Minister's TV Licence Fee Threat - Proves Empty

[Teddy Bear]

Nothing really new in this article although it's written as if it's a revelation to the author. Capita TVL agents have earned a commission on how many 'offenders' they caught for a very long time. If the public knew their rights they would be aware that these agents have no more rights than a door to door salesman, and can be told to leave the premises and if they continue to harass they will be sued.

We'll see soon if the government will really change this corrupt funding for this corrupt organisation.

£1,000 bonuses for staff who hound BBC licence fee dodgers: Move comes as MPs plan to drop threat of prison

• Private firm Capita launched recruitment drive to hire more officers
• Firm, which runs BBC's licensing service, is clamping down on dodgers
• Potential employees told they could double basic salary with commission
• Tory MP Andrew Bridgen has called on BBC to review how it collects fee

By Emine Sinmaz for the Daily Mail

Enforcement officers working on behalf of the BBC are being offered bonuses of up to £1,000 a month to pursue people who fail to pay the TV licence fee.

Almost 200,000 people are taken to court each year accused of failing to pay the £145.50 fee.

They risk a £1,000 fine, a criminal record and even jail. Now private firm Capita, which runs the BBC's licensing service, has launched a major recruitment drive to hire extra 'enforcement officers' to hunt down even more fee dodgers.

Potential employees were told they could double their basic salaries with commission for collecting the evidence the BBC needs to prosecute householders.

A Capita regional manager said: 'A decent officer, hitting targets nine times out of ten, in London, is [on] £30k plus, quite easily.'

Enforcement officers are offered a basic salary of £14,000, which rises to £17,000 in London, but they can as much as double this with commission – the equivalent of an extra £1,000 a month.

Capita's two-day recruitment drive began last week, on the same day Culture Secretary Sajid Javid called for a review into decriminalising non-payment of the licence fee.

The BBC is responsible for more than one in ten criminal prosecutions, leading to complaints these are clogging up the criminal courts.

Last night Tory MP Andrew Bridgen called on the BBC to review how it collects the fee. He said: 'I'm sure the public will come forward with some evidence of the heavy-handed way licence fee collection is enforced.

'I know from the stories sent to me that there'll be some pretty harrowing accounts.

'I personally know people who have felt so intimidated by enforcement officers that they have paid for a TV licence even when they haven't owned a television.

'They couldn't stand the stress of the aggressive methods and officers knocking on the door.'

At a recruitment day, aspiring officers were told the purpose of the role is to 'maximise sales for the BBC' and 'enforce prosecution proceedings by taking statements under caution'.

Once an officer has taken 30 statements from householders in a week they can start earning commission.

These are higher if customers pay in full on the doorstep. There is a smaller bonus if customers choose to pay in instalments – in case they cancel payments – or if those not at home end up taking out a licence after a calling card is left at their address.

This is considered an 'indirect sale'. Last night critics said these bonuses could encourage officers to harass householders for upfront payments.

John O'Connell of the TaxPayers' Alliance said: 'It doesn't seem right that these officers are incentivised to push for full payments over instalments, when the whole reason some people may not be paying on time is that they're short of cash.' In 2012, 193,049 people were prosecuted for not paying for a TV licence, accounting for one in nine of all cases in the magistrates' courts.

Most of those found guilty were fined up to £1,000 and given a criminal record, and between 50 and 70 viewers are sent to jail each year after they fail to pay the court fines.

Mr Javid last week said a review of licence fee enforcement 'needs to begin now'. He said: 'In 2012/13, almost 200,000 people ended up in court accused of not buying a TV licence.

'More than 50 were sent to prison. When over 10 per cent of magistrates' court cases concern this one offence, you have to ask whether the current system is really working.

'The Government is committed to a review of decriminalisation once the Deregulation Bill receives Royal Assent. But we can't afford to wait that long. This needs to begin now.'

Last month the BBC's director general Lord Hall said viewers who avoid paying the licence by only watching catch-up shows on iPlayer could still have to pay.

He said: 'It could be modernised again so it applies to watching BBC programmes both live and on iPlayer. This is for the Government to decide, but worth considering.'

In June, the Daily Mail revealed that 463,846 people avoided buying a TV licence through the iPlayer loophole, declaring they had not owned a set or watched live shows in the past year.

A TV Licensing spokesman said: 'In 2013/14 licence fee evasion cost the BBC between £196million and £235million in lost revenue, so it's important that we minimise evasion to ensure as much money as possible goes towards BBC programmes.

'We do everything we can to make sure people are aware of their legal obligations and are given every opportunity to pay for a TV licence.'

[charmbrights]

Interesting that Lord Hall said:

'It could be modernised again so it applies to watching BBC programmes both live and on iPlayer. This is for the Government to decide, but worth considering.'

A licence fee which only applied to BBC broadcasts, 'watch one broadcat in a given month/year and you have to pay the licence' would, I think, be acceptable as a version of a subscription service. Of course non-payment would have to be a civil matter, just as non-payment for Sky is now.

[Teddy Bear]

I just hope they're not teasing me with the possibility of really ending the licence fee.

'Outdated' BBC licence fee may face the axe in favour of subscription

• Experts believe rethink is required in multi-channel age with more viewers using computers and mobile phones to watch programmes
• BBC Royal Charter up for renewal in 2016 opening door for change
• Government's already set review on decriminalising non-payment of licence
• Culture Secretary Sajid Javid said ‘£145.50 is a lot of money for some people'
• Change in policy could see BBC to move to subscription from 2020

By James Chapman for the Daily Mail

The TV licence fee could be scrapped and replaced with subscriptions in the biggest shake-up since the BBC was founded in 1922.

Some members of the Cabinet are understood to believe the compulsory £145.50 annual charge for television ownership is increasingly outdated.

Senior industry figures also believe a fundamental rethink is required in a multi-channel age with more and more viewers using computers and mobile phones to watch programmes on internet catch-up services.

The BBC’s royal charter, which sets out the corporation’s scope and remit, and funding arrangement – both ten-year agreements – is up for renewal at the end of 2016.

The Government has already announced a review of whether non-payment of the licence fee should be decriminalised. Ministers say it cannot be right that 200,000 people a year end up in court accused of not buying a TV licence.

They face fines of up to £1,000 and a criminal record, with more than 50 a year going to prison.

One possibility is for new technology to be used to cut off BBC channels for those who have not paid.

Decriminalising non-payment for a licence, supported by most of the Cabinet, would pave the way for more fundamental reform in the charter review, which will begin in earnest after the election.

One possibility is a subscription model, whereby viewers who want BBC services purchase a ‘bundle’ of channels, or even individual programmes or series.

Subscriptions could replace some or all of the compulsory licence fee – breaking the link between owning a TV set and the licence fee.

An alternative model, being used in Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands, would see a payment for the national broadcaster simply rolled into household taxes.

Like other areas of public spending it would be subject to cuts in times of austerity.

Last week Culture Secretary Sajid Javid told the Mail the licence fee could be cut. ‘£145.50 is a lot of money for some people,’ he said. ‘It’s incumbent on all public bodies to be vigilant when spending other people’s money and the BBC is no exception to this.’

The Commons culture and media committee has launched an inquiry into the future of the BBC. John Whittingdale, the Conservative MP who chairs the committee, told a party conference meeting this week it was ‘getting steadily harder to sustain the licence fee’.

He described compulsory licences as deeply unfair on those who cannot afford to pay the fee and end up in jail.

David Elstein, a former Sky and ITV television executive, who was a member of a review panel set up by the BBC to assess the corporation’s future, said earlier this year: ‘It is socially unjust that so many are fined and indeed go to prison for not paying the licence fee.

‘And it makes more sense too for the BBC to move to subscription from 2020, which is about the date when set-boxes go, and standard definition TV is phased out.’

You need a TV licence if you watch or record TV as it is being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, mobile or DVD recorder. Under a subscription model, rival broadcasters such as ITV would be free.

A BBC spokesman said: 'At 40p a day the Licence Fee is tremendous value and ensures that everyone gets access to great content that informs, educates and entertains.

'Support for the licence fee has risen by 22 per cent since 2004 and remains the most popular way of funding the BBC across all ages and socio-economic backgrounds.'

[Teddy Bear]

What disappoints me in the following article is that this MP speaks of ending the licence fee because of the financial strain it puts on a lot of families. Considering the BBC scandals and overspending that have come to light in recent years, as well as its blatant bias in defiance of their charter, these are the more ethical and moral reasons to end the licence fee.

For MP's to try and use the financial burden as the reason, with the provision that it will only happen if they are re-elected, shows they really don't understand ethics and morals, or simply don't care.

BBC licence fee is 'worse than the poll tax' and needs to be overhauled, says senior Tory MP John Whittingdale

• Chair of Commons Culture, Media and Sport committee slams licence fee
• Said it could be added to council tax to make it cheaper for the poor
• Comes after Culture Secretary says £145.50 fee could be cut after election

By Tom McTague

The BBC licence fee is ‘worse than the poll tax’ and needs to be overhauled, the chair of the influential Commons Culture, Media and Sport committee has said.

Conservative MP John Whittingdale said the licence fee was ‘unsustainable’ and needed to be brought up to date with how people now watched TV.

He suggested that the licence fee could be added on to people’s council tax to make it cheaper for the poor.

Earlier this year, Culture Secretary Sajid Javid suggested the licence fee could be cut if the Tories win the election.

He said £145.50 a year is a ‘large amount’ of money and ‘needs to be looked at’.

Mr Javid also raised the prospect of a fundamental reform of the flat-rate licence fee to reflect the amount of TV watched on the internet.

Mr Whittingdale’s call for a fundamental change to the way the corporation is funded increases pressure on the Government to reform the licence fee.

He said: ‘I think in the long term it's unsustainable.

‘I think most people, almost everybody, accepts that the licence fee as it currently stands need some tweaking to sort out anomalies.

‘People's viewing habits have changed and it needs to reflect that. That's a very simple change and I think people see that.

‘You then have the question of whether or not it should remain a flat poll tax, collected through some fairly draconian measures, and whether it should still be criminally enforceable.'

Mr Whittingdale added: ‘Government has already announced consultation on decriminalisation. I've been looking at other countries and I think there's quite an attractive option of linking it to a specific household tax - maybe council tax.

‘I think in the longer term we are potentially looking at reducing at least a proportion of the licence fee that is compulsory and offering choice.’

He added: ‘It's a question of introducing choice. I'm not saying I wouldn't pay the licence fee - I would go on paying the licence fee.

‘[But] It is a poll tax. It's actually worse than a poll tax because under the poll tax, if you were on a very low income you would get a considerable subsidy.

‘The BBC licence fee, there is no means-tested element whatsoever; it doesn't matter how poor you are, you pay £145.50 and go to prison if you don't pay it.’

He added the era when ‘everybody either watched or listened to the BBC’ was becoming ‘less true’, in the face of the catch-up services, online streaming, and more choice.

Mr Whittingdale said there was not a 'serious possibility of the licence fee going in the next charter renewal' adding: 'When I say it’s unsustainable I am talking about over 20-50 years.'

[thehighlandrebel]

200,000 a year....I would love to see a demographic breakdown of those being prosecuted. I may be cynical but I believe whitey is bearing the brunt of this persecution.
I just cannot see Al-Beeb hounding Muslims and threatening them with fines, criminal records and jail....for the sake of community cohesion of course.

[Teddy Bear]

That's a very interesting aspect you raise THR. I can't even imagine TVL agents wanting to go into those Muslim areas to hassle any non payers. As far as I'm aware, women (single mothers) bear the most brunt of fines levied.

[thehighlandrebel]

It's single parents and the poor who suffer most yet you'll never hear champions of the downtrodden and the working class like socialist Russell Brand bringing it up as it might be detrimental to him receiving his big fat paycheck.

[steevo]

It's demoralizing. Whittingdale would be right at home in the American Republican congress, just one more who can put his finger on it.

[charmbrights]

Oct 28, 2014 20:16:19 GMT Teddy Bear said:

...

For MP's to try and use the financial burden as the reason, with the provision that it will only happen if they are re-elected, shows they really don't understand ethics and morals, or simply don't care.

...

And this is a surprise?

[Teddy Bear]

Oct 29, 2014 2:52:37 GMT thehighlandrebel said:

It's single parents and the poor who suffer most yet you'll never hear champions of the downtrodden and the working class like socialist Russell Brand bringing it up as it might be detrimental to him receiving his big fat paycheck.

That's how we recognize the hypocrisy of the left wing thought - or lack of it. Their real purpose is to try and make themselves APPEAR caring and concerned, though their actions consistently bely this.

Oct 29, 2014 4:36:14 GMT steevo said:

It's demoralizing. Whittingdale would be right at home in the American Republican congress, just one more who can put his finger on it.

That must be really disappointing Steevo.
Sounds like your right have swayed to the left, much like our Conservatives. I credit the media, and here particularly the BBC, for contributing to this.

Oct 29, 2014 10:48:48 GMT charmbrights said:

And this is a surprise?

[Teddy Bear]

Well at least 50 MP's seem to have some morality and ethics, calling for the licence fee to be scrapped.
The BBC response is to say 'that at £2.80 a week, the fee is 'value for money'

Then why should they mind going on a subscription service that allows individuals to decide if they want to pay it, rather than being forced by law to do so?

'50 MPs' to call for BBC licence fee to be scrapped in favour of a voluntary subscription service

• Conservatives will support appeal to Culture Secretary Sajid Javid urging a review into funding for corporation
• Andrew Bridgen MP said the current arrangement is effectively 'a poll tax'
• The corporation has recently come under fire amid claims freebies were given out at licence-payer's expense
• But the BBC insisted that at £2.80 a week, the fee is 'value for money'

By Khaleda Rahman for MailOnline

Up to 50 MPs are supporting a call for the BBC licence fee to be scrapped in favour of a voluntary subscription service, it has been revealed.

A group of Conservatives will support an appeal to the Culture Secretary Sajid Javid urging a review into funding for the corporation.

It is led by Tory MP Andrew Bridgen who was written to Mr Javid to say the current funding arrangement is 'increasingly becoming unsustainable and out of keeping with the modern media environment'.

MP Andrew Bridgen, left, has written to Culture Secretary Sajid Javid, right, to urge a review into the BBC's funding

Mr Bridgen told MailOnline: 'The licence fee is an anachronism. It dates back to a time when there wasn't much choice.

'At the end of the day, I think the BBC has got to be independent of government.

'However, the funding mechanism is effectively a poll tax - and independent of people who pay for it.

'The way it is collected is heavy-handed. Criminality should not be part of it.'

In the letter, which is reproduced below in full, Mr Bridgen said expressed his concern for the sustainability of the BBC's funding structure.

