• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Conservative Government on Mission to destroy the BBC

Status
Not open for further replies.

pdeaves

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
5,632
Location
Gateway to the South West
I wonder if any 'commercial' BBC would be lumbered with unprofitable liabilities like Royal Mail (must deliver to 'anywhere' without increased fee) or BT (must produce phone book and look after public call boxes); there will be other examples. Yes, those things are being eroded but the intention was there in the first place. There might be a licence requirement to produce a certain % of non-commercial/minority/etc. content at the outset. How that plays out over the longer term will remain to be seen.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
6,457
Location
Somewhere
One part of the conversation that often gets missed, and it's clear you both haven't thought of it, is there are some parts of the BBCs current output that are culturally important but commercially not viable. Things like Welsh and Gaelic language programming as a quick example. If the BBC becomes a commercial operation, those things will be quickly cut, to the loss of the country.
With respect, and it may seem harsh or selfish but that is a loss to some of the country. That doesn't mean that it 2022 the current funding method is the right method and there is nothing say that a % of local programming can't be legally required to continue.
 

GrimsbyPacer

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2014
Messages
2,256
Location
Grimsby
BBC deserve to be thrown under the bus.
I want them scrapped in every way.
Their purpose is not to waste money on junk shows, high paid staff, and threatening people for what is effectively extortion money.
BBC advertise on many channels in the UK nations every day, they put their reruns such as Emmerdale on W, and other shows on Gold, Dave, etc etc.
They advertise and sell their shows overseas.
The BBC may claim to rely on the tax that is the licence fee, but in reality they have a separate corporate arm that is run for profit of people's backs.
I stopped watching live TV a year and 4 months ago, cheaper to watch DVDs of shows I actually like. When I was watching TV before, BBC's schedule of Pointless, Doctors, Bargain Hunt, News with reminders every minute, and property shows, wasn't my cup of tea, so we didn't even watch the channels by the company we were forced to pay.
If their must be a licence fee, it ought to be shared out equally to all channels on views per hour, in my case the Horror and SyFy channels would get money instead. If BBC want the money, they would finally have to put something good on!
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
If welsh and gaelic are culturally important then the welsh assembly and the scottish parliament can fund it.
And why does it have to be the BBC that provides it? Other broadcasters should be a be able to access the funding and produce said output.
Firstly, if Westminster wants to give Wales and Scotland the funding for that then maybe thats an option - but you know that isnt going to happen. And secondly that was just two examples. There are plenty of other things the BBC do that would be comercially unviable too. Another example are regional radio stations and regional news (which outside of the BBC have been totally decimated in the commercial world).

With respect, and it may seem harsh or selfish but that is a loss to some of the country. That doesn't mean that it 2022 the current funding method is the right method and there is nothing say that a % of local programming can't be legally required to continue.

The wider availability of Welsh and Gaelic language programming is a benefit to the whole country not just those areas. I'd say the same about Cornish too. The entire country would benefit from being more aware of the different native languages of our country imo.

If their must be a licence fee, it ought to be shared out equally to all channels on views per hour, in my case the Horror and SyFy channels would get money instead. If BBC want the money, they would finally have to put something good on!
So there'd be no possibility of anything not commercial viable then, which is one of the big benefits of the license fee system.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
I'm inclined to think that the license fee is possibly the least worst option for funding the BBC. A key consideration for me is to maintain non-commercial radio.
 

75A

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2021
Messages
1,356
Location
Ireland (ex Brighton 75A)
If welsh and gaelic are culturally important then the welsh assembly and the scottish parliament can fund it.
And why does it have to be the BBC that provides it? Other broadcasters should be a be able to access the funding and produce said output.
One part of the conversation that often gets missed, and it's clear you both haven't thought of it, is there are some parts of the BBCs current output that are culturally important but commercially not viable. Things like Welsh and Gaelic language programming as a quick example. If the BBC becomes a commercial operation, those things will be quickly cut, to the loss of the country.
Culturally important to whom?
certainly not me.
 

Trackman

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2013
Messages
2,923
Location
Lewisham
Who needs the pub when you have railforums? You can BYOB (any resemblance to other parties is coincidental - and does not condone illegal behavior) ;)
I think the admins would give me a yellow card for my colourful language, not that I swear but certain subjects make my blood boil so need to vent.
 

dosxuk

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
1,742
they put their reruns such as Emmerdale on W
Now, are you sure Emmerdale is a BBC programme?

The BBC may claim to rely on the tax that is the licence fee, but in reality they have a separate corporate arm that is run for profit of people's backs.
And again, are you sure the commercial arms of the BBC are run for profit? Yes, they make money, but where does that money go? Shareholders pockets or back into the common funding pot that the licence fee also contributes to?
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
20,382
Location
0035
The problem I have with the suggested move to a subscription model, is, what will have to give? If the BBC relies on almost every household in the country paying £159 per year, then I can’t see how it will be able to deliver the same content with the payment being voluntary, as it seems quite obvious that there will be a significant number of households that won’t be paying into the subscription.
 

52290

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2015
Messages
548
If the BBC get rid of Nicholas Witchell, then I'd be happy to pay the license fee.

They wheel out this dinosaur everytime there's any news on the Royals. In fact, just seen him on a story about the Sussexes security. I'm sure he's an android or something - he seems to have been around for about 175 years and still looks and sounds the same. Even Charles can't stand him.

Get rid of his pompous, monthly 2 minute reports! ;)
If we got rid of Prince Charles and his pompous 2 hour lectures then there would be no point in having Nicholas Witchell.
 

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
12,981
I'm no cheerleader for the BBC but £159 a year is an absolute snip. The License Fee is probably the least worst option overall.
 

DerekC

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
2,107
Location
Hampshire (nearly a Hog)
The problem I have with the suggested move to a subscription model, is, what will have to give? If the BBC relies on almost every household in the country paying £159 per year, then I can’t see how it will be able to deliver the same content with the payment being voluntary, as it seems quite obvious that there will be a significant number of households that won’t be paying into the subscription.
That's precisely the point of the campaign that has been run for the last twenty years and more by the Mail and others, which Nadine Dorries has quite unashamedly signed up to. The BBC will be cut down to what the Tory right thinks is the size it should be - vanishingly small.
 

31160

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2018
Messages
661
The Tory party dont like it when somebody calls out the BS they pull, so it cant possibly be there fault they are corrupt/lying/breaking laws, it must be the press, sorry just the BBC for talking about it. Look over there somebody doing something bad, Gary Lineker etc etc. Divide and conquer
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,320
That's precisely the point of the campaign that has been run for the last twenty years and more by the Mail and others, which Nadine Dorries has quite unashamedly signed up to. The BBC will be cut down to what the Tory right thinks is the size it should be - vanishingly small.
More likely that they want to sell a much reduced BBC to one of their "friends" in the media industry, with weak guarantees about regional programmes & political neutrality that are not enforced properly.
 

Spamcan81

Member
Joined
12 Sep 2011
Messages
1,071
Location
Bedfordshire
BBC deserve to be thrown under the bus.
I want them scrapped in every way.
Their purpose is not to waste money on junk shows, high paid staff, and threatening people for what is effectively extortion money.
BBC advertise on many channels in the UK nations every day, they put their reruns such as Emmerdale on W, and other shows on Gold, Dave, etc etc.
They advertise and sell their shows overseas.
The BBC may claim to rely on the tax that is the licence fee, but in reality they have a separate corporate arm that is run for profit of people's backs.
I stopped watching live TV a year and 4 months ago, cheaper to watch DVDs of shows I actually like. When I was watching TV before, BBC's schedule of Pointless, Doctors, Bargain Hunt, News with reminders every minute, and property shows, wasn't my cup of tea, so we didn't even watch the channels by the company we were forced to pay.
If their must be a licence fee, it ought to be shared out equally to all channels on views per hour, in my case the Horror and SyFy channels would get money instead. If BBC want the money, they would finally have to put something good on!

Ah, another person who thinks a broadcaster should exist purely for what they want to watch.
 

GrimsbyPacer

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2014
Messages
2,256
Location
Grimsby
Does 'The Thing' still get shown on the horror channel. Damn good movie that.
It was last time I watched Horror, not watched it since I gave up on TV Licence.
Now, are you sure Emmerdale is a BBC programme?

And again, are you sure the commercial arms of the BBC are run for profit? Yes, they make money, but where does that money go? Shareholders pockets or back into the common funding pot that the licence fee also contributes to?
Eastenders then, all the same, ITV and BBC are equal quality and show virtually the same shows despite BBC getting billions more in fees.
Dickingson's Real Deal and Cash in the Antic, the news, the soaps and property shows, nout different between the two other than adverts on one, £159 from the other even if you never watch them, so we all pay the licence fee to watch adverts effectively anyway.
The problem I have with the suggested move to a subscription model, is, what will have to give? If the BBC relies on almost every household in the country paying £159 per year, then I can’t see how it will be able to deliver the same content with the payment being voluntary, as it seems quite obvious that there will be a significant number of households that won’t be paying into the subscription.
Does the BBC need to deliver the same content? BBC2, BBC3, BBC4, all show nothing of worth other than repeats or shows for very small groups of viewers. BBC1 often has the same old shows on every day of the week, very tiring, the schedule could easily be livened up while having less shows, everyone knows BBC was better in the past when it had less shows and overpaid staff who get more than MPs.

Ah, another person who thinks a broadcaster should exist purely for what they want to watch.
Why do you think the BBC should exist at public expanse (including from non-customers)?
 

Spamcan81

Member
Joined
12 Sep 2011
Messages
1,071
Location
Bedfordshire
Now, are you sure Emmerdale is a BBC programme?


And again, are you sure the commercial arms of the BBC are run for profit? Yes, they make money, but where does that money go? Shareholders pockets or back into the common funding pot that the licence fee also contributes to?

The BBC doesn't have shareholders AFAIK.
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
First they throw them under the bus by scrapping the free licences, and letting the BBC take the blame, and now I've been hearing on the news that they're going to scrap the licence fee totally and replace it with some unspecified alternative form of funding. We all know what means, don't we, Ads or a subscription, so you can kiss goodbye to any content that doesn't bring in tons of money.
Am I supposed to be upset? They should've switched to a different funding model years ago. The TV license is antiquated and should've be superseded by their commercial arm. The bbc sell their productions all around the world and they should be made to live off that. Last time their profits were made public, they were making £2 billion.
To be fair, the BBC has been doing a good job of slowly but steadily destroying itself for the last 20 years.
Pretty much this. They constantly and maliciously hamstrung their most popular production overseas, Top Gear, for years. Another IP, Doctor Who, has been run into the ground. They act like they're impartial when they really aren't. I could go on listing their flaws, but I'd be at it all day.

BTW, I just found out that Dr Who is now essentially under the control of Sony.
The TV license tax should have been abolished years ago. If the BBC is as good and popular as many on here say it will have no problem in surviving and thriving in the commercial world.
Agreed. And as I've said just above, they already have a commercial arm. It was called bbc worldwide, but they merged it into bbc studios a while back.
Good, as far as I’m concerned.
Agreed, should've happened before the pandemic though.
Me too, really don't like the BBC's attitude.
They do appear to have contempt for at least half of the country.
If the BBC get rid of Nicholas Witchell, then I'd be happy to pay the license fee.
Nagging b-imean naga munchetty is my trigger. She's nails on a chalkboard, both in her tone of voice and attitude, and on top of that, she's broken bbc rules many times, yet is still there. Nick Knowles appears in a Shreddies ad and he's suddenly out the door.
It's not unexpected, but it's sad.
It's only sad for what the bbc stood for, not for what it currently stands for.
Heaven forfend we have yet another commercial broadcaster with all the attendant adverts. Having an advert free, publicly funded broadcaster is very important IMO.
Maybe the bbc should've thought about this and acted accordingly, instead of continuing down their self destructive path. They could keep their current model if they switch to a subscription service.
It is a big step in the sense that it'd mean a massive reduction in funding. The BBC is not set up to compete as a subscription service. A subscription model would bring about a direct comparison with the likes of Netflix, and their pricing structures, for what is not the same product. But whatever the price, many current licence fee payers, even those who mostly watch the BBC, would save money and watch ITV/Channel 4 etc if they are free. The BBC's output is heavily tailored to the UK audience and the format of broadcast television, so opportunities to expand the subscriber base are limited without the billions of venture capital funding the big streaming providers have benefited from.
Once again, should've thought about that.
One of the best moves for a commercial BBC would probably be to close Salford and their other sites outside London.
In anything, they'd probably stay at Media City and consolidate everything there. Broadcasting house would probably stay as their headquarters, although hopefully with the paedophile statue out front covered up.
I do. Please watch Fox News for a few weeks. Then come back and tell me whether the BBC doesn't do a reasonable job.
All American news is horrendously biased. Just because that is the case, doesn't make the bbc good, or impartial.
And why does it have to be the BBC that provides it? Other broadcasters should be a be able to access the funding and produce said output.
And herein, lies the problem with the license fee. If it was distributed equally amongst the 4 main broadcasters (bbc, ITV, C4 & C5 viacom (ok, maybe just the bbc and C4)) against their viewing figures, people wouldn't have a problem with it, as it equally funds all the broadcasters for their needs. In it's current guise, it's a bbc tax and nothing else.
With respect, and it may seem harsh or selfish but that is a loss to some of the country. That doesn't mean that it 2022 the current funding method is the right method and there is nothing say that a % of local programming can't be legally required to continue.
Perhaps a compromise could be that all the money currently put into the bbc as a whole, can be put into regional programming and radio.
I stopped watching live TV a year and 4 months ago, cheaper to watch DVDs of shows I actually like. When I was watching TV before, BBC's schedule of Pointless, Doctors, Bargain Hunt, News with reminders every minute, and property shows, wasn't my cup of tea, so we didn't even watch the channels by the company we were forced to pay.
Correct. They barely produce anything people want to watch anymore. They have to rely on reruns and a few big ticket HBO type shows to stay relevant.
Another example are regional radio stations and regional news (which outside of the BBC have been totally decimated in the commercial world).
You mean the ones they've already butchered into a mess barely resembling their pre-covid selves?
The problem I have with the suggested move to a subscription model, is, what will have to give? If the BBC relies on almost every household in the country paying £159 per year, then I can’t see how it will be able to deliver the same content with the payment being voluntary, as it seems quite obvious that there will be a significant number of households that won’t be paying into the subscription.
Well if they offered programming that appealed to a wider audience and stopped relying on repeats... I mean, the only bbc show I actively seek out is CHM Top Gear on iplayer. Something that has been out of production since 2015, that's almost 7 years ago. In fact, in 2029, it'll tick over to having been out of production for longer than it was in production (2028 if you want to start from the point when James joined).
I'm no cheerleader for the BBC but £159 a year is an absolute snip. The License Fee is probably the least worst option overall.
No, it isn't.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,969
Location
Taunton or Kent
Shares or not, obscene amounts of the money ended up in Gary Lineker's, Jimmy Savile's and many other pockets.
Obscene amounts of money end up in the pockets of almost every TV presenter on mainstream TV channels; if anything other more commercial channels probably pay out at least as much, possibly even more, to their presenters/personalities, the difference is at the BBC they're required to disclose the salaries. I agree the BBC staff are paid excessive amounts, but the reality is until all other channels drive down their salaries too, the BBC are probably pressured into higher amounts to try and be competitive somehow. But hey, that's capitalism for you.
 

GusB

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,546
Location
Elginshire
If welsh and gaelic are culturally important then the welsh assembly and the scottish parliament can fund it.
And why does it have to be the BBC that provides it? Other broadcasters should be a be able to access the funding and produce said output.
Ah, this old chestnut. There was Welsh and Gaelic programming long before the existence of the devolved parliaments. Indigenous languages are culturally important, whether or not you're interested in learning them or not.

BBC deserve to be thrown under the bus.
I want them scrapped in every way.
Their purpose is not to waste money on junk shows, high paid staff, and threatening people for what is effectively extortion money.
BBC advertise on many channels in the UK nations every day, they put their reruns such as Emmerdale on W, and other shows on Gold, Dave, etc etc.
They advertise and sell their shows overseas.
The BBC may claim to rely on the tax that is the licence fee, but in reality they have a separate corporate arm that is run for profit of people's backs.
I stopped watching live TV a year and 4 months ago, cheaper to watch DVDs of shows I actually like. When I was watching TV before, BBC's schedule of Pointless, Doctors, Bargain Hunt, News with reminders every minute, and property shows, wasn't my cup of tea, so we didn't even watch the channels by the company we were forced to pay.
If their must be a licence fee, it ought to be shared out equally to all channels on views per hour, in my case the Horror and SyFy channels would get money instead. If BBC want the money, they would finally have to put something good on!
Since when was Emmerdale a BBC programme? Don't let the facts get in the way of your little rant. :rolleyes:
 

Falcon1200

Established Member
Joined
14 Jun 2021
Messages
3,577
Location
Neilston, East Renfrewshire
Ah, another person who thinks a broadcaster should exist purely for what they want to watch.

Or perhaps thinks they should have the choice of only being forced to pay for what they want to watch ?

Firstly, if Westminster wants to give Wales and Scotland the funding for that then maybe thats an option - but you know that isnt going to happen.

But, should the BBC disappear (which I hope it does not) there would be nothing to stop the Scottish and Welsh Governments setting up their own publicly funded channels, along with their own licence fee ?

I'm no cheerleader for the BBC but £159 a year is an absolute snip. The License Fee is probably the least worst option overall.

I would agree, and given the fact that the BBC is criticised by more than just the Conservatives (the SNP have no love for them either) perhaps they aren't as biased to one side as people think !
 

dosxuk

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
1,742
Shares or not, obscene amounts of the money ended up in Gary Lineker's, Jimmy Savile's and many other pockets.
Making television is an expensive business and the stars of the day can command a premium.

Gary Lineker is an extremely experienced live sports presenter - a safe pair of hands for programmes watched by millions - there are not many people who can do that and they all get well compensated. He also gets paid significantly more for his non-BBC work - he is in the category of person who will take a pay cut in order to work for the BBC over its rivals.

As for the other person you mentioned - I'm just going to ignore it, I know why you chose him and the link you're insinuating and I'm just not going there.

Question still stands, if the BBC's commercial arm is hiding away it's profits, where are they going? You can't really argue that them being spent on presenters isn't contributing to the programming.
 

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
5,757
Location
Wilmslow
It's only sad for what the bbc stood for, not for what it currently stands for.
I agree, the BBC is not what it used to be for sure. However what's proposed will make it even worse than it currently is, cultural vandalism which is not unexpected from this government and this minister in particular.

As has been noted already, I'm very much with the view that the BBC tends to get criticised for its bias by both ends of the political spectrum, so in reality is probably not all that biased. That said, it treats TV as entertainment, which includes news programmes, so I just don't watch them - World Service radio has a much more global perspective and is all the better for it, but will be forced to make cuts which will worsen it in future.
 

Geezertronic

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2009
Messages
4,089
Location
Birmingham
I only watch a few programs on BBC channels - The Repair Shop, Top Gear (now they've stopped trying to reinvent it with crap presenters), and The Green Planet with David Attenborough). I have also watched some series made by the BBC on Netflix.

They have ruined Question of Sport, Dr Who (they had so much to offer with Jodie Whittaker but the writing was just so poor), Pointless is... pointless etc...
 

gg1

Established Member
Joined
2 Jun 2011
Messages
1,895
Location
Birmingham
I would agree, and given the fact that the BBC is criticised by more than just the Conservatives (the SNP have no love for them either) perhaps they aren't as biased to one side as people think !
....and Momentum loathe them.

Any organisation who simultaneously annoys both the Tory right and the Labour left is definitely doing something right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top