Culture, Media and Sport – Fourth Report
Future of the BBC
No long-term future for BBC licence fee, MPs say
The TV licence does not have a long-term future and is likely to be replaced by a new levy within the next 15 years, a group of MPs has said.
The fee is “becoming harder and harder to justify” given changes in the media, according to the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
The MPs suggested every household could pay a new compulsory levy instead.
The BBC does not agree that the fee will have to be replaced, but accepts it will probably have to be modernised.
Committee chairman John Whittingdale said: “In the short term, there appears to be no realistic alternative to the licence fee, but that model is becoming harder and harder to justify and sustain.”
In light of changing technology and audience habits, the committee said “we do not see a long-term future for the licence fee in its current form”.
Any “profound changes” – such as abolishing the licence fee – should not be rushed, the report said. But it did say the BBC “must prepare for the possibility of a change in the 2020s.
The best alternative to the licence fee, the report concluded, would be a compulsory broadcasting levy paid by all households, regardless of whether they watch TV, or how they watch.
Such a system was introduced in Germany in 2013 and would do away with the need to detect and prosecute those who avoid buying a TV licence, the committee said.
“We recommend that as a minimum the licence fee must be amended to cover catch-up television as soon as possible.”
It should also no longer be a criminal offence to avoid paying the licence fee, the report said.
Other proposals made by the committee include:
- The BBC Trust should be abolished because it has mishandled crises like the Jimmy Savile scandal and is too close to the BBC management
- Instead, a new Public Service Broadcasting Commission should monitor the corporation’s performance, with an ultimate sanction of being able to withhold some funding from the BBC
- Media regulator Ofcom – not the BBC Trust – should be the final arbiter of complaints about the corporation’s impartiality and accuracy
- Part of the licence fee (or future broadcasting levy) should be used to support non-BBC public service broadcasting, such as local news and children’s programmes
- The planned BBC One +1 channel does not represent “public service value”, and the airwaves should be used for something else
- The BBC should no longer attempt to offer “something for everyone” and should not stray into areas that are well catered for by commercial broadcasters
- The BBC World Service must remain strong to ensure the UK does not lose ground to countries like China and Russia in the “global information war”
You know what, for years I have only objected the biased news element of the bBC. However of late I have realised it is no longer fit for purpose. Allow those it defends to fund it by direct subscription, I’m sure that all the Islamic terrorists and pedophiles in the UK will put their hand in their pockets and utter Allah akba. The leftwing cunts at the bBC have ruined it just like they have done with everything else in the UK. I’m sure that many people here feel the same way.
The bBC , still doing what it does best: buggering British children .
I hope this is the start of a process. The BBC is not fit for purpose and should be broken up. Popular services should be privatised and a small, public service element retained.
The BBC should provide a public service, not sit arrogantly above us, selectively reporting events and censoring its output for the sake of its politically correct, left of centre agenda.
We’re sick of being misled and deceived about issues such as global warming (terrible danger), immigration (it’s great), islamic extremism (nothing to do with islam), multiculturalism (great), Israel (terrible) and the rest.
The BBC is institutionally corrupt and not capable of reforming itself. It is a giant, self-serving monolith that destroys competition. And we’re all paying for it.
From 1696 to 1851 there was a Window tax in England and Wales, with similiar schemes in Scotland and France. Every property was accessed according to the number of windows it had and taxed accordingly – you want light and fresh air? Pay for it!
The television licence fee or ‘broadcasting levy’ is today’s equivalent. In some ways, a broadcasting levy is morally worse as it would be imposed on everyone, regardless of whether they have or watch television at all. There are some useful soundbites in these recommendations, but the basic message to the BBC is: Carry on Regardless. Yes, there may be some tinkering here and there but that is all it is and the timescales involved make it all meaningless. Harold Wilson said two weeks is a long time in politics; well, 15 years is several lifetimes in technology and broadcasting, as well as three parliaments. Realistically, a more appropriately-sized modern public service broadcaster, based on a subscription model for optional programming, could be up and running within several years if there was a political will. This report simply tells us that there is no political will.
Ian having watched this morning parliamentary TV And John Whittingdale answering MP’s concerns) I don’t make the same overall conclusion. There is a strong will for change (amongst many Conservative MP’s) excepts it is not yet ‘politically correct’ timing to do so (with an election on the horizon). That is probably why Cameron left it to the last minute.
Maybe some of them do have a “strong will for change”. But it hasn’t manifested itself during the 5 years they have been in power, has it?
It’s not all good news:
‘The best alternative to the licence fee, the report concluded, would be a compulsory broadcasting levy paid by all households, regardless of whether they watch TV, or how they watch.’
Lovely. I’d have to pay for left wing propaganda from the state broadcaster even if I don’t own a TV!
Talk about taxation without representation!
Standard tactics
Three proposals are always suggested by Civil Servants. One that they want, one that no one I their right mind would want and one that is too expensive and/or unworkable. The Pols always choose the ‘right’ one.
There’s only one exception to this rule. When the public outcry looks like losing them their seats. Otherwise it is carry on regardless.
Currently the bBC has the story regards the pop entatainer madonnas falling down on stage higher than the story of a British soldier being awarded the Victora cross for bravery.
Yup sums up the BBC to the letter.
So ‘something’ may change in a few decades, if the BBC feels like it? No wonder the headlines are screaming this morning.
The BBC has clearly grasped the seriousness of it all…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/future-of-bbc-report
“This report confirms the importance of the BBC in national life and recommends maintaining and modernising the licence fee, something we have said is necessary.
We’re grateful to the committee for endorsing our record for efficiency and maintaining the quality of programmes and services, and note members overwhelmingly voted against moving to a subscription funding model.”
So, keep the gravy flowing, and keep accountability on the back burner.
Unique.
What an odd choice of graph. Did you not use a more recent graph because it would reveal the BBC’s share of audience has actually increased since 2009?
As the precedent of cherry picking is BBC SOP now, there will always be lies, damn lies and BBC source data.
That chart is indeed not recent. But is there any reason the revelatory one you seek to reveal in comparison remains coyly unattached?
Not saying your semantic claim is wrong, but often the devil is in the detail. When the BBC, or those associated with its cause go vague, it is often worth asking questions.
Whilst accepting, as Lord Hall has shown, the BBC is seldom keen on answering.
Don’t you have a job?
You clearly do – and we’re paying your “salary” through our television poll tax.
‘Don’t you have a job?’
I do. It starts around 9.30am and ends around 6.30pm. Weekends too. Actually varies a lot as self-employed. Periods of intense activity & also the odd break, which I often spend here as BBC inaccuracy, lack of objectivity and integrity interests if concerns me. Plus the resources commited to deny or frustrate discussion around this. Usually inept, almost certainly playing people more than the topic.
There, I have answered. Demon seems to have covered your apparent role in life. Hope your employers feel your contribution thus far serving them well.
Quick look gets:
http://www.barb.co.uk/trendspotting/data/annual-share-of-viewing?_s=4
Not a numbers whiz like some here, but that increase looks at best like a statistical flatline at the end of a plummet. Impressive given the lure of a compelled £4B pa in funding.
One might wonder how much is due to pension props, pay offs, legal fees and expanding PR departments to rapidly respond with spin, vs. actual programming people opt to watch.
Also what the graph would look like if people actually had choice. Our kids watch zero tv. Everything screen based online. So loading a levy onto the ISP charge or council tax to maintain the vitality of EastEnders or Strictly or Mark Byfords’s pension or Hugs’ legal team or JonDon’s global bent activism will not be welcome.
‘Did you not use a more recent graph because it would reveal the BBC’s share of audience has actually increased since 2009?’
It’s share of news coverage – nationally and regionally – has grown like topsy and makes Murdoch’s empire look a mere minnow.
But that’s the way you totalitarian eco-socialists like it, I guess. Just keep your eye on Islam, though – your entryism tactics will only work up to a point in this multiculti society you’ve created.
My witness statement was included in the report:
Quote:
“What should the BBC be for and what should be the purpose of public service broadcasting?
I would like to see the role of the BBC minimised and radically reformed to produce, without bias nor fear and favour, only news and current affairs, combined with information representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities and bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK. My reasons:
a) The landscape has changed in this digital age since the BBC has now become one of a multitude of other media outlets that can be chosen, including free, online and subscription options.
b) A radically reformed and minimised BBC would avoid the numerous taxpayer abuses e.g.
(1) Financial ineptitude:
(i) Gigantic waste on failed IT scheme.
(ii) Lonely Planet purchase.
(iii) Enormous Staff Pay-offs.
(iv) Tax avoidance staff schemes.
(v) Move to Salford
(vi) Unbelievable high management salaries.
(vii) Staff perks etc, etc, etc etc,………………..
(2) Immoral appeasement of criminal behaviour and cover ups like Saville and many other scandals.
(3) Privatisation of the successful commercial broadcasting parts of the BBC would relieve the enormous mandatory tax price to the viewer, who can then choose to subscribe. I believe the TV Licence can no longer be justified for the following reasons:
(i) There is an increasing avoidance and loathing of paying the enormous TV Licence Fee by:
Migrants and foreigners residing in the UK.
The poor cannot afford such a high tax.
The Magistrates Courts largest offence it deals with by the hundreds of thousands annually is non-payment of the TV Licence which is an absolute national scandal.
d. A large proportion of UK residents, feel the BBC is alien to their views, (mainly those that do not vote Labour, feel the BBC has a left slant and bias on EU, immigration, climate change, politics and religious affairs).”
PDF COPY OF PARLIAMENTARY CULTURE MEDIA SPORT COMMITTEE REPORT OUT TODAY:
Click to access 315.pdf
It would have been much better to leave the LF alone and to ensure it was restricted to TV only . In that way the income of the BBC would have declined and in 10 or 15 years time the BBC would have withered on the vine. With a household levy the BBC will be able to look forward to ever more income as the population grows. No doubt they will be keen for ever more immigrants to boost their income.
Even if the levy is shared out amongst other broadcasters the BBc will retain the lion’s share and the commercial broadcasters will start to become dependent on the state. All in all this is a disaster of a report for all those who want freedom of choice , a pluralistic media and believe in British democracy.
Beware weasel words from politicians!
“The MPs suggested every household could pay a new compulsory levy instead.”
so instead of a TV tax which we now have, they’re proposing a widening of the TV tax to include every single home whether it has a TV or not and making payment compulsory.
This is better than the current system how exactly?
No mention yet of the final arbiter of bias suggestion.
By the time Labour left power in 2010 virtually every quango was infested at the highest level with party sympathisers, e.g. the Charity Commission, who have done their best to obstruct the present government.
No guarantee that those investigating bias outside the BBC will be any less biased themselves.
Mallard – you can see a list of some of the infestation of quangos and charities by Labour ‘left appointed’ placements here.
Careful – it comes with a warning since it will increase your blood pressure to dangerous levels:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2551264/How-Labour-STILL-rules-quangos-Party-stuffed-public-bodies-supporters-power-establish-government-exile-holds-sway-today.html
Your right Charlatan, my bloods boiling — its a bloody shambles that Cameron has left it all in place, ready to take influence (using public money) to purt aside for the next general election. He was warned (Cameron) about it and ignored it preferring to rely on new Charity regulations to try and prevent abuses ‘Political funding using public money’ to disarm the infiuence during election time. Not all have declared that they will NOT use public money to empower Labour’s chances back into office. Labour Quangos (run as public Charities) use ‘private’ donations below the threshold (£500) and only register for that ‘above’ the threshold.
Hmn, quangos. Now, as teabreak concludes, in other news:
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/control-freaks.html
Another summary, of many. Interesting he has picked up on the rise of the quango class and the public getting elbowed out even more.
And there was, it seems… another, which looks fun. Frankly the BBc vs. Mrs. Hodge is sort of a win-win for observers.
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/still-standing.html?
Best moment: Ma Hodge to Anne Bulford “You’re avoiding the question”
Anne Bulford “Not yet…”
Actually, given the BBC high command’s reputation, maybe a bit too honest?
How will those people in poverty, by zero hours contracts, or on unemployment punishment, or worse benefit sanctions (and there are hundreds of thousands of those a year), pay this iniquitous tax?
What is likely going to happen (and what should happen) is those who cannot pay should be exempted and the cost moved to the other payers, the TV tax increasing pro rata to cover it.
A TV tax on all working households of £500 plus seems a reasonable amount.
Of course I say this knowing that the populace would not stand for this and it would not be long before it had to be scrapped !
‘Pay as you go’ Simples !
This is totally half-arsed. Abolish the licence fee [Hooray!] ……and replace it with a tax [WHAT THE ACTUAL F**K?????]
We need to go several steps further back and ask: why does a broadcaster need a taxpayer subsidy of several billions of pounds. Every. Single. Year?
Oh, sure, I hear “public service broadcasting” but really, how much of the BBC’s output is “public service”, requiring a massive subsidy? Eastenders? Top Gear? Holby City? Casualty? Call the Midwife? Great British Bake Off? Strictly? Doctor Who? Flog It? The One Show? Homes Under the Hammer? DIY SOS? The Casual Vacancy? etc etc etc.
Furthermore, as regards “public service broadcasting”, do we really want or need, or deserve to have forcibly inflicted upon us, 24/7 Common Purpose propaganda? On everything from the EU to islam to climate change, the BBC’s twisted, contorted, perverse world-view is harming the fabric of this country and its people.
So thanks, but no thanks. Switching from a TV licence to a tax is NOT the answer, though I’m the BBC would be absolutely delighted for its funding to disappear into the maw of general taxation, rather than be flagged up and highlighted as an iniquitous telly tax.
Stop the subsidies. Altogether.
Richard Pinder
February 25, 2015 at 2:31 pm
“Biased BBC: “there is a perception that the whole structure of the industry is biased towards a self-perpetuating, middle class urban elite rather than being open to all on the basis of their talent”
What the report actually says:
“Ethnicity is only one of the barriers to working in the industry: gender , social background and disability are also factors that often prevent access to openings and work for many writers, actors and others who work off screen. Low pay and high costs of living, particularly in London, can act as a barrier to gaining experience and there is a perception that the whole structure of the industry is biased towards a self -perpetuating, middle class urban elite rather than being open to all on the basis of their talent. Creative Skillset report that around two – fifths of the television workforce are being forced to work unpaid in order to get into the industry.”
The Committee concluded that:
“We believe it is crucial for the BBC and other broadcasters to broaden the range of voices and backgrounds at commissioning level as well as on screen and in other areas of broadcasting. ”
No doubt some of this sites regulars will have a “view” on the conclusion which Richard failed to include in his “quote”!!
Often amuses when bumping into someone when they say ‘you are always here’ in a way that suggests they are not.
I shall not do this as we cross paths… again. Clearly this is a thread I was looking forward to getting back to. You… well, motivations only others can judge.
Interesting you should raise the matter of conclusions failed to be raised by a mere forum poster (having done a pretty good pre-release leak job on the whole… no Snowden/Ms. Bradley kudos for him?), whilst ignoring what the major media have focussed on vs. one… who seems to have plucked but one cherry and stuck with that whilst going into lock down on the rest of the story and seeking any diversion it can run with elsewhere.
Looks like the day will be as fun as it is long.
Catch you after lunch maybe?
Love to the others.
I did not have time to look at and leak everything, just some statements with key words like “Bias” and “Complaints” so as not to post a grotesquely massive Post on to Biased BBC.
Poor excuse from someone who claims MENSA membership.
It was not an excuse; it was an explanation.
Your effort, however… quite special.
Close INBBC World Service.
It is ludicrous for the Committee to claim that Beeboids’ global propaganda arm acts in the interests of Britain.
INBBC World Service, including INBBC Arabic TV, does not represent British values. It is inclined to deprecate British history, to represent the interest of other countries and cultures, employing local people abroad to broadcast in local languages, express local interests and politics. E.g., British people should not be taxed to have Islamic Radio Hausa of Nigeria present its propaganda on Islamic jihad, Boko Haram.
British people, via the licence fee, are obliged to publicly finance the Beeboids’ World Service and its anti-Israel, Islamophilic, pro-mass immigration, pro-EU political propaganda.
Close INBBC World Service, including INBBC Arabic TV:
NOW.
I think the BBC now sees itself as a world broadcaster, especially on behalf of the UN whose Agenda 21 ideals it seems ‘warmly’ to share.
They’re allowing comments – for the moment. Do feel free to join in.
I particularly liked this comment.
760.
cobaltblue
1 Minute ago
The BBC is excellent. But of course there’s room for improvement at the BBC, just like there is everywhere (e.g. Government).
I would trust the BBC far more than I would trust a bunch of MPs.
This country is great because of the BBC, the NHS, the civil service, etc. These things are part of the fabric of our society. To destroy them is to risk destroying our society.
Public sector drone, or what?
Coffee break at last, Agent Friday (et al)!
‘Public sector drone, or what?’
As a matter of interest, what colour is the cross on the Saltire?
It’s possible today’s news may see some from the 141,7…211 multi-tasking across a few beats.
Just sayin’, well… alluding, BBC-styly.
Can’t believe he missed the bobby on the beat, red telephone boxes, and corpses piling up because the local convener shouted ‘everyone out’.
If someone wants to hang onto the BBC fine, but *you* pay for it.
I could only take about four comments.
‘I think the BBC is good value for money’.
Sweet Jesus.
Even if you’re a dope enough to believe in the licence fee – do you not think perhaps the BBC could struggle by on £3 billion a year, or £2 billion, or £1 billion or less?
Do you not think you could get someone to front a saturday night football programme without paying him £2 million a year?
That’s the trouble with commenters from the public sector – they really have no grasp or understanding of money.
It comes in each month and er that’s it.
‘They’re allowing comments – for the moment’
Guess what?
This entry is now closed for comments
And the stats are in:
1. Tim Greening-Jackson
9 HOURS AGO
1913. Marc_MeWurdz
16 MINUTES AGO
Close one; some actual public may have got out the office and on their iPads before it got yanked.
This morning Radio Five “gets much worse” Live interviewed John Whittingdale over the proposed changes to the BBC. One of his suggestions was that the station should concentrate more on producing educational programmes, as opposed to things such as gameshows, which are better covered by ITV. Nicky “Gameshow” Casmpbell was mortified!!
This report is a load of bullshit!
Corrupt stinking politicians supporting a corrupt stinking media organisation to carry on the same as before.
What this report boils down to is our MPs just want ‘business as usual’ as far as the BBC is concerned. Though they address the various scandals that the BBC have been involved in, they do NOTHING that will prevent them continuing the same way in the future.
An absolutely disgusting disgrace by corrupt politicians to maintain a disgusting disgrace media organisation.
All that will likely change is the licence fee will become a tax levy on all households ensuring everybody pays. The bullshit about changing the BBC Trust for a governance of directors like this addresses something is pure spin. The MPs say that the Trust is not working, which we all know is the case, but they think going back to the system they had before the Trust, which was also found not to work and is why that was changed, is an improvement.
The end is nigh for this country!
It’s what is known as lefty bullshitting, pulling the liberal wool over your eyes…or modernisation as the committee like to call it.
Basically it doesn’t suit either liebour or the tories to get rid of the bbc, as, just like the ‘big two’, the organisation is fully behind the EU experiment, multiculturalism and the appeasement of nazislam.
If you vote camoron you’ll get milipede, if you vote milipede you’ll get camoron, there is a miniscule difference between the two…proof? Take today’s report on immigration.
Both parties promise to curtail the numbers coming to the UK yet still the numbers go up, basically neither has any intention of dropping the numbers as they are both hellbent on multiculturalism as is the EU, and they can’t anyway because of the EU freedom of movement act that none of us signed up for.
Overseas aid, welfare, deficit, debt,spending…blah,blah,blah, it’s all virtually the same, even liebour have admitted they would stick with the tory plans for the economy, with a little more spending on the public services maybe!
All three have one thing in common, using taxpayer’s money to control everything we do, everything we watch, everything we NEED to know and trying to destroy UKIP…why get rid of an ally.
“BBC mauled: MPs slam bosses for squandering YOUR money, accuse corporation of never apologising and insist licence fee must be axed.
“Landmark report blasts BBC as inept and say it has lost public confidence.
“They say corporation has wasted hundreds of millions of pounds .
“Senior bosses accused of blaming others for their blunders.
“Highlights period in 70s and 80s when some presenters preyed on teens.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2969436/BBC-mauled-MPs-slam-bosses-squandering-money-accuse-corporation-never-apologising-insist-licence-fee-axed.html#ixzz3SrJXrHLU
So, replace the TV tax with…… another tax that has another name?? Yep, I’ve complete confidence that things will change. The Daily Politics covered this earlier, they were basically laughing at the proposals in the knowledge nothing will change.
The comment; “We recommend that as a minimum the licence fee must be amended to cover catch-up television as soon as possible.” is worrying.
Now is that not an extension of the license fee, they are saying “if we have to pay so must everyone else who uses the bbc, no matter how”!
The admission of modernisation will basically mean millions spent on new logos, experts brought in to advise on change and things will basically stay the same.
As in politics nothing in this archaic, pathetic, decrepit old shithole of a country will ever change, I love my old man to bits, but, when I talk to him of such matters it depresses me, as he says, no matter how he voted it changed nothing.
I am not sure if I heard this right (as I cannot find a news feed yet) but another defector from the BBC is about to join Classic FM was announced this Friday lunchtime. The BBC ‘dumbing down’ policy and the policy of Tony Hall’s push for British ‘yoof’ music is not working very well for the BBC diversity unit. It’s not just TV but Radio as well. Even before today’s drumming in parliament by Whittingdale of the BBC corpulence, the more talented music staff are leaving the leaky sinking ship or being ‘removed’ . Classic FM has three times as many listeners as radio 3. They BBC have been at war by ‘copying’ their format after denying that the had any chance of surviving in competition. A new BBC Radio 3 ‘dolly’ mixture ‘Director’ was put in charge earlier last year and still the audience numbers continue to plummet… oh dear copying does not seem to work either!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2232574/Classic-FM-goes-war-BBC-Radio-3-copycats.html
The BBC currently has 5 orchestras (there may be some sharing between the BBC Symphony and Concert orchestras, I don’t know).
If the BBC has no interest in this Dead White European Male stuff, why does it bother?
Why not move the BBCSO to Classic FM, or just disband it and let London’s remaining self-governing orchestras fill the gap. Same for the BBC Philharmonic in Manchester – or move it to Leeds. Yorkshire, the largest county, doesn’t have a full time professional symphony orchestra.
Outside the Proms season, there’s no evidence on BBC TV that the BBC has so much as an in-house jug band.
I can see this TV tax being loaded onto council tax and collected as if it were part of the general rates. Failure to pay would then be lumped in with a failure to pay the council tax which would still criminalise people.
However what would happen when people fail to pay is anyone’s guess,
Anyone on hear know what happens to the other precepts such as Police & fire when non payers either can’t or won’t pay?
I strongly suspect that the same DVLC (UK national car tax data center) will now be used to collect and fund the BBC TV Quango rather than local Council Community charge. It has the advantage that the BBC will no longer run and collect the TV License fee. A huge plus for the next government to control media ‘output’. The BBC so called ‘independence’ was always a ‘fig-leaf’ to its political aspirations.
The left are jumping for joy at the recommendation of the TV Tax being lumped in with housing benefits – another freebie.
That is a good point.
Whilst taxpayers may accept the social need to support a roof over the head of those less fortunate, covering them being plonked on the sofa watching the vital service that is EastEnders may give some pause to ponder.
If, and its a big if, the Tories win the GE they have a chance, despite this putrid report, to get rid of the BBC or at least make it fund itself by subscription. If they don’t take it they can kiss goodbye to power and look forward to a future as a minority party for a few decades. After that they will be closed down by the Islamic Republic of Britain.
The only way to stop Islamification is to alert the British people to what is happening and to gain their support and long term commitment to reverse the process. The BBC hold such a powerful monopoly on news and current affairs and have such a pro Islam record and outlook, that there is no way to inform and rouse the British people with the media status quo in place. It is already late in the day to start to push back, another 5 or 10 years of the BBC’s pro Islamic agenda and it will be too late.
Pro-Arabic INBBC propaganda in London, paid for by British people’s tax-
“BBC Arabic announces call for entries for its second BBC Arabic Festival”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2015/bbc-arabic-festival?
I would like to nominate BBC News for one of the Arabic Festival awards.
To whom it may concern…. The people of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are forced to pay an unjust ‘TV Tax’ for a broadcasting service that does not reflect the interest, the culture and indeed the patriotism of a majority of its citizens, and who’s representation relies solely on a body of so called, ’Trustees’.
Don’t be fooled by the way all this is being interpreted. The politicians are not intent on stopping the BBC soaking up it’s monopoly of the TV Tax.
The BBC is pushing for the TV Tax to be expanded far beyond Household TV Ownership but that it should be vastly extended and should be paid by people who do not own TVs on the grounds that they could never do without the BBC and must therefore be viewing BBC programmes by some other means such as iPlayers, computers, tablets, mobile phones along with any similar devices.
The idea behind the suggestion of a household levy is simply that the BBC is determined to keep forcing ever greater sections of the public to pay through the nose to fund it’s ever increasing demands for more money in order to drive competitors out of existence by swamping all forms of information outlets with BBC propaganda paid for by it’s mafia style enforced public funding.
My household has been TV and Licence-free for 10 years. Sadly, it’s not only the beeb who think that nobody can survive without their trash TV. It’s a view widely held by otherwise sane and normal people.
Let’s start using the expression “BBC Poll Tax” as often and loudly as we can.
“Revealed: BBC staff get average of £4,000 extra for working on days off as MPs blast corporation for wasting licence fee”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2971264/BBC-staff-average-4-000-extra-working-days-MPs-blast-corporation-wasting-licence-fee.html#ixzz3Svvrt0Vg
“MPs are right – BBC must wake up to new media realities”
http://theconversation.com/mps-are-right-bbc-must-wake-up-to-new-media-realities-38136?
This morning on R4.
The studio anchor talking to reporter in Newcastle. The gist of it was, anchor, ‘Why Newcastle?’
girl reporter, ‘No Muslim community’
A, ‘Ah, presumably, if there was, they’d be able to stop the march’
GR, ‘That’s right’
A, ‘Is it true they haven’t banned far-right extremists from joining the march’
GR, ‘Yes, and although they’ve claimed it’s a peaceful march, they have people from all over the country coming to it’
Maybe, I’m biased against the BBC but it sounded for all the world to me like a call to arms.
Sorry guys, that should have been on the Submission thread, where we were discussing the march, honest.