BBC Tax for all

[mitch66]

Apparently they the bees knees. They should go subscription like Netflix etc. They'd clean up surely

 

[big-all]

i really really dont have a problem with 2p an hour or 48p a day for programs where the sponsors are dictating the actual content

in one case the general public

on the other side content to attract advertisers

 

[morqthana]

You think @SPLINE would vote for Jimmy saville to be PM ?

I said MP, not PM.

But in any event, do you think that he was lying when he wrote this:

I would vote for Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter and Peter Sutcliffe if they could manage that.

Is that an allegation you would like to make?

 

[King Billy]

Spline would vote for him to be an MP if he could.

Pure truth.

Ooof!

 

[pete01]

Be nice to start selling something that people had to buy....think how rich we'd all be

 

[King Billy]

Whilst both are vile creatures, Savile is higher in the moral universe than Starmer, when measured by the number of lives ruined.

So you place sexual abuse of minors morally better than political policies with which you disagree?
But only if it's committed by a white person?

 

[motorbiking]

Be nice to start selling something that people had to buy....think how rich we'd all be

I don't understand why they can't let people decide if they want to use it or not. Why must we have a mandatory national broadcaster.

 

[pete01]

I don't understand why they can't let people decide if they want to use it or not. Why must we have a mandatory national broadcaster.

Because they'd be bankrupt in 6 months

 

[King Billy]

I don't understand why they can't let people decide if they want to use it or not. Why must we have a mandatory national broadcaster.

We (the UK, the government) choose to. It's not mandatory.
I've never seen it mentioned in any manifestos.
It does need to be financed, and depending on its primary purpose, the financing model is chosen for its effectiveness to finance that primary purpose.

 

[motorbiking]

It needs to produce content that people want to consume and pay for. Like any corporation, if nobody buys its stuff, it dies.

 

[King Billy]

It needs to produce content that people want to consume and pay for.

Only if that is its primary purpose.

Countries have national broadcasters to provide trusted news, support local culture, and ensure everyone can access information. Private channels mostly aim to make money. Public broadcasters do not. They focus on education, emergency alerts, and balanced reporting. They also bring diverse communities together through shared stories

The primary mission of public broadcasting is that of public service, speaking to and engaging as a citizen. The British model is often referenced in definitions. The model embodies the following principles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_broadcasting

• Universal geographic accessibility
• Universal appeal
• Attention to minorities ("special provision for minorities")
• Contribution to national identity and sense of community
• Distance from vested interests
• Direct funding and universality of payment
• Encourage competition "in good programming rather than competition for numbers"
• Guidelines that liberate rather than restrict

 

[fillyboy]

Perhaps it will be like the RNLI whereby as fewer people choose to subscribe, the BBC coffers will swell until they are awash with money.

 

[noseall]

Perhaps it will be like the RNLI whereby as fewer people choose to subscribe, the BBC coffers will swell until they are awash with money.

Not sure £277 MILLION would cut it, but any charity relying on handouts would be grateful for that huge amount.
Keep it going boyos.

 

[motorbiking]

Only if that is its primary purpose.

Why would something exist to produce content nobody wants?

 

[King Billy]

Perhaps it will be like the RNLI whereby as fewer people choose to subscribe, the BBC coffers will swell until they are awash with money.

They'll change the financing model, so everyone has to pay.