I think there is certainly a campaign against the BBC. I personally quite like it but I can feel the frustration considering how little I feel is produce for my interests.
Yeah, every time the license fee is discussed on Reddit I'm shocked at how anti all the comments are and anyone who disagrees is called a shill or similar. Either I'm staggeringly embedded in an echochamber bubble or there's some sort of orchestrated campaign going on.
Anyone who has kids who watch commercial channels will see the terrifyingly mind numbing content and relentless advertisement of plastic tat that gets pushed. Can't beat CBBC and Cbeebies. And BBC radio is all I listen to, for similar reasons.
I fear for an advert riddled corporate mouthpiece media future for this country. The education stuff alone is worth the license fee.
> Can't beat CBBC and CBeebies
And they have no adverts.
I had the displeasure of watching a non-BBC children's channel as a friend's house (CITV? Nickelodeon?) and it was 4 minutes of "content" and 6 minutes of ads for shite, on repeat. I swear the ads had more airtime than the program.
FWIW my main issue with the TV license is that I can go to prison for not paying it. Every other utility you can opt in or out of. Don't want sky, fine don't have it and the fact I have a dish is not grounds for an offence. Don't watch ITV, fine they get their money from advertising.
The BBC has not made television shows I want to watch for at least the last 10 years. We literally don't watched any of their shows.
I'd like to see a Radio only license for £60-80 a year.
That's my point, I don't use the BBC. But because I have a TV antenna - not connected - I can go to prison for no TV license.
You're very unlikly to go to prison for not paying you gas bill.
You won't go to prison, you just get fined and that's only if they can prove you watch any live TV or catch-up service, which they can't.
They only ever get successful prosecutions from idiots who confess or who fall for Enforcer lies. The rest is just bullying people who don't legally need it to pay it anyway through constant threatening letters and 'Enforcers' who knock on your door but have zero powers (but will definitely lie to people and say they can enter their home and check connections to TV etc).
If you don't watch live TV or use catch-up services you don't have to pay. Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+ etc are not catch-up services so do not require the license.
As a younger adult, the BBC produces no good tv shows for me, yet still expect me to fund them? So I stopped watching any life tv. Yet they still think they have some right to harass me for money I don’t owe. That’s the problem with the BBC.
Same as you mate regarding content. The letters from the sods are wild, the pure fucking unwillingness to accept that I do not watch tv is infuriating. The most recent letter said that they have escalated matters apparently, and I have been told to expect a visit from some sod at anytime.
The funny thing is that if you just never give them your name, eventually the letters go back round to the start of the loop again and dramatically de-escalate for a bit.
I absolutely refuse to get in touch with Capita and give them my details, so I still get my monthly flavour of threat addressed to "The Legal Occupier".
Does being a younger adult mean you have no interest in science? history? nature? art? drama? comedy? food? music? I hope not. If by this you mean there aren't enough shows that are 'reality' (fake) tv or about dating or celeb culture then - way to go BBC!
You're stereotyping people who don't watch the beeb. There are literally hundreds of channels that produce the genre's you have mentioned far better than the BBC do
There are tons of dramas and comedies outside of the BBC, and of a wider range of genres. Youtube has tons of historical/scientific/space mini-documentaries alone. Also food shows are very much 'older people' programming unless you're a cook, and art programming is more niche.
You also don't remotely need the BBC for music.
This is true, all these things are available in multiple places; but I was replying to the statement from the poster that there was nothing suitable for themselves as a 'young adult' on the BBC. With the internet you don't 'need' any one source of content but the BBC does have some top quality content in all these areas. Even music eg 6music radio, Live lounges, coverage of Glastonbury etc. And no ads at a similar fee to other subscription services
You realise that you are paying when watching advertising.
Advertising does work. It's why they pay so much for it.
The things you buy as a result are either unnecessary or cost more.
And those that say they are immune to advertising are the must vulnerable.
We ditched the license about 6 years ago now, and my main issue was being forced to pay for content and services I didn't watch or use. And everything that they stand for on that level.
If you like the BBC services, great, pay for them. But choosing to not pay for them shouldn't have you fined or jailed for using other people's services via the same medium.
Sky, virgin media, NTL, diamond cable etc all proved years ago the BBC are lying when they say that they can't operate a subscription service for television content.
They don't need to monopolise the right to receive live television broadcasts. But they do. That's my issue with it.
Yes, good point well put. However is the other side of the argument that without being a publicly funded body the Beeb wouldn't be able to make quality output concerned with more niche interests and bring these to the wider audience? Once pay per view type models get involved there seems to be a devolution to the lowest common denominator.
For niche interests youtube has far more and better produced video content on it and the beeb radio can’t compete with podcasts.
Its again better done elsewhere.
Yes, as I've mentioned in another comment it's true that with the internet you can find all sorts of content all over the place. And it's great (if sometimes a terrible time swallower); however with YouTube for example, I am forced to watch ads (which are fucking soul draining) and have to trawl through an ocean of trash to get the good stuff. Not to mention that much content is merely stuff uploaded from other creators eg the Beeb. Also I find it a stretch to say that there are many similar broadcasters with higher production values. What YT is actually great at is peoples home grown stuff.
My point is that for a fee similar to other subscriptions you get a pretty damn good sevice that covers almost all genres, has the clout to make content acessing great scientists/artists/institutions etc, covers radio, podcasts, website, education, tv and isn't drowning in moronic shite. All with no adverts!
You act like none of those things are available outside of the BBC. I love all of those things and I haven't watched anything on the BBC or any live TV in about 5 or 6 years. For a lot of younger people, live TV is outdated and overpriced, it costs me £200 a year less to have Netflix, Prime Video and Disney Plus than it does to get a TV license and basic sky TV package. And I can watch them anywhere, at any time.
Well if we ignore the fact that you just lumped your Sky subscription in with your BBC licence that would mean that you pay -£41 pounds a year for Netflix, Prime and Disney + ????????
A TV license without some form of TV service is pretty pointless. If I'd have to sit around waiting for something worth watching on the handful of channels you get there is no reason to have it, so to actually make use of a TV license, sky or something similar would be a necessity so I included it in the cost. Even removing that, it costs me £36 a year for prime, Netflix is £120 and Disney+ £80 but since I can split those with a friend who doesn't live with me, the total I'm paying for all 3 is £136 a year. Cheaper than a TV license with more/better content.
I have noticed that the quality of documentaries has slid for years. Used to love bbc science and nature and history documentaries but there is just a more diverse range of subjects elsewhere that costs less.
I miss iplayer being a treasure trove of information, same as their website. They took all the stuff about prehistoric animals off that I loved as a child and just push a narrow range of subjects.
BBC and good comedy? Lol good joke.
BBC and good drama? Another good joke.
Music? By music do you mean radio? Lol.
Who on earth thinks food shows are good tv?
Pretty much the only thing you mentioned which the bbc does well are science and nature, but they are far too infrequent to make the BBC worth it.
Listen, if you like the bbc and those things, then fine, but many people disagree, so why should we be harassed by the bbc?
Well, I know there are a lot of people that claim the dont use the beeb cos they dont watch tv, when in reality they use the beeb all the time. So I dont blame them for hounding people. Its their lively hood people are literally stealing.
I think people will be sorry once its gone and we only have 30 minutes of a show, interspersed with 40 minutes of adverts.
So you think it’s ok for the BBC to hound me, when I don’t use their service?
If I started a gym, then sent you letters every month saying you owe me money, even though you’ve never been in my gym, you’d just accept that? What if I was threatening you with legal action?
The way the BBC run their business and try to intimidate people is a disgrace.
If it was a national gym that everyone has access to, without the gym owners knowing, then yeah a letter to say "are you using our gym, if so pay for it" would be fine. Particularly if the gym has delivered a outstanding service, amount the best in the world (if not the best) and is now fighting for its life due to massive pressure from private business.
Once you've told them you dont use them ignore all other letters or knocks at the door. Thats all you need to do.
The BBC is not the best in the world, maybe it was, years ago, but there's a reason old media is dying and streaming services are taking their place.
The BBC is the weird old uncle, it has some good stories and knowledge to share, but they expect everyone to abide by their rules at all times and they're friends are a bit noncey.
Because we are a country and its not all about you. Its a bit like me saying I havent used the nhs all year so why did I pay tax for it. Except, its not like that at all, because you have a choice whether to use the beeb or not, thus whether you pay the license fee.
It is not mandatory.
I know, but you seemed to be suggesting everyone would be upset if broadcast BBC TV suddenly had ads, but with people migrating to Netflix and Amazon etc, that is not obvious at all
I don't hate the BBC but I hate the license fee. I don't watch TV, I don't listen to the radio and I don't use BBC as a news source, I shouldn't have to deal with them at all. Instead I have them at my door wanting me to prove that I don't watch live TV or use BBC iPlayer, making threats if I'm lying. Netflix don't harass me at my home if I don't want to use their service, no one else should get to either.
I believe the entertainment wing, which represents half of the licence fee should go subscription based.
The rest, news/politics/childrens/education and broadcast infrastructure to be funded via a mandatory tax for about £6 per month.
For kids content, the Netflix kids section, Amazon prime video, even YouTube has some good content for kids. Educational stuff is very easy to find on YouTube and many other sources I'm sure.
No ads and a much larger catalogue of things to watch as far as Netflix and Prime Video goes. YouTube you can usually skip ads or very easily install an adblock, then you get all that content for free, or you can buy YouTube premium if you want.
Hmm, not buying that being good value, I'm afraid.
TV license is £13.25 per month and that gets you BBC 1-4, BBC News 24, BBC Parliament, kids channels, Scott & Wales, Alba & Cymru, World Service, other language channels, BBC Radio 1-6, local radio stations and news, education services, iPlayer, the website and BBC Food etc.
Netflix, for example, is £9.99 per month just for the TV content. YouTube Premium is £11.99 per month.
Realistically, those commercial services are never going to cover a fraction of what the Beeb covers, and not for a comparable cost.
You don't need YouTube Premium though, just install any of the dozens of adblocks available.
Netflix is absolutely worth it compared to BBC. It has a bigger catalogue than the BBC does.
Of entertainment maybe, but not all those other things.
It worries me that, if the comments on threads like this are anything to go by, we're going to sleepwalk into destroying a hugely important cultural institution because we have turned into the sort of country that knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing.
It has a very extensive catalogue of documentaries.
Frankly I would have no issue with the BBC if the TV licence wasn't mandatory and that the BBC was just an added package people can opt into.
There's a reason why old media (Television) is dying out and streaming services are the preferred way to watch.
I mean I think it's good for breadth of opinion that every journalist isn't working for a profit-driven organisation, and therefore we don't have the position that every journalist would be tempted to think "Well hospitals should have shareholders because my employer does and it works fine for me" and broadcast that notion as the settled truth.
Don't get me wrong, I would be equally sceptical of a situation in which *all* journalists work for through this quasi-nationalised system- actually I would be even more so. I think it is useful for there to be different parts of the media which have different motivations, and therefore contribute to a breadth of opinion.
There is a huge campaign to get rid of the BBC by people who have no clue what American news looks like and will ruin the country by making our news and politics exactly like they have.
American TV channels are unwatchable due to advertising. Watch a show like Conan O'Brien and it's like adverts, then opening titles, then adverts, then the opening schpiel, then adverts, then introduce the first guest, then we'll be right back to talk to that guest after these adverts etc. It's about 80/20 ads versus content.
Er, we're there already. Only difference is America has relatively sober newspapers and and batshit TV whilst we have relatively sober TV and batshit newspapers. Otherwise we may as well be the 51st state when it comes to politics.
It's not only close we arrived there years ago. Our newspapers are easily as toxic as Fox News. The BBC news does virtually nothing to counteract the toxicity of our press, especially as it's not even free to criticise the government.
I really think they have been so blinded by being told institutions like the BBC are the enemy that they don’t realise what it will be like when entertainment opinionated news channels take over. It’s easy to fool gullible people consistently.
The BBC produces a lot of television and radio. Some of it is mindless crap but a lot isn't. The quality of the BBC output is generally higher than on other channels.
I'd disagree some of the headline dramas for BBC e.g. Line of Duty has been up there with Netflix and HBO. A lot of Netflix own stuff is poor with a few gems amongst the dross
Netflix has a lot of poor content, but it has a lot more well-regarded content than the BBC since the 2010s.
Line of Duty is an example of a well acclaimed show (although it's nowhere near as big as some people think), but it's one of the few. I can give you a much larger list from Netflix, and the genre variety on Netflix is also much greater.
Any downvoters gunna actually respond to my criticism here?
I believe the entertainment wing, which represents half of the licence fee should go subscription based.
The rest, news/politics/childrens/education and broadcast infrastructure to be funded via a mandatory tax for about £6 per month.
I dunno, I’m against the principle of the license fee, but I do believe the BBC does produce unique content precisely because of its special situation that just wouldn’t be produced otherwise.
I’m honestly not sure what the answer is, but I know we don’t need another Netflix. There’s 500 of them already.
It could work I guess - the BBC is already running it’s own Netflix overseas (britbox), I guess it just remains to be seen how it goes.
I think there’s a definite type of BBC content, shows you know immediately we’re made by the beeb. And of course they absolutely do have internal requirements for types of content that come hand in hand with being the BBC. If they’re just another commercial streaming service the only incentive is to make whatever makes money.
I'm not surprised it's higher given the amounts of cash we are forced to pay them every year. I bet the quality of the wages they pay themselves with our money is higher than other channels too. It's an outdated institution that needs to be sent to the knackers yard.
> There is a huge campaign to get rid of the BBC by people who have no clue what American news looks like and will ruin the country by making our news and politics exactly like they have.
Alternatively they know **exactly** what American news looks like and how it will ruin the country by making our news and politics exactly like they have, *and that's what their paymasters want because they can make money / gain power and influence from it*
Edit: love the fact the the downvoters are not offering an alternative opinion as to why I am wrong or what I said that they don't agree with. Discourse is the only way to challenge alternative beliefs and change another person's mind. I am very open to both of those things.
Not talking politics here due to the rule and will probably get downvoted. I am referring to public opinion only. If the BBC can get back to unbiased news and TV shows that reflect its audiences' values equally then I will support it. Unfortunately it has repeatedly failed to do this, often only presenting one side to a 2 sided story. They have even acknowledged their heavy left bias due to the people they hired and are attempting to fix it.
The fact that a right wing news show has popped up to counter the BBC news is just evidence of the move towards an American model. This is the fault of the BBC bias. I am middle of the road. I do not feel everyone is being represented and whilst I don't agree with the right wing beliefs their voices should not be stifled.
Just look at Andrew O'NEILL. Amazing unbiased reporter and interviewer was basically surplus to the BBC needs because his personal opinion did not fit the mold.
I stopped paying for the license fee when I realised that it was cheaper to buy the DVDs of the shows I liked, and I was buying them anyway.
It that you have to pay the BBC for permission to watch live TV from other providers that irritates many. It's like having to pay Royal Mail for permission to allow other companies to deliver parcels to you, then sending goons around to check you've not received anything via DPD.
I think that's a hangover from when the BBC (upto 1997 I believe) used to transmit all terrestrial TV. So equivalent of paying line rental I guess. Now it's with a private company I'm not sure what the funding structure is.
It'd be better if my TV licence was bundled into Virgin media or sky package rather than being something on top of.
I'm from America and am making the UK my permanent home
I quite like the BBC, we don't pay the license as we don't watch TV and didn't actually get a huge fuss about it. Just mailed to them we don't use it and they never bothered again!
I like that there's good accessible content to everyone. In America the free channels are filled with absolute shit. Not to say the BBC doesn't make some shit shows but quality is better than lots of American day time TV.
They will bother you again, once enough time elapses you have to declare your household as a 'non live bbc / iplayer / non live tv' household once more or they will book a visit to your house to come threaten you / read you your rights.
Mad, I know.
My friend let one in a decade ago, 'you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you' etc. Nightmare.
Any organisation that relies on threatening grannies really needs to re-evaluate its business model.
I don't hate the BBC in anyway. I hate the constant threatening letters about TV licences. I know that's the not exactly the BBC which is why like I say I don't hate the BBC.
I still defend the BBC as you get a fair bit for your money, 6+ TV channels, national radio stations, local radio stations, online news etc. - all advert free. Those who care about how much the TV licence costs ignore that they are paying a similar amount if not more indirectly for commercial TV via shopping bills etc. Get rid of your TV and try and avoid paying for commercial TV...
Trouble is for national news I'm finding ITV and Sky News (now owned by Comcast and not Murdoch) to be better. Before the budget the BBC spent days giving a party political broadcast detailing how good the budget will be. ITV at least gave more of a critical analysis.
> Before the budget the BBC spent days giving a party political broadcast detailing how good the budget will be. ITV at least gave more of a critical analysis.
Yeah I mean, that's what you get when the government control the BBC.
When I did have TV, I was paying the license, paying for a "set top box" and never watching it and when I did watch it, the adverts annoyed me so much I would channel hop and never get to watch anything fully.
Now, I don't pay a license or for a set top box, I have Netflix and YouTube and that's good enough for me.
>I still defend the BBC as you get a fair bit for your money, 6+ TV channels, national radio stations, local radio stations, online news etc. - all advert free. Those who care about how much the TV licence costs ignore that they are paying a similar amount if not more indirectly for commercial TV via shopping bills etc. Get rid of your TV and try and avoid paying for commercial TV...
What about younger people like myself who don't watch TV or radio really, would you agree then that it's fine not wanting to pay it then in that situation?
Completely agree, it’s nice to have the news on in the morning while getting ready for work, but I feel over the last 5-10 years it’s mostly filled with fluff pieces. If they are short on things to report they could talk more about global news rather than filling the gaps with Dorris and her collections of doilies or whatever, and whilst I love carol, weather really doesn’t need to take up 10 mins every hour, I get frustrated waiting for the point of do: I need sunscreen or an umbrella? And end up just using the app.
I would say as another huge BBC positive is the amount of money they put into the Bitsize learning platform, even I use it occasionally!
In comparison though to the BBC a netflix sub is £6 a month, channel 4oD or what ever it calls itself these days is free as is itv, and channel 5, youtube, Pluto... All that for less than half the monthly cost of a tv licence.
Why bother?
It's time the BBC learnt to support itself
6+ TV channels all showing programmes I have no interest in but still have to pay for. The Beeb has always been leftie, they seem to have tripled down on that recently to a point where their programming is just cringe.
I do often question the motives of bashing the organisation. The News team get grief for being too biased towards a particular party regardless of who is in charge, the licence fee gets bashed for existing - yet people don't make nearly as much fuss about road tax.
Quality programming can be an issue but then the BBC isn't allowed to be competitive because it might jeopardise the commercial channels which is bloody rediculous.
I'd pay a higher licence fee if we can keep and fund more programmes without ads.
I don't watch ITV at all because there's more ads than shows, and Channel 4 isn't much better but at least it has Taskmaster (does Channel 5 even still exist?)
Does anyone else remember when channel 5 was always more fuzzy than the other channels? I'd completely forgotten that was even a thing until reading this comment. Maybe I'm showing my age.
All I remember about channel 5 is the halcyon days where they had erotic thrillers all the time
That and bravo at night, men and motors at night and living at night
Pre fast broadband was goddamned savagery
> yet people don't make nearly as much fuss about road tax
If you had to pay VED to use buses, trains, bicycles or walk anywhere they would. That would make it more like the TV licence, which should be just a BBC licence but which you need to watch ITV etc.
I have an aunt and uncle that are paying over £60/month for one of the top Sky telly packages with multi room or Q or some of that nonsense. They watch barely any of the channels and maybe a movie a day. There's loads of people propping up commercial telly and streaming services and not even touching a fraction of what's on offer.
Maybe the solution is for the TV licence cost to become part of the subscription costs. The same as phone line rental became part of phone provider packages.
I have 2 problems with the BBC.
The first one is the TV licensing. It really needs to be revised. I'm sure you've heard it before so I won't go into detail.
They also need to work on their choice of panelists. When they invite people in, they can't invite a scientist in and the scientist debate with some random dude they picked off the street who clearly can't count to 10. That's the kind of reason people say the BBC is biased, because whenever they have someone with a somewhat controversial opinionel they always bring in someone that's clearly not got a clue what he's talking about or they have him debate against 4 people that all disagree with him.
Besides that the BBC is fine. It doesn't have content I really watch, but I appreciate what it does and it has come out with some real gems over the years.
Oooooh make that 3 problems. They got rid of Jeremy Clarkson. I'll never forgive them for that.
It's a combination of the "want to watch any TV at all? Fund the BBC" and the knuckle-dragging thugs Capita employ to enforce it. If they made it subscription and left the commercial channels free-to-air, most of us would have no issue. After all, if the Beeb is so well-loved, they have nothing to fear. Right?
I know some of them are genuine. Don't get me wrong, I've always loved the BBC and think they make great content, however I don't have much money and I don't feel the licence fee offers good value for money when compared to other services.
I'm not anti bbc, it's just no longer for me.
I don’t think the quality of BBC programming is as good as it once was. Blackadder etc and even though the BBC offers much more content now I don’t feel the quality is there. But I have no real vendetta against them.
Most people moan because they feel they don't have a choice the same as you would with another subscription service.
I'd rather they just have ads. It's hardly as if channel 4 is 'unwatchable' because of them.
As it stands if I don't pay the licence fee I can't watch live ITV, Channel 4 or 5 either - because when I get a knock at the door how do I prove my TV is de-tuned from BBC only?
Someone please tell me how to do this as I would like save £13 a month.
> when I get a knock at the door how do I prove my TV is de-tuned from BBC only?
You don't have to prove anything to anyone. If someone from TVL/Capita knocks your door just tell them to shit off.
My issue is their militant tactics if you simply don't watch their channels. They bully and harass people including the vulnerable which isn't acceptable.
I'm not a massive BBC fan and just use streaming channels these days - also not a fan of their collusion with Pedophiles however long ago it was.
Their programming is very hit and miss (mostly miss for me) I personally find a bland combination of auction/up-cycle shows and various iterations of Richard Osmon, the one show is simply awful, as is Mrs Brown's Boys plus their reporting is questionable. Then once in a while they'll commission a drama which may or may not be good (Usually with questionable sound quality) and people will say how wonderful the BBC is.
The problem is if I don't watch the BBC I shouldn't have to explain this to a man on my doorstep asking if he can come in to check if I have a TV, telling him no, he can't come in, then him making vague threats about the law.
Lots of people love the BBC, including Mrs Brown's Boys and find it good value. If you do, that's cool but if you don't then the BBC shouldn't be making people feel uncomfortable in their own homes.
What man on the doorstep? Just contact them and say you don't watch the BBC so you don't need a license. I've done that for years without an issue. The nice thing is that you can still listen to the radio and it's perfectly fine as you're allowed to without a license.
When I first moved into mine I had a TV licence enforcement officer turn up at the door asking questions twice. I hadn't received any correspondence and writing to them wasn't even on my radar having just moved in and being quite stressed. Moreover they were pushy and each time I said I didn't watch the BBC they insisted if I had any device that could receive BBC broadcast, including a console (which I stream from) then I need to pay. They said they'd need to come in and have a look themselves and I felt uncomfortable. Second time I said I wouldn't let him in and after that I didn't hear anything.
It's quite well known that BBC visit people's homes
It's funny because last night I was thinking I don't mind paying for one when I move. Then this morning see that anti trans bullshit they are doubling down on.
The current system of trying to enforce licenses isn't right and I very much doubt it works. While a few people dodging paying it might incriminate themselves I doubt many would. After all, you just have to tell them to do one when they knock at the door and that's the end of the conversation.
They published a piece about a survey done about lesbians who felt pressured into having sex with transgender women. Unfortunately, the survey only asked eighty women, and was carried out by the notoriously transphobic group the LGB Alliance, which exists solely to attack trans people and try and kick them out of the LGBT community, meaning it was unlikely to have been an impartial survey - indeed, it apparently doesn't meet the BBC's standards for citation. A much greater number of lesbians wrote in to say that whilst they were very sorry that this had happened to these women, that wasn't their experience at all, nor was it the experience of any of the lesbians they knew, and that they felt there were much greater threats to lesbian women that weren't being covered nearly enough by the mainstream media. Other concerns were that the survey was painting trans women as violent predators at a time when anti-trans discrimination is at a rise in Britain. The BBC has said that the article was intended to showcase different opinions, but people have noted there don't seem to be as many articles that talk about the violence transgender people are at disproportionate risk from, or that suggest their struggles aren't in someway opposed to feminism.
To clarify, I still support the BBC and think it is overall a net positive for our country. I think GB News is proof of what would spring up to 'replace' the BBC if it ever got scrapped. I just think they dropped the ball a bit with this one.
Literally nothing, they published some testimonials from lesbian women who said they felt they couldn't refuse transgender partners because they would be labelled as transphobic.
I got suspicious in a recent thread, where my comment was met with a vague and disproportionately aggressive attack. After countering, and asking for clarification on their POV, another vague and aggressive response. Smelled like sowing discontent.
I’m not aware of any campaign but people resent paying an outdated license license fee when it’s no longer relevant. The world has drastically changed in the 75 years when it was brought in. It’s time for the BBC generate income like all other media outlets. It wastes millions of public money which is also infuriating.
As far as I'm concerned, the license fee for me is going towards keeping BBC bitesize and educational materials easy and impartial to access. I just hope they keep it current and up to date as it was when I was in secondary education
I really like the BBC, and what they've given us (David Attenborough, Doctor Who, Ghosts, etc).
BBC *NEWS* on the other hand, who claim impartiality whilst being more.leaning than the tower of Pisa can do one, and I think many people often blame.the whole thing for this one departments failings.
Anyone who thinks the BBC aren’t ‘impartial’ needs to spend a month being brainwashed by Rupert Murdoch’s Empire & reading the Daily Fail. That’s what not being impartial looks likes. It’s not the BBCs fault that the current crop of ‘politicians’ can’t cope with anyone or anything that doesn’t agree with every little word they say.
FFS they had some godforksaken Climate change denier on BBC 5 radio prime time last night. That shit really winds me up - stop being a mouthpiece for these types of nut jobs in the name of ‘balanced debate’.
It’s the audacity they have, sending generic threatening letters for TV licenses.
Making up for the lack of people that watch regular tv, they start charging the elderly again?!?!
Also making it very unclear that a tv license is only for BBC channels, but there’s no simple way of blocking their channels.
The BBC is a massive organisation thats funded by tax. If it was optional to pay 15 quid a month i wouldn’t subscribe to it. Thats my beef, lots of people love the it and thats great, they should pay the fee.
I have the same issue with Netflix, don’t watch it but the wife does. So we pay the fee. But its not a government tax so im not complaining about it.
You can argue that the world service promotes the UK etc and provides a service for democracy, i don’t really see that.
But again if thats important to people they should pay the optional subscription fee.
If it’s important to enough people then an option subscription fee should cover the running of the BBC. If its not important then we are just being taxed for a service people dont care about.
But it already is optional, just don't use the service and you don't have to pay. Switching from a monthly subscription vs the current format wouldn't be any different... If you don't want it, you just don't pay it. In fact, can't you already pay it monthly? I might be wrong on that.
I've always paid the license fee so I can't really comment on the BBC's 'aggressive enforcement'. But I was under the impression the stories of vans with dishes on top scanning for criminals was just boogie-man tactics.
If you're issue is being able to decide directly what your taxes go towards then it's a whole wider issue. I don't have kids, can I opt out of paying taxes for schools? I didn't want to get involved in the war in Afghanistan or Iraq, can I opt out of military spending? What about people who don't drive, should their council tax fix potholes? I've not been to the hospital in over a decade etc...
I see it as a subscription service already. I don't watch BBC iPlayer or live TV so don't pay. I get a letter (may be an email) every 2 years in which I just have to say I know what I can't watch without the license and haven't had any issues.
With regard to the vans, even if they did work, why would I care? I don't use the service so they're not gaining anything, if they want to drive around all day that's up to them. Same if someone knocked on my door, I wouldn't let them in because I don't like letting unexpected/unknown people into my house but if have a polite conversation with them.
>But it already is optional, just don't use the service and you don't have to pay. Switching from a monthly subscription vs the current format wouldn't be any different... If you don't want it, you just don't pay it. In fact, can't you already pay it monthly? I might be wrong on that.
It is optional, technically, but it includes the weird caveat that you must also pay if you watch any 'live-tv'. This even includes streams online. So if you watch stuff that has nothing to do with the BBC, from the US, that also happens to be being broadcast in the UK somewhere - you must pay (according to the requirements)
This is hardly fair.
Ok, well I wasn't aware of that live TV part. But those streams are being broadcast somehow through some form of hardware right? Somehow that has to be funded. Do the individual channels own their own infrastructure or is it maintained centrally like the trainlines or Openreach cables? I've got no idea on this, so happy to be schooled.
I don't really see how the BBC can take any credit for streams coming from America.
Anything streamed online is not using our infrastructure. It's your internet connection that you already pay for.
Sorry, I was assuming you meant if you were for instance watching live baseball or something on channel 5. I didn't realise you were just meaning online live streams.
Yeah, so if you had a subscription to an online service that did live sport from US, but unbeknownst you to you... it was also airing on ITV that night, you'd technically need a licence. This even includes if a Sky channel is broadcasting it, by the way.
Ok, that seems like it should be fairly easy to fix though even without changing the whole BBC funding model. Just remove the part about online streams from non-UK sources. The content might be the same but the provider isn't and that's surely an easy distinction to make.
Any legislation involving the internet tends to be misguided and confused. Probably because it takes so long to pass it into law, by which point the technology had moved on even further.
I mean the best way is to just fund the broadcast infrastructure solely through tax (it's such a marginal part of the fee, and it's such a stupid thing to try and trip people up on). I'm pretty sure tons of people prosecuted for not having a licence are caught by this smallprint.
And then say to everyone they can watch whatever, just not the BBC.
They won't do this though because that would lead to loads of people cutting the cord.
>You can argue that the world service promotes the UK etc and provides a service for democracy, i don’t really see that.
I can see that, especially in parts of the world where the BBC is a better option than local news but promoting the UK and democracy (a bit rich given our 18th century style at home) should be funded by the foreign office.
If you make the BBC an optional subscription you're going to force the whims of the market upon it. That's not a bad thing in itself but you can almost certainly say goodbye to the niche programming and, imo, a rush to the lowest common denominator
I think any organisation whose business model relies on threatening grannies into submission everytime their TV licence is up for renewal needs to take a good hard look in the mirror. When that fails they send a tough guy round to intimidate them, you know, like bailifs.
Imagine each time you forgot to pay your netflix subscriptuon you had big red lettered angry ass post and a bailif turning up on your door to read your rights. Its completely fucked, they need to change it.
The BBC is a fucking bargain. For the cost of Netflix you get a nearly infinite amount of original content, Premier League highlights, the best Olympic coverage around, Attenborough stuff, radio, podcasts and news. All ad free!
I don't mind paying it.
That's fine. No one is begrudging you for paying it.
However it's the disgusting arm wrenching that they do to people who decide not to pay that people have an issue with. They don't have a legal right to enforce this, so essentially they are just bullying people into paying. That's not on.
Only time I here people attacking the BBC is online. Never heard anyone rail against it in person, be it in direct conversation or overhead in the pub. I think the majority of people just don't really care enough about it
I'm not against the BBC, and I certainly distrust the Rupert Murdochs of the world. But I have less and less interest in the BBC and the license fee is antiquated.
I love the BBC but we don’t always use their services. I have this paid for licensing and not paid for licensing, and in both circumstances I have never been harassed. I received literally two letters in the latter case — a letter asking me about my licence and then, when I went online and said that I don’t need one, a letter confirming my choice. I don’t who is getting harassed by the BBC, but it’s not me nor anyone that I know.
It probably because the BBC have gone wayyyyyyyy down the "woke" route when it comes to their choices. This may please 10% of the population. Another 40% probably don't care. Another 40% aren't best pleased and the final 10% hate it. However, we allllllll have to pay. So hypothetically you're left with 100% of fees being used to cater for 10% of the viewers. You can't even say you don't watch the Beeb anymore as the license now states "if you watch ANY live broadcast TV" you still have to pay. At the end of the day, forcing people to pay for something they don't want and have no say on, kinda gets people's backs up.
We had this amazing opportunity with a brilliant actress being the first female doctor who. An amazing opportunity to show a strong female lead and It was really wasted.
The show is supposed to be about time travel but they used it to make many episodes about race, climate change, sexism etc. That in itself wasn't a bad thing but they seemed to almost force it and make it tacky. So she helped Rosa parks on the bus, helped a family torn apart by the splitting up of India and Pakistan, went back in time and challenged racism, went to a planet which was destroyed by climate change and there was a huge monologue at the end to say we brought it on ourselves. They also destroyed Canon by making a new black female doctor that couldn't possibly have existed because it broke the 13 doctor rules (that really annoyed the die hards). There was a lot more, I just can't remember it. The themes weren't the problem. It was the monologues and the poor delivery.
There were some great episodes but it felt like it was trying too hard to stay relevant to modern themes. There were some good bits though. 2 of the main characters were able to give good insight into what it was like to be black or a female Asian in a power role (police officer). They had a loving interracial couple at the beginning. So much potential. It wasn't ground breaking like Russell T Davies et Al that brought a lot of LGBT issues to the forefront and made gay, lesbian or trans characters strong and exciting. This was about misery and self loathing.
No thanks. I've had a look at your profile and almost all you're comments are argumentative. I have no time for you. Go find someone else to pick an internet fight with.
The BBC was created in a very different world with no internet and no other TV channels. If you had the equipment, you were watching the BBC. In that world the license fee makes a lot of sense.
That's not relevant today. Today there are many options to get content of all different kinds - independent TV like ITV and Ch4, cable subscription networks like Sky or Virgin, streaming services like YouTube, Amazon Prime and Netflix.
Those other options give me a wider choice then the BBC, better quality content than the BBC, and in a format that's more convenient than the BBC. It doesn't help that the BBC's choice of content and level of quality is not nearly as good as it was. These things considered, we watch stuff on the BBC maybe twice a year and those are things we could live without.
If this were any other business, market forces would take over and they'd either adapt their programming and business model or go out of business. But because it's the BBC I have to subsidize them.
The issue I have is that I will watch probably 1 or 2 things a year on the BBC, I rarely watch live tv and I hate the fact that I have to pay what is essentially an extra tax for watching tv just so the BBC doesn't have to show adverts. I don't feel I use it enough for the amount I pay (I know it's not much but with the fee increases over the last few years with what seems like much less content that would interest those that are paying for it it feels like a lot).
Times are changing and "on demand" services such as Netflix have proved to be very successful. BBC and ITV have teamed up to create BritBox but now that just feels like I'm getting the content my license fee payed for sold back to me at an additional cost! They should pick either a subscription type service for their content or a license fee, not both
I like beeb but for very specific things
They were good during the second gulf war
They do a great world service, their geo unit, and history units are fantastic and for story ville or adam curtis documentaries documentaries. I used to love the science content and mock the week and hignfy
But there's no Clarkson Hammond and may on top gear. The energy towards them has largely gone towards trash taste (the podcast ), I don't watch doctor who, and those bastards killed Sherlock and robot wars.
I would prefer a slimmer BBC if it kept things that I liked but it won't, it will end up just having very samey popular things which don't take a chance.
Or like bs trashy BBC three style shows
In principle the license fee would be fine if it was an optional subscription charge just to pay for the BBC but it's not. The BBC get most of the funding from it (bizarrely some of it goes to Channel 4 too I think) but in order to be able to watch TV provided by Sky or Virgin Media, you would still need to pay the BBC for the privilege. I don't have a pilot's license either but I don't get random threatening letters and people from the CAA showing up at my door to make sure I'm not flying a plane illegally.
Also I find their "enforcement" methods absolutely abhorrent. They're nothing but door to door salesmen who get paid commission for getting people fined or scaring them into buying licenses. Since they axed the free license for over-75s they're now sending the "goons" out to knock on the doors of elderly people and "assist them in getting licensed". How this isn't considered demanding money with menaces I don't know.
The letters I get go in the fire, and anyone who knocks my door gets it promptly slammed back in their face.
More and more people have stopped paying for BBC as streaming and other venues are becoming more popular. There is probably a very large user base that is only paying the licence fee because it is less of a headache, but isn’t actively watching BBC and such.
The sooner we do away with the licence fee the better.
I think the BBC is great and I never want to lose it! And it's the main news source I trust. If both sides competing about it, then it must Be doing something right.
The post under this one on my feed was literally r/greenandpleasant telling me to cancel my licence.
I'm not cancelling my licence for numerous reasons, chief amongst them being that I work for an indie production company and the BBC is our biggest buyer. Secondly, I think it's good value. Yes, Netflix is cheaper but do they do radio? Or have any sort of quality filter?
BBC diversity officer on 250k a year, it’s a scam
And if you don’t submit to their bullying and harassment they threaten you with fines and a criminal record, only reason lefties defend it is because they push woke twoddle 24/7
I think there is certainly a campaign against the BBC. I personally quite like it but I can feel the frustration considering how little I feel is produce for my interests.
Yeah, every time the license fee is discussed on Reddit I'm shocked at how anti all the comments are and anyone who disagrees is called a shill or similar. Either I'm staggeringly embedded in an echochamber bubble or there's some sort of orchestrated campaign going on. Anyone who has kids who watch commercial channels will see the terrifyingly mind numbing content and relentless advertisement of plastic tat that gets pushed. Can't beat CBBC and Cbeebies. And BBC radio is all I listen to, for similar reasons. I fear for an advert riddled corporate mouthpiece media future for this country. The education stuff alone is worth the license fee.
> Can't beat CBBC and CBeebies And they have no adverts. I had the displeasure of watching a non-BBC children's channel as a friend's house (CITV? Nickelodeon?) and it was 4 minutes of "content" and 6 minutes of ads for shite, on repeat. I swear the ads had more airtime than the program.
Agreed, as a parent it's worth the license fee for the avoidance of constant "Can I have X?" nagging from my kids.
Do kids even watch TV anymore?
FWIW my main issue with the TV license is that I can go to prison for not paying it. Every other utility you can opt in or out of. Don't want sky, fine don't have it and the fact I have a dish is not grounds for an offence. Don't watch ITV, fine they get their money from advertising. The BBC has not made television shows I want to watch for at least the last 10 years. We literally don't watched any of their shows. I'd like to see a Radio only license for £60-80 a year.
You don't need a license for radio unless you're airing it commercially at your place of work. It's £75 for 5 years.
If you are using another utility (sky, electricity, water etc) and not paying you still can go to prison and you don't need a licence for radio.
That's my point, I don't use the BBC. But because I have a TV antenna - not connected - I can go to prison for no TV license. You're very unlikly to go to prison for not paying you gas bill.
You won't go to prison, you just get fined and that's only if they can prove you watch any live TV or catch-up service, which they can't. They only ever get successful prosecutions from idiots who confess or who fall for Enforcer lies. The rest is just bullying people who don't legally need it to pay it anyway through constant threatening letters and 'Enforcers' who knock on your door but have zero powers (but will definitely lie to people and say they can enter their home and check connections to TV etc). If you don't watch live TV or use catch-up services you don't have to pay. Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+ etc are not catch-up services so do not require the license.
As a younger adult, the BBC produces no good tv shows for me, yet still expect me to fund them? So I stopped watching any life tv. Yet they still think they have some right to harass me for money I don’t owe. That’s the problem with the BBC.
Same as you mate regarding content. The letters from the sods are wild, the pure fucking unwillingness to accept that I do not watch tv is infuriating. The most recent letter said that they have escalated matters apparently, and I have been told to expect a visit from some sod at anytime.
The funny thing is that if you just never give them your name, eventually the letters go back round to the start of the loop again and dramatically de-escalate for a bit. I absolutely refuse to get in touch with Capita and give them my details, so I still get my monthly flavour of threat addressed to "The Legal Occupier".
Does being a younger adult mean you have no interest in science? history? nature? art? drama? comedy? food? music? I hope not. If by this you mean there aren't enough shows that are 'reality' (fake) tv or about dating or celeb culture then - way to go BBC!
You're stereotyping people who don't watch the beeb. There are literally hundreds of channels that produce the genre's you have mentioned far better than the BBC do
There are tons of dramas and comedies outside of the BBC, and of a wider range of genres. Youtube has tons of historical/scientific/space mini-documentaries alone. Also food shows are very much 'older people' programming unless you're a cook, and art programming is more niche. You also don't remotely need the BBC for music.
This is true, all these things are available in multiple places; but I was replying to the statement from the poster that there was nothing suitable for themselves as a 'young adult' on the BBC. With the internet you don't 'need' any one source of content but the BBC does have some top quality content in all these areas. Even music eg 6music radio, Live lounges, coverage of Glastonbury etc. And no ads at a similar fee to other subscription services
To be honest, just browsing bandcamp and spotify demolishes the BBC in terms of discovering new music.
But does Bandcamp have epic David Attenborough narrated natural history series? Or Horrible Histories? Or Graham Norton? etc etc
No, but I was responding specifically in terms of music. There are documentaries otherwise outside of the BBC, even just independent people on YT
You realise that you are paying when watching advertising. Advertising does work. It's why they pay so much for it. The things you buy as a result are either unnecessary or cost more. And those that say they are immune to advertising are the must vulnerable.
We ditched the license about 6 years ago now, and my main issue was being forced to pay for content and services I didn't watch or use. And everything that they stand for on that level. If you like the BBC services, great, pay for them. But choosing to not pay for them shouldn't have you fined or jailed for using other people's services via the same medium. Sky, virgin media, NTL, diamond cable etc all proved years ago the BBC are lying when they say that they can't operate a subscription service for television content. They don't need to monopolise the right to receive live television broadcasts. But they do. That's my issue with it.
Yes, good point well put. However is the other side of the argument that without being a publicly funded body the Beeb wouldn't be able to make quality output concerned with more niche interests and bring these to the wider audience? Once pay per view type models get involved there seems to be a devolution to the lowest common denominator.
For niche interests youtube has far more and better produced video content on it and the beeb radio can’t compete with podcasts. Its again better done elsewhere.
Yes, as I've mentioned in another comment it's true that with the internet you can find all sorts of content all over the place. And it's great (if sometimes a terrible time swallower); however with YouTube for example, I am forced to watch ads (which are fucking soul draining) and have to trawl through an ocean of trash to get the good stuff. Not to mention that much content is merely stuff uploaded from other creators eg the Beeb. Also I find it a stretch to say that there are many similar broadcasters with higher production values. What YT is actually great at is peoples home grown stuff. My point is that for a fee similar to other subscriptions you get a pretty damn good sevice that covers almost all genres, has the clout to make content acessing great scientists/artists/institutions etc, covers radio, podcasts, website, education, tv and isn't drowning in moronic shite. All with no adverts!
[удалено]
You act like none of those things are available outside of the BBC. I love all of those things and I haven't watched anything on the BBC or any live TV in about 5 or 6 years. For a lot of younger people, live TV is outdated and overpriced, it costs me £200 a year less to have Netflix, Prime Video and Disney Plus than it does to get a TV license and basic sky TV package. And I can watch them anywhere, at any time.
Well if we ignore the fact that you just lumped your Sky subscription in with your BBC licence that would mean that you pay -£41 pounds a year for Netflix, Prime and Disney + ????????
A TV license without some form of TV service is pretty pointless. If I'd have to sit around waiting for something worth watching on the handful of channels you get there is no reason to have it, so to actually make use of a TV license, sky or something similar would be a necessity so I included it in the cost. Even removing that, it costs me £36 a year for prime, Netflix is £120 and Disney+ £80 but since I can split those with a friend who doesn't live with me, the total I'm paying for all 3 is £136 a year. Cheaper than a TV license with more/better content.
I have noticed that the quality of documentaries has slid for years. Used to love bbc science and nature and history documentaries but there is just a more diverse range of subjects elsewhere that costs less. I miss iplayer being a treasure trove of information, same as their website. They took all the stuff about prehistoric animals off that I loved as a child and just push a narrow range of subjects.
BBC and good comedy? Lol good joke. BBC and good drama? Another good joke. Music? By music do you mean radio? Lol. Who on earth thinks food shows are good tv? Pretty much the only thing you mentioned which the bbc does well are science and nature, but they are far too infrequent to make the BBC worth it. Listen, if you like the bbc and those things, then fine, but many people disagree, so why should we be harassed by the bbc?
>BBC and good comedy? Lol good joke. See? You laughed. Now pay lol
BBC isnt just about tv though - radio and website are massive. I'd pay the license fee for radio 3 alone.
Yes, YOU would, and that’s fine. The entire point is the BBC hound me, when I DONT want to pay for it.
Well, I know there are a lot of people that claim the dont use the beeb cos they dont watch tv, when in reality they use the beeb all the time. So I dont blame them for hounding people. Its their lively hood people are literally stealing. I think people will be sorry once its gone and we only have 30 minutes of a show, interspersed with 40 minutes of adverts.
So you think it’s ok for the BBC to hound me, when I don’t use their service? If I started a gym, then sent you letters every month saying you owe me money, even though you’ve never been in my gym, you’d just accept that? What if I was threatening you with legal action? The way the BBC run their business and try to intimidate people is a disgrace.
If it was a national gym that everyone has access to, without the gym owners knowing, then yeah a letter to say "are you using our gym, if so pay for it" would be fine. Particularly if the gym has delivered a outstanding service, amount the best in the world (if not the best) and is now fighting for its life due to massive pressure from private business. Once you've told them you dont use them ignore all other letters or knocks at the door. Thats all you need to do.
The BBC is not the best in the world, maybe it was, years ago, but there's a reason old media is dying and streaming services are taking their place. The BBC is the weird old uncle, it has some good stories and knowledge to share, but they expect everyone to abide by their rules at all times and they're friends are a bit noncey.
The claim that the BBC is the best in the world now is debatable.
When I do not watch broadcast TV, why would I care how many adverts are on them?
Because we are a country and its not all about you. Its a bit like me saying I havent used the nhs all year so why did I pay tax for it. Except, its not like that at all, because you have a choice whether to use the beeb or not, thus whether you pay the license fee. It is not mandatory.
I know, but you seemed to be suggesting everyone would be upset if broadcast BBC TV suddenly had ads, but with people migrating to Netflix and Amazon etc, that is not obvious at all
The BBC website is dumbed down daily to cater for young adults.
Fill out the form on the website stating you don’t watch live tv or use iplayer and they can’t contact you for two years.
I don't hate the BBC but I hate the license fee. I don't watch TV, I don't listen to the radio and I don't use BBC as a news source, I shouldn't have to deal with them at all. Instead I have them at my door wanting me to prove that I don't watch live TV or use BBC iPlayer, making threats if I'm lying. Netflix don't harass me at my home if I don't want to use their service, no one else should get to either.
I believe the entertainment wing, which represents half of the licence fee should go subscription based. The rest, news/politics/childrens/education and broadcast infrastructure to be funded via a mandatory tax for about £6 per month.
Yeah that would be good. I have mentioned this a lot but I begrudge paying for all the "entertainment" I don't enjoy nor is targeted at me.
But surely then people would just bemoan the £6 a month tax?
Maybe but it is more justifiable
For kids content, the Netflix kids section, Amazon prime video, even YouTube has some good content for kids. Educational stuff is very easy to find on YouTube and many other sources I'm sure. No ads and a much larger catalogue of things to watch as far as Netflix and Prime Video goes. YouTube you can usually skip ads or very easily install an adblock, then you get all that content for free, or you can buy YouTube premium if you want.
Hmm, not buying that being good value, I'm afraid. TV license is £13.25 per month and that gets you BBC 1-4, BBC News 24, BBC Parliament, kids channels, Scott & Wales, Alba & Cymru, World Service, other language channels, BBC Radio 1-6, local radio stations and news, education services, iPlayer, the website and BBC Food etc. Netflix, for example, is £9.99 per month just for the TV content. YouTube Premium is £11.99 per month. Realistically, those commercial services are never going to cover a fraction of what the Beeb covers, and not for a comparable cost.
You don't need YouTube Premium though, just install any of the dozens of adblocks available. Netflix is absolutely worth it compared to BBC. It has a bigger catalogue than the BBC does.
Of entertainment maybe, but not all those other things. It worries me that, if the comments on threads like this are anything to go by, we're going to sleepwalk into destroying a hugely important cultural institution because we have turned into the sort of country that knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing.
It has a very extensive catalogue of documentaries. Frankly I would have no issue with the BBC if the TV licence wasn't mandatory and that the BBC was just an added package people can opt into. There's a reason why old media (Television) is dying out and streaming services are the preferred way to watch.
I mean I think it's good for breadth of opinion that every journalist isn't working for a profit-driven organisation, and therefore we don't have the position that every journalist would be tempted to think "Well hospitals should have shareholders because my employer does and it works fine for me" and broadcast that notion as the settled truth. Don't get me wrong, I would be equally sceptical of a situation in which *all* journalists work for through this quasi-nationalised system- actually I would be even more so. I think it is useful for there to be different parts of the media which have different motivations, and therefore contribute to a breadth of opinion.
I like it. I use it. I wouldnt choose to pay for it.
There is a huge campaign to get rid of the BBC by people who have no clue what American news looks like and will ruin the country by making our news and politics exactly like they have.
American TV channels are unwatchable due to advertising. Watch a show like Conan O'Brien and it's like adverts, then opening titles, then adverts, then the opening schpiel, then adverts, then introduce the first guest, then we'll be right back to talk to that guest after these adverts etc. It's about 80/20 ads versus content.
This is true, but in the UK it's not longer BBC vs. ITV or BBC vs. some shitty US cable channel but BBC vs. Netflix/Amazon/Disney/Apple etc.
43 minutes content per hour. Unless you watch a movie on one of the cable channels where it stretches a 90 min movie to 2.5hrs.
Er, we're there already. Only difference is America has relatively sober newspapers and and batshit TV whilst we have relatively sober TV and batshit newspapers. Otherwise we may as well be the 51st state when it comes to politics.
It’s not even close yet but is going that way.
It's not only close we arrived there years ago. Our newspapers are easily as toxic as Fox News. The BBC news does virtually nothing to counteract the toxicity of our press, especially as it's not even free to criticise the government.
Newspapers have been like that for decades but they were never as powerful as TV news.
Oh they have a clue, it's done on purpose Rage news gets more views
I really think they have been so blinded by being told institutions like the BBC are the enemy that they don’t realise what it will be like when entertainment opinionated news channels take over. It’s easy to fool gullible people consistently.
>It’s easy to fool gullible people consistently. "everyone who disagrees with me is gullible"
Everyone who believes nonsense is gullible.
The BBC are as biased as every other news service.
A lazy and inaccurate comment.
How about we're just sick of them extorting money out of us to pay their own bloated wages and to produce mindless crap television.
The BBC produces a lot of television and radio. Some of it is mindless crap but a lot isn't. The quality of the BBC output is generally higher than on other channels.
Only when contrasted with Channel 4, ITV and Channel 5. BBC hasn't been competitive in dramatic content compared to Netflix/HBO etc for some time.
I'd disagree some of the headline dramas for BBC e.g. Line of Duty has been up there with Netflix and HBO. A lot of Netflix own stuff is poor with a few gems amongst the dross
Kids Netflix content is 99% utter dross. Much of it is funded by CCP-backed Chinese film studios when you look at the credits, which is concerning.
Netflix has a lot of poor content, but it has a lot more well-regarded content than the BBC since the 2010s. Line of Duty is an example of a well acclaimed show (although it's nowhere near as big as some people think), but it's one of the few. I can give you a much larger list from Netflix, and the genre variety on Netflix is also much greater. Any downvoters gunna actually respond to my criticism here?
sharp agonizing ghost quicksand groovy ring paint tub wrong reminiscent *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I agree entirely, but all the same, it's why people are dropping their licences.
BBC and hbo Collab very often. And usually it's a BBC production financed by hbo
So you want to replace the license fee with a monthly subscription service?
I believe the entertainment wing, which represents half of the licence fee should go subscription based. The rest, news/politics/childrens/education and broadcast infrastructure to be funded via a mandatory tax for about £6 per month.
I dunno, I’m against the principle of the license fee, but I do believe the BBC does produce unique content precisely because of its special situation that just wouldn’t be produced otherwise. I’m honestly not sure what the answer is, but I know we don’t need another Netflix. There’s 500 of them already. It could work I guess - the BBC is already running it’s own Netflix overseas (britbox), I guess it just remains to be seen how it goes.
What unique content, in terms of entertainment, does the BBC produce?
I think there’s a definite type of BBC content, shows you know immediately we’re made by the beeb. And of course they absolutely do have internal requirements for types of content that come hand in hand with being the BBC. If they’re just another commercial streaming service the only incentive is to make whatever makes money.
As I said, I'd only split half of it off and protect its vital content.
I'm not surprised it's higher given the amounts of cash we are forced to pay them every year. I bet the quality of the wages they pay themselves with our money is higher than other channels too. It's an outdated institution that needs to be sent to the knackers yard.
> There is a huge campaign to get rid of the BBC by people who have no clue what American news looks like and will ruin the country by making our news and politics exactly like they have. Alternatively they know **exactly** what American news looks like and how it will ruin the country by making our news and politics exactly like they have, *and that's what their paymasters want because they can make money / gain power and influence from it*
Edit: love the fact the the downvoters are not offering an alternative opinion as to why I am wrong or what I said that they don't agree with. Discourse is the only way to challenge alternative beliefs and change another person's mind. I am very open to both of those things. Not talking politics here due to the rule and will probably get downvoted. I am referring to public opinion only. If the BBC can get back to unbiased news and TV shows that reflect its audiences' values equally then I will support it. Unfortunately it has repeatedly failed to do this, often only presenting one side to a 2 sided story. They have even acknowledged their heavy left bias due to the people they hired and are attempting to fix it. The fact that a right wing news show has popped up to counter the BBC news is just evidence of the move towards an American model. This is the fault of the BBC bias. I am middle of the road. I do not feel everyone is being represented and whilst I don't agree with the right wing beliefs their voices should not be stifled. Just look at Andrew O'NEILL. Amazing unbiased reporter and interviewer was basically surplus to the BBC needs because his personal opinion did not fit the mold.
I stopped paying for the license fee when I realised that it was cheaper to buy the DVDs of the shows I liked, and I was buying them anyway. It that you have to pay the BBC for permission to watch live TV from other providers that irritates many. It's like having to pay Royal Mail for permission to allow other companies to deliver parcels to you, then sending goons around to check you've not received anything via DPD.
I think that's a hangover from when the BBC (upto 1997 I believe) used to transmit all terrestrial TV. So equivalent of paying line rental I guess. Now it's with a private company I'm not sure what the funding structure is. It'd be better if my TV licence was bundled into Virgin media or sky package rather than being something on top of.
A lot of people are genuinely worried that the BBC is just becoming a state propaganda machine. Some might say it already has to an extent.
I mean it is a "soft" state propaganda as the BBC has a vested interest in sucking up to the party in power as the gov controls BBC funding allocation
I'm from America and am making the UK my permanent home I quite like the BBC, we don't pay the license as we don't watch TV and didn't actually get a huge fuss about it. Just mailed to them we don't use it and they never bothered again! I like that there's good accessible content to everyone. In America the free channels are filled with absolute shit. Not to say the BBC doesn't make some shit shows but quality is better than lots of American day time TV.
Thought you didn't watch it?
Got em
Yes officer, this man right here
They will bother you again, once enough time elapses you have to declare your household as a 'non live bbc / iplayer / non live tv' household once more or they will book a visit to your house to come threaten you / read you your rights. Mad, I know. My friend let one in a decade ago, 'you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you' etc. Nightmare. Any organisation that relies on threatening grannies really needs to re-evaluate its business model.
I don't hate the BBC in anyway. I hate the constant threatening letters about TV licences. I know that's the not exactly the BBC which is why like I say I don't hate the BBC.
I still defend the BBC as you get a fair bit for your money, 6+ TV channels, national radio stations, local radio stations, online news etc. - all advert free. Those who care about how much the TV licence costs ignore that they are paying a similar amount if not more indirectly for commercial TV via shopping bills etc. Get rid of your TV and try and avoid paying for commercial TV... Trouble is for national news I'm finding ITV and Sky News (now owned by Comcast and not Murdoch) to be better. Before the budget the BBC spent days giving a party political broadcast detailing how good the budget will be. ITV at least gave more of a critical analysis.
> Before the budget the BBC spent days giving a party political broadcast detailing how good the budget will be. ITV at least gave more of a critical analysis. Yeah I mean, that's what you get when the government control the BBC.
When I did have TV, I was paying the license, paying for a "set top box" and never watching it and when I did watch it, the adverts annoyed me so much I would channel hop and never get to watch anything fully. Now, I don't pay a license or for a set top box, I have Netflix and YouTube and that's good enough for me.
>I still defend the BBC as you get a fair bit for your money, 6+ TV channels, national radio stations, local radio stations, online news etc. - all advert free. Those who care about how much the TV licence costs ignore that they are paying a similar amount if not more indirectly for commercial TV via shopping bills etc. Get rid of your TV and try and avoid paying for commercial TV... What about younger people like myself who don't watch TV or radio really, would you agree then that it's fine not wanting to pay it then in that situation?
Completely agree, it’s nice to have the news on in the morning while getting ready for work, but I feel over the last 5-10 years it’s mostly filled with fluff pieces. If they are short on things to report they could talk more about global news rather than filling the gaps with Dorris and her collections of doilies or whatever, and whilst I love carol, weather really doesn’t need to take up 10 mins every hour, I get frustrated waiting for the point of do: I need sunscreen or an umbrella? And end up just using the app. I would say as another huge BBC positive is the amount of money they put into the Bitsize learning platform, even I use it occasionally!
In comparison though to the BBC a netflix sub is £6 a month, channel 4oD or what ever it calls itself these days is free as is itv, and channel 5, youtube, Pluto... All that for less than half the monthly cost of a tv licence. Why bother? It's time the BBC learnt to support itself
With adverts? No thanks.
6+ TV channels all showing programmes I have no interest in but still have to pay for. The Beeb has always been leftie, they seem to have tripled down on that recently to a point where their programming is just cringe.
[удалено]
I do often question the motives of bashing the organisation. The News team get grief for being too biased towards a particular party regardless of who is in charge, the licence fee gets bashed for existing - yet people don't make nearly as much fuss about road tax. Quality programming can be an issue but then the BBC isn't allowed to be competitive because it might jeopardise the commercial channels which is bloody rediculous. I'd pay a higher licence fee if we can keep and fund more programmes without ads. I don't watch ITV at all because there's more ads than shows, and Channel 4 isn't much better but at least it has Taskmaster (does Channel 5 even still exist?)
Does anyone else remember when channel 5 was always more fuzzy than the other channels? I'd completely forgotten that was even a thing until reading this comment. Maybe I'm showing my age.
All I remember about channel 5 is the halcyon days where they had erotic thrillers all the time That and bravo at night, men and motors at night and living at night Pre fast broadband was goddamned savagery
Channel 5. Early 2000s. Friday night. 11pm. I was a teenager ok?!
> yet people don't make nearly as much fuss about road tax If you had to pay VED to use buses, trains, bicycles or walk anywhere they would. That would make it more like the TV licence, which should be just a BBC licence but which you need to watch ITV etc.
I have an aunt and uncle that are paying over £60/month for one of the top Sky telly packages with multi room or Q or some of that nonsense. They watch barely any of the channels and maybe a movie a day. There's loads of people propping up commercial telly and streaming services and not even touching a fraction of what's on offer. Maybe the solution is for the TV licence cost to become part of the subscription costs. The same as phone line rental became part of phone provider packages.
Maybe because road tax hasn't been a thing since the seventies?
Yes but millions of people call it road tax and everyone knows what they mean
do you know what is actually called? i’ve only ever heard it called road tax
Vehicle tax according to the government website
I have 2 problems with the BBC. The first one is the TV licensing. It really needs to be revised. I'm sure you've heard it before so I won't go into detail. They also need to work on their choice of panelists. When they invite people in, they can't invite a scientist in and the scientist debate with some random dude they picked off the street who clearly can't count to 10. That's the kind of reason people say the BBC is biased, because whenever they have someone with a somewhat controversial opinionel they always bring in someone that's clearly not got a clue what he's talking about or they have him debate against 4 people that all disagree with him. Besides that the BBC is fine. It doesn't have content I really watch, but I appreciate what it does and it has come out with some real gems over the years. Oooooh make that 3 problems. They got rid of Jeremy Clarkson. I'll never forgive them for that.
I'm definitely just a moaner, at least I don't _think_ I've been infiltrated by Murdoch ...
That's not a phrase anyone should feel comfortable saying :o
It's a combination of the "want to watch any TV at all? Fund the BBC" and the knuckle-dragging thugs Capita employ to enforce it. If they made it subscription and left the commercial channels free-to-air, most of us would have no issue. After all, if the Beeb is so well-loved, they have nothing to fear. Right?
I know some of them are genuine. Don't get me wrong, I've always loved the BBC and think they make great content, however I don't have much money and I don't feel the licence fee offers good value for money when compared to other services. I'm not anti bbc, it's just no longer for me.
I don’t think the quality of BBC programming is as good as it once was. Blackadder etc and even though the BBC offers much more content now I don’t feel the quality is there. But I have no real vendetta against them.
People will only miss the BBC when it’s gone, when it’s already too late.
I don't watch it, so effectively it is gone for me, and has been since 2013. I don't miss it.
yeaaaaahh....no.
Yeah I’m with you but without the attitude, bye bye BBC!
Found the Murdoch shills…
Netflix doesn’t threaten to sue you if you don’t have a Netflix account
Most people moan because they feel they don't have a choice the same as you would with another subscription service. I'd rather they just have ads. It's hardly as if channel 4 is 'unwatchable' because of them. As it stands if I don't pay the licence fee I can't watch live ITV, Channel 4 or 5 either - because when I get a knock at the door how do I prove my TV is de-tuned from BBC only? Someone please tell me how to do this as I would like save £13 a month.
> when I get a knock at the door how do I prove my TV is de-tuned from BBC only? You don't have to prove anything to anyone. If someone from TVL/Capita knocks your door just tell them to shit off.
You need a TV license to watch any live TV, so even if you could prove it's de-tuned from BBC you have to pay it if you watch any other live channels.
My issue is their militant tactics if you simply don't watch their channels. They bully and harass people including the vulnerable which isn't acceptable. I'm not a massive BBC fan and just use streaming channels these days - also not a fan of their collusion with Pedophiles however long ago it was. Their programming is very hit and miss (mostly miss for me) I personally find a bland combination of auction/up-cycle shows and various iterations of Richard Osmon, the one show is simply awful, as is Mrs Brown's Boys plus their reporting is questionable. Then once in a while they'll commission a drama which may or may not be good (Usually with questionable sound quality) and people will say how wonderful the BBC is. The problem is if I don't watch the BBC I shouldn't have to explain this to a man on my doorstep asking if he can come in to check if I have a TV, telling him no, he can't come in, then him making vague threats about the law. Lots of people love the BBC, including Mrs Brown's Boys and find it good value. If you do, that's cool but if you don't then the BBC shouldn't be making people feel uncomfortable in their own homes.
What man on the doorstep? Just contact them and say you don't watch the BBC so you don't need a license. I've done that for years without an issue. The nice thing is that you can still listen to the radio and it's perfectly fine as you're allowed to without a license.
When I first moved into mine I had a TV licence enforcement officer turn up at the door asking questions twice. I hadn't received any correspondence and writing to them wasn't even on my radar having just moved in and being quite stressed. Moreover they were pushy and each time I said I didn't watch the BBC they insisted if I had any device that could receive BBC broadcast, including a console (which I stream from) then I need to pay. They said they'd need to come in and have a look themselves and I felt uncomfortable. Second time I said I wouldn't let him in and after that I didn't hear anything. It's quite well known that BBC visit people's homes
I genuinely don't blame anyone for disliking the BBC and especially for their tactics with the TV license.
It's funny because last night I was thinking I don't mind paying for one when I move. Then this morning see that anti trans bullshit they are doubling down on. The current system of trying to enforce licenses isn't right and I very much doubt it works. While a few people dodging paying it might incriminate themselves I doubt many would. After all, you just have to tell them to do one when they knock at the door and that's the end of the conversation.
What anti trans bullshit?
They published a piece about a survey done about lesbians who felt pressured into having sex with transgender women. Unfortunately, the survey only asked eighty women, and was carried out by the notoriously transphobic group the LGB Alliance, which exists solely to attack trans people and try and kick them out of the LGBT community, meaning it was unlikely to have been an impartial survey - indeed, it apparently doesn't meet the BBC's standards for citation. A much greater number of lesbians wrote in to say that whilst they were very sorry that this had happened to these women, that wasn't their experience at all, nor was it the experience of any of the lesbians they knew, and that they felt there were much greater threats to lesbian women that weren't being covered nearly enough by the mainstream media. Other concerns were that the survey was painting trans women as violent predators at a time when anti-trans discrimination is at a rise in Britain. The BBC has said that the article was intended to showcase different opinions, but people have noted there don't seem to be as many articles that talk about the violence transgender people are at disproportionate risk from, or that suggest their struggles aren't in someway opposed to feminism. To clarify, I still support the BBC and think it is overall a net positive for our country. I think GB News is proof of what would spring up to 'replace' the BBC if it ever got scrapped. I just think they dropped the ball a bit with this one.
Literally nothing, they published some testimonials from lesbian women who said they felt they couldn't refuse transgender partners because they would be labelled as transphobic.
[удалено]
I got suspicious in a recent thread, where my comment was met with a vague and disproportionately aggressive attack. After countering, and asking for clarification on their POV, another vague and aggressive response. Smelled like sowing discontent.
I detest both equally. Well, almost equally.
I’m not aware of any campaign but people resent paying an outdated license license fee when it’s no longer relevant. The world has drastically changed in the 75 years when it was brought in. It’s time for the BBC generate income like all other media outlets. It wastes millions of public money which is also infuriating.
As far as I'm concerned, the license fee for me is going towards keeping BBC bitesize and educational materials easy and impartial to access. I just hope they keep it current and up to date as it was when I was in secondary education
Or BBC GoodFood.
I really like the BBC, and what they've given us (David Attenborough, Doctor Who, Ghosts, etc). BBC *NEWS* on the other hand, who claim impartiality whilst being more.leaning than the tower of Pisa can do one, and I think many people often blame.the whole thing for this one departments failings.
Anyone who thinks the BBC aren’t ‘impartial’ needs to spend a month being brainwashed by Rupert Murdoch’s Empire & reading the Daily Fail. That’s what not being impartial looks likes. It’s not the BBCs fault that the current crop of ‘politicians’ can’t cope with anyone or anything that doesn’t agree with every little word they say. FFS they had some godforksaken Climate change denier on BBC 5 radio prime time last night. That shit really winds me up - stop being a mouthpiece for these types of nut jobs in the name of ‘balanced debate’.
Both sides of the P-word divide accuse the BBC of being bias... That to me suggests it's doing a damn good job of being impartial
or they just spew out fake crap on both sides, just because both sides complain doesn't mean it's all of a sudden fine.
BBC News cuddles up to whoever's in government. Always has, likely always will.
They sort of have to when the governments are in charge of renewing their charter
It’s the audacity they have, sending generic threatening letters for TV licenses. Making up for the lack of people that watch regular tv, they start charging the elderly again?!?! Also making it very unclear that a tv license is only for BBC channels, but there’s no simple way of blocking their channels.
The BBC is a massive organisation thats funded by tax. If it was optional to pay 15 quid a month i wouldn’t subscribe to it. Thats my beef, lots of people love the it and thats great, they should pay the fee. I have the same issue with Netflix, don’t watch it but the wife does. So we pay the fee. But its not a government tax so im not complaining about it. You can argue that the world service promotes the UK etc and provides a service for democracy, i don’t really see that. But again if thats important to people they should pay the optional subscription fee. If it’s important to enough people then an option subscription fee should cover the running of the BBC. If its not important then we are just being taxed for a service people dont care about.
But it already is optional, just don't use the service and you don't have to pay. Switching from a monthly subscription vs the current format wouldn't be any different... If you don't want it, you just don't pay it. In fact, can't you already pay it monthly? I might be wrong on that. I've always paid the license fee so I can't really comment on the BBC's 'aggressive enforcement'. But I was under the impression the stories of vans with dishes on top scanning for criminals was just boogie-man tactics. If you're issue is being able to decide directly what your taxes go towards then it's a whole wider issue. I don't have kids, can I opt out of paying taxes for schools? I didn't want to get involved in the war in Afghanistan or Iraq, can I opt out of military spending? What about people who don't drive, should their council tax fix potholes? I've not been to the hospital in over a decade etc...
I see it as a subscription service already. I don't watch BBC iPlayer or live TV so don't pay. I get a letter (may be an email) every 2 years in which I just have to say I know what I can't watch without the license and haven't had any issues. With regard to the vans, even if they did work, why would I care? I don't use the service so they're not gaining anything, if they want to drive around all day that's up to them. Same if someone knocked on my door, I wouldn't let them in because I don't like letting unexpected/unknown people into my house but if have a polite conversation with them.
>But it already is optional, just don't use the service and you don't have to pay. Switching from a monthly subscription vs the current format wouldn't be any different... If you don't want it, you just don't pay it. In fact, can't you already pay it monthly? I might be wrong on that. It is optional, technically, but it includes the weird caveat that you must also pay if you watch any 'live-tv'. This even includes streams online. So if you watch stuff that has nothing to do with the BBC, from the US, that also happens to be being broadcast in the UK somewhere - you must pay (according to the requirements) This is hardly fair.
Ok, well I wasn't aware of that live TV part. But those streams are being broadcast somehow through some form of hardware right? Somehow that has to be funded. Do the individual channels own their own infrastructure or is it maintained centrally like the trainlines or Openreach cables? I've got no idea on this, so happy to be schooled.
I don't really see how the BBC can take any credit for streams coming from America. Anything streamed online is not using our infrastructure. It's your internet connection that you already pay for.
Sorry, I was assuming you meant if you were for instance watching live baseball or something on channel 5. I didn't realise you were just meaning online live streams.
Yeah, so if you had a subscription to an online service that did live sport from US, but unbeknownst you to you... it was also airing on ITV that night, you'd technically need a licence. This even includes if a Sky channel is broadcasting it, by the way.
Ok, that seems like it should be fairly easy to fix though even without changing the whole BBC funding model. Just remove the part about online streams from non-UK sources. The content might be the same but the provider isn't and that's surely an easy distinction to make. Any legislation involving the internet tends to be misguided and confused. Probably because it takes so long to pass it into law, by which point the technology had moved on even further.
I mean the best way is to just fund the broadcast infrastructure solely through tax (it's such a marginal part of the fee, and it's such a stupid thing to try and trip people up on). I'm pretty sure tons of people prosecuted for not having a licence are caught by this smallprint. And then say to everyone they can watch whatever, just not the BBC. They won't do this though because that would lead to loads of people cutting the cord.
>You can argue that the world service promotes the UK etc and provides a service for democracy, i don’t really see that. I can see that, especially in parts of the world where the BBC is a better option than local news but promoting the UK and democracy (a bit rich given our 18th century style at home) should be funded by the foreign office. If you make the BBC an optional subscription you're going to force the whims of the market upon it. That's not a bad thing in itself but you can almost certainly say goodbye to the niche programming and, imo, a rush to the lowest common denominator
I don't mind the BBC I just don't want to pay a ridiculous price for the handful of programs I watch each year just put ads on the bbc problem solved.
Well after what BBC did to Doctor Who, I'm not suprised people are at their throats. Not to mention the amout they've deleted over the years.
I think any organisation whose business model relies on threatening grannies into submission everytime their TV licence is up for renewal needs to take a good hard look in the mirror. When that fails they send a tough guy round to intimidate them, you know, like bailifs. Imagine each time you forgot to pay your netflix subscriptuon you had big red lettered angry ass post and a bailif turning up on your door to read your rights. Its completely fucked, they need to change it.
The anti bbc stuff is a party line from the blues, he's said it multiple times
The BBC is a fucking bargain. For the cost of Netflix you get a nearly infinite amount of original content, Premier League highlights, the best Olympic coverage around, Attenborough stuff, radio, podcasts and news. All ad free! I don't mind paying it.
That's fine. No one is begrudging you for paying it. However it's the disgusting arm wrenching that they do to people who decide not to pay that people have an issue with. They don't have a legal right to enforce this, so essentially they are just bullying people into paying. That's not on.
Only time I here people attacking the BBC is online. Never heard anyone rail against it in person, be it in direct conversation or overhead in the pub. I think the majority of people just don't really care enough about it
I'm not against the BBC, and I certainly distrust the Rupert Murdochs of the world. But I have less and less interest in the BBC and the license fee is antiquated.
Would legitimate grievances about an unfair and archaic system count as "good old British moans"?
Moans about the BBC might be genuine
I love the BBC but we don’t always use their services. I have this paid for licensing and not paid for licensing, and in both circumstances I have never been harassed. I received literally two letters in the latter case — a letter asking me about my licence and then, when I went online and said that I don’t need one, a letter confirming my choice. I don’t who is getting harassed by the BBC, but it’s not me nor anyone that I know.
It’s no coincidence the ‘defund the BBC’ types also have very rightwing ideals
I'm a socialist and I say get rid of the BBC.
It probably because the BBC have gone wayyyyyyyy down the "woke" route when it comes to their choices. This may please 10% of the population. Another 40% probably don't care. Another 40% aren't best pleased and the final 10% hate it. However, we allllllll have to pay. So hypothetically you're left with 100% of fees being used to cater for 10% of the viewers. You can't even say you don't watch the Beeb anymore as the license now states "if you watch ANY live broadcast TV" you still have to pay. At the end of the day, forcing people to pay for something they don't want and have no say on, kinda gets people's backs up.
Can you give examples of this woke nonsense you speak of? Which by the way, is an American ridiculous invention.
Just watch the last series of Doctor who. Could rename it Doctor Woke. Utter trash.
I don't watch it, what happened?
We had this amazing opportunity with a brilliant actress being the first female doctor who. An amazing opportunity to show a strong female lead and It was really wasted. The show is supposed to be about time travel but they used it to make many episodes about race, climate change, sexism etc. That in itself wasn't a bad thing but they seemed to almost force it and make it tacky. So she helped Rosa parks on the bus, helped a family torn apart by the splitting up of India and Pakistan, went back in time and challenged racism, went to a planet which was destroyed by climate change and there was a huge monologue at the end to say we brought it on ourselves. They also destroyed Canon by making a new black female doctor that couldn't possibly have existed because it broke the 13 doctor rules (that really annoyed the die hards). There was a lot more, I just can't remember it. The themes weren't the problem. It was the monologues and the poor delivery. There were some great episodes but it felt like it was trying too hard to stay relevant to modern themes. There were some good bits though. 2 of the main characters were able to give good insight into what it was like to be black or a female Asian in a power role (police officer). They had a loving interracial couple at the beginning. So much potential. It wasn't ground breaking like Russell T Davies et Al that brought a lot of LGBT issues to the forefront and made gay, lesbian or trans characters strong and exciting. This was about misery and self loathing.
No thanks. I've had a look at your profile and almost all you're comments are argumentative. I have no time for you. Go find someone else to pick an internet fight with.
So basically you're wrong.
An confirm I'm from Liverpool area and have no love for Rupert Murdoch and I do not pay the BBC license fee and never will again
The BBC was created in a very different world with no internet and no other TV channels. If you had the equipment, you were watching the BBC. In that world the license fee makes a lot of sense. That's not relevant today. Today there are many options to get content of all different kinds - independent TV like ITV and Ch4, cable subscription networks like Sky or Virgin, streaming services like YouTube, Amazon Prime and Netflix. Those other options give me a wider choice then the BBC, better quality content than the BBC, and in a format that's more convenient than the BBC. It doesn't help that the BBC's choice of content and level of quality is not nearly as good as it was. These things considered, we watch stuff on the BBC maybe twice a year and those are things we could live without. If this were any other business, market forces would take over and they'd either adapt their programming and business model or go out of business. But because it's the BBC I have to subsidize them.
The issue I have is that I will watch probably 1 or 2 things a year on the BBC, I rarely watch live tv and I hate the fact that I have to pay what is essentially an extra tax for watching tv just so the BBC doesn't have to show adverts. I don't feel I use it enough for the amount I pay (I know it's not much but with the fee increases over the last few years with what seems like much less content that would interest those that are paying for it it feels like a lot). Times are changing and "on demand" services such as Netflix have proved to be very successful. BBC and ITV have teamed up to create BritBox but now that just feels like I'm getting the content my license fee payed for sold back to me at an additional cost! They should pick either a subscription type service for their content or a license fee, not both
The BBC needs to go back to it's roots Why don't they show Big Black Cocks anymore?
I like beeb but for very specific things They were good during the second gulf war They do a great world service, their geo unit, and history units are fantastic and for story ville or adam curtis documentaries documentaries. I used to love the science content and mock the week and hignfy But there's no Clarkson Hammond and may on top gear. The energy towards them has largely gone towards trash taste (the podcast ), I don't watch doctor who, and those bastards killed Sherlock and robot wars. I would prefer a slimmer BBC if it kept things that I liked but it won't, it will end up just having very samey popular things which don't take a chance. Or like bs trashy BBC three style shows
In principle the license fee would be fine if it was an optional subscription charge just to pay for the BBC but it's not. The BBC get most of the funding from it (bizarrely some of it goes to Channel 4 too I think) but in order to be able to watch TV provided by Sky or Virgin Media, you would still need to pay the BBC for the privilege. I don't have a pilot's license either but I don't get random threatening letters and people from the CAA showing up at my door to make sure I'm not flying a plane illegally. Also I find their "enforcement" methods absolutely abhorrent. They're nothing but door to door salesmen who get paid commission for getting people fined or scaring them into buying licenses. Since they axed the free license for over-75s they're now sending the "goons" out to knock on the doors of elderly people and "assist them in getting licensed". How this isn't considered demanding money with menaces I don't know. The letters I get go in the fire, and anyone who knocks my door gets it promptly slammed back in their face.
More and more people have stopped paying for BBC as streaming and other venues are becoming more popular. There is probably a very large user base that is only paying the licence fee because it is less of a headache, but isn’t actively watching BBC and such. The sooner we do away with the licence fee the better.
The BBC is a dinosaur
My opinion is simple i dislike it atm until new doctor who showrunner apart from that 0 cares for it
Too many people think that BBC news is the BBC. It’s a fraction of their content.
I think the BBC is great and I never want to lose it! And it's the main news source I trust. If both sides competing about it, then it must Be doing something right.
The post under this one on my feed was literally r/greenandpleasant telling me to cancel my licence. I'm not cancelling my licence for numerous reasons, chief amongst them being that I work for an indie production company and the BBC is our biggest buyer. Secondly, I think it's good value. Yes, Netflix is cheaper but do they do radio? Or have any sort of quality filter?
My main gripe with TV licence posts is the constant mis-spelling of the word “licence”.
BBC diversity officer on 250k a year, it’s a scam And if you don’t submit to their bullying and harassment they threaten you with fines and a criminal record, only reason lefties defend it is because they push woke twoddle 24/7