Executives at the broadcaster have suggested that reforms, which are due to be agreed with ministers in 2016, could include a new “universal charge” on all households, regardless of whether they own a television.
The sheer fucking effrontery of these scumbags defies description. How about my proposal, then? the one where these thieving shysters are hanged by the neck, disembowelled and their entrails burned before their dying eyes, then we cut them down, quarter their bodies and parade their severed heads on spikes? I’m feeling a bit medieval at the moment…
How fucking dare they suggest stealing money from people who don’t use their service, how fucking dare they? And, no, the BBC is not some paragon of impartiality and it is not the producer of the best drama – others do it just as well and better without stealing money from people who do not want the service.
Scum, vile larcenous scum, the lot of them.
Such a tax has already been introduced in Germany and Sweden and is being considered in Ireland and Switzerland, the executives said in a report to MPs on the Commons media select committee.
Just because other countries resort to wanton theft, it doesn’t make it right here.
The BBC argued that the current fee is already “a near universal charge” and that the rise of online viewing “on demand” may mean that the fee needs to be “modernised” in future.
Quite right, it does. Scrap the licence fee and make the BBC pay its own way – either through subscription or advertising. I don’t much care which; I do care about them shafting people who do not want the service. The outrageous arrogance behind the suggestion shows not only how out of touch they are, but how powerful they feel, that they think they should be allowed to get away with it. Their conceit is boundless.
Rob Wilson, a Conservative MP and aide to the Chancellor, George Osborne, said: “I think the British people would be horrified by the prospect of a BBC poll tax. It should not be taking the easy option of a tax on every property that has nothing to do with BBC services, but rather exploits its high quality programming and extensive back catalogue.”
You don’t say…
My first thought when reading this was what the hell can we do to stop them? If the powers that be decide to do it, is there anything that non TV users can do to stop themselves from being robbed in this way? I suppose that we could give one cheer for the fact that it potentially gives another bit of ammunition to the Kippers.
Mass refusals such as happened with the poll tax would do it. I’m not sure the government would want to risk it.
Tough call, this.
Other countries not only charge license fees – some even higher than the UK’s – but they also still show advertising. They also make some truly horrible television. Honestly, watch Italy’s TV for a while and you’ll never complain about the BBC again, despite their responsibility for giving Noel Edmonds his start in television.
Ironically, shows like “Top Gear” and “Doctor Who” – that so many love to hate – actually make a profit for the BBC through global sales, so while many people *think* their license fee is paying for those, it’s actually the other way around. This is part of the reason why the BBC does make so much populist, *saleable* programming as the money from these helps subsidise production of their more unusual programmes. They also pay for restoration work on archive material, which often needs a hell of a lot of work to make it presentable. (www.restoration-team.co.uk – seriously, have a good read of that site. I know it’s very Doctor Who-centric, but the same techniques apply to anything from the 1950s-era Quatermass serials to early Morecambe and Wise shows.)
The BBC is far from perfect, and the next decade or so will see some major changes. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they eventually made their “iPlayer” system their core focus. But it’s not an optional extra: every democratic state has a *duty* to ensure its population is both educated and informed. Without *both*, democracy cannot function and you end up with the tyranny of the ignorant. (I’d also like to see the BBC’s science and technology news output taken out and shot, but that’s another rant. They really need to stop hiring arts graduates for that. Arts grads aren’t the only ones who know how to write.)
But the TV License Fee is *not* just for the BBC. It also pays towards Channel 4 and for broadband infrastructure in rural areas. That’s why both the BBC and C4 have departments dedicated to selling their programmes overseas. Both channels are required to produce stuff like Open University (“OpenLearn”) content, programming for schools and colleges, etc. THAT is what your license fee is paying for. The educational, informational, programming that has little or no value in the export market.
So I put it to you, sir, that you aren’t entirely in the right here. No, the BBC shouldn’t be demanding a poll tax, but there *is* a case to be made for a publicly-funded broadcaster. And they’re not “thieving scum”: content on the Internet alone is not sufficient to educate and inform the public! Someone still needs to produce that content. Someone still needs to help us find the genuine needles in that vast haystack of non-authoritative blather.
