Decommission and privatise the BBC

railways aren't as important ad the bbc one show & they don't really promote paedophiles!! Lol

Those hospitals let him do whatever he wanted to those disabled kids. It's the same flawed argument you pulled.

Er, I kind of disagree with you on that one.

"This is the age...of the nonce",

Firstly lance Armstrong didn't do kids, the BBc looked after them and helped them to do kids!

Also the bbc is just a television network & frankly lance Armstrong is not taxpayer funded

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?

What the specific wrong is is irrelevant. That cheating is a lesser wrong than paedophilia in the grand scheme of things does not change that they are both wrongs.



Where did the idea come from that only taxes are 'our money'. When you buy any service, you pay for what they do. So if you subscribed to a sports channel that showed the Tour de France, or bought from one of his sponsors, or donated to his charity, then you paid for Lance Armstrong to cheat. If you go to a football match to see Terry/Suarez/etc, then you're paying for them, including any fines they get for racism.

The difference, of course, is that the BBC is compulsory. But like I said earlier, if we can opt out of compulsory things then why shouldn't we be able to opt out of the government?

I agree that lance Armstrong & paedophila are both wrongs but I do think that thes specific wrong changes things. We can't really compare a guy on a bicycle goin up mountains all day long & guy raping children, destruction of innocence. that's why there are different sentences for different crimes.

Thats why these crimes are undefefendable. I mean Armstrong is cheating do that he can get to to the pinnacle of the sport. But I'm not sure that the bbc's intentions were to help king jimmy to cheat in the paedophile national championships.

Comparing a tv channel to government, not sure if u can do that either. We need government but not a television network when we have many already. Before long we'll be comparing bbc's importance to the importance of oxygen. Hospitals important, government important, bbc ain't!!

I think government should be changed, don't really need representatives to represent all of britains opinions because of geographical limitations. We gave the Internet now so I'm sure we can vote on everything and become citizens and not just consumers.

If armstrongs done wrong, no longer have to support it, if you think John Terry's a slime ball, don't have to support, if a tv network is bad advertisers pull their advertising, if the bbc looks after paedophiles, we still have to pay for it!

So in summary, you're saying what I talked about in my final paragraph - your problem is that the BBC is compulsory whereas the other channels/businesses are not. But the state is complusory too - if we can opt out of the BBC, why not the state itself?

I see what you're saying, but we need government more than we need a television network

Personally I find the BBC a lot more use to me than killing people in the Middle East or paying taxes to fund the parasites known as 'bankers'.