He wrote: 'I believe strongly that the BBC should be planning for a future without the licence fee and investigating subscription based payment options as well as a wealth of other opportunities that exist for its worldwide operation.'

He added that nearly 500,000 people access BBC content via the iPlayer for free meaning licence fee payers are 'being discriminated to the tune of around £70million.'


The letter Mr Bridgen sent to Mr Javid explains the BBC's funding structure is becoming unsustainable

And Mr Javid has already said the £145.50 fee is big expense for families and 'nothing will be ruled out' when it is reviewed next year.

Speaking on BBC1's Andrew Marr show in June, he said the BBC Charter, which sets out its scope and remit and will be renewed for another decade in 2016, must take into account big technological changes in how people watch programmes.

With nearly 500,000 people accessing BBC services via the iPlayer for free, licence fee payers are 'being discriminated to the tune of around £70million

The corporation has recently come under fire for spending licence fee money on an awards ceremony for staff and freebies for celebrities and politicians - despite plans to axe 400 jobs.

This week, it was revealed that the corporation spent more than £23,000 on tickets and hospitality for this year’s events, including for BBC Proms, with guests as varied as Homeland star Damian Lewis, Home Secretary Theresa May, Local Government and Communities Secretary Eric Pickles, and presenter Sir David Attenborough rubbing shoulders at the licence fee payer’s expense.

Costs for the Corporation's annual Gillard Awards included a £35 Venison dinner for more than 200 people and free travel to and from a hotel, a source revealed.

The hotel costs alone for last year's event topped £25,000, with thousands more spent on alcohol and transport, it was alleged.

The Gillard awards ceremony, which celebrates local radio, was held months before bosses revealed more than 400 jobs would be axed in a bid to save millions.

An estimated 415 jobs are to be scrapped to save £48 million a year by 2016/17 with James Harding, the BBC's director of news and current affairs, describing the cuts as ' an extremely difficult undertaking.'

Mr Bridgen added: 'In a time when all is transparent, the BBC are still opaque and that leads to suspicion.

'The BBC are telling us that they are world class and I believe they are - they should have no problem competing on a subscription service basis.'

But the BBC has insisted its licence fee is vital to ensure its programmes can be accessed by everyone.

The corporation said the licence fee ensures wider access to its programming, and claimed support for the charge has increased in the past 10 years.

'At just £2.80 a week the BBC licence fee is excellent value for money - only this weekend newspapers have been reporting the rising costs of subscription services.

'It's vital that programmes like EastEnders, Strictly, Sherlock, Doctor Who and Match Of The Day can be watched by everyone - not a select few.

'Support for the licence fee has actually risen by 22% since 2004 and remains the most popular way of funding the BBC.'

[Teddy Bear]

I hope politicians will take note of the latest poll showing a majority would prefer to end the licence fee.
I see too that the BBC have altered their previous statement as seen in the article above where they said: 'It's vital that programmes like EastEnders, Strictly, Sherlock, Doctor Who and Match Of The Day can be watched by everyone - not a select few.

Vital??? What stupid drivel. Just the statement alone would make me want to shut them down.

This time they've dropped the 'vital', and frankly if for no other reason I think the world would be a better place without the programmes they laud.

BBC losing support over £145.50 TV licence fee as new poll reveals more would prefer alternative funding including adverts or subscriptions

• Just 44 per cent of poll respondents agreed licence fee was good value
• While 45 per cent would rather BBC be supported by alternate funding
• Comes after it emerged that UK has fewer TVs and more online viewers

By Stephanie Linning for MailOnline

The future of the BBC licence fee has been thrown into doubt as it emerged that less than half of Britons think that it is good value for money.

New figures reveal that just 44 per cent of viewers think that the £145.50 annual charge is the best way to fund the public broadcaster, with others supporting advertising or voluntary subscriptions.

The findings come after it was found that a dwindling number of television sets in Britain and a growing number of online-TV viewers could also threatening the future of the licence fee.

The latest poll, conducted by YouGov for the Times, found that there had been a 4 per cent drop in the number of viewers who thought the licence fee was good value for money.

Though the licence fee is the favoured single method as a means to support the Corporation, 45 per cent would prefer an alternative means of funding.

Of those, 25 per cent would support the introduction of advertising as a form of revenue, while 13 per cent thought voluntary subscriptions would be effective.

A combination of the two alternative methods garnered just 7 per cent of the votes. And 11 per cent of respondents said that they did not know how the Corporation should be funded.

It comes after it emerged last month that children watch half the amount of TV as their parents.

Youngsters between the age of 11 and 15 spend six times longer watching internet video clips as older viewers, but spend much less time in front of traditional sets, an Ofcom survey found.

Because the licence fee only applies to those who watch or record TV and not to those who watch up catch-up shows or other internet content, many future adults may be exempt.

The problem is compounded by the fact that there are also fewer television sets in the UK for the first time ever.

In the report published this month, Ofcom highlighted BBC figures revealing that in July this year, 47 per cent of people accessing iPlayer were doing so through tablets or mobiles, an increase from just 25 per cent in October 2012.

The report said there are now approximately 900,000 households with access to the internet but no television set and so rely on internet services to watch programmes. On average, people in the UK watch four hours of television a day, with ‘linear viewing’ – meaning watching show at the time when it is broadcast – still being the most popular way of consuming television.

Although the level of television viewing dropped by 4 per cent in 2013, Ofcom has said it is ‘not yet clear whether this was the beginning of a longer-term trend or merely a temporary variation.’

The BBC told MailOnline: 'At just £2.80 a week per household the BBC provides excellent value for money. It means that programmes like EastEnders, Strictly, Sherlock, Doctor Who and Match of the Day can be watched by everyone, not a select few, along with our radio stations, news, iPlayer and our website.

'Public support for the licence fee has risen since 2004 and remains the most popular way of funding the BBC - indeed, another YouGov poll for The Times earlier in December showed 51% support for the licence fee.'

[Teddy Bear]

A.B. Sanderson at Breitbart London comments on the recent poll and the fact that less viewers are watching live TV. For a government to ignore these facts, as well as all the scandals that have come to light in recent years, when deciding what to do in future with the BBC, for them not to put an end to the licence fee shows that they see the BBC as a tool for themselves, and not for the benefit of the country.

SUPPORT FOR BBC LICENSE FEE FALLS ALONG WITH VIEWING FIGURES

by A.B. SANDERSON

The increasingly controversial BBC license fee is no longer seen as good value for money by almost a half of people questioned, a poll has found.

44 per cent of people who responded to a YouGov poll for The Times said they were happy with the price of £145.50 in return for the services they receive, while 45 per cent would rather the BBC were supported by alternative funding.

With traditional channels getting only a fraction of the viewing figures they commanded before the huge advances in how we view our news and entertainment, the argument for the regressive tax to fund the public service broadcaster, which has admitted that its political slant is to the left, is waning.

Services like Freeview provide 94 per cent of channels for no additional fee after hardware is purchased and many top sporting matches, including England rugby internationals, are on subscription services with providers offering tailor made channel packages which better suit viewer’s preferences.

The survey found that there had been a drop of four per cent in the number of people who thought the license fee was good value for money although it is still favoured by a majority of people as a means of funding the Corporation.

But that leaves a significant chunk of the viewing public, 45 per cent, wanting a change including advertising as a form of garnering revenue which was supported by a quarter of people and 13 per cent who even thought voluntary subscriptions would be effective.

