Rumoured to be ending after next 2 years. I hope another company picks up on Ru Paul's Drag Race. It's been great value for licence payers' money!

It wouldn’t surprise me, if this is true, but I do think it’ll be a shame.

For all the criticisms of the BBC (operating in an increasingly difficult market, with so much competition) they continue to produce some excellent programmes.

Everything that they do won’t appeal to all of the people, all of the time, but I still watch plenty of things on BBC’s channels, use BBC iPlayer, website and listen to the radio stations.

I look at what I get / have got when I’ve subscribed to SKY, Netflix, Apple TV, Amazon, Disney, Paramount and I actually think that the BBC holds its own.

The others offer some great programmes too, but there ain’t half a load of crap to fill it out - horses for courses though. My crap will be someone else’s favourite series or film.

Aside from the endless accusations of political bias and general noncery, I've never agreed with how they churn out the sort of trash that ITV do (although ITV do it better). Surely the license fee should be to ensure programmes are made that wouldn't otherwise be commercially viable. It should all be Springwatch, Countryfile, niche sports, all the science stuff.. and News. I'd happily pay for that to continue, even if I don't watch it, I think it'd be a good service for the nation.

But being made to pay for 'light entertainment' and cringey dramas when there's hundreds of other ways to access far superior content.. that's just not tenable any more.

David Attenborough's stuff is worth the licence fee alone.

Never paid it and never will.

Increasingly dumbed down over recent years.....very high percentage of crap now....hardly anything on it that I'd watch.

I have increasingly questioned he license fee in recent years… I have watched serious quality history, news and drama replaced increasingly with news programmes that are little more than news feeds with talking heads, light entertainment and reality programming that seems to be making it acceptable to lose all social propriety. I having paid this years had decided enough was enough; It was the last time I will feel I am paying for egos and agendas instead of Reith’s mandate to “inform, educate and entertain.”

The world has changed and the license fee is no longer workable or desirable.

Half the ex-pats I knew in France were paying for VPNs to access the BBC free of charge. Whatever new system those in authority come up with, taking money directly from overseas viewing is something they should be maximising. The currect charter means the BBC cannot charge for its content, either at home or abraod.

For all its many faults, the BBC is remarkable value for money.

Overseas sales should be used to help subsidise costs for UK residents.

The doctrine of political neutrality needs to be reinforced and applied beyond current affairs: the BBC's future drama and entertainment output need to stop being used by activists as a vehicle to implement their niche political causes.

Finally, the BBC is to be limited to one single, 30 minute TV show per year and one one single online article per year on the subject of drag queens. This rule to be in place for the next 30 years to outweigh the recent imbalance.

Great, let's have the US model of news and current affairs where the agenda is set by the highest bidder. Yay.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 21, 2025 6:45 pm

The world has changed and the license fee is no longer workable or desirable.

Half the ex-pats I knew in France were paying for VPNs to access the BBC free of charge. Whatever new system those in authority come up with, taking money directly from overseas viewing is something they should be maximising. The currect charter means the BBC cannot charge for its content, either at home or abraod.

For all its many faults, the BBC is remarkable value for money.

Overseas sales should be used to help subsidise costs for UK residents.

The doctrine of political neutrality needs to be reinforced and applied beyond current affairs: the BBC's future drama and entertainment output need to stop being used by activists as a vehicle to implement their niche political causes.

Finally, the BBC is to be limited to one single, 30 minute TV show per year and one one single online article per year on the subject of drag queens. This rule to be in place for the next 30 years to outweigh the recent imbalance.

BBC Studios, the commercial subsidiary of the BBC, turns over about £2bn a year with a substantial chunk of that being overseas exploitation. This is all returned to the BBC

aggi wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 21, 2025 7:03 pm

BBC Studios, the commercial subsidiary of the BBC, turns over about £2bn a year with a substantial chunk of that being overseas exploitation. This is all returned to the BBC

Yes but they have to go through conduits.

Why not allow a series of direct packages to access BBC content abroad? It's daft and pointless.

Netflix has 282 million subscribers worldwide. It's £11/month for a advert-free subscription. That's £132/year.

If the BBC had half that number of worldwide subscribers it would pay for the entirety of its annual budget and could be completely free for us in the UK.

ElectroClaret wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 21, 2025 6:13 pm

David Attenborough's stuff is worth the licence fee alone.

If it was up to David Attenborough, mere mortals wouldn't be allowed to walk nature's path.
He would insist all humans stay indoors, don't pollute his world and stay well away from any living species.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 21, 2025 7:09 pm

Netflix has 282 million subscribers worldwide. It's £11/month for a advert-free subscription. That's £132/year.

If the BBC had half that number of worldwide subscribers it would pay for the entirety of its annual budget and could be completely free for us in the UK.

A fair chunk of the better stuff on Netflix was on the BBC first. There's a hell of a lot of rubbish on there too.

Personally I'd happily pay the licence fee for BBC radio alone it's so superior to any commercial alternative. I also think the BBC iPlayer is superior in content to the streaming services which re now more fashionable. Certainly BBC produce some fantastic factual content ...the documentary on BBC2 last night abut the latest discoveries uncovered at Pompeii for example...outstanding TV. Another brilliant recent example I can think of, leaving Attenborough's Asia aside, is the "A House Through Time" series which focused on two apartment blocks..one in London and one in Berlin.

Can't wait to see Talkshite merging with 5 Live. Of course, I jest.

Stalbansclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 21, 2025 7:16 pm

A fair chunk of the better stuff on Netflix was on the BBC first. There's a hell of a lot of rubbish on there too.

Personally I'd happily pay the licence fee for BBC radio alone it's so superior to any commercial alternative. I also think the BBC iPlayer is superior in content to the streaming services which re now more fashionable. Certainly BBC produce some fantastic factual content ...the documentary on BBC2 last night abut the latest discoveries uncovered at Pompeii for example...outstanding TV. Another brilliant recent example I can think of, leaving Attenborough's Asia aside, is the "A House Through Time" series which focused on two apartment blocks..one in London and one in Berlin.

Exactly.

And yet the current charter forbids them to sell their output to anybody abroad - even though the demand to watch the BBC content should be through the roof. It's crazy.

willsclarets wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 21, 2025 6:55 pm

Great, let's have the US model of news and current affairs where the agenda is set by the highest bidder. Yay.

As opposed to having the agenda set by the DG and his board…

The BBC have some superb TV, but I feel they are miles away from their impartial claim. It’s why I also don’t read newspapers. I’d love the BBC to be what they profess to be, I’d love to be proud of it.

I want pure news, that comes at me from a place of fact, not opinion. I’ll make my own opinion after getting the info. Really struggling to find that outlet. Money talks, it runs the world. Everything is bought.

Nonayforever wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 21, 2025 7:11 pm

If it was up to David Attenborough, mere mortals wouldn't be allowed to walk nature's path.
He would insist all humans stay indoors, don't pollute his world and stay well away from any living species.

I can only assume this is a fishing trip!

What will happen to BBC Pidgin?

bbc.com/pidgin

Or for that matter Pigeon Street?

https://youtu.be/X8srA2_37To?si=g06EyUDu-uPH3woh

bobinho wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 21, 2025 7:30 pm

As opposed to having the agenda set by the DG and his board…

The BBC have some superb TV, but I feel they are miles away from their impartial claim. It’s why I also don’t read newspapers. I’d love the BBC to be what they profess to be, I’d love to be proud of it.

I want pure news, that comes at me from a place of fact, not opinion. I’ll make my own opinion after getting the info. Really struggling to find that outlet. Money talks, it runs the world. Everything is bought.

Everyone will have their opinion on whether it's truly impartial. But what is not arguable, is that there's nothing closer to impartial in any country in the world. Amd its the envy of a lot of the western world too.

And it's not just tv news and the world service, it's radio and their websites. I'm keen to know why you think the BBC is anywhere near as biased as any newspaper?

The alternative is also much worse. Then you are absolutely sure of never getting objective truth or anything close to it.

bobinho wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 21, 2025 7:30 pm

As opposed to having the agenda set by the DG and his board…

The BBC have some superb TV, but I feel they are miles away from their impartial claim. It’s why I also don’t read newspapers. I’d love the BBC to be what they profess to be, I’d love to be proud of it.

I want pure news, that comes at me from a place of fact, not opinion. I’ll make my own opinion after getting the info. Really struggling to find that outlet. Money talks, it runs the world. Everything is bought.

Sounds like Nile Rogers

ClaretsPadiham wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 21, 2025 6:16 pm

Never paid it and never will.

Knock knock...we are from the Licensing Department. You have been found to be using tv and radio channels requiring a licence.

