This BBC protection racket should be shut down

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...-be-shut-down/

This BBC protection racket should be shut down

The state broadcaster’s licence-fee model would shame an eastern European dictatorship (Photo: Rex Features)

Imagine a fictitious country. Let’s call it Beebossia. It’s one of those small, eastern European states just off the Scandinavian coastline.

Beebossia suffers a coup. Nothing too violent, not many dead. A military dictatorship takes over. It announces the establishment of a state broadcaster. It will be controlled by a committee appointed by the military authorities. It will be funded by those authorities, and operate on the basis of a charter they have drawn up.

The world would be outraged. It wouldn’t actually do anything. But there would be the odd protest, and a fair bit of tutting.

Then, joy of joys, there is a counter-coup. The Beebossian Spring. The military are overthrown and replaced by a new democratic government. The people celebrate. Then, a few days later, men start arriving at their doors. “A new law has been passed,” they inform them. “You know how you used to have to have a licence to drive a car? Or own a gun? I’m afraid you now also need a licence to watch The Great Beebossian Bake-Off.” The people laugh. “I wouldn’t do that if I were you,” say the men at the door. “We may have to throw you in jail.”

You live in a Beebossia. Your state has its own broadcast network, the BBC. Indeed, it’s the largest broadcaster in the land. The state selects the board of that network. It funds it. It controls the terms of its operations. It appoints its Director General.

It also demands we obtain a licence to watch its services. And it levies an annual tax on us if we wish to keep that licence. If we don’t pay that licence we may be sent to jail. In fact, last year more than 50 of us were.

The authorities actively harass its citizens in pursuit of those licences. Yesterday it was reported that the BBC sends out 100,000 “enforcement letters” a day, at an annual cost of £5 million. What’s more, it’s had to pay out over £100,000 in “goodwill payments” to people who had complained of harassment. It also emerged that the corporation has received payments from people who already had a licence, but made the payment just to prevent further persecution. The BBC has literally been demanding money with menaces.

Time and again the debate about the licence fee rears its head. Time and again the response is the same: “We wouldn’t start from here. But if it isn’t broken, why fix it?”

It is broken. Take the BBC’s vaunted independence. It isn’t independent. We know this because each time the licence fee comes up for review – or as is currently taking place, Charter Review – the BBC’s liberal defenders rush into print to warn about how politicians are using these reviews to try to bend the BBC to their will.

Which they are. Last year Grant Shapps was doing the strong-arming, with a warning that the BBC would face a licence fee cuts unless it “rebuilds trust”. But those same liberal BBC defenders never draw the logical conclusion. Which is, that given that you can’t ask politicians to stop being politicians, the only way to stop them manipulating the licence fee for political ends is to do away with the licence fee.

The other favoured argument is that the licence fee “represents fantastic value for money”. It doesn’t. That may have held sway 30 years ago when 28 million of us used to settle down together to watch The Morecambe and Wise Christmas Special. But now our viewing habits are much more diverse. Satellite, box sets, the internet. My wife and I worked out that over the past 12 months the only BBC TV output we have regularly watched is Strictly Come Dancing. Which is a troubling admission on several levels.

The amount of BBC output we as a nation absorb is steadily declining. So by definition, the value of the licence fee is itself being eroded.

The final great fallacy is the licence fee as guarantor of quality. Safe from the pressures of “commercialism”, the BBC is supposedly free to produce blue chip output. But it doesn’t. In sport, drama, light entertainment and comedy, the BBC can’t compete. Idris Elba, paraded by the BBC after his recent appearances in Luther, had to go to the States to make his name. HBO offered him the iconic part of Stringer Bell in The Wire; the BBC used him as a parachute instructor on 2point4 children.

And why can’t the BBC compete on quality? Because it can’t compete commercially. And why can’t it compete commercially? Because it is constrained both by its funding regime and its requirement to produce “national” output.

The licence fee is no longer the BBC’s cash cow. It is its straitjacket. A funding model that in reality would shame an eastern European dictatorship. And when the BBC is having to act like its running a protection racket to even collect that fee, the time has come to axe it.

Wow. I just agreed with Dan Hodges on something, I need to sit down.

I agree 100%, and here's another excellent article on how the BBC is being overtaken by online sources such as Wikipedia: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technol...-than-the-bbc/ .....and here's the top rated comment on the article.

Wikipedia is great but you certainly can't cite it. However the BBC is not to be trusted one centimetre. It distorts the truth at every opportunity as it cheer-leads its own 'consensus' on everything from immigration (the BBC regards it as a 'good thing' that brings diversity to Britain), to 'climate change' (as far as the BBC is concerned there is no longer any argument about this: it is in the catechism), to the desirability of Socialism as the best model for society (as far as the BBC is concerned, anything other than left-wing politics is Fascism. Only leftism is 'progressive').

