Privatising the BBC

[bridge too far]

He is very, very thick hence why he's on ignore.

He has no capacity for original thought and lacks the cognitive ability to form his own opinions.

 

I have him on ignore too. Unfortunately, some people will keep quoting him so I have no option to read his diatribe occasionally.

[scotty]

I support a migration ban. We don't need foreign workers, we need to the get benefits slobs working.

 

Tell that to the private care companies. Or the NHS, for that matter.

[badgerx16]

Tell that to the private care companies. Or the NHS, for that matter.

Or farmers.

[Joensuu]

I support a migration ban. We don't need foreign workers, we need to the get benefits slobs working.

 

Of course, during a recession, high unemployment and with the 'fear of loosing their jobs' to keep us all in line, the quandry is somewhat alleviated, as there becomes a rational economic reason to justify the authoritarian objective. In other words, during a recession your views seem to contradict themselves slightly less than they normally would. What happens when the economy is growing again?

[dune]

He is very, very thick hence why he's on ignore.

He has no capacity for original thought and lacks the cognitive ability to form his own opinions.

 

You're hardly bright David.

 

Remind us all of your contributions under the alias "Three Lions".

[pedg]

In this day and age it is wrong to pay a poll tax on watching a TV station . People should have a choice whether they subscribe to a channel or not. If the BBC is as good as it's defenders make out, then they will have no problem raising the money without forcing people who dont want to watch their channels to pay for it.

 

How many people do you know who have a TV but refuse to watch a single BBC program?

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

You know what, I really don't care if I get an infraction for this...

 

You really are a f***ing moron aren't you dune.

 

I agree with the sentiment Bexy, but this just gives him more licence to play the victim card and to be totally over-looked by the mods.

[scotty]

How many people do you know who have a TV but refuse to watch a single BBC program?

 

...or listen to any BBC radio? Or use a BBC web page?

[Joensuu]

...or listen to any BBC radio? Or use a BBC web page?

 

or watched any of these:

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000179423

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

As I said before some people are blinkered and can only look either to the right or left and are not able to open their mnds.

 

Lol, trouble is people like you think you are in the centre. The right-wing print media dominates and helps set an agenda, when the BBC act differently the people who read the right wing press assume that the BBC are the ones being biased. I'm sure that many left leaning observers thought that Cameron got an easy ride from the BBC in the run-up to the election. Nick Robinson for example used to be Chairman of the Young Conservatives - if he'd been chairman of Labour students I'm sure that would have been brought up already as 'evidence' of a left bias. If the BBC really did show a consistent bias in their reporting we'd have some better examples than the treatment of Nick Griffin and than your half-baked thesis.

 

btw, thanks for the complement, I hear that alot.

[LGTL]

I think it's safe to say that the idea of the BBC being a biased left wing organisation has been blown out of the water, not exactly suprising when the only "evidence" is one TV programme. It is also quite apparant that only those with far right views see it as biased, as they are so far right they can't see the centre ground. Time to close the thread I reckon mods...

Edited 22 November, 2010 by LGTL

[JustMike]

It's in the pockets of the Marxist Unions and for that reason alone I think the Conservatives should seize the opportunity to privatise it. You only have to look at the recent locations for Question Time to see that it is a biased lefty organisation. Also i'd much rather have to suffer a few adverts than pay for a licence.

 

this. plus i already pay too much to sky

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I think it's safe to say that the idea of the BBC being a biased left wing organisation has been blown out of the water, not exactly suprising when the only "evidence" is one TV programme. It is also quite apparant that only those with far right views see it as biased, as they are so far right they can't see the centre ground. Time to close the thread I reckon mods...

 

Hardly 'blown out of the water' Le God.

 

http://order-order.com/2010/10/19/paranoid-about-left-wing-bbc-bias/

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/09/lecture-thompson-bbc-interview

 

http://order-order.com/2010/04/19/labour-candidate-is-bbc-bias-complaints-judge/

[Saintandy666]

The BBC is brilliant. It does so so much for such good value. I love the BBC and I would never ever want to see it privatised as quality and scope would decrease.