Those who are unhappy with the current arrangements are UKIP supporters, the poll found, with 59 per cent saying it is bad value for money. This compares to the left wing Liberal Democrat supporters, with only 24 per cent agreeing with that statement.

As well as marked differences of opinions between political party supporters, which long running debates on the biased nature of the broadcaster would have contributed to, the numbers suggest a difference along class lines.

Sajid Javid, the Culture Secretary, recently suggested that many families are struggling to afford the flat rate fee which makes up a much larger percentage of outgoings for the families of low income families compared to those taking home a larger salary.

While 47 per cent of middle-class viewers say that the licence fee is good value, only 29 per cent of working-class respondents believe that to be the case.

The option of combining those two options was supported by just 7 per cent of voters and 11 per cent admitted they had no thoughts on how the BBC should be funded.

The viewing habits of Britons are changing significantly, with the baby boomer generation watching double the amount of TV as their children who increasingly get their news from online providers and watch programmes online or on streaming websites.

A survey for regulator OfCom found that children between the ages of 11 and 15 spend six times longer watching internet video clips as older viewers but spend much less time watching programmes on traditional television sets.

[Teddy Bear]

The 166 page report by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee is out. What it boils down to is our MPs just want 'business as usual' as far as the BBC is concerned. Though they address the various scandals that the BBC have been involved in, they do NOTHING that will prevent them continuing the same way in the future.
An absolutely disgusting disgrace by corrupt politicians to maintain a disgusting disgrace media organisation.

All that will likely change is the licence fee will become a tax levy on all households ensuring everybody pays. The bullshit about changing the BBC Trust for a governance of directors is one we already covered recently. The MPs say that the Trust is not working, which we all know is the case, but they think going back to the system they had before the Trust, which was also found not to work and is why that was changed, is an improvement.

The end is nigh for this country!

Readers can find the committee’s full report here and a pdf version of the same report here.

Summary
This inquiry is the first step in a wider process of examining the role and position of the BBC, as well as the way it has been managed, governed and held accountable, before the current Charter expires at the end of 2016. Over the last few years, at times, the BBC has been beset by mistakes of its own making but despite this many people judge the broadcaster first and foremost on the quality of its content, on its programmes, on its journalism, on the value for money they consider it delivers, and on the societal and cultural contributions it makes.

The BBC makes a valuable contribution to many people’s lives as the nation’s broadcaster reaching 96% of the population on a weekly basis and many millions more overseas through the provision of its international services. Its continuing importance as a provider of impartial news and its capacity to bring the country together where its output remains universally available are aspects which many people continue to associate with the Corporation. Yet, given a public intervention of close to £4 billion is made in paying for the BBC’s activities, key questions arise in determining what purposes justify an intervention of this magnitude and what scope and scale are appropriate for the Corporation as a publicly-funded broadcaster, in a world where content is available in much greater volumes, from a multitude of sources and consumed in more ways than ever before. Moreover, the BBC is a powerful player and unchecked there is a danger that it will, by accident or design, crowd out smaller rivals and inhibit their ability to grow.

There currently appears to be no better alternative to funding the BBC in the near-term other than a hypothecated tax or the licence fee. However, the principle of the licence fee in its current form is becoming harder to sustain given the changes in communication and media technology and changing audience needs and behaviours. We conclude that a degree of subscription could be a possibility in the future if the BBC moved to a more personalised service but as a minimum the licence fee must be amended to cover catch-up television as soon as possible. In any event, the BBC should look at the practicality of introducing controls for authorising access to the iPlayer.

Our view is that the justification for criminal penalties for non-payment of the TV licence fee and the way TV licensing enforcement is carried out is anachronistic and out of proportion with responses to non-payment for other services. Decriminalisation of the licence fee could be linked to introducing controls for access to television services or moving to a German-style broadcasting levy.

A move to a broadcasting levy on all households is our preferred alternative to the licence fee. Such a levy on all households would obviate the need to identify evaders and would be a fairer way of ensuring those people who use only BBC radio and online services contribute to their costs.

A broadcasting levy would enable a small proportion of the revenue raised to be used to fund public service content and services provided by others, enhancing plurality in certain types of content. For example, we support a small proportion of the licence fee (or broadcasting levy) being made available for public service content priorities such as children’s broadcasting and local and regional journalism. In addition, we recommend extending the BBC’s independent production quota to cover local news.

We challenge the claim that the BBC needs to provide “something for everyone”. The BBC should reduce provision in areas that are over-served or where the public service characteristics of its output are marginal or where others are better placed to deliver excellence and better value for money. As such, we believe the BBC needs to be able to make bigger, braver decisions on its strategy and inevitably must do less in some areas. In practice, the level of funding the BBC receives will be a principal lever in determining and adjusting the BBC’s scope and scale.

Whilst we welcome the BBC removing in-house production guarantees and opening up the majority of BBC commissioning to competition, we are sceptical of the suggestion that the BBC should become solely a publisher broadcaster. Given the BBC’s long successful tradition of making high-quality television programmes, we conclude that it should continue producing content where its output is distinctive from the market and where it makes economic sense to do so. The challenge lies in the BBC demonstrating a transparency in its commissioning processes in its pursuit of the best content, and not favouring old ties with BBC Production, and a transparency of costs if it is to eliminate suspicions of cross-subsidy of its commercial work and production of content for others.

We consider that the BBC Trust has not lived up to its expectation in the present Charter period and it was a mistake not to pass oversight of the BBC to an external body in 2007. We recommend that the BBC Trust should be abolished and new arrangements made for both the regulation of the BBC and its governance, clarifying lines of accountability. We recommend the BBC to have a unitary board with a non-executive Chair and a majority of non-executive directors where the board has complete responsibility for the BBC’s corporate governance and operations, within the confines of the Charter and Framework Agreement with Government. A unitary board would be better placed to reshape the BBC in line with its core public purposes, to respond to its critics and be directly accountable for its performance and services.

The BBC Board must be subject to rigorous and independent scrutiny. We recommend that a new Public Service Broadcasting Commission (PSBC) be established with the role of scrutinising the BBC’s strategic plan, assessing the BBC’s overall performance, and determining the level of public funding allocated to the BBC and to others.

The Commission would be free to initiate public value tests on all the BBC services in reaction to valid and justified complaints that the BBC was drifting from its core public purposes. The Commission would have influence over the BBC by virtue of its role in advising Government on the level of the BBC’s future funding requirement as well as through managing a fund for certain public service content and genres which was open to competition. As an ultimate sanction the PSBC would have at its disposal a backstop power to recommend withholding funding from the BBC in cases where there was a persistent disregard of its representations about the BBC.

Given the financial problems in the current Charter period which dented the BBC’s reputation, the National Audit Office (NAO) must now be given unrestricted access to the BBC if it is to provide assurance that the Corporation is spending money wisely and
trading fairly. The NAO is held in high regard for its financial scrutiny of Government and has a good track-record of refraining from commenting on policy. There is no reason to doubt it would subject the Corporation to tougher and prompt financial challenge but refrain from comment on editorial matters.

We see Ofcom continuing to play its part in assessing BBC competition issues and acting as the final arbiter of all complaints regarding BBC content including on matters of impartiality and accuracy. We believe this transfer of responsibility will, if anything, strengthen the independence of the BBC, and make the complaints process simpler, and appear more transparent and fair.

The process for agreeing the future shape, funding and constitution of the BBC must be as thorough, open and democratic as possible. We recommend that the Government seek cross-party support for establishing an independent review panel now on the 2017 Charter Review, along the same lines as the panel led by Lord Burns in the run-up to the 2007 Charter. Our principal conclusions and recommendations in this report set out a basis for the terms of reference for this panel and the areas that need further, in depth analysis. Similarly, we recommend that Ofcom take a lead role reviewing the “terms of trade” between the BBC and independent producers given the proposal to allow the BBC to become a commercial provider of content to others.

It is our view that a Royal Charter for constituting the BBC has stood the test of time and that a new 10-year Charter remains the best constitutional arrangement for the BBC. However, should there be insufficient time to complete a comprehensive review of the BBC before the present Charter’s expiry, we recommend that the BBC be granted a short, supplementary Charter of no more than a two-year period to enable a full review to take place and to implement detailed plans to replace the BBC Trust.

[Teddy Bear]

Cristina Odone at the Telegraph expresses my view very well.

Why the BBC licence fee should be scrapped
If a private corporation behaved like Auntie Beeb, it would go bust

By Cristina Odone11

The BBC is in trouble. MPs have called it all kinds of names, humiliated its chairwoman Rona Fairhead in a gruelling Q&A, and threatened to phase out its easiest source of funds – the licence fee.
I am not surprised.

Imagine a company which spends £1 bn on a HQ for itself, goes £107 million over budget and then within 18 months claims the building needs a makeover; fires staff only to then rehire them as consultants at twice the cost; which allows its bosses to dodge responsibility for any problems, and which turns out to have shielded its "talent" even when some of them were were molesting young people on the premises. In the world of private enterprise, a company like this would go bust.

But this is the BBC. The corporation has got away with all of the above while being subsidised by the taxpayer and publicly preaching its values. So, not only does everyone who pays the £145.50 licence fee support the Beeb, they willingly or unwillingly support its worldview.
That view is so pronounced and so uniform that it takes a foreigner watching the telly or listening to the radio only a few days to know what the Beeb stands for: a pro-EU, anti-coalition, politically correct and socially liberal Britain. Some natives might point out that by lionising figures Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand today the BBC also risks undermining the family, the Churches and other pillars of civil society. This betrays its remit. The Public Purposes of the BBC state that the corporation must take the lead in “sustaining citizenship and civil society” and “stimulating creativity and cultural excellence”.

The BBC is not toxic, like Berlusconi’s Mediaset, which owned most of Italy’s media and pumped out trashy programmes day in and day out. It is not as expensive to the taxpayer as Germany's public broadcaster. But is this enough to warrant continuing with the licence fee? Public trust in the corporation has slumped since the Savile scandal. Younger audiences get their news from a host of sources, not just the Beeb. Audiences question the value of new crass programming and "talent", from Jonathan Ross's foul mouth to Rita Ora's breasts.

The BBC, like the NHS, is a troubled national institution affected by demographics, mismanagement, and the betrayal of the public by a hierarchy that protected staff guilty of vile and cruel behaviour. Britons have proved sentimental about both these cherished pillars – but I suspect they are beginning to feel that having one lame public institution is more than enough.

When it comes to choosing between the NHS and the BBC, I fear it's over for Auntie.

[Teddy Bear]

James Delingpole shows he feels the same as me about the complete smoke and mirrors sham decision by our elected officials.

BBC BIAS IS BEYOND A JOKE. AND UNFORTUNATELY IT’S HERE TO STAY.

by JAMES DELINGPOLE2 Mar 201587
Here’s something I once wrote on BBC Bias.

On any given subject you know exactly what the BBC’s line will be. If it’s covering the Middle East it will be bigging up the gallant Hezbollah freedom fighters and the plucky Palestinians at the expense of the hateful, damned-near-as-bad-as-the-Nazis Israeli oppressors. If it’s covering Europe, it will treat every politician who is not in favour of ever-closer-union as a rabid, swivel-eyed, crypto-fascist loon, and every politician who is as a loveable, clear-eyed visionary with a gorgeous mane of beautiful once-blond hair. If it’s covering any kind of war in which the US or Britain are involved, it will be of the view that the enemy are the good guys and that we and/or the US deserve to get our arses kicked. If it’s covering anything to do with the environment, it will, of course, conclusively demonstrate that the earth is doomed and it’s all the fault of greedy Western capitalists.

That was eight years ago in a book called How To Be Right.

So let’s have a look at some of the BBC’s recent output, shall we, to see how it has reformed itself since?

The Great European Disaster (BBC4)

In this 90-minute authored documentary, a fanatically Europhile former editor of the Ecommunist, Bill Emmott, was given space to fantasise about the horrors which would ensue were the glorious and bounteous European Union ever to collapse.

Among the EU’s magnificent achievements cited in the programme were the moment when a bearded man wearing a dress – Conchita Wurst – won the Eurovision Song Contest; and the ‘fact’ that, thanks to the EU, there had never been another war on the European continent as bad as World War II. (To illustrate this point, we were helpfully shown some emaciated Jews in a concentration camp; and also the daughter of a man who had won the Ritterkreutz fighting for the Germans in World War II saying how grateful she was to the EU that her own children would never have to fight in such a war….).

The collapse of Europe was symbolised in the film by dramatised scenes in which lovable TV present Angus Deayton sat in a crashing aeroplane next to a sweet little girl who was being deported by new Prime Minister Nigel Farage because her parents were Italian. This is another thing the EU does apparently: without it, planes will just fall out of the sky.

None of this was connected, of course, with the fact that the BBC has received £22 million from the European Union since 2007; nor that the programme’s translation budget was also EU-funded.

The Casual Vacancy (BBC1)

This is the all-star adaptation of a novel which was either ignored or panned by critics until its author was discovered to be JK Rowling, at which point it suddenly became a bestseller. Set in the Cotswolds, the plotline subtly reveals that capitalists are selfish and greedy, that private enterprise is bad, and that more state money needs to be spent on fairness and welfare centres for working class heroin addicts who were almost certainly driven to their habit by society’s uncaringness, greedy selfishness and selfish greed.

Countryfile (BBC1)

Windfarms are gorgeous and amazing; no the decline of wildlife biodiversity in Britain has nothing whatsoever to do with the green ideological aversion to controlling predator species like raptors, badgers and foxes. Yes: this is the British countryside sanitised for ignorant townies, presented by a man – Tom Heap – who has bought wholesale into every environmental propaganda line going and is more than happy to indoctrinate his gullible audience into correct thinking. (See this Christopher Booker piece for further details).

Banksy goes to Gaza (BBC news item, Feb 26)

A BBC film crew accompanies jumped-up graffiti artist Banksy to Gaza. Banksy discovers, much to his surprise, that the people of Gaza are “under siege” by a brutal, oppressive Israel, and that Gaza cannot rebuild itself because Israel has denied it cement supplies to repair all the buildings (which of course were destroyed by unprovoked Israeli aggression).

Climate Change By Numbers (BBC4, tonight)

As with its sub-Leni-Riefenstahl Great European Disaster, the BBC appears to be sufficiently embarrassed by its latest alarmist propaganda effort not to have made preview copies available to journalists till the very last minute. I think we can safely predict what it’s going to say though: “Here are three mathematicians. Really clever, boffinny mathematicians who are, like, really amazing at maths and shit – way better than you. And do you know what these clever mathematicians have all worked out independently? CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL!!!”

Last week, unfortunately, the parliamentary Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee (CMS) decided that there is “no better alternative for funding the BBC in the near term” than the £4 billion compulsory levy it currently receives from television viewers, regardless of how ill-served they might feel by such outrageously biased output.

