Except those in work will then pick up all the costs of those not and those in lower pay brackets. Govt policy would fit that: Tax the middle, thats the fat eh
For the BBC to be financed out of general taxation like income tax and VAT, and not to have its own special hypothecated tax, simply means subjugating the BBC to direct government control. The BBC would be reduced to broadcasting only material the government approves of, like in many other countries. That is one of the outcomes I, and many others, are very anxious to avoid.
Some would say nothing it truly independant. There is always an agenda of sorts. some oh here love the bbc, I do too. But its time to move away from the licence fee IMHO. I feel that it could improve the quality of programming because they then couldnt afford to waste money as they currently do on some right crap and superfluous channels both on radio and tv. When you have to watch the pennies -you tend to put them to better use
The tv licence is as relevant today as road tax is. Its what we have paid for years and it aint gonna change anytime soon.
So lets move the argument on. Say it becomes commercial, how can we be assured of impartiality in the media at all from thereon?
It was my understanding that the BBC has a long tradition of broadcasting material in accordance with government's wishes. Perhaps my understanding is faulty, it wouldn't be the first time. The BBC is run by people. People have agendas - yes, even judges. Either Government would dictate policy, or a rich media mogul owner would dictate policy, or the Commissioner with the most personal clout would dictate policy. Why though a BBC funded by taxation via the civil service, a body independent of government, and overseen, say, by an "independent" commission, would be more subject to more government interference than one funded and run by the current model is not yet clear to me. Pick your solution - if it's a good one, it will be the one that has the most checks and balances as regards editorial policy. Hmm, checks and balances ... sounds like the sort of thing a properly run government would feature!
Does it matter who owns it or how it's funded? I mean lets get real, everybody is banging on about how impartial the BBC is but I can't remember once watching the news and thinking 'shit, must turn over to watch the BBC coverage as this current alternative news channel must have an agenda' What a load of cobblers honestly. Not one of us truly knows how impartial anything is that's broadcast, I take all reporters with a pinch of salt so if it's not the news coverage being the shining light of the BBC then what is it? Remove the perceived news coverage impartiality then the BBC simply becomes another channel/group. Who's says they're impartial? The BBC? Well they would wouldn't they. It's all smoke and mirrors, you hear nothing but the BBC presenters spouting on about how how 'unique the BBC is by its funding' and they're correct, but it doesn't mean its right and it doesn't make them anymore of an sample setter. It's all just self justification IMO
Bbc makes loads of things which make no commercial sense whatsoever. How would you control and ensure that continues?
What do the BBC make that makes no commercial sense? They make program's with no adverts, that's about it. I mean if your saying they and program's and they're really good viewing then by default your saying they make commercial sense as other channels would make them because people like you want to watch them. The only difference would be you'd get an advert break. The BBC makes some really good stuff, again I'm not trying to say I want the end of the BBC. I just think there's some serious rose tinted glasses on here because believe it or not I watch tv, and I've watched loads and loads of excellent program's that aren't based on stupid celebrity's or shite like that. The BBC didn't make or broadcast them. Everybody seems to be under the misconception that all what the BBC puts out is for the good of mankind and without it the tv would be full of rubbish. It just isn't true. The BBC broadcast eastenders for a start
Has commercial advertisement not got so ubiquitous in your lives that you would aspire to fill even more of your space with more? Does not having a media model so unique in this modern world not fill you with a sense of 'up yours Murdoch' that you want to surrender it so freely without a thought? Has your drift into right wing middle age so diluted those left wing obstinate traces of your yoof, that you'd throw the proverbial out just because you don't like it, so nobody else should? Sometimes some things that are brilliant are illogical.
Open university. Countless arts programmes. Newsnight to a great extent. Daily politics. Thats before we get to beeb 4, radio progs and un-published things which they can try because they have the budget and dint have ti justify every penny to a shareholder
The BBC has a long tradition of broadcasting material which is definitely not in accordance with the government's wishes. And that applies to successive governments of various different parties. Perhaps you are thinking of broadcasters in Russia, or Italy ... ?
That point cant be proven either way. But according to you they operate totally independent and without bias ?
It is value for money....... If you watch it/listen to it and therefore benefit. So if they updated their funding model so those who only want certain access paid say 50-75% of that the people so in favour of all the BBC shouldn't mind paying £4-£5 a week instead?
It is value for money but could be better value for money. Being devils advocate - if I only watch bbc 1 and 2. Why should I pay for radio 1 2 3 4 or radio manchester or cbeebies or cbbc or why should I pay for investment in the bbc asian network. Or radio ulster or cymru.
if you only pay for the occasional visit to your doctor, your granny wont be able to. we all want a more socially fair society but only if its not on my back door.