I therefore don't listen to the BBC any more. It is as untrustworthy as David Cameron when he says he is going to hold a referendum or Gordon Brown when it comes to leaving your pension alone.

Best of all, Wikipedia is entirely free, while the BBC demands an exorbitant and outdated tax from all television owners. Indefensible in 2014 and were it not that our useless politicians have no regard whatever for the voters, it would have been privatised by now and certainly long before the Royal Mail, which never did anyone any harm.

And... (from this article) -

Being hideously white I thought it my duty not to renew my TV licence.

Dan, many of your posts get right up my nose, but this one is totally spot on.

I own a flat with no TV, and we have received 70 plus threatening letters from AlBeeb over the last six years demanding my money to fund their traitorous anti British broadcasting.

We have OPENED AN INVESTIGATION -- WHAT TO EXPECT IN COURT they scream!

I'm surprised though, that as a Labour man, you have written this, as the Beeb is linked to the Guardian and Labour like Siamese triplets.

I know myself that when I own my own place I won't ever be paying a TV licence. Ever.

Thoughts?

[The Don]

The BBC does provide some really enjoyable content. I have no qualms over it being state funded.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The BBC does provide some really enjoyable content. I have no qualms over it being state funded.

Then by all means, people like you who love the BBC would be more than welcome to pay for a BBC package.

It is 2014 and the BBC should have to compete like anything else. It always amuses me how people scream at the influence that Rupert Murdoch has over newspapers and the television, yet not a word is spoken against the gigantic (and state-funded) influence of the Beeb.

[dbgtz]

Then by all means, people like you who love the BBC would be more than welcome to pay for a BBC package.

It is 2014 and the BBC should have to compete like anything else. It always amuses me how people scream at the influence that Rupert Murdoch has over newspapers and the television, yet not a word is spoken against the gigantic (and state-funded) influence of the Beeb.

2 huge differences between the BBC and the "Murdoch Empire".
1. It is easily identifiable to know something is from the BBC compared to anything where Murdoch has influence.
2. The BBC extends beyond news and is equal to, if not more about entertainment and sport too.

The only reason the BBC is so large is because of it's huge global reach. When you look at how much of the media it actually controls, it's hardly gigantic.

Anyway with the rise of online broadcasting, your wish will probably become true soon anyway.

[FlyingJesus]

idgi are you upset that you have to pay for an optional service

[-:Undertaker:-]

2 huge differences between the BBC and the "Murdoch Empire".
1. It is easily identifiable to know something is from the BBC compared to anything where Murdoch has influence.

As is it with the Murdoch companies, just look at the top of the screen/paper whether it says Sky/BBC or The Times. :S

2. The BBC extends beyond news and is equal to, if not more about entertainment and sport too.

The same applies to Murdoch, indeed you could argue Murdoch provides more in other fields, ie newspapers.

The only reason the BBC is so large is because of it's huge global reach.

Murdoch and Sky also have a huge global reach.

When you look at how much of the media it actually controls, it's hardly gigantic.

The market share of the BBC is huge in TV, internet, news and broadcasting from what I have seen before.

Anyway with the rise of online broadcasting, your wish will probably become true soon anyway.

Indeed.

[Hannah]

The way I see it, BBC is the basics of TV.

If you're watching their stuff, pay for the licence.
If you're not watching it at all, don't pay for it.

You'll find that despite people having satellite and such, many will still watch programs produced by the BBC. :rolleyes:

So much hyperbole.

[scottish]

You just solved your own problem.

If you don't want it, don't pay for it.

"I know myself that when I own my own place I won't ever be paying a TV licence. Ever." enjoy.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You just solved your own problem.

If you don't want it, don't pay for it.

"I know myself that when I own my own place I won't ever be paying a TV licence. Ever." enjoy.

You need to re-read the article to see why that simply isn't true.

Alternatively, I could just put it as this: if you want the BBC then you could pay for it commercially like you would any other entertainment service.

[dbgtz]

As is it with the Murdoch companies, just look at the top of the screen/paper whether it says Sky/BBC or The Times. :S

My point was the average Joe won't link all of it together and will effectively look like multiple sources.

The same applies to Murdoch, indeed you could argue Murdoch provides more in other fields, ie newspapers.

What? That's still news.

Murdoch and Sky also have a huge global reach.

In the developed world...

The market share of the BBC is huge in TV, internet, news and broadcasting from what I have seen before.

I'm assuming you just meant he UK and good reason for the BBC having a high market share, alongside ITV etc. is the fact you can access it on freeview and can be viewed freely online. Quite simple.