No taxation without representation"...ring a bell from somewhere?

piprabbit Mon 26-Nov-12 11:08:38

Just saying that elections wouldn't necessarily lead to high quality innovative programming.

HoneyMurcott Mon 26-Nov-12 12:30:46

OP, you would honestly change your tune if you lived outside the UK for a while. With all its flaws, the BBC produces outstanding quality programs and these have to be funded from somewhere. Commercial TV in Oz is just shite! Endless How I met your Mother type rubbish. All the best BBC progs get sold here cos Australia makes very little quality TV. The BBC is a national treasure.

Heroine Mon 26-Nov-12 12:51:53

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

LtEveDallas Mon 26-Nov-12 13:01:35

Heroine, in amongst your nastiness, have you got time to answer my question above?

larrygrylls Mon 26-Nov-12 13:28:35

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

WhoWhatWhereWhen Mon 26-Nov-12 16:49:44

Kinda stupid to suggest that 96% of the population would subscribe to the BBC, do you think 96% of people would continue to pay income tax at present levels if the weren't forced to by law, no, many people just say f* it.

LtEveDallas Mon 26-Nov-12 17:10:33

So why should the 4% who DON'T watch it have to subsidise the 96% that DO watch it?

Surely if the BBC is that good, then people would WANT to subscribe to it?

And if it's not that good, if it's not good enough to pay for, then why have it?

Kinda stupid to suggest that people pay for a service they are using? Really?

Bunbaker Mon 26-Nov-12 20:04:52

OK. I'm really healthy. Shall I reduce my tax contribution because I don't use the NHS as much as other people?

I have one child. Shall I pay less council tax and other taxes because I only require one school place?

Stupid arguments really aren't they?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now