But I do admit that the BBC will probably cease to exist in its present form within 10 years. I just hope its replacement isn’t owned by Mr. Murdoch and his equally venal peers.
“…every democratic state has a *duty* to ensure its population is both educated and informed…
Quite possibly so, but the UK currently (indeed, for some time, now) is not a democratic state:- unless you pervert the definition of ‘democracy’.
Come to think of it, that’s exactly what the bastard ruling élite have done, and continue to do.
As far as I’m aware, only the Swiss have actually got that “democracy” part even close to right.
Democracy doesn’t scale, so any attempt at centralisation dooms democracy to failure. You need to keep the bulk of the power as close to the people as possible, which means local and regional administrations should be where the work gets done.
The UK, US, Italy, and the EU – the political entity, not just specific members – are doing it exactly, 100%, wrong.
But as long as any political entity insists on advertising itself as a “democratic” entity, it doesn’t get to play the “we don’t need an informed electorate” card. The availability of accurate information and a sufficient education to make use of it are arguably the greatest human rights of all. Fail at those and you’ve already lost the fight for democracy, choice and freedom. As the West has learned – repeatedly – during its many attempts to ‘impose’ freedom and democracy in other countries that lack access to that information and have a poor (or non-existent) education system.
An educated, informed populace also doesn’t happen overnight. You can see how it can go wrong not only in the Middle East, but also in Russia and many African countries: It takes time for the older generations to die back and become less influential in politics, leaving the path clear for their younger, better-educated generations to finally make their mark. In the meantime, it’s going to be a very messy set of transitions.
Whatever this century is, the one thing I guarantee it won’t be is “peaceful”.
Excellent points, well put Sean.
Indeed:- I concur whole-heartedly.
So I would criminalised for an inability to pay for something I can’t receive (no working aerial after digitisation), and don’t want anymore anyway (TV-free life is just fine)? Well, ain’t that grand? I wasn’t a poll tax refusnik, but this? I would be in court for non-payment and damn defiant about it. Imprisoning cripples is good PR for a national treasure isn’t it?
“No, the BBC shouldn’t be demanding a poll tax, but there *is* a case to be made for a publicly-funded broadcaster. And they’re not “thieving scum””
Yes, there are. Theft is taking someone else’s property without their permission. People that do that are indeed scum.
And they know that, which is why they use euphemisms such as “public” and “tax”.
“I just hope its replacement isn’t owned by Mr. Murdoch and his equally venal peers.”
As long as it’s supplied by the market, it doesn’t matter who owns it. Because the market is the ultimate democracy – the only way you can thrive in it is to produce something people actually want.
Whereas the BBC, and any service funded through violence, doesn’t have to. So they don’t, they pursue their own interests.
XX And they’re not “thieving scum””
Yes, there are. XX
No. They are not.
“Demanding money, or services, with menaces,” Or “Extortion.” but not theft.
As to “I have not got a working ariel.” (Pitkin, above)
I presume, unless you are in an internet Café, or a mates house, you have a computer, and internet.
If so, you have an apparatus capable of recieving a T.V/radio signal.
Touché.
I am legally licence free now (no watching UK-broadcast live TV). I was thrust into this when they turned off the analogue signal, but am not unhappy at the unforeseen outcome. The notion I would have to pay a tax for something I never use or desire to use is a prime example of ‘demanding money with menaces’ don’t you think?
“But the TV License Fee is *not* just for the BBC. It also pays towards Channel 4”
Rubbish. Channel 4 receive NO public funds, as confirmed on their own website here: http://www.channel4.com/info/corporate/legal/frequently-asked-questions-4
I think in your zeal to support the BBC you have misread the fact that they support S4C, the Welsh language channel. They are making a contribution towards broadband infrastructure, £300m over 2 years.
“every democratic state has a *duty* to ensure its population is both educated and informed. ”
Indeed, thats why we spend billions running the schools and further education system. And if you think that what passes for 90% of the BBC output these days educates or informs anyone you obviously don’t watch any of it. Have you seen the output of BBC 3? How much education is there in Strictly Come Dancing or The Voice? If the BBC was effectively a sort of TV Radio 4 you might have a point. As it is it tries to compete with the commercial TV channels for the lowest common denominator. If I wanted cheap panel shows, moronic quizzes, endless soaps and ‘reality’ tv nonsense, I can get it in spades elsewhere. Why should I be forced to pay for it via the BBC licence fee, especially when I don’t watch TV at all any more?
Oops, Looks like I misremembered about C4. I did remember an old news story about C4 going cap in hand to the government in 2007 to request License Fee money to cover a big hole in its finances; it turns out that the government turned around and told them to get lost in 2009. Sorry, my fault.
On the other hand, despite all the UK’s TV transmitters now being owned and run by Arqiva, many of them were built and paid for by the BBC (i.e. License Fee payers) and the (publicly funded) IBA. The BBC-built Crystal Palace transmitter broadcasts not only the BBC, but commercial TV and radio channels as well. (The Croydon transmitter was the original IBA tower for ITV broadcasts.)
So the License Fee has already paid for the broadcasting infrastructure of pretty much every TV and radio channel in the country. Which, naturally, was then sold off and basically handed over to what is now a privately owned monopoly that makes a handsome profit for its own shareholders. Any sensible government would have actually kept hold of it and kept the profit for HM Treasury instead, thus benefiting the original “shareholders” – i.e. taxpayers. Quite why successive governments haven’t cottoned onto this wheeze as a way of actually reducing the overall tax burden I’ve no idea. I could almost suspect incompetence or conspiracy, but that’d be terribly cynical of me.
Re. BBC 3: that’d be the channel the BBC are planning to replace with a virtual channel on iPlayer. They’re already axing it and shifting its content online. Chances are most of their other broadcast channels will make the same move over the next few years. Their radio channels are also increasingly difficult to justify given the rise of podcasting.
I haven’t owned a TV since the mid-90s. However, I *have* paid an annual subscription for the BBC iPlayer Global service and not had a problem with its – mostly archival – content. The reason for that subscription is simple: I live in Italy now and, frankly, you can stuff this country’s bloody awful TV output up its collective fundament. Italy has a license fee too. Yes, it is obligatory, and it costs €112 plus Italy’s equivalent of VAT, but RAI also shows advertising.
Now I vaguely remember, shortly before leaving the UK, seeing some programme with Noel Edmonds presenting a contrived show about randomly opening boxes in the hope of winning some money, but I’m pretty sure not even he felt that formula could be padded out to over *two hours*. Someone in Italy found a way. I’m not kidding.
The question is how *do* you provide a basic level of education and information to the public in an age where the Internet, and high-speed broadband, is spreading, but is still primarily limited to conurbations, with rural areas getting a very raw deal. For many living away from cities, broadcast television is the only viable choice, but that’s not a market the commercial companies give a toss about.
As anyone who’s ever been stuck in a US hotel room for an evening can attest, letting the markets sort it out is unlikely to end well, because all traditional broadcasters are in the same boat: their traditional stranglehold on mainstream entertainment is slowly fading away, and only a few have made suitable plans. (One of the, ironically, is the BBC.)
There are some interesting consequences of the fact that the BBC can just help itself to other peoples money. One is the level of arrogant contempt that is shown toward anyone who dares to complain about something. No matter how valid your complaint might be, you are wrong and they are right, what are you going to do about it ask for a refund? Another one is the way that this ill gotten loot is thrown around, an example being the recent revelation that the BBC sent a car to pick up Lord Richard Harries so that he can interrupt the Today Programme with three minutes of vacuous theobabble.
“Quite why successive governments haven’t cottoned onto this wheeze as a way of actually reducing the overall tax burden I’ve no idea.”
Because publicly owned enterprises have a proven track record of losing shedloads of money?