[LGTL]

British School, Islamic Rule - BBC1 tonight, 8.30pm.

 

Not exactly the type of programming for a heavily left wing establishment.

[dune]

British School, Islamic Rule - BBC1 tonight, 8.30pm.

 

Not exactly the type of programming for a heavily left wing establishment.

 

I've already read all about it in todays Daily Mail. I wondered when one of you lot would drop that into this thread.

[LGTL]

Perfect timing I thought!

[pedg]

Hardly 'blown out of the water' Le God.

 

http://order-order.com/2010/10/19/paranoid-about-left-wing-bbc-bias/

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/09/lecture-thompson-bbc-interview

 

http://order-order.com/2010/04/19/labour-candidate-is-bbc-bias-complaints-judge/

 

First one. Paranoid rightwing blog thinks BBC bias because one journo said something anti tory on their personal twitter account.

 

Second quote is:

 

Which brings us to the question of the BBC's politics and the frequent accusations of bias. Thompson says this has been a problem. "In the BBC I joined 30 years ago [as a production trainee, in 1979], there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality.

Have highlighted the sections noting it was the personal politics of the staff he was commenting on and that this was an issue in the past.

 

Third one, same right wing blog. Complaining that someone who deals with complaints admits to being bored and that on his personal facebook page he campaigned for labour.

 

Sorry if that the best you can do on whole scale left wing bias in the BBC then I would give up on it if I were you.

[dune]

Perfect timing I thought!

 

I bet it doesn't stop UAF marching alongside Muslim fanatics. From what I read in the Mail these Sharia schools teach anti semetism so one would have thought UAF would class them in the same bracket as fascists, but of course UAF have selective principles.

[solentstars]

From dune's viewpoint, Nick Griffin is left wing. No wonder he thinks the BBC are a bunch of Marxists.

 

i disagree dune and his like minded friends on this forum view points find hitler so left wing, thats why they find bbc biast because they are so far to the right ,the centre ground becomes marxist to them and thats why they hate the working class.

[solentstars]

Trust me you don't. You only have to look at Tory v Labour politicians. Tories (and those of us on the right) have the ability to laugh at ourselves. Socialists (and those on the left) have too much of a chip on their shoulders.

 

i agree you must be the alf garnet of this forum:o

[AndyNorthernSaints]

The BBC is a disgrace.

 

I watched match of the day the other night and it was full of left wingers!!! some of them playing on the right side of midfield as well.

The programme has gone downhill since the presenters started dressing in casual clothing IMO. Hansen is a jock so hates The tories, Shearer a son of a geordie sheet metal worker so obviously supports all public sector workers.

 

Match of the day should be replaced by live fox hunting with asylum seekers used as alternatve bait if needed.

Horse of the year show should be bought back with the unemployed oiks used as fences to make some use of them while their benefits are stopped.

 

I didn't spend a decade finishing my HND and marching with the NF to watch this left wing commie rubbish.

 

We need to bring back quality programmes such as the Black and White Minstrel Show, Jim Davidson show, Love Thy Neighbour, Mind your Language...... Blue Peter was never the same once it was revealed that the real Petra was replaced and John Noakes cheated by getting a lift while walking the Pennine way.

 

The Daily Mail should have it's own channel/show where i can watch proper biased shows where everyone agrees with me and anyone who does not is shot.

 

Yours Disgusted

 

Stanley Jackboots June

 

In my bedroom

13 Nick Griffin Way

Redneck Woods

[dune]

 

Nice one Andy.

 

Not sure your mate will like the Bedroom reference though.

[Thedelldays]

what lets the BBC down is the pointless waste like Radio 1...do we really need to pay chris moyles a quater of a million a year to come in and talk about farts and the do a show from New york..or pish up in Ibiza every summer...?

[dune]

what lets the BBC down is the pointless waste like Radio 1...do we really need to pay chris moyles a quater of a million a year to come in and talk about farts and the do a show from New york..or pish up in Ibiza every summer...?

 

Don't forget Jonathon Ross. Can't stand him so it winds me up immensely how much he's payed.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

First one. Paranoid rightwing blog thinks BBC bias because one journo said something anti tory on their personal twitter account.

 

Second quote is:

 

Have highlighted the sections noting it was the personal politics of the staff he was commenting on and that this was an issue in the past.

 

Third one, same right wing blog. Complaining that someone who deals with complaints admits to being bored and that on his personal facebook page he campaigned for labour.

 

Sorry if that the best you can do on whole scale left wing bias in the BBC then I would give up on it if I were you.

 

She helps edits the rolling news. Quite influential.

 

What has changed the BBC sources most of its staff by advertising in the Guardian.

 

It is hardly going to be a left wing blog is it. Does that mean that those on the right cannot question the bbc's impartiality?

 

It is in the culture of the BBC.

[Saint In Exile]

So, in order to work on any BBC news programme you're not allowed to have a personal opinion on politics then?

[Sheaf Saint]

Don't forget Jonathon Ross. Can't stand him so it winds me up immensely how much he's payed.

 

And the fact that he has now left the BBC doesn't bother you in the slightest???

 

 

 

>>>by the way - it's paid, not payed ;-)

[Sheaf Saint]

She helps edits the rolling news. Quite influential.

 

What has changed the BBC sources most of its staff by advertising in the Guardian.

 

It is hardly going to be a left wing blog is it. Does that mean that those on the right cannot question the bbc's impartiality?

 

It is in the culture of the BBC.

 

What, exclusively?

[dune]

And the fact that he has now left the BBC doesn't bother you in the slightest???

 

 

 

>>>by the way - it's paid, not payed ;-)

 

That would explain why i've not seen him on lately.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

What, exclusively?

 

" Yesterday The Telegraph had a letter that gave information about how much money the BBC spent on job advertisements for the different newspapers: In The Guardian, the BBC spent a massive £231,944; in The Telegraph, £32,535; in The Times only £6,159. yet The Telegraph has by far the largest circulation of the three quality dailies, with The Times some way behind and The Guardian a poor third. Don't even ask about The Express because the BBC doesn't advertise at all there."

[Viking Warrior]

Cheap shot Pedg

 

They do make shoddy programmes. I hate all reality programmes not only strictly.

 

The point I was intimating at was their biasedness. each morning they rarely focus on events around the world apart from the chilean miners and then they sent have the Beeb to cover the event.

The are very selective who they choose to comment on their topical news. the majority they speak to appear to have a view which is in favour of those that are down trodden. Look at the way the coverage they are given to the family

of the knox woman protesting she is totally innocent. look at the way they overstepped the mark on Lord Young and how they went with the bullys who wanted brown out when his days were number

 

Tonight they are portray soldiers as bullies and again you can guaranttee they will line up a squad of down trodden people who will chastise the services yet again by skewing a drama as if that is an everyday occurence in afghan

They rarely portray the taliban as demons no they try an intimate they are the good guys.

 

Watch Dispatches re pakistan tonight then you will know how heinious the taliban ect are.

 

Tomorrow on breakfast tv , they will have someboy on about yet another health scare, pull a politician to pieces, promote some aging pops stars latest record or book release.

 

Theres nothing about the 13 year old girl kidknapped or rape in reading etc etc/ Its about time they report the news not making it pedg

[Thedelldays]

also, the beebs obsession with pointless mid term american elections.....ffs

[buctootim]

" Yesterday The Telegraph had a letter that gave information about how much money the BBC spent on job advertisements for the different newspapers: In The Guardian, the BBC spent a massive £231,944; in The Telegraph, £32,535; in The Times only £6,159. yet The Telegraph has by far the largest circulation of the three quality dailies, with The Times some way behind and The Guardian a poor third. Don't even ask about The Express because the BBC doesn't advertise at all there."

 

Yeah but..... The Guardian is well known as the place to look for non corporate jobs - 30 or 40 pages sometimes. It also has a weekly creative and media section. Neither the Times or Telegraph have that kind of coverage. The only times I have bought the Guardian regulalrly was when I was looking for a job.

[scotty]

Yeah but..... The Guardian is well known as the place to look for non corporate jobs - 30 or 40 pages sometimes. It also has a weekly creative and media section. Neither the Times or Telegraph have that kind of coverage. The only times I have bought the Guardian regulalrly was when I was looking for a job.

 

Pinko!!!

[hypochondriac]

what lets the BBC down is the pointless waste like Radio 1...do we really need to pay chris moyles a quater of a million a year to come in and talk about farts and the do a show from New york..or pish up in Ibiza every summer...?

 

Thing is though he probably appeals to a lot of people (despite my thoughts on him.) The BBC's output generally has a variety of stuff including things I think is cr*p (Moyles and Little Britain are two examples from recent years.)

[pedg]

She helps edits the rolling news. Quite influential.

 

What has changed the BBC sources most of its staff by advertising in the Guardian.

 

It is hardly going to be a left wing blog is it. Does that mean that those on the right cannot question the bbc's impartiality?

 

It is in the culture of the BBC.

 

You can question the BBC's impartiality yes but making assumption that they people they employ are not professional enough to report without bias is just that an assumption with NO proof. All the articles you quoted contain no proof that the BBC is bias.

[pedg]

Cheap shot Pedg

 

They do make shoddy programmes. I hate all reality programmes not only strictly.

 

The point I was intimating at was their biasedness. each morning they rarely focus on events around the world apart from the chilean miners and then they sent have the Beeb to cover the event.

The are very selective who they choose to comment on their topical news. the majority they speak to appear to have a view which is in favour of those that are down trodden. Look at the way the coverage they are given to the family

of the knox woman protesting she is totally innocent. look at the way they overstepped the mark on Lord Young and how they went with the bullys who wanted brown out when his days were number

 

Tonight they are portray soldiers as bullies and again you can guaranttee they will line up a squad of down trodden people who will chastise the services yet again by skewing a drama as if that is an everyday occurence in afghan

They rarely portray the taliban as demons no they try an intimate they are the good guys.

 

Watch Dispatches re pakistan tonight then you will know how heinious the taliban ect are.

 

Tomorrow on breakfast tv , they will have someboy on about yet another health scare, pull a politician to pieces, promote some aging pops stars latest record or book release.

 

Theres nothing about the 13 year old girl kidknapped or rape in reading etc etc/ Its about time they report the news not making it pedg

 

It's only people like you who think they are making the news.

 

Yes they make some shoddy TV but to balance that they make some brilliant TV. If you don't want wall to wall reality tv they don't try and get the BBC privatised.

 

Every media company in the world tends to put events in their own country ahead of what may if you take the country of origin out the equation be a more important story elsewhere. That is the nature of all news reporting, that is not bias.

 

Can you prove, with evidence, not opinion, that they are selective on who they choose to comment on topical news?

 

Sorry but most of your comments appear to be 'you know this' and 'you know that' when in fact we don't know that we only know that you think that but you provide no proof. You can believe the BBC is a rabid left wing operation and I can believe it is trying to be unbias. Are we both right, are we both wrong? So much of this is people seeing what they want to see.

 

If breakfast TV was just news people would not watch. Yes they have other things on because they have learnt that that is what people want to watch in the morning. You might want 3 hours of solid news reporting every murder and assault from around the world but most normal people do not.

 

I am sure somewhere they have reported the 13 year olds plight, you may have missed it you, but it fits your assumptions to assume it has not been reported.

Edited 22 November, 2010 by pedg

[pedg]

So, in order to work on any BBC news programme you're not allowed to have a personal opinion on politics then?

 

Apparently not. I believe not all of the people who work at the mail are rightwing homophobes with an irrational fear of migrants but some how they do manage to not let that slip through into the paper. I guess it must be different on TV.

[Seaford Saint]

The BBC is a disgrace.

 

I watched match of the day the other night and it was full of left wingers!!! some of them playing on the right side of midfield as well.

The programme has gone downhill since the presenters started dressing in casual clothing IMO. Hansen is a jock so hates The tories, Shearer a son of a geordie sheet metal worker so obviously supports all public sector workers.

 

Match of the day should be replaced by live fox hunting with asylum seekers used as alternatve bait if needed.

Horse of the year show should be bought back with the unemployed oiks used as fences to make some use of them while their benefits are stopped.

 

I didn't spend a decade finishing my HND and marching with the NF to watch this left wing commie rubbish.

 

We need to bring back quality programmes such as the Black and White Minstrel Show, Jim Davidson show, Love Thy Neighbour, Mind your Language...... Blue Peter was never the same once it was revealed that the real Petra was replaced and John Noakes cheated by getting a lift while walking the Pennine way.

 

The Daily Mail should have it's own channel/show where i can watch proper biased shows where everyone agrees with me and anyone who does not is shot.

 

Yours Disgusted

 

Stanley Jackboots June

 

In my bedroom

13 Nick Griffin Way

Redneck Woods

 

Shakespeare reincarnated....I laughed

[badgerx16]

I am sure somewhere they have reported the 13 year olds plight, you may have missed it you, but it fits your assumptions to assume it has not been reported.

It's all on the local news pages of the BBC News web site, and has been on the teletext news, so it actually gets worldwide coverage, rather than just being on at 6:00 pm in one localised area.

[pedg]

each morning they rarely focus on events around the world apart from the chilean miners

 

Having read that I decided to see what the headlines were on breakfast TV this morning. At the time I watched they were:

 

The situation in North/South Korea

The situation in Ireland

The proposed Migration cap

The plight of the NZ miners

A story on the Burmese pro democracy leader

 

Oh and if you want constant news with special sections dedicated to different area's around the world can I suggest the very good BBC News channel.

[Joensuu]

The point I was intimating at was their biasedness. each morning they rarely focus on events around the world apart from the chilean miners and then they sent have the Beeb to cover the event.

Sorry, but IMO, there is no commercial channel who devotes anywhere near the same proportion of airtime to events abroad. This has not always been the case, in c. 2001-2004, Channel 4 News started focussing on international news, and for a few years I felt that the BBC had finally been surpassed in quality of coverage. However, it wasn't to last, Channel 4 have sunk to a distant second again (albeit, still of significantly higher quality of coverage, analysis and reporting that either Sky or ITV have ever offered).

 

The are very selective who they choose to comment on their topical news.

Disagree. They are, IMO, far too impartial in this respect, always trying to 'balance' the argument by having experts from both sides of the debate. This works when it's a 50-50 argument, but goes horribly wrong when they try to give equal airtime to unbalanced debates (for example giving equal airtime to an argument like MMR with science vs 'irrational fear', or Global Warming, with 95% of scientists vs 5% of scientist). However, I can only conclude, that the impartiality of the BBC is second to none (and often too much so).

 

the majority they speak to appear to have a view which is in favour of those that are down trodden. Look at the way the coverage they are given to the family of the knox woman protesting she is totally innocent.

From what I've seen of the BBC's coverage of the Knox case, they haven't expressed an opinion one way or the other, they consider it a matter for the courts to decide. I have noticed however how most media sources on both sides of the political spectrum have focussed on Knox because of her looks. IMO, the BBC (alongside, the Indy, and the FT) should be commended for not following the same trend.

 

look at the way they overstepped the mark on Lord Young

Sorry, I must have missed this. Wasn't it caused by Lord Young himself making silly comments in the Telegraph? I can't find any evidence of the BBC overreacting. In fact, I tried googling to see if I could evince your claim, and which website seems to be discussing it the most, err: http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&q=BBC+oversteps+%22lord+young%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=6a600fbb046e9d89

 

and how they went with the bullys who wanted brown out when his days were number

So reporting a potential change in the leadership of the country, isn't 'news' in your opinion? Or are you saying that the BBC is biased against Labour?

 

Tonight they are portray soldiers as bullies and again you can guaranttee they will line up a squad of down trodden people who will chastise the services yet again by skewing a drama as if that is an everyday occurence in afghan

They rarely portray the taliban as demons no they try an intimate they are the good guys.

I'm fairly sure the BBC was reporting Taliban atrocities before the rest of the UK media. In fact, I'm confident, that the BBC have never tried to make the Taliban seem to be 'good guys'. They may have tried to add more depth to their reporting, to try and understand the motivations behind people who join or support the Taliban (which IMO is a superb step forward).

 

They also don't portray our soldiers as bullies. The coverage of our troops is very favourable, showing how they are doing a difficult job, and doing it well. What they have done is shown balance by also reporting the fact that some of our soldiers have taken things too far in some circumstances. Reporting this isn't undermining or tarnishing all of our soliders, however, not reporting this would be the sort of propaganda you'd expect from an unbalanced media outlet.

 

You seem to prefer a 'version' of the truth that fits your personal worldview, rather than the balance the BBC is showing.

 

Watch Dispatches re pakistan tonight then you will know how heinious the taliban ect are.

I'm sure they will, just like the BBC have consistently done. [Again, as commerical news goes, Channel 4 is as close as I have ever seen to being impartial - sometimes it has even surpassed the BBC]

 

Tomorrow on breakfast tv , they will have someboy on about yet another health scare, pull a politician to pieces, promote some aging pops stars latest record or book release.

Almost certainly. And I agree, BBC breakfast does promote some awful aging pop stars in their 'filler' sections.

 

Mind you, have you ever tried to watch the alternative trash the commercial outlets roll out? Personally, I'd get the BBC to drop it's need for ratings (see post 118 ), and instead focus on quality instead of aging pop stars and x-factor failures.

 

Theres nothing about the 13 year old girl kidknapped or rape in reading etc etc/ Its about time they report the news not making it pedg

 

Err... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-11813051

Edited 23 November, 2010 by Joensuu

[hypochondriac]

I'm confused when people moan that the BBC produces some 'cr*p' programmes. There are many many programmes on the BBC which I would consider cr*p but I would fight to the death to allow them to be made. After all, they are undoubtedly popular to some sections of Britain and the BBC's remit is to Inform Educate and Entertain as many sections of Britain as they can, not just people who like the news or documentaries.

[Joensuu]

I'm confused when people moan that the BBC produces some 'cr*p' programmes. There are many many programmes on the BBC which I would consider cr*p but I would fight to the death to allow them to be made. After all, they are undoubtedly popular to some sections of Britain and the BBC's remit is to Inform Educate and Entertain as many sections of Britain as they can, not just people who like the news or documentaries.

 

Partially agree with you, partially disagree.

 

I agree that the BBC's remit should be to Inform and Educate, but personally I'm arguing that the BBC should be asked to no-longer Entertain.

 

My rational is that the BBC is the only provider who seeks to seriously Inform or Educate, whereas, the BBC is in direct competition with commercial stations when it comes to Entertainment. As such, if the BBC were to stop Entertaining, we'd loose a little, but commerical stations would fill the void; whereas no other channel provides such high quality Information or Eduction.

 

If the BBC were to focus it's money on Informing and Educating (instead of paying Brucie his bonus), the overall balance and quality of television would be improved. Or to sum, more David Attenborough, less David Dickinson.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

" Yesterday The Telegraph had a letter that gave information about how much money the BBC spent on job advertisements for the different newspapers: In The Guardian, the BBC spent a massive £231,944; in The Telegraph, £32,535; in The Times only £6,159. yet The Telegraph has by far the largest circulation of the three quality dailies, with The Times some way behind and The Guardian a poor third. Don't even ask about The Express because the BBC doesn't advertise at all there."

 

Why would the BBC advertise in the Express? - you'd struggle to find any bluechip corporates who would advertise in the Express or any other tabloid. The fact that you even include mention of the downmarket Express doesn't do much for your credibility.

 

In any case your argument in nonsensical - the Guardian has a well established Media supplement so it is pretty obvious that it will attract spend from media companies. The Times on the other has a well respected Educational Supplement which includes just about every teacher vacancy in the country - are you going to argue that Education authorities are showing a right wing bias because they advertise jobs in a right wing paper or in fact that teachers are largely right wing?

[Lord Duckhunter]

How many people do you know who have a TV but refuse to watch a single BBC program?

 

Then the BBC will have no problem getting money without using a poll tax to do so. If I object to Sky TV's bias or programme output I cancel my subscribition and refuse to pay. If I did that to the BBC I'd end up in prison. How can that be right in 2010?

 

When the whole country goes digital that is the perfect time to do away with this nonsense and if people dont want to watch the BBC, then it should be easy to block the signal to them.If people had the basic right to choose whether they wanted to pay for the BBC's output, they wouldn't be paying Wossy and the rest of them obscene amounts of our money and sending many more people on a world cup jolly than any commercial station.

[scotty]

Then the BBC will have no problem getting money without using a poll tax to do so. If I object to Sky TV's bias or programme output I cancel my subscribition and refuse to pay. If I did that to the BBC I'd end up in prison. How can that be right in 2010?

 

When the whole country goes digital that is the perfect time to do away with this nonsense and if people dont want to watch the BBC, then it should be easy to block the signal to them.If people had the basic right to choose whether they wanted to pay for the BBC's output, they wouldn't be paying Wossy and the rest of them obscene amounts of our money and sending many more people on a world cup jolly than any commercial station.

 

So if I wanted to see the world cup on tv, your idea is that I should be able to forego paying the BBC £142 and instead have to pay whatever murdoch wanted? Which, without a public service broadcaster interfering with his apparent desire for global domination of the media, just might be somewhat steeper than what he currently charges his customers?

[bridge too far]

So if I wanted to see the world cup on tv, your idea is that I should be able to forego paying the BBC £142 and instead have to pay whatever murdoch wanted? Which, without a public service broadcaster interfering with his apparent desire for global domination of the media, just might be somewhat steeper than what he currently charges his customers?

 

Excellent point! Compare £142 a year for all that the BBC offers (radio, TV, web) with over £800 a year for Sky (only ever watch football / cricket).

 

No competition for the prize for best Value for Money, is there!

[Joensuu]

Then the BBC will have no problem getting money without using a poll tax to do so. If I object to Sky TV's bias or programme output I cancel my subscribition and refuse to pay. If I did that to the BBC I'd end up in prison. How can that be right in 2010?

 

When the whole country goes digital that is the perfect time to do away with this nonsense and if people dont want to watch the BBC, then it should be easy to block the signal to them.If people had the basic right to choose whether they wanted to pay for the BBC's output, they wouldn't be paying Wossy and the rest of them obscene amounts of our money and sending many more people on a world cup jolly than any commercial station.

 

While seemingly 'fairer', the model you propose would in a single stroke remove most of the highest quality television and radio from our country. We would be left with a mess of commercial tat, with the odd gem shining through (but inevitably coming at a hefty charge). The majority of people would find themselves choosing between watching utter crud, or switching to expensive commercial channels who would buy up the better content, and sell it at a premium. Any form of educational content would be provided only if the producers think it will sell. By and large, this will lead to quality documentaries becoming few and far between. You only need to look to America to see what could happen if the BBC lost it's funding mechanism.

 

Instead, I'd suggest going completely the other way. Get the BBC were to drop the necessity to entertain, and instead just aim to inform and educate. Perhaps the BBC could even be moved under the Dept for Education, and funded centrally? That would be a fairer system, as just like the NHS, or police everyone would have unrestricted access to the information, and everyone would pay equally (whether they choose to use the service or not, society as a whole benefits). The few people who chose not to have a television, radio, or computer with internet access, would obviously lose out, but how many of them are there anyhow? I think the major problem with this would actually be ensuring the the BBC's content could not be influenced by Westminster - so it would be essential to somehow remove the ability of politicans to tinker with the BBC's purse strings.