The state-sponsored BBC has become nothing more than an ideologically conditioned gravy-train and a permanent burden on the long suffering tax payer. The TV licence fee is a tax.

Jonothan Ross, a vulgar and foul-mouthed presenter, is on an 18 Million pound BBC contract. Others at the BBC also earn obscene salaries. All at the taxpayers expense. The time has come to end the nepotistic gravy train that is the BBC. Would you therefore like to see a future Conservative government privatize the BBC?

Yes most definitely. In my opinion they are a burden to the Broadcasting Authorities. I very seldom watch TV, and never listen to BBC Radio, so I am paying the licence fee for nothing!

I am not so sure about that... the BBC is or was once a proud institution and a beacon of British excellence.

Certainly some of the standards have slipped but what we don't want is a commercial venture so we have advertising and programming chasing the lowest demonimiator with endless rounds of Big Brother and Treasure hunt 24, or whatever.

Jonathan Ross' contract really astounds me. As I suppose that rather hideous Graham Norton but they are "Shock Jocks" and have their place.

I would agree to the total depoliticizing of it as by it's charter it is meant to be.

My opinion is that the BBC should close some of it's auxilary services (Local radio stations, digital channels etc), the licence fee should be fixed at it's current level and the beeb should concentrate it's efforts on it's main channels and online service. I believe that only after annual progress surveys and then only if it recieves over 60-75% approval should the licence fee be raised for the next year. In this way the BBC would feel a great amount of pressure and be forced to find new ways of cutting costs and developing new material.

Jonjii, we can hardly call the BBC a pristine organization these days. Especially producing a programme like 'Little Britain' which shows a man vomiting violently into the face of a little girl. This sort of thing is disgusting beyond words and is an afront to all civilized standards. What must foreigners think when they see Britain producing such vile filth? The BBC isn't about quality anymore thats for sure.

I'd like to know what David Cameron thinks about such vile imagery being shown on British television and whether the future Conservative government will work to improve standards across all channels?

As for Jonothan Ross and Graham Norton, both are talentless and only get their laughs by wallowing in profanity and obscenity.

I think that the BBC needs to get back to what it was always supposed to do: Provide high quality broadcasting and not try to pander to the lowest common denominator. Unfortunately they keep getting involved in "scrambles for ratings" instead.

Turning the BBC commercial would *not* work, there is already a lack of advertising revenue for smaller stations, if advertisers had to pay to get on the BBC as well, smaller broadcasters would be left out in the cold.

And as for the TV licence, if you consider just how much a basic Sky or Cable subscription costs you, a couple of quid a week on the licence fee is *NOT* exactly an onerous burden!

With Blair having ruined Britain's reputation overseas, the BBC might be the only thing that can rescue it.

The Programming by the BBC doesnt warrant the heavy licence fee that we pay annually.

They have lost the rights to major sport events. we have to put up with unwanted soaps, and repeats from the 1960s onwards!
In my opinion its not good value for money. So I say, put them in league with ITV, And earn their keep through Advertising!

No. The BBC should not be privatised. It's the only place we are free from all those atrocious adverts. It should be the place where quality writing is aired, of whatever sort. Tastes vary and vulgarity has its place in British life, as it has for a long time. Shakespeare is full of licentiousness and violence and we're still lauding him after 400 years.

Phaedrus, it depends what you mean by your definition of acceptable vulgarity. When the British taxpayer has his/her licence fee money used by the BBC to make a programme (Little Britain), in which a man vomits into the face of a little girl, then I'd say its time to get rid of the BBC and to introduce a stronger code of conduct for broadcasting.

Also a few years ago I happened to see an episode of the 'Dick and Dom' childrens show in which children had a contest to eat vile tasting tarty food. The children participating were clearly distressed, one of the little girls eyes was welling up with tears, and the two presenters were aggresively pushing and goading the children to eat more and more. I complained to the BBC about this programme and all I received from the BBC was a short dismissive letter telling me that I had no sense of fun. The future Conservative government must act to restore standards in broadcasting. Especially where children are concerned.

I'd support anything that gets rid of the license fee. I don't think the BBC is some special case high quality broadcasting outfit as many people seem to. Maybe it was more so in the 60s or 70s but it isn't anymore. Apart from that broadcasting companies in the traditional sense are outdated in my opinion and need to evolve. Most of my TV viewing comes from DVD's I select and rent. The remainder is online. I rarely watch broadcast TV since it rarely transmits anything I want to see. Why should I be forced to pay a tax for something I don't use? It's not like it's possible to buy a monitor and stop paying the license fee either - you still get harrassed by the authorities because "You must have a TV... everyone does".

This is why I want to get rid of the license though - I'm not really bothered by distasteful stuff that is broadcast as long as it doesn't break any laws. I think that's a matter of opinion and if you don't like it you don't have to watch it. But I do agree you shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

To add another point - I wonder how many of these low brow shows would continue to exist if they actually had to make money off them rather then them being funded by taxation. I suspect while they may attract a "got nothing better to do" audience - few would actually pay to see most of this rubbish if it was required (although some would no doubt continue to persist).

Get real Tony, what world do you live in? Fern was only talking about dying pubs pink on 'This Morning' and Phillip went to drop his trousers while later Fern attempted to cut Phillips peubs while demonstating a hedge-cutter (all before mid-day). No, Phaedrus the fabulist wins the argument here with his passion.

Lukas, you are just being selfish, at a cheap weekly rate we also get digital BBC2,BB3, BBC4 for cultural, ethical and educational support for children my age and CBBC, CBeebies for tots.

However Dave's reply really impressed me, watch the Beeb in the early hours (when beamed to America) and You'll understand what David means.

Added - I would fight to the death to retain Beebs liberal stance Jonjii and Deal hey we pay for peoples broadcasting it's the people's media; if you don't like something then complain on-line like thousands do every day and things get modified or changed. You can even complain directly to the governers (trustees) on their own site - Here

Scrubs, All TV needs cleaning up, and the BBC needs dismantling. The BBC likes to propagate the myth that they are an essential part of British life, but that is a nonsense. Only BBC radio has any credibility. BBC TV is nothing but a self-serving, politically biased, nepotistic cartel with the tax payer footing the bill.

Think back through the years to the many talentless non-entities such as Andy Kershaw and Jonothan Ross who have basically stolen a living by building a career at the BBC simply because their face and political profile fits.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see that pet BBC events like 'Red-Nose Day' are left-wing fronts. Will there ever be a government with the bottle to get the BBC off our backs?

Oh, OK, Comic Relief is a left-wing front? Hey by declaring a personal contribution the UK government will give 28% of the amount you offer; thus for every £1 IR give 28p support to Africa Aid & UK charities (60/40%)

Pretty much left-wing I suppose. Although I don't think I'll have the guts to push a pea with my nose a distance of One mile to raise money - would you?

Scrubs, I'm still annoyed at Tony Blair's insensitive comedy stunt with Cathrine Tate. I'm assuming you saw it but for those that didn't Tate said to Blair something like "What about there being no WMDs found in Iraq?" and Blair replied to canned laughter "Am I bothered, do I look as though I'm bothered!" I'm not sure verbatim what the dialogue was, perhaps someone out there knows? But I found the whole thing pretty disgusting and upsetting for the families of British service personel lost in Iraq. I hate the BBC. They sicken me.

tonymakara wrote:


How odd. Did you go through the normal complaints procedure?
It's easy enough to escalate complaints. I've written to Michael Grade and Mark Thompson twice.

DaveGould, I wrote a letter to complain about the way children were treated in the programme and received a highly dismissive letter by return which contained a couple of sentences. The tone of the letter tried to imply that I was lacking in humour and the spirit of fun.

In my experience, the BBC complaints dept take complaints very seriously.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

Might be worth another try. Failing that, escalate it. If it's as bad as you say, I'm sure somebody here can suggest some suitable BBC power broker to send it to.

scrubsupwell, please explain how not wanting to pay for television you and a few others want is being selfish? Why do you think it's right I should be forced to pay for your or anyone elses TV viewing preferences (irrespective of how good value or not they are)?

Thanks for the link DaveGould. I wish i had a recording of that show but it was just something that I saw by chance while the TV was on one saturday morning a few years ago. I was so enraged I had to write to complain.

I really hope David Cameron will consider getting the party to look at ways of cleaning up television. I'm not calling for a Mary Whitehouse style crusade but I feel that during the last ten years, standards in broadcasting, have all but collapsed. I particularly worry about children regularly being exposed to anti-social behaviour in shows like 'Eastenders'. Children watching this show will quickly pick up the message that anger and a bad attitude are the norm.

Tonymakara,

Eastenders is, I agree, utter garbage but unfortunately fairly reflective of the behaviour/language/attitude I see every day.

The BBC should not be making this kind of lowest-denominator programming or indeed there is no case for the licence fee.

Perhaps this kind of programming and its popularity is just a damning comment on the standards of education in this country?

I was rather hoping that the irony of the Blair/Tate scetch would have attracted more comment at the time. It has been his government that has, through 10 years of mis-management, produced the type of sub-culture that Tate mocks with that character. So much for education, education, education....

Timbill, Brilliantly put! On the subject of Eastenders it seems that the show deliberately sets out to create the worst possible role models. A vile dog-eat-dog society where every second person is having an affair and intimidation and violence are commonplace.

As you say it is surprising that Blair got away with mocking his own lies and nobody picked up on it at the time. When we consider the very serious nature of the Iraq war, all the deaths, all the beheadings, all the misery that has come about as a consequence of Blair's insistance that Iraq had WMDs, it is indeed shocking that his frivolous cheap and disrespectful comments were allowed to pass uncritically.

The definition of corruption is that the corrupt person no longer sees that bad behaviour is bad, he sees it as being completely normal. He loses the ability to differentiate. Such a thought struck me a few years ago while watching TV and I saw the drag artist Lilly Savage presenting 'Blankety Blank'. Here was a show on saturday night peak time television, on the main national channel, and the show was been presented by a man wearing a dress. Yet people had become so corrupted that they felt this was completely normal.

How far we have fallen as a nation.

Tony,

That might not be the best example you could have picked. The drag artist has been a stock character of light entertainment for longer than television has existed.

Timbill, Do you not think it is interesting how drag artists of a certain sexual predeliction always portray women as grotesque hags? They clearly have an agenda. Their entire culture mocks and denigrates respectable social norms.

The way I see it people have become so corrupted that they have lost the ability to see what a degenerate society we have become. Journalists have even started to use the term 'The peadophile community' What is happening to our nation? We are becoming desensitized to every form of indecency.

The BBC has certainly been the flagship for all that is rotten in our society. It seems to glory in promoting destructive trends. Often in the guise of a documentaries or light entertainment. Children need to have positive role models, positive ideals, a positive view of society. This they don't get from the BBC.

tonymakara:



And you clearly have an agenda too.

Anything that tonymakara likes is ok, anything he doesn't like should be banned.

Tonymakara is the *sole* arbiter of "respectable social norms" for society.

Well, sorry, tonymakara, but the rest of us are quite capable of making up our own minds about what we consider "respectable" or "normal".

The argument about not paying for some public service you don't use goes nowhere. For example people with no children sometimes ask why they should have to contribute taxes to state education. We need a state funded media service like the BBC as it is free from commercialism. Therefore we need to pay for it.

Graham, I don't claim to be the sole arbiter of respectable social norms, I just happen to support them. So do the vast majority of people in our country. People often moan about setting standards and having a level of censorship. However it is interesting to see how quickly things degenerate when such standards are relaxed.

Cleaning up the BBC

A few suggestions:

1. Get the spooks out. Our security services should not be practising propaganda.
2. Nor should the BBC. It's remit on balance says to represent an opposing point of view. Typically, this means the Govt gets it's spin published in full and the Tories get a line at the end. Their remit should be to hold Govt accountable and only transmit substantive information, not spin.
3. Stop trying to compete with the dumbed down channels. No expensive sports. No soaps, period. No endless "make-a-fortune-out-of-housing" shows.

Seeing as I doubt any party has the bottle to privatize the BBC, how about if we allow the BBC to be funded by subscription as was suggested by earlier posts. Let those who want to watch the BBC buy a set-top box then pay the going price for access via a smart-card. Those who don't want to watch the BBC then don't pay and don't get to see it. Then we could see if the BBC can still offer 18 million pound contracts to people like Jonothan Ross.

You would destroy the BBC by changing its system of funding. If that's what you want, be clear about it.

If you want to improve the BBC, you have to look at the things that make it fail - and that's obviously not the funding model.

My primary objectives are to see the television tax (licence fee) removed entirely, and to see a new decree of standards in broadcasting across the board. Ideally I'd like to see the BBC completely privatized, failing that I feel it should be voluntarily funded with encrypted channels accesible to those that wish to pay to receive the service.

Phaedrus:



Good points, well made!

tonymakara:



And what about anyone who isn't "normal"? Should they have no right to be different? Should they just toe the "normal" line or hide their differences away from the "respectable" people?



Do they? Or is it just that, when they're questioned, they give the answers make them sound good?!



Well, actually it's interesting to see how quickly things *DON'T* degenerate when such standards are relaxed.

Try reading this article from Milton Diamond, Ph.D. of the University of Hawai'i.

Note the conclusion:



Perhaps things aren't so clear cut as you want to believe...

tonymakara wrote:


As others have said, you at least have the choice of not paying the license fee.
To privatise the BBC means that it becomes just another channel and English media will sink to the level of the US.



Which sounds nice but isn't enforceable in any way and thus meaningless.

The trash put out by the media is demanded by the market.

The BBC, on the other hand, not having a profit motive, doesn't have to respond to the market in that way.

In the past, the BBC has been a wonderful institution. There's no reason why we can't go back to that. Indeed the recent changes might move us in that direction.

I like Jonathan Ross - he's amiable and capable of presenting, and that is his job description. I really don't know any other presenter around at the moment who can carry on whilst chaos ensues (witness the debacle of Gervais at the Diana concert, not his fault but the BBC presenters of the moment). So some of you don't like him - he still does the job better than anyone else.

I don't have a problem with paying the BBC via a reasonable tax, and the licence, for now, is entirely reasonable. The film and TV industry enjoy the fruits of the BBC, whether it be from overseas sales, or training of actors and technicians. However, I don't see too many replacements for John Simpson or Kate Adie in the news dept. apart from those who are targetted for kidnapping.

The day is coming when a government will be brave enough to privatize the BBC. The organization is a millstone around the British taxpayer. The BBCs capacity for waste is incalculable. As I've said before the more the BBC has the more the BBC wastes. No one can argue that Jonothan Ross is worth an 18 million pound contract. 18 million pounds worth of taxpers money.

On the subject of standards, its pretty obvious that some of the people posting here have no idea what standards are. The problem is people have become so used to watching vulgar base trash that they consider it to be normal. I only hope that there are people in the Conservative party who can see that standards have slipped very badly in the last ten years. We need to stop the rot and reverse the process. Particularly where young children are concerned. TV shows where children are regularly humilated and have food and paints poured over them, all in the name of so-called fun, must be banished from our screens.

Tony, I'm not arguing, simply put, there's a price to be paid for any commodity, whether Ross is paid £1m or £18m (I'll accept your figures as true, since it's not the point).

Whether we pay through direct taxation or through increased costs of an advertised product via a commercial channel, we end up paying the market price.

Jonathan Ross pulls in the US audience (at least) and so boosts the sales of BBC programmes. Ditto Ricky Gervais, Stephen Merchant et al, who have also made a lot of money on the back of the BBC. Ditto Monty Python...drones on, but the point is that the BBC is not the drain on the public purse as the commercial channels (cough, Murdoch) would have you believe.

The exception to this would be the management eg Birt.

Similar arguments go on about the Royal family - I honestly don't mind paying c.64p per annum for their net contribution to UKplc.

tonymakara:



Translation: They don't agree with what tonymakara thinks is "right"



"Is it a book you would wish your wife or servants to read?" - Mervyn Griffith-Jones QC in the Lady Chatterley's Lover obscenity trial.

I think of broadcasting the way I think about music. I don't care what the style of the programme is, I can choose to watch or not. I do care about the quality of the programmes. The fact that the market demands trash like Big Brother and the soaps worries me with regard to our general standard of education. It's mirrored in ClassicFM's chart which features a host of extremely poor quality artists (singers especially) who are relentlessly marketed by the station itself and then become very successful.

Timbill, What about programming for children? They are very much a captive audience who will watch whatever is available. Not being able to differentiate between what is of value and what isn't. As for trash-moronic-shows like big brother, its very much a case of a demand being created. How anyone can stay up all night watching a group of strangers sleeping is beyond belief. Of course as anyone with intelligence knows, shows like big brother deliberately set out to create negative role models.

Graham, I fail to see how you can be opposed to a set of standards in broadcasting. When we have reached a stage where national television can show a man vomiting into a small childs face (The show being BBCs 'Little Britain') then I think its clear that something has to be done about standards in broadcasting.

Would you support the privatization of the BBC?

yes

While we are on the subject does anyone have any figures which confirm how much of the publics money the BBC paid Alistair Campbell for his expurgated memoirs?

We need to look at alternative funding for the BBC.

It is not reasonable to have a system which says if you don't pay the BBC licence fee, you can't watch any television at all!

The BBC is inaccurate, biased, and has its own propaganda agenda.

It is also Judge and Jury.
I complained about the Daily Politics show last week and have yet to have a response.
Because my complaint was about bias, I doubt I will hear anything.

So if we don't want advertising, what alternative funding sources are there?
Maybe make the commercial channels could each pay into the pot. Any ideas?

We need a strict, enforced code of standards.
Dismantle the current editorial system to remove bias and unacceptable programs.

A system that allows the sort of misrepresentation that occured last week involving and denigrating the Queen, without dismissing the manager responsible is unacceptable.

Glynne, the best idea, apart from straight privatization, would be a set-top box, then have all BBC broadcasts encrypted. So to watch them a person would need to buy a card (Licence), those that don't buy a card don't get to watch the BBC.

Alternately, if the BBC is to continue, then the future Conservative government must get tough on the matter of 18 million pound contracts for the likes of Jonothan Ross, standards generally, and political bias, which has been a problem for a long time.

Commercialise it, make it pay its own way.
All the time it is funded by the state controlled license it remains a part of a propaganda machine. Biased towards the government in power who pays the wages.

Smokeless, Exactly right, sell it, then if its private shareholders want to pay out 18 million pound contracts, its their money to give away and not ours. Would a future Conservative government dare have the nerve to make such a radical move, I wonder? I hope so though.

PS: The bias I see only goes one-way! Against anyone with right-of-centre views.

If you watch Sky news, you may reconsider that a commercial service is unbiased.

However the set top box is a good idea. But some other system, available to everyone on demand would be ideal.

However.
The BBC needs to get back its credibility.
We need an Impartial, Honest, Broadcaster.

There must be a clear out of the overpaid lefty lovey's.
There are some good programs, but few and far between.
First class interviewers are always under pressure to conform. Look at the way Humphries had to fight to maintain his integrity.

Grade is making a lot of sound bites at present but he isn't taking much action on people like the twit who misrepresented the Queen.

There are too many people stealing a living at the BBC. For example someone like Andy Kershaw, who is imposed on the radio three audience with his politically correct 'World Music' which is totally out of sync with what radio three listeners want to hear. How much did Kershaws 'Tours' cost?

The BBC is nothing more than a gravy train where a lot of people make a lot of money at the taxpayers expense.

tonymakara:



Because I have actually *thought* about this, that's why.

I have looked at the sort of examples of things that have been tried before (consider the "Hays Code" in America which allegedly resulted in the Producer of Gone With the Wind being fined for refusing to have Rhett Butler say the more morally acceptable "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a darn!") and the conclusion comes back that trying to legislate "good taste" is repressive and unwarranted.

Ask yourself this *WHO DECIDES*? You? Me? Mary Whitehouse? Big Brother? The Nanny State?

If you don't like something, don't watch it, but don't demand that *I* should not be allowed to watch it because *you* don't like it!

As Kenny Everett once said to Mary Whitehouse "You've got a knob. Use it!"

SmokelessCoal



(Bangs head repeatedly against keyboard)