It was, as long-time critic of BBC bias Robin Aitken notes here, an opportunity missed.

here is, in my view, little real chance of any government of any stripe taking an axe to the roots of the BBC.

I fear he is right. BBC bias is entrenched, tacitly endorsed by all members of the political establishment (even those on the right who ought to know better but simply lack moral or political courage to tackle the problem) – and very much here to stay.

[Teddy Bear]

As we see from this story, the previous posturing and statements from the government regarding the threat of getting rid of the licence fee is empty of substance.
Absolute bullshit!

BBC licence fee to rise by almost £10 to help cover the £650m cost of free TV for pensioners

• Culture Secretary John Whittingdale announces new deal with the BBC
• Agreement sees BBC shoulder cost of free TV licenses for pensioners
• But the corporation will then determine if the perk continues beyond 2020
• Government will also stop people using iPlayer without a licence
• Licence fee will also rise each year from 2017 in line with CPI inflation
• It means the charge is on course to hit almost £155 a year by next election

By Tom McTague, Deputy Political Editor for MailOnline

The BBC licence fee is set to rise to almost £155 a year under a compromise deal struck with ministers to cover the cost of providing free TV for the elderly.

Culture Secretary John Whittingdale, speaking in the Commons this afternoon, confirmed the corporation would pay for free TV licences for 4.5million over 75s instead of the Government until 2020.

But in return, Mr Whittingdale announced a series of measures to help the corporation cope with the £650million burden - including a deal to let the BBC decide whether or not to continue funding the free licence perk after the next election.

Ministers will also change the law to allow BBC bosses to charge for its popular iPlayer service and allow the licence fee to increase with inflation from the end of next year.

The agreement means the annual levy will jump from £145.50 to almost £154 by 2020, according to the Government's own inflation forecasts.

Mr Whittingdale announced the changes - which will form a key plank of George Osborne's budget on Wednesday - in a Commons statement this afternoon

He said the Government was pleased the broadcaster had agreed to 'play its part in contributing to reductions in spending like much of the rest of the public sector' while further reducing its 'reliance on taxpayers'.

But Labour accused the Culture Secretary of launching a 'smash and grab' on the BBC's budget to pay for Tory election pledges.

Ben Bradshaw, the party's former culture secretary, accused the Government of attempting to make the BBC a 'branch office' of the Department for Work and Pensions.

Experts believe the BBC could recoup up to £150million a year by charging people to use its iPlayer service.

The licence fee is only chargeable for people who watch TV as it is broadcast. At present, those who want to watch live BBC channels on iPlayer only have to tick a box to say they have a licence.

The iPlayer charging plan is aimed at ensuring those who do not have a TV set still have to pay the licence fee if they watch BBC services on their computer or smartphone.

Last night, there was a suggestion that a digital licence could be introduced for those who only want to watch catch-up TV.

There was no implication that current licence fee holders would be forced to pay twice – it is thought they would simply be given a code letting them access the service.

More than three billion programmes are downloaded or streamed from iPlayer every year. In May, 276million shows were requested – up on the same month in 2014.

The most popular programmes were Peter Kay's Car Share, along with election coverage and the Eurovision Song Contest.

Viewership is even higher in the winter, with the record figure of 343million requests recorded in January.

The most viewed programmes from recent years have included Top Gear, Sherlock and the London Olympics opening ceremony.

The Chancellor said yesterday that the changes were vital, because the licence fee would 'slowly disappear' if it continued to be charged solely on television sets.

He told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show: 'We want to give it a sustainable future in an age where the technology is changing, where there are lots of other broadcasters.

'I want the BBC to have a strong future ... there are massive technological changes that if we don't address will mean the licence fee income will slowly disappear.'

It is not yet known how any potential fee for catch-up services would operate.

A Government source described the iPlayer rule change as a 'big win' for the Corporation, adding: 'This is not hammering the BBC. It is a deal ... if you're watching BBC content, you're going to have to pay.

'The licence fee as it is currently structured means the BBC does not have a long-term guaranteed revenue stream, because in ten years more and more people are going to be using catch-up services. They have been asking for this for a very long time.'

[Teddy Bear]

This is the first article I've seen in the mainstream media that best encapsulates what our corrupt and spineless government have really done with our corrupt and spineless broadcaster.

There has, indeed, been dirty work at the crossroads. But it is those who have argued and pressed for change — and not the BBC — who have been well and truly stitched up.
Yup!

STEPHEN GLOVER: Ignore all the wailing, the Tories have let the bloated BBC off the hook

By Stephen Glover for the Daily Mail

The BBC has been stitched up by the Government. In a matter of days, a grossly inequitable deal has been imposed on it by ministers who secretly hate the Corporation, and may even want to get back at it in return for its allegedly unfriendly coverage of the Tories during the election.

This is what many on the Left believe after the news, confirmed in yesterday’s Budget by the Chancellor, that the Beeb has been forced to take on the cost of free television licences for the over-75s, which will eat up about a fifth of its annual income.

Even former BBC chairmen such as Lord Patten and Sir Christopher Bland, not obviously paid-up Lefties, have complained about the lightning raid on the finances of the public service broadcaster, and asked why it should be paying for social provision for the elderly.

The critics are right — but only in one respect. This was — to use Lord Patten’s words — a ‘quick and dirty deal’ in which Corporation executives were virtually told to sign a piece of paper, while the BBC Trust, the governing body, was completely side-lined.

But in almost every other respect the Government’s critics are wrong, and they are either being disingenuous or boneheaded in insisting that the BBC has been cruelly eviscerated by Tories who long to cut it down to size.

For this deal is in most ways much better than the BBC had any right to expect. Despite the caterwauling of its supporters, it’s not even clear that the Corporation will be any smaller, or less well-funded, in ten years’ time.

Let’s first examine the cost to the BBC of funding television licences for the over-75s. The Corporation’s outraged defenders say that when it assumes full responsibility for this in 2020, it will suffer a budget cut of £650 million.

I agree that the plan to make it pay for a Government subsidy to the elderly is somewhat bizarre. But there is no reason to suppose it will continue to shoulder the full burden for many years.

As the proportion of television licence holders over 75 increases because people are living longer, the BBC will argue that it should restrict the perk to the over 80s or even, some years down the line, to the over 85s. Who is to say the Government of the day could or would stop such a move?

In other words, the Corporation will be able unilaterally to reduce its commitment to meet this financial obligation. This decision might earn it some unpopularity with older viewers, but I imagine it could live with that.

Let’s look at the other side of the ledger. By way of compensation for accepting a burden likely to be less onerous than it looks, the BBC has been offered the prospect of an annual increase to the licence fee (at present £145.50 a year) from 2017 in line with inflation. Since 2010, it has been frozen.

In addition, the Beeb will be able to force viewers who are at present using its iPlayer without paying the licence fee to cough up. This might give it a further £150 million a year. The Government has also agreed that after 2020 the BBC will no longer have to pay its share of the roll-out of rural broadband.

Until it finds a way of reducing the cost of shelling out for free TV licences for the over-75s, the Corporation will probably be a little worse off, though not by very much. In time, it may be no worse off at all.

No wonder Tony Hall, director-general, and Danny Cohen, director of television, have seemed so chipper about the agreement over the past few days. Unlike the critics who have huffed and puffed in response to the headlines, they have examined the detail carefully, and realise that the BBC has secured a pretty favourable settlement in light of the cutbacks that will be visited on most government departments.

What is so extraordinary about this apparently cast-iron deal is that it has been made a year before the so-called Charter Review is due to take place. That process, in which the future of the BBC and the best method of funding it is supposed to be considered, appears to have been pre-empted.

Much that should have been discussed has been booted into the next-door field. The Corporation has grown too big, and should be encouraged to concentrate on its indispensable core services, for example Radio 3 and Radio 4, which the broadcasting market left to its own devices might not be guaranteed to supply.

And yet all such arguments have been put on one side, as has the question of the BBC’s dominance as a disseminator of news, sometimes with a notably Leftist bias. According to various surveys, it accounts for around half of all the news coverage consumed by the general population, which gives it unrivalled influence.

Some us have argued in favour of replacing the licence fee — a blunt and anachronistic charge in the modern world — with a subscription whereby viewers would pay for those parts of the BBC which they use.

When John Whittingdale was appointed Culture Secretary after the election, there was every reason to suppose that — as a reputed Thatcherite who only last October described the licence fee as ‘worse than a poll tax’ — he would orchestrate a robust and far-reaching review.

I suppose it’s still possible that next year’s Charter Review will chew over some of these issues, but to judge by what Mr Whittingdale said in the Commons on Monday, and the response of BBC mandarins, it would seem the BBC’s future has already been mapped out.

No doubt one is supposed to draw comfort from George Osborne’s assertion on Sunday that the BBC should curb the ‘imperial’ ambitions of its website, which is in effect an online newspaper funded by the licence payer, and supported by thousands of journalists.

Yes, but how? The BBC has undertaken to rein in its website in the past, without doing so. There is nothing I can see in the latest deal that will prevent it from continuing to devote its enormous resources to its website, which sometimes contains Leftist comments by its specialists.

One of Mr Whittingdale’s colleagues suggests to me that, for all his reputation as a Thatcherite, he is actually a fairly emollient and consensual fellow. If so, is he really likely to undertake genuine root-and-branch reform of the BBC?

I hope I’m wrong, and that robust discussions about the future of the BBC lie ahead, but I fear they don’t. I’m afraid that in return for the quick fix of forcing the BBC to accept £650 million of government expenditure on its books, ministers have shelved long-term plans to adapt the organisation to the modern age.

Ironically, they have acted in a way that pays scant regard to the independence of the BBC. They have bullied Auntie shamelessly, but not so as to achieve anything worthwhile.

There has, indeed, been dirty work at the crossroads. But it is those who have argued and pressed for change — and not the BBC — who have been well and truly stitched up.

[Teddy Bear]

So far all I've seen from government is a load of posturing but otherwise a continued enabling of the BBC.
So I'm not holding out any real optimism that they'll change much worthwhile, but I'd dearly like to be wrong.

‘IMPERIALIST’ BBC TO BE CUT DOWN TO SIZE AS TORIES DEMAND REFORM

by DONNA RACHEL EDMUNDS

The BBC is likely to be told to stop chasing audience figures and return to public service broadcasting in the largest shake up of its remit in a generation. The government is beginning consultations on how to scale back the corporation and rethink its funding structure in order to return the BBC to its original principles.

There are concerns throughout the Conservative government that the public broadcaster has become too large, crowding smaller players out of the marketplace. Last week the Chancellor George Osborne said that the BBC was “imperial in its ambitions”, while Culture Secretary John Whittingdale has previously referred to the corporation as “bloated.”

Consequently, the government has produced a Green Paper, due to be published on Thursday, containing a number of proposals for consideration which together would constitute wholescale reform, the Sunday Times has reported.

Included in the proposals is a rethink of the license fee which takes in consideration of alternate models such as a household tax, subscription fee, or a means tested licence. The BBC website is also under fire as it is believed to represent a disproportionate challenge to local media, while the future of BBC News is also being examined.

The Sunday Times cites two examples in which the BBC was able to kill of competition due to its sheer size: “In 1983 a commercial station called TV-am won the franchise to bring breakfast television to British viewers for the first time,” the paper says. “The BBC rolled out a rival so fast that it beat TV-am to air. In 1997 it launched a rolling news channel, then called BBC News 24, as a competitor to Sky. It later contributed to the closure of a third entrant to the market, the ITV News Channel.”

“I think the likeliest thing to go is the BBC News Channel,” says David Elstein, a former head of programming at Sky and former Channel 5 chief executive. “It should never have been launched.

“BBC Two is effectively repeats only until seven o’clock at night. BBC Four is heavily dominated by repeats. It’s only an evening channel anyway. It’s not beyond the wit of man to see how they could merge.”

He added: “One of the things that Tony Hall talked about last week was reducing ten layers of management to seven or less. It’s inconceivable to me that two years into his reign Tony Hall should still not have dealt with the ten layers of management.”

The BBC Trust is also under scrutiny as it currently acts as both cheerleader and regulator for the corporation, a role which government has said “doesn’t work”. Ofcom may be invited to take over scrutiny of the corporation’s output, in line with all other forms of media.

And the green paper examines whether money could be saved by commissioning more programs from independent makers, or by privatising BBC production facilities.

An official at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) said: “It’s a root-and-branch look at everything the BBC does. It will cover funding, governance, its news content, its creative output, how much independent production companies do.

“You can expect it to look at impartiality but also at [the] BBC news impact on the wider landscape in terms of local newspapers.

“Everyone accepts that the BBC Trust model doesn’t work so it needs to change. The green paper will ask whether you set up an independent office of the BBC or something that’s already there like Ofcom.

“The BBC has a mission statement. The green paper will open a public discussion and ask: is this the right thing for the BBC to be doing in terms of purpose and mission.”

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, is said to be behind proposals for reform, believing that the BBC should focus more on producing quality programs than on chasing audiences. A source close to Cameron said: “The prime minister’s goal is protecting quality. He used to work for ITV. He thinks the purpose of the BBC is to ensure that you push up quality.

“The prime minister’s view is that channels like Sky Atlantic are showing a lot of very great quality dramas from America and wants to see the BBC compete in that space. That’s not saying all you should do is broadcast operas in German. You do need quality programming that is concerned with entertainment as well.”

It’s a line that the Culture Secretary John Whittingdale also holds. He has previously criticised the BBC as being “bloated with too many managers,” and is now understood to have told friends and colleagues that the BBC’s oft-repeated claim that it must attract nine out of ten television viewers is “not in the charter”.

Whittingdale has appointed a panel of nine industry experts to examine the BBC’s output and structure in advance of the charter renewal. The advisers include Dawn Airey, the former boss of Channel 5, who has long been suggesting that the BBC re-think its output and the way it charges for it. In 2009 she said: “Perhaps the BBC should go back to having a couple of big broadcast channels, a couple of radio stations with a clearly defined remit and a reduced licence fee to support that.”

The shakeup has drawn support from across the political spectrum, despite the left’s historic support for the BBC as a public service broadcaster.

Responding to Osborne’s description of the BBC as “imperial”, Jason Cowley, editor of New Statesman, last week asked: “Why does the BBC website operate as if it is in competition with national newspapers and magazines, which are subject to the cold realities of the market?

“I value the BBC but it is only right that it be forced to justify its purpose and overhaul its practices. It ought to do much less, and to do what it does better.”

Osborne, wrote Cowley, “is correct to question the ‘imperial’ ambitions of the BBC and demand that it spend the licence fee with more care”.

[Teddy Bear]

Most will be aware that the government, who previously funded the licence fee for over 75's in the UK, have now told the BBC that they will have to bear the cost of this themselves.

The BBC have been wailing and claim that this amounts to a cut in the licence fee of £725M per annum. They are now begging the over 75s who can afford it to voluntarily pay the £145.50 licence fee.

But just how do they arrive at this £725M?

According to this chart published by the Guardian in 2012 based on national census figures, the projection for the number of UK's over 75s in 2015 is 5,319,000.
Now if the government had paid £145.50 for each of these elderly citizens the total would amount to a fraction under £774M.

But this figure assumes that each one of these elderly citizens have their own separate household. That they do not live with another family member also over 75, nor are they resident in any old people's or care home. Because according to the BBC only 336,769 of these over 75s do not require a licence fee.

So I look onto the Age UK website, and admittedly their figures are from 1996 but they give some indication of what the real figures should be.
At that time 4,192,000 of our population were over 75. Almost two-thirds of these were women: 2,734,000 women compared to 1,458,000 men.

Here's what they have about the number living alone:
Living alone

(GB) In 1996, 31% of men and 58% of women aged 75 and over lived alone.

So we can deduce that 451,980 men lived alone and 1,585,720 women lived alone, totalling 2,037.700 or under half of the total figure would therefore need a licence fee.

So roughly the current number of over 75 living alone would be around 2,500,000 and if each had to pay £145.50 the cost would be £363,750,000.

It's a long way from £725M, - just about half that figure.
So even allowing for those couples over 75 who would share a licence, it's a long way from double the figure the BBC would have us believe.

[charmbrights]

Jul 13, 2015 16:24:43 GMT Teddy Bear said:

...

So I look onto the Age UK website, and admittedly their figures are from 1996 but they give some indication of what the real figures should be.
At that time 4,192,000 of our population were over 75. Almost two-thirds of these were women: 2,734,000 women compared to 1,458,000 men.

Here's what they have about the number living alone:
Living alone

(GB) In 1996, 31% of men and 58% of women aged 75 and over lived alone.

So we can deduce that 451,980 men lived alone and 1,585,720 women lived alone, totalling 2,037.700 or under half of the total figure would therefore need a licence fee.

...

Sorry - I do not live alone, but we have an over-75 licence for a household of one 76-y-o and one 65-y-o. Your maths seems to be based on a wrong assumption.

[Teddy Bear]

I don't really get why your particular circumstances proves my accounting wrong Charm. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

[charmbrights]

Aug 3, 2015 14:36:19 GMT Teddy Bear said:

I don't really get why your particular circumstances proves my accounting wrong Charm. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

|You appear to imply that only those living alone "totalling 2,037.700 or under half of the total figure would therefore need a licence fee." I merely pointed out that it was not necessary to live alone to need, or get a free licence.

[Teddy Bear]

I was not inferring that only those living alone would need a licence, merely trying to estimate from the figures available what the real figure would be.
Here's the last lines from my post above you're referring to:

(GB) In 1996, 31% of men and 58% of women aged 75 and over lived alone.

So we can deduce that 451,980 men lived alone and 1,585,720 women lived alone, totalling 2,037.700 or under half of the total figure would therefore need a licence fee.

So roughly the current number of over 75 living alone would be around 2,500,000 and if each had to pay £145.50 the cost would be £363,750,000.

It's a long way from £725M, - just about half that figure.
So even allowing for those couples over 75 who would share a licence, it's a long way from double the figure the BBC would have us believe.

So if you take the figure of the over 75's population that do live alone, as I indicated, and assume that each of those need a separate licence, from those that remain, that either are sharing a licence (like yourself), or do not need one as shown above, the figure is far lower than the one the BBC is claiming.

Hope that makes it clearer

[Teddy Bear]

As the following story shows, the prediction in the title of this thread is proving correct. Despite all the spin by this government to rein in the BBC is nothing but posturing. Nothing will be done by them of any real value to address the scandalous behaviour of the BBC in so many areas.

Otherwise when Tony Hall threatened to close down BBC2 and BBC4 as well as local radio stations if the government imposed any severe cuts, the government should have just let them do it, in preparation for a complete overhaul. They more than have it coming to any moral and ethical mind.

Lord Hall has previously hit out at the proposed cuts and accused ministers of trying to ‘diminish’ the BBC.
Ministers don;t have to try and diminish the BBC, they do more than an adequate job of doing that themselves.

Dim, Diminish and Dhimminish

Lord Hall 'threatened to close down BBC2, BBC4 and every local radio station unless Government backed down over changes to the licence fee'

• Director-General 'threatened to announce the closures on Budget day'
  
• Claims made in new book by former BBC presenter Raymond Snoddy
• Row allegedly followed Culture Secretary's plan over free TV licences
• It 'resulted in Osborne becoming more "constructive" in negotiations'

By Josh White For The Daily Mail

The head of the BBC threatened to shut down BBC2, BBC4 and every local radio station unless the government backed down during a furious row over the licence fee, according to a sensational new book.

Director-General Tony Hall allegedly threatened to announce the closures on the day of Budget amid fears the broadcaster could ‘go broke’.

The claims were made in a new book called ‘The BBC Today: Future Uncertain’ by veteran journalist and former BBC presenter Raymond Snoddy.
Shutdown claim: Director-General Tony Hall (above) allegedly threatened to announce the closures on the day of Budget amid fears the broadcaster could ‘go broke’

According to Mr Snoddy, the row followed Culture Secretary John Whittingdale’s plan to force the BBC to bear the £750million-a-year cost of providing free TV licences to the over-75s.

Any announcement of service closures on the day of the Budget would have been hugely embarrassing to the Government, which eventually agreed to a series of beneficial changes in negotiations conducted behind closed doors.

In the book, Mr Snoddy writes: ‘There was actually a danger that one of the most famous broadcasters in the world could go broke unless urgent action was taken.

‘If not exactly overnight, the actual closures could not be long delayed because of the financial imperatives involved.
There was actually a danger that one of the most famous broadcasters in the world could go broke unless urgent action was taken

‘The sceptical Treasury officials were given the numbers to back up the BBC case that the world’s most highly regarded public service broadcaster was facing financial meltdown because of the proposed policies of the Conservative government.

‘The proposed service closures had been carefully selected.’

Mr Snoddy goes on to claim the threatened closures resulted in George Osborne becoming more ‘constructive’ in his negotiations, before agreeing to significant ‘mitigations’.

Lord Hall has previously hit out at the proposed cuts and accused ministers of trying to ‘diminish’ the BBC.

A BBC spokesman Lord Hall had made his position on the licence fee clear and declined to comment on the claims in Mr Snoddy’s book.

[Teddy Bear]

The government have now shown their true colours, not that we're surprised as the title of this thread indicates.
Whittingdale has now confirmed that they will do nothing about the licence fee for the next 11 years. In the same disingenuous utterance he says it will have to stay in place 'for the moment'.
11 years of 'moments'.
i hope he and the rest of his cronies die in pain for the bullshit presented until now, and it happens within the same moments. For the world they're creating it's more and more likely they will.

BBC licence fee is 'least worst option' for now and will stay in place until at least 2026, admits Culture Secretary John Whittingdale

• Cabinet minister says charge will have to stay in place 'for the moment'
• Mr Whittingdale previously said the licence fee as 'worse than the poll tax'
• Speaking today, he said there would 'come a time' when it would be axed
• But he said it would remain in place until end of next BBC charter in 2026

By Tom McTague, Deputy Political Editor for MailOnline

The TV licence fee is the 'least-worst option' