Decommission and privatise the BBC
Scroll to see replies
Original post by NGC773
Why do you pay for the NHS when you dont use it.
Why do you pay for the roads when you dont use it
Why do you pay for street lighting when you dont go out at night
Why do you pay for the police when youve never had to use them
BBC is one of the great iconc British institutions. People all over the world watch it.
Why do you pay for the roads when you dont use it
Why do you pay for street lighting when you dont go out at night
Why do you pay for the police when youve never had to use them
BBC is one of the great iconc British institutions. People all over the world watch it.
All of that stuff you have no choice to use or not, you will eventually need it, and improves quality of life.
People should only have to pay for the BBC if they are going to use it.
Original post by Otkem
In the USA it is a reviled organisation, but something that I would like to see dismantled and privatised is the BBC. Why should I pay so that other people can watch it? 
In a free-market situation, I would vote with my remote and if I didn't like a programme, not watch it. In Britain though, we are forced (with the threat of prison) to pay for the BBC: an organisation that is at the forefront of far-left politics. They commission a couple of half-decent programmes (I enjoy David Attenborough's shows as much as the next person), but half of it is pisspoor. Now I know that the socialists think it's fair that I pay for them to watch Bargain Hunt in the middle of the day, but I think that the quality of the BBC would be greatly increased if a competitive market were allowed to take over.
Do you agree?
In a free-market situation, I would vote with my remote and if I didn't like a programme, not watch it. In Britain though, we are forced (with the threat of prison) to pay for the BBC: an organisation that is at the forefront of far-left politics. They commission a couple of half-decent programmes (I enjoy David Attenborough's shows as much as the next person), but half of it is pisspoor. Now I know that the socialists think it's fair that I pay for them to watch Bargain Hunt in the middle of the day, but I think that the quality of the BBC would be greatly increased if a competitive market were allowed to take over.Do you agree?
You do know what "reviled" means, don't you?
Most Americans I know think otherwise.
Original post by Otkem
I enjoy watching Sky+ so yes I do have to pay.
You hardly have to watch Sky+
Original post by vlad_x2
You do know what "reviled" means, don't you?
Most Americans I know think otherwise.
Most Americans I know think otherwise.
I think they meant revered.
I'd rather watch the decent shows the BBC puts out, rather than watch Celebrity Dancing on Ice in the Jungle's Got Talent or whatever ****e they're putting on ITV these days.
No.
/thread
/thread
I think there should be a way you can avoid having to pay so much TV License if you don't watch it, as you say it is forced on you, but I'm sure you MUST watch SOME programmes on the BBC. Even if it's the news or something.
For the record, I rather like Bargain Hunt.
For the record, I rather like Bargain Hunt.
I agree.
The BBCS biased left wing liberal stance, and its bias to the Labour party, its a total joke and couldnt be more obvious.
They refuse to talk about immigration and the problems it causes, and anything else regarding race or ethnicity.
Privatise them.
The BBCS biased left wing liberal stance, and its bias to the Labour party, its a total joke and couldnt be more obvious.
They refuse to talk about immigration and the problems it causes, and anything else regarding race or ethnicity.
Privatise them.
Original post by Craig_D
I think they meant revered.
Revered. Don't kid yourself. It's an anti-American pile of dog poo.
Original post by Otkem
Revered. Don't kid yourself. It's an anti-American pile of dog poo.
Fair enough, I just read something (which wasn't there) into your use of 'but'. To paraphrase: 'It's hated in the US but it should be dismantled', I'd just thought 'It's loved in the US but it should be dismantled' is more the kind of thing you would say. Nothing major, just a minor misunderstanding
You're wrong, as usual. You can't leave the media to be provided by the free market. Look at the newspaper market--people enjoy reading the Sun and the Daily Mail, which is fine, but nothing is done to correct the externalities. Consuming bad media makes us ignorant, thoughtless, apathetic morons; leave it to the market and this will be ignored, and every channel will be flooded with Jeremy Kyle and season thirty of Big Brother. We could try fixing the problem with taxes/subsidies, but that would still leave the problems inherent to a market where the power to influence people's beliefs--and correct beliefs are essential for the proper functioning of any market--is in the hands of producers acting in that market; it doesn't take a genius to see the problem there.
Even if the government stepped in to provide information, the media, which alters people's beliefs, could still drastically reduce people's inclination to get the information and so subvert the market. The BBC is immensely valuable because it allows media to be delivered by a public body that is not competing in a market without the risk of government manipulation and restrictions on free speech. In order to perform this role properly, the BBC needs to have on overwhelming dominance in television and radio, and preferably in other media as well. If it has to compete with private firms it will, to an extent, act like one, which makes its existence increasingly pointless.
I'm not a socialist, but it's the private media companies who need to be disbanded (or given a couple of years to close down), not the BBC.
Even if the government stepped in to provide information, the media, which alters people's beliefs, could still drastically reduce people's inclination to get the information and so subvert the market. The BBC is immensely valuable because it allows media to be delivered by a public body that is not competing in a market without the risk of government manipulation and restrictions on free speech. In order to perform this role properly, the BBC needs to have on overwhelming dominance in television and radio, and preferably in other media as well. If it has to compete with private firms it will, to an extent, act like one, which makes its existence increasingly pointless.
I'm not a socialist, but it's the private media companies who need to be disbanded (or given a couple of years to close down), not the BBC.
Original post by JacobW
You're wrong, as usual. You can't leave the media to be provided by the free market. Look at the newspaper market--people enjoy reading the Sun and the Daily Mail, which is fine, but nothing is done to correct the externalities. Consuming bad media makes us ignorant, thoughtless, apathetic morons; leave it to the market and this will be ignored, and every channel will be flooded with Jeremy Kyle and season thirty of Big Brother. We could try fixing the problem with taxes/subsidies, but that would still leave the problems inherent to a market where the power to influence people's beliefs--and correct beliefs are essential for the proper functioning of any market--is in the hands of producers acting in that market; it doesn't take a genius to see the problem there.
Even if the government stepped in to provide information, the media, which alters people's beliefs, could still drastically reduce people's inclination to get the information and so subvert the market. The BBC is immensely valuable because it allows media to be delivered by a public body that is not competing in a market without the risk of government manipulation and restrictions on free speech. In order to perform this role properly, the BBC needs to have on overwhelming dominance in television and radio, and preferably in other media as well. If it has to compete with private firms it will, to an extent, act like one, which makes its existence increasingly pointless.
I'm not a socialist, but it's the private media companies who need to be disbanded (or given a couple of years to close down), not the BBC.
Even if the government stepped in to provide information, the media, which alters people's beliefs, could still drastically reduce people's inclination to get the information and so subvert the market. The BBC is immensely valuable because it allows media to be delivered by a public body that is not competing in a market without the risk of government manipulation and restrictions on free speech. In order to perform this role properly, the BBC needs to have on overwhelming dominance in television and radio, and preferably in other media as well. If it has to compete with private firms it will, to an extent, act like one, which makes its existence increasingly pointless.
I'm not a socialist, but it's the private media companies who need to be disbanded (or given a couple of years to close down), not the BBC.
The BBC is a state-run leftist propaganda machine and to suggest otherwise is akin to saying that trusting socialists with power is a sensible idea.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by WelshBluebird
Because ITV is so brilliant 
I don't want to pay for you to watch Bargain Hunt. Why should I? Pay for your ****ing own entertainment.
Original post by Otkem
I don't want to pay for you to watch Bargain Hunt. Why should I? Pay for your ****ing own entertainment.
You don't have to. Just don't watch live TV.
The quality of TV just funded by advertising is pretty poor really. I do not want all British TV to turn into ITV or channel 4.
Oh, and if we are going to take that viewpoint. I don't want to pay for your education. Or your streetlights. Or your ambulance if someone knocks you over. Etc etc etc.
Original post by Otkem
The BBC is a state-run leftist propaganda machine and to suggest otherwise is akin to saying that trusting socialists with power is a sensible idea.
I am guessing you haven't seen any news over the last year. Pretty much biased towards the government. Not surprising at all, since the BBC relies on the government to keep its funding, so it will always be somewhat in favour of it.
Original post by WelshBluebird
You don't have to. Just don't watch live TV.
The quality of TV just funded by advertising is pretty poor really. I do not want all British TV to turn into ITV or channel 4.
Oh, and if we are going to take that viewpoint. I don't want to pay for your education. Or your streetlights. Or your ambulance if someone knocks you over. Etc etc etc.
The quality of TV just funded by advertising is pretty poor really. I do not want all British TV to turn into ITV or channel 4.
Oh, and if we are going to take that viewpoint. I don't want to pay for your education. Or your streetlights. Or your ambulance if someone knocks you over. Etc etc etc.
Finally you agree that state-funded healthcare is immoral!
Yes because taxpayers paying to fund shows like Life of Riley represents value for money. The attitude of don't want live TV if you don't want to pay for the BBC represents the worst of the far-left.
It's attitudes like that make me think this when I see a socialist:
Original post by Otkem
The BBC is a state-run leftist propaganda machine and to suggest otherwise is akin to saying that trusting socialists with power is a sensible idea.
http://ungodlycynic.blogspot.com/2007/10/bare-assertion-fallacy.html
Either try to justify your claims or stop talking to me.
Original post by Otkem
Finally you agree that state-funded healthcare is immoral!
Yes because taxpayers paying to fund shows like Life of Riley represents value for money. The attitude of don't want live TV if you don't want to pay for the BBC represents the worst of the far-left.
It's attitudes like that make me think this when I see a socialist:
Yes because taxpayers paying to fund shows like Life of Riley represents value for money. The attitude of don't want live TV if you don't want to pay for the BBC represents the worst of the far-left.
It's attitudes like that make me think this when I see a socialist:
Sigh. I am just trying to show how pathetic your viewpoint is.
Also, you may like to know, part of the license fee also goes on things like the digital switchover, trasmitters etc etc. Costs that would otherwise have been taken from general taxation, and so would have affect people who don't even watch TV.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Thames Water boss says bills need to rise by 40%
- Chemistry vs Natural Sciences
- Defence Engineering grad scheme
- Answering Questions: What is CDIO?
- How can I help a Y12 who wants to apply for chemical engineering?
- State pretend incompetence
- Sociology help
- Topics
- 15 marker on market-led policy
- AQA A level The making of modern britain
- how can i access moocs?
- Switching from university to a journalism apprenticeship!
- British born chinese (BBC) dating tips?
- Applying for Undergraduate biotechnology or biomedical sciences
- Law courses with low grade requirements?
- how important are predicted grades?
- Doubts about forensic science at uni
- BBC apprenticeships
- Disney and The BBC
- What are some mid tier unis for economics?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
