The bbc, again.

[Wisbech Eagle]

How does that benefit me, you or anyone else? My objection is to having to pay for it to watch anything else.

It benefits you in the same indirect way it benefits every citizen. It helps our economy by raising and enhancing the profile and reputation of our country. You benefit indirectly. Now we must find a way that you pay indirectly.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

It benefits you in the same indirect way it benefits every citizen. It helps our economy by raising and enhancing the profile and reputation of our country. You benefit indirectly. Now we must find a way that you pay indirectly.

Prove it.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

That would stop if every one stopped replying to his garbage.

Exactly

 

[Rudi Hedman]

Untrue. I post in bursts. Between doing a variety of other things. And never at night or before 9 am. I walked my dog for 2 hours earlier and then cooked dinner. Been checking flight timetables the last hour or so,

You’re constantly posting page long nonsense only 2 or 3 people read.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I mused over where to put this. It would be equally at home in the US thread, or in a new one on China, but as it deals with the BBC too, it is probably best here.

It’s an outspokenly honest interview with Lord Christopher Patten, ex Chairman of the Conservative Party, the last Governor of Hong Kong and ex Chairman of the BBC. With a CV like that he has had a full range of experience which deserves respect and for his views to be listened to. He doesn’t mince his words on Trump and speaks as though liberated from the shackles of needing to be diplomatic. It feels as though he has an imperative to get these things said, before he can’t. Do watch it. Whatever your personal politics.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Prove it.

I don’t have to.

The government won’t either. They, like me, believe in the importance of the BBC to the nation and that it must be kept free of government influence.

There is no need to prove anything to individuals when there is a requirement for all to pay. This won’t, and cannot be, a voluntary matter in which your personal opinion is the determinant. You cannot opt out of paying your taxes to support the military because you are a pacifist. Nor for paying council tax for recycling because you incinerate all your rubbish.

These things are decided collectively. So will how we fund the BBC.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Lord Christopher Patten was an utter disaster for this country and deserves to be living in a council flat rather than being called a lord.

One of the touchstones for failing upwards within the establishment.

That's independent of what anyone thinks of Trump.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

I don’t have to.

The government won’t either. They, like me, believe in the importance of the BBC to the nation and that it must be kept free of government influence.

There is no need to prove anything to individuals when there is a requirement for all to pay. This won’t, and cannot be, a voluntary matter in which your personal opinion is the determinant. You cannot opt out of paying your taxes to support the military because you are a pacifist. Nor for paying council tax for recycling because you incinerate all your rubbish.

These things are decided collectively. So will how we fund the BBC.

You expect everyone to pay for something when you have no evidence for the benefit you claim it provides. None at all. Just because you believe it doesn't mean anyone else has to do the same.
The BBC is dependent on the government for its budget.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

The problem I had with THE BBC, was the amount of cheap stuff being put in front of me. The sort of programmes based on "let's put a camera on this". Supposedly following people at work, or celebrities doing normal stuff, cheap sports, the epic Queen's funeral was a great example of a cheap programme, with two presenters (one a sexual deviant) using their job status to queue jump.
After being fed programmes as cheap as you like, to then moan that people aren't watching (or paying to watch) is very much taking the urine. Has any employee taken a pay cut for lack of productivity ? Because in real life, that would happen

 

[Rudi Hedman]

I mused over where to put this. It would be equally at home in the US thread, or in a new one on China, but as it deals with the BBC too, it is probably best here.

It’s an outspokenly honest interview with Lord Christopher Patten, ex Chairman of the Conservative Party, the last Governor of Hong Kong and ex Chairman of the BBC. With a CV like that he has had a full range of experience which deserves respect and for his views to be listened to. He doesn’t mince his words on Trump and speaks as though liberated from the shackles of needing to be diplomatic. It feels as though he has an imperative to get these things said, before he can’t. Do watch it. Whatever your personal politics.

Who gives a sh1t?

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

I don’t have to.

The government won’t either. They, like me, believe in the importance of the BBC to the nation and that it must be kept free of government influence.

There is no need to prove anything to individuals when there is a requirement for all to pay. This won’t, and cannot be, a voluntary matter in which your personal opinion is the determinant. You cannot opt out of paying your taxes to support the military because you are a pacifist. Nor for paying council tax for recycling because you incinerate all your rubbish.

These things are decided collectively. So will how we fund the BBC.

full of massive inaccuracies, or lies. Is this for our own good, so they are good lies ?
So Chair of the BBC is not a political appointment ?
There is not a requirement for all to pay. Just those who watch live TV broadcasts
Things aren't decided collectively. They are imposed.
Your ethos of trusting those in power, was exposed as misplaced during the Covid experience

 

[Badger11]

The problem I had with THE BBC, was the amount of cheap stuff being put in front of me. The sort of programmes based on "let's put a camera on this". Supposedly following people at work, or celebrities doing normal stuff, cheap sports, the epic Queen's funeral was a great example of a cheap programme, with two presenters (one a sexual deviant) using their job status to queue jump.
After being fed programmes as cheap as you like, to then moan that people aren't watching (or paying to watch) is very much taking the urine. Has any employee taken a pay cut for lack of productivity ? Because in real life, that would happen

Yup, it's simply not good enough. They think that wheeling out a Z list celebrity in front of the camera to learn about baking, DIY or gardening is something we want to watch.

Somehow they have to up their spending on original non news programmes. To do that they need to cut back on the bureaucrats.

 

[Spiderman]

That viewpoint is why having elected representatives is so important.

The BBC’s standing in the rest of the world matters to us, much more than it does to them. Us being regarded as honest and trustworthy is the biggest asset we still have. You might dismiss it but it benefits you just as much as it does everyone else. So you, like everyone else, must pay for it. You seem to think it’s just another broadcaster, competing with all the others and producing content that you don’t like, so why should you pay. That’s fundamentally wrong. It’s much more than that.

🤣🤣

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

BBC Christmas highlights are a fine example or urine-poor programmes.

Celebrity Bake off
Celebrity Dance off
Celebrity Apprentice (nearly forgot)
Christmas with some of the Royal Family (another public-funded shambles)
re-runs of stuff they used to do very well.

And they want people to watch this ? and pay for it ?

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Lord Christopher Patten was an utter disaster for this country and deserves to be living in a council flat rather than being called a lord.

One of the touchstones for failing upwards within the establishment.

That's independent of what anyone thinks of Trump.

If I had predicted a reply this one would have been spot on!

Chris Patten is a decent man, who holds admirable values and expects others to meet the same standards.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

You expect everyone to pay for something when you have no evidence for the benefit you claim it provides. None at all. Just because you believe it doesn't mean anyone else has to do the same.
The BBC is dependent on the government for its budget.

I have evidence, some of which I have presented, but you asked me to prove it and I don’t need to. This isn’t a court of law in which the outcome depends on proof. This is a matter determined by government. It’s them, not you, who decide whether everyone pays because everyone, in their opinion, benefits.

What you, or I, think about the issue is irrelevant.

The government determines the level of funding the BBC needs to meet their obligations. Not how it is spent. Traditionally it’s been raised via the broadcasting licence but it looks likely to be scrapped and replaced by something more appropriate for the way we live now.Something backsliders cannot avoid.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

The problem I had with THE BBC, was the amount of cheap stuff being put in front of me. The sort of programmes based on "let's put a camera on this". Supposedly following people at work, or celebrities doing normal stuff, cheap sports, the epic Queen's funeral was a great example of a cheap programme, with two presenters (one a sexual deviant) using their job status to queue jump.
After being fed programmes as cheap as you like, to then moan that people aren't watching (or paying to watch) is very much taking the urine. Has any employee taken a pay cut for lack of productivity ? Because in real life, that would happen

You can be as personally unhappy as you like with all manner of things in life, but still have to pay your share of them. There are many that I don’t like, but I don’t endlessly moan about them and try to avoid paying.

The difference with the BBC is the separate way the funding is collected. Which was established for the very good reason to try to stop it being a political football for governments. Now that it has become one for a section of the people the time has arrived to kick it into touch and replace it with something they cannot touch.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Who gives a sh1t?

You don’t have to. You just need to pay your share.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

You don’t have to. You just need to pay your share.

Which is why the BBC is reaching a crossroads. People are swerving obligations to pay for a TV licence, because they have found other media outlets providing better value.
It will be impossible to impose a BBC tax, which is why alternate forms of funding are being explored, such as advertising revenue.
People are voicing their dissatisfaction with the BBC services via their wallets and media choices. Trying to impose a direct levvy on the entire population for something that the viewing figures suggest they are increasingly fed-up with , would be hugely unpopular for any Government to do.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

full of massive inaccuracies, or lies. Is this for our own good, so they are good lies ?
So Chair of the BBC is not a political appointment ?
There is not a requirement for all to pay. Just those who watch live TV broadcasts
Things aren't decided collectively. They are imposed.
Your ethos of trusting those in power, was exposed as misplaced during the Covid experience

This is indeed full of massive inaccuracies.

The Chair of the BBC is appointed by the Monarch, on the recommendation of the Minister for Culture and Sport, after an open and competitive selection process. They work independently of government. Of more concern is the appointment of the other Board members.

You need to pay for a licence to watch anything live or any BBC output on their iPlayer. It needs updating to control avoidance.

Everything any government does is decided collectively in our democracy.

Once governments are chosen their decisions must be followed, however personally distasteful you might find them, unless there is an immediate clear and obvious reason not to. It’s not a matter of trust. It’s a matter of ensuring a functional society. During Covid there was a lot of bs conspiracy theories circulated, which continue until now, but the government took sensible decisions with the information they had at the time. Now we are examining, with the benefit of hindsight, the lessons, so should anything similar be faced we can avoid the false steps we may identify.