When The Master Controls The Tardis- Part Privatising Any Part of the BBC is Criminal

Under threat of fines and a criminal record British people, if they wish to use a television, have to pay the TV licence, that is not ideal (nor is the licensing now being run as a sales operation). The license fee is also unrelated to ability to pay, a billionaire pays the same as someone subsisting on £50 a week. However most people are ok with paying it, because the BBC provides a unique and worthwhile service in a mediascape overwhelmed with banality and does not -overly- engage in profiteering from its captive user base. S0 if any part of the BBC were to privatised and listed on the stock market it simply means the already wealthy share owning section of society (Thatcher’s ‘share owning democracy’ scam) will have their wealth increased by a a public body whose funding is levied by an indirect and hence unfair tax on a population with no other reasonable choice.

Put it this way, does the BBC really want to argue you should pay the licence so private investors can get richer? That private profits are enforced with fines and a criminal record? Just when the US is waking up to this issue through the healthcare debate we are about to somnolently submit to it?

BBC Worldwide should continue to plough its income back into the public service broadcasting of the BBC and ideally the licence fee should reflect the ability to pay. Mark Thompson’s unsurprising floating of this idea further demonstrates the impeccable neoliberal corporatist credentials of the idiot, it’s fine if this leads to his downfall, the atrocity of deferring to Israel over the Gaza appeal should have been enough.

The BBC must be a public service broadcaster with no deference to power or corporatist ideology (especially in the wreckage of its demonstrable failure), it is failing at both under the current post Hutton careerist whelps, for instance broadcasting Metropolitan Police propaganda to protect criminals in the both the police & City. The BBC will remain under attack from the Right and the Murdoch crime family until it is privatised and broken into digestible chunks they can own and profit from while it sows hatred and ignorance as distraction to further corporate interests (the Fox Model if you like). There is no point in giving in to them a single centimetre, in the end they are looking to destroy the BBC and its ethos, which they abhor. As with New Labour the clever way for neolioberal zealots to destroy it is to populate the upper echelons with ideological chumps full of corporate free market libido, Thompson is showing he is the Blair in the infiltration and destruction of the BBC by conservatives (after sterling ground work performed by Dalek Birt).


32 Responses to “When The Master Controls The Tardis- Part Privatising Any Part of the BBC is Criminal”

  1. otto Says:

    Live away for a while and you appreciate the quality of Auntie Beeb. When i visit the UK it’s scary to see my mother’s TV tuned to the ITV channels or Sky for the news programs. You have the best television channel in the world there, and the Lord knows i’ve watched dross in several languages to come to that conclusion. The only media i’ve found that comes close is US PBR radio in its wide reach of quality.

  2. ralfast Says:

    The best choice my local cable provider (I live in the land of Cable TV) ever made was switching from Faux News to BBC World (News Service).

    I like my Click.

    To bad I don’t get BBC America so no Robin Hood, Dr. or Torchwood (no Michelle Ryan and Eve Myles, waaaaah!) and only get the horrible Merlin on NBC (a bit of Michelle Ryan, just a bit and not even the good bits! Wait, did I say that out loud?) and have to wait until the SyFy (yes Sy-Fy) channel re-air the good Doctor.

    I lived under the yoke of Cable TV monopoly for most of my life, you don’t want that kind of crap, believe you me, especially when served up by Rupert “Aaargh” Murdoch.

  3. earwicga Says:

    Ralfast – You’re really missing out not seeing Robin Hood!!! Especially since they brought David Harewood in – certainly don’t see enough of him 🙂 Doctor Who and Torchwood – no great loss.

  4. RickB Says:

    Tuck, Gisborne, sweaty and he gets his sword out!

  5. earwicga Says:

    OMG, I just gogled Robin Hood to find the bbc website and found out there is another remake being made by Ridley Scott out next year. Really, what’s the point?

  6. earwicga Says:

    I just have to post this now:

  7. RickB Says:

    Embedding disabled by request! Dammit, another victim claimed!

  8. earwicga Says:

    I’ve got round to reading your original post now, and agree that selling parts of the BBC off is criminal.

    I have no problem with paying 38p a day to access their many tv and radio channels, and not have to be attacked with commercial advertising.

    I do object though that we are paying for digital switchover stuff in our licence this year. It’s grand to be subsidising something that will really cost people a lot of money.

    • RickB Says:

      I am annoyed at the digital switchover, it is being used to grow Sky and make money off people having to buy new gear, actually a perfect example of how the public is viewed under neoliberalism- a profit centre or nothing.

  9. jim Says:

    I object to newsreaders being given huge salaries off the back of my money. I would scrap the licence fee on those grounds alone. I totally disagree that most people are happy to pay the licence because they see it it as value for money. I would argue that most people want the bbc to continue, but financing itself through advertising. Also its collection methods are intimidatory to say the least. It appears that if you give up having a television then the onus is on the private individual to prove, under threat of fine and /or prison that they cannot receive a signal. It should be the other way around. Those who view the licence as good value and happy to pay it, fair enough. But that is not good enough reason to give away other peoples money.

  10. RickB Says:

    I object to ridiculous salaries too, but advertising would make the BBC prey to the same pressures that make the other stations what they are- not very good. And as I said collection should be related to ability to pay rather than a regressive fee, but given even basic SKY costs easily as much the BBC give much better value.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: