The BBC licence now needs to end, for many reasons.
I have meant to post this for some time, but decided to after watching Jeremy Vine on Channel 5 today (18th February 2020).
One of the presenters (a middle class lady), stated rather smugly stated that we need the BBC licence as the BBC has ‘all those radio stations’, and she stated that she asked someone how much they paid for his sport (TV), a reply of something like £45 per month.
The first thing to note is, it is irrelevant if someone pays £45 a month for sport, as this is his or her choice. They should not be forced to pay for something they may or may not view.
My understanding of the licence and BBC was to maintain quality. The principle being that a commercial station would not produce high quality shows. This was in an age when we had only ITV and much later CH4. Today we have not only hundreds of channels, but the vast amount on the internet.
The BBC did at one point produce quality shows. But that was a long time ago. Today it has very little of value.
In the past the BBC was full of cutting edge comedy, often pushing boundaries, such as ‘The Young Ones’. Today the BBC no longer has comedy of much value. From time to time it does have the odd gem, such as ‘This Country’, but sadly most is simply ‘woke’ drivel. Be this, no more than a tick box, rubbish, that only a few happy clapping morons enjoy. The type of person who will say a show is wonderful, simply because it has someone disabled in it, and will post how marvelous it is to have someone so diverse, on twitter in order to seem as if they are ever so clever.
Indeed much produced by the BBC seems to be for a small section of middle class woke people who believe themselves to be above others.
It would seem that the woke rubbish is very unpopular too, as from looking online, the Dr Who recent shows, have been so unpopular, having people turn off, and people find the shows utter rubbish. But of course the happy clapping woke middle class, will claim it is fantastic, as it is now diverse.
Next to this we have the fact the BBC is for many, no more than a way to become rich. We have many presenters getting vast wages, who have very little talent. Indeed, often when they move to other stations, rating for them often drop. Yet the BBC puts forward the argument that should it not pay such huge wages, these stars will leave. Well so what if they do, as they are clearly not as popular as the BBC seems to think they are.
The problem with such high wages is, it creates a false market. By this, I mean, other commercial stations have to try to match these wages in order to attract presenters. It is a bit like one supermarket paying £1000 for each tin of beans, it means all the suppliers will want to sell to them exclusively. Thus the market force is a mess.
On a side note. Was it not amusing when only a few weeks ago, a presenter with not many viewers, took the BBC to court to demand the same pay as someone with a LOT more viewers. The presenter won, and the happy clapping middle class left wingers said how great this was. Then a few weeks later, the BBC stated they were now going to cut back on presenters to save money. When I read that I thought, how witty. The result from this court case, seems to have made getting employment if your female (or indeed male) much harder in the BBC and possibly other media, because if your going to have to pay everyone the same, you will only wish to have those presenters who are very popular. Thus all those happy clapping, left wing twits, have now harmed people getting jobs. I love left wingers, as all I ever see them do is make things much worse for people.
We then have the BBC fund many many radio stations, that one presumes gets not many listeners. Most of these both local and national are simply doing what commercial stations do, but often not as well. Radio 4 is different, as no other commercial radio station (that I have seen/heard) seems to be producing radio shows in this way. However, from Radio 1 to the many local stations, they are simply doing nothing much different to that of commercial stations. Most commercial stations I would suggest do a much better job. But does it matter, when, if you get a nice cushy Radio 1 presenters job, one presumes you will have no problems living a slandered of living that will mean multi million pound housing, not to mention all the extra well paid work you will get.
But would moving to a non licence fee produce less quality BBC shows?
I would suggest you would get much better quality.
First, with luck, the BBC would be reduced down to no more than 2 radio stations. It makes sense to have Radio 4. Although, I see no harm in having adverts to fund the Radio station.
If people have an option to pay or not, the BBC will have no option but to produce television shows that people wish to see. It is called a market force. If it produces woke rubbish, then it will get very few paying.
We live in a new age of television. Many of us now watch shows on demand. And this is a huge advantage for TV stations, as if you put your shows online, you no longer need to produce low budget daytime rubbish to fill in the time. It becomes a better investment to put more money into online television shows, simply because, unlike traditional television where a show is put out, and watched at that time and when it is repeated. Online means the same person may watch it over and over, and often more people will see it. And will be seeing it online in ten, or even possibly three hundred years time.
In truth, a lot of what the BBC seems to put on is low budget rubbish during the day, man repeats, and a lot of shows seem to be purchased anyway, from the USA or from small television companies in the UK. So the argument that the BBC is this huge television maker, seems to be rather a weak argument. Indeed, any commercial station could probably bu the same shows the BBC buys.
Often, the BBC now seems to even copy shows from other commercial stations. It spent a fortune on getting its version of that singing show, where the presenters turn in there seats (I forget the name of the show). The purchased this in order to compete with ITV talent shows. In the end the show went to a commercial station and seems to have done far better. My point being, that now it seems to be ITV (and other stations) who make the quality shows people want to see, and the BBC is copying them. Which defeats the object of the BBC.
But lets not come to a real factor. If I set up a TV station in the UK, and I get 100 million viewers. In order to watch my station, you (if you are in the UK) are forced to pay for a licence for the BBC, even if not a single person who tunes into my station ever watches the BBC. So why should a station that is not popular get funded by my viewers? Should I not get the licence fee instead? It is a bit like me setting up a supermarket, yet my customers are forced to pay money towards a different supermarket. And lets face it, if your getting free money for your supermarket, why would you provide a good service as you have no need to. And yes you would pay yourself a huge wage, as who the heck gives a dam if the supermarket looks nice. Why would you bother to invest in the supermarket when you get millions regardless. Even better when happy clapping left wing middle class back up your supermarket by saying how wonderful it is.
It is also worth noting that the BBC for many years had a weekly advert promoting the National Lottery, not to mention the weekly show (advert) for some Andrew Lloyd Webber show. Not to mention all the adverts it has on talk shows when a guest comes on to promote there latest book, or film or record. So, lets not pretend the BBC does not do adverts.
If you wish to dismiss my views by saying I am thick, due to my poor spelling. It is because I am dyslexic.
It is something I have often noticed, that it is those on the left that think it rather clever to call me stupid because of my poor spelling (due to being dyslexic). But it also never surprises me, as I often find the most unpleasant people tend to be on the left. Indeed the more left someone is, the more they seem to be unpleasant.