BBC who needs them

[A.B.Yaffle 24]

How lovely of the BBC to spend £70,000 sending a team of 25 to film the Chilean miners rescue.

 

And how lovely of those viewers who only watch Sky Sports to contribute to that money!

[Magilla 510]

It could still be governed in the same way it is now.

 

No, it couldn't.

[A.B.Yaffle 24]

No, it couldn't.

 

Why couldn't it?

[Magilla 510]

Why couldn't it?

 

Because it would no longer have to cater to the widest possible audience and tastes.

 

It would in effect become a commercial operation, the results of which can be seen by switching to any commercial channel... predominantly garbage.

[A.B.Yaffle 24]

Because it would no longer have to cater to the widest possible audience and tastes.

 

It would in effect become a commercial operation, the results of which can be seen by switching to any commercial channel... predominantly garbage.

 

Why would funding the BBC from general taxation mean that it would no longer have to cater for the widest possible audience and tastes? I don't see why it would make it a commercial channel anymore than it already is?

[INTERVIEWER 10]

How is it different? We have to pay tax for these even if we decide to use private companies for them..same with the beeb..if you have a tv you must pay for a licence even if you never watch the beeb...it doesn't seem very different to me...

 

Funding for the essential public services and the BBC are entirely different. The NHS, police, fire, education etc. are mainly, but not exclusively, funded by a general, progressive tax upon income. The BBC, never considered to be 'essential' by any British government, is funded through a voluntary 'opt in' system of licensing - a specialist form of regressive taxation.

 

Only the most obtuse of individuals could ever confuse the two, entirely different, systems of funding. One is used to keep the country functioning, the other solely for entertainment purposes.

[Boblet 10]

Why would funding the BBC from general taxation mean that it would no longer have to cater for the widest possible audience and tastes? I don't see why it would make it a commercial channel anymore than it already is?

 

It would make it even more subject to the whims of the Government of the day than it already is

 

At the moment it has some independence and autonomy - if it was directly funded there is a danger that it would be less likely to do anything to upset the Government

[Magilla 510]

Why would funding the BBC from general taxation mean that it would no longer have to cater for the widest possible audience and tastes? I don't see why it would make it a commercial channel anymore than it already is?

 

Oh sorry, I misread your post. If it were funded from general taxation then that would be better, though it does leave the BBC open to abuse from the current government.

[Magilla 510]

Funding for the essential public services and the BBC are entirely different. The NHS, police, fire, education etc. are mainly, but not exclusively, funded by a general, progressive tax upon income.

 

The BBC, never considered to be 'essential' by any British government, is funded through a voluntary 'opt in' system of licensing - a specialist form of regressive taxation.

 

Only the most obtuse of individuals could ever confuse the two, entirely different, systems of funding.

 

They are not entirely different, and the end result is essentially the same, something paid for by all, to be used by all (whether you actually use it or not), for the benefit of society.

 

One is used to keep the country functioning, the other solely for entertainment purposes.

 

The BBC is not soley for entertainment purposes, and never has been.

 

Only the most obtuse of individuals would suggest as much when in reality it's clearly not.