This has been ongoing for a number of years at this property.

You are nicked.

The BBC is the British/English Propaganda machine. It will not be dropped by a Worstminster Gov.

All the top people were appointed by the previous govt.

bobinho wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 21, 2025 7:30 pm

As opposed to having the agenda set by the DG and his board…

The BBC have some superb TV, but I feel they are miles away from their impartial claim. It’s why I also don’t read newspapers. I’d love the BBC to be what they profess to be, I’d love to be proud of it.

I want pure news, that comes at me from a place of fact, not opinion. I’ll make my own opinion after getting the info. Really struggling to find that outlet. Money talks, it runs the world. Everything is bought.

Maybe I’m being naive but can you give a bit more insight into the bias you are perceiving on the BBC ? They seem to me to make an effort to be impartial but maybe I’m a hostage to their echo-chamber but am not seeing it !!
I do accept that they follow a pretty painfully PC/“woke” agenda in casting their dramas etc but you’d expect a public service broadcaster to try and reflect the country’s diversity.

Just stick adverts on to pay for it.

GetIntoEm wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 21, 2025 9:38 pm

Just stick adverts on to pay for it.

ITV, etc, doesn't want the BBC to compete with them for advertising revenue. Every time it is mentioned they get their lobbyists on the job. Their argument is that quality would suffer if the revenue pot was split even further.

Scrap ITV and the shite people programmes it churns out.

Stalbansclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 21, 2025 9:32 pm

Maybe I’m being naive but can you give a bit more insight into the bias you are perceiving on the BBC ? They seem to me to make an effort to be impartial but maybe I’m a hostage to their echo-chamber but am not seeing it !!
I do accept that they follow a pretty painfully PC/“woke” agenda in casting their dramas etc but you’d expect a public service broadcaster to try and reflect the country’s diversity.

I’ll get back ref the impartiality, but I’ll address the last sentence now if I may.
I have no problem in watching programming that reflects our diversity.
I recently returned from a trip down south to do a little work. Stayed in Ilford. Also visited Enfield, and did some work in Walthamstow. The BBC ‘s flagship soap opera is set in Londons east end. The diversity shown in the programme is nowhere near the diversity I personally experienced in the two places I visited. Not even close to reflecting what I saw. They are portraying a myth, and it’s wrong. The eastenders people watch on TV is as far from the real east end as can be.

Corrie is the same. The last time I caught some of it while channel hopping, half the cast looked like they were out of model agency. Also, look at Emmerdale. It's about as real as Disneyland. Mind you, they're soaps, not documentaries.

IanMcL wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 21, 2025 9:29 pm

Knock knock...we are from the Licensing Department.

No you're not....you're from a glorified debt-collecting agency and have no right to enter my property without a warrant , which you have almost no chance of obtaining without an awful lot of evidence.

So...briefly..get yourself off my property immediately otherwise you'll be removed in a manner that won't be to your liking.

Worked fine for me.

fatboy47 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 22, 2025 4:09 am

No you're not....you're from a glorified debt-collecting agency and have no right to enter my property without a warrant , which you have almost no chance of obtaining without an awful lot of evidence.

So...briefly..get yourself off my property immediately otherwise you'll be removed in a manner that won't be to your liking.

Worked fine for me.

That's the way. I had a call when I was a student in a shared cottage near Keele Uni. I didn't let them in. Never heard from them again.

Knock knock
"Hello, TV licensing officer"

"You're not an 'officer', your a debt collector.
I hereby withdraw implied right of access to you and your Company to this property.
Should you, or any other people from your company come here again, you'll hear from my legal representative."

Buxtonclaret wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 22, 2025 6:43 am

Knock knock
"Hello, TV licensing officer"

"You're not an 'officer', your a debt collector.
I hereby withdraw implied right of access to you and your Company to this property.
Should you, or any other people from your company come here again, you'll hear from my legal representative."

My daughter was having issues with them. We wrote asking them to stop their threatening behaviour or we would contact the police. We received a very polite letter back and didn't hear from them again.

It seems an out of date system to force people to pay, however I would willing pay.

I listen to bbc radio every day. Watch bbc news most days. I consume their content more than any other service.
The problem is I’m 37. What are people in their 20s and teens watching? I suspect not the bbc.


As for its political leaning, the right think it’s too far left, the left think it’s too far right. Which shows to me they probably get it just about spot on

basil6345789 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 21, 2025 5:46 pm

Rumoured to be ending after next 2 years. I hope another company picks up on Ru Paul's Drag Race. It's been great value for licence payers' money!

Why would the BBC not show Ru Paul? It's one of the most watched unscripted shows in the UK and the USA.
Or, having viewed some of your previous posts, is this a thinly veiled homophobic dig?
Also, as you well know, there are no plans to defund the BBC in the the near future, nor is it's future under any immediate threat.

The BBC is anything but impartial. It just pushes the wests and globalists agenda on behalf of the deep establishment.

They never call out the genocide being committed bu Israel and the IDF, or the Muslim grooming gangs or the elites pedophile ring. Etc etc so on and so forth

The very mention of BBC does seem to get some people very angry.
It’s almost like they have never heard or seen Panorama which is the longest running investigative series in the history of television in this country.
The BBC have made plenty of documentaries and indeed drama series based on the truth and made with the victims on grooming gangs and because it’s on the BBC it’s guaranteed to reach more viewers than any other similar programme made by another channel.

Not sure what’s worse - some of the bullsh-it talked on threads like this or some of the posters liking these comments….it’s embarrassing

Shaggy wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 22, 2025 8:49 am

The BBC is anything but impartial. It just pushes the wests and globalists agenda on behalf of the deep establishment.

They never call out the genocide being committed bu Israel and the IDF, or the Muslim grooming gangs or the elites pedophile ring. Etc etc so on and so forth

It is not there job to call out genocide or grooming gangs.
They report the news, you decide what it is.
BTW. I think it was genocide from watching the BBC News.

Shaggy wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 22, 2025 8:49 am

The BBC is anything but impartial. It just pushes the wests and globalists agenda on behalf of the deep establishment.

They never call out the genocide being committed bu Israel and the IDF, or the Muslim grooming gangs or the elites pedophile ring. Etc etc so on and so forth

In one breath wants them to be impartial, with the next wants them to take a position.

ClaretsPadiham wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 21, 2025 6:16 pm

Never paid it and never will.

Is that because you never watch it, or is it because you watch it and are happy for other people to pay on your behalf?

Shaggy wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 22, 2025 8:49 am

The BBC is anything but impartial. It just pushes the wests and globalists agenda on behalf of the deep establishment.

They never call out the genocide being committed bu Israel and the IDF, or the Muslim grooming gangs or the elites pedophile ring. Etc etc so on and so forth

“ anything but impartial “ = fails to call out your assorted hobby horse conspiracy theories? You’re only missing vaccines /masks and chem trails for a full set .

While the BBC does its best to be impartial , it can’t “ call things out” for that very reason . Its job is to report , though I’ll grant you it’s not “ fully impartial “ by any means .

Big Vinny K wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 22, 2025 9:37 am

The very mention of BBC does seem to get some people very angry.

Some people go looking for reasons to get very angry. Maybe getting angry all the time gives their dull lives some meaning or something. You only have to look at your local FB page to see people getting angry, and most of the time it's about sod all. Also, it's nearly always the same people.

Ladies & Gentlemen!

There is a FANTASTIC example of bias on the BBC today on the news website. Here's the story:



"Where's the bias?" you might ask. That's the 'brilliant' thing about it. You could send this off to a "fact checker" and it would come back squeaky clean. Honestly, even as somebody if, like me, you despair of Rachel's approach to economics the truth is this article doesn't have a single falsehood in it. Marianna Spring and all the world's finest practitioners of the art of Fact Checking would find NOTHING in this article that isn't true.

So where's the bias? What's going on? Where's the deception?

The BBC article states (truthfully) that government borrowing figures are the "third-highest December debt interest repayments since monthly records began in 1997." This is completely true. Third highest isn't much of a big deal is it?

The BBC article states (truthfully) that government borrowing for December is the "highest level for the month for four years." This is completely true. That's not a big deal is it?

Except it is.

The bias here is in the narrow frames of reference the BBC has chosen. Somebody has deliberately chosen to frame it within a four-year timescale. Can anybody here think what might have been happening four years ago that would have skewed the figures? Was anything special or specific happening four years ago? Think hard about it!

Here's the BBC graph to demonstrate the (truthful) figures they've quoted:



If you're reading the article casually over your cornflakes this morning, this is going to inspire nothing more than a shrug of the shoulders and a big 'meh'. What's the big deal, eh? Even though the article was only published this morning it is already being pushed down the page. What's the big deal?

But here's the wider picture:



That's the real picture. These graphs are using the same figures. You just have to zoom out a little bit to see how disastrous and crippling these debt payments are. They were already at record levels in 2019 before they went through the roof.

The problem is that somebody at the BBC deliberately chose to frame this within that extremely narrow reference of four years. That wasn't a mistake. There's no convention in economics or journalism of comparing things within four year timeframes. One cannot avoid the conclusion that this was a deliberate decision and it was taken to downplay these catastrophic figures.

Here is how the Spectator has reported the figures:

The Spectator wrote:"The news just seems to get worse for Rachel Reeves. After the slight relief of last week’s inflation and GDP figures, this morning brings headlines that are even grimmer than economists expected. The government was forced to borrow £17.8 billion in December, more than twice the £6.7 billion which Rishi Sunak’s government borrowed in December 2023. In just one month, taxpayers had to spend £8.3 billion to service the government’s debt. Interest payments are now consuming over 8 per cent of government expenditure – more than is spent on education or defence – and very nearly as much as the welfare bill, which is itself ballooning."

"Hang on Rowls! You don't expect the BBC to report these figures like the Spectator does? The Spectator is politically opposed to the government! That would be the definition of being politically partisan!"

You'd be correct. It would be equally wrong of the government to report it like the Spectator. The problem is that BBC article might as well have been written by the government.

There isn't a "neutral" way to present these figures. Paying £8 billion a month on debt is morally and economically indefensible. That money should be being spent on the usual - health, education, policing, etc.

The BBC has very deliberately presented these appalling figures in the most favourably way possible. What they should have done is present alternative interpretations of them. The Spectator angle should have been presented within the article with equal weight to the one that the BBC and the government apparently want to present. It should have been along the lines of "critics of the government point out X whereas the government and their supporters point to Y". Instead, the whole article has been written as if it was drafted by the Rachel Reeves herself.

So there you have it.

This is why "fact checking" is a distraction.
This is how bias really works. It isn't "disinformation" and lies. Those are easy to spot. Real bias comes in choosing to deliberately restrict the points of reference and what the BBC chooses to cover.

And finally, we're screwed. Utterly screwed. Until we get our own Javier Milei figure, we're completely and utterly screwed. Even when we do, the medicine will be extremely tough. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

willsclarets wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 21, 2025 7:51 pm

Everyone will have their opinion on whether it's truly impartial...

Nothing is or can be truly impartial, try as they might, everyone involved in the publication of a news item will have their own biases even if only subconsciously. But provided that those at opposite ends of the political spectrum both continue to complain about the BBC being biased in favour of the other end, they can't be going too far wrong.

Clovius Boofus wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 22, 2025 10:20 am

Some people go looking for reasons to get very angry. Maybe getting angry all the time gives their dull lives some meaning or something. You only have to look at your local FB page to see people getting angry, and most of the time it's about sod all. Also, it's nearly always the same people.

I think sometimes the feeling comes first. The anger is there already. The 'logic' / what they attribute it to comes after. If it wasn't the BBC it'd be something else.

I think I'm agreeing with you

Rowls wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 22, 2025 11:06 am

The bias here is in the narrow frames of reference the BBC has chosen. Somebody has deliberately chosen to frame it within a four-year timescale. Can anybody here think what might have been happening four years ago that would have skewed the figures? Was anything special or specific happening four years ago? Think hard about it!

I know, I know!

That was when the UK left the EU, wasn't it?

ArmchairDetective wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 22, 2025 11:23 am

I think sometimes the feeling comes first. The anger is there already. The 'logic' / what they attribute it to comes after. If it wasn't the BBC it'd be something else.

That is correct. Justifications come after emotions - that's the way 99.9% of human thinking works. Same for all of us.

But it doesn't mean that our justifications are therefore wrong.

As for the original topic. I get my fair share (and maybe more) of quality TV through the BBC.

Attenborough, game shows (Traitors, Dragons Den, The Wheel for something easy at the weekend), a good back catalogue of comedies on demand, MOTD every week if I want it. Blue Planet II (particularly the episode 'the deep') and the series with the snakes chasing the lizard is genuinely some of the best TV I've ever seen. Other documentaries including Panorama etc.

If I wasn't legally bound to pay it I'd probably still pay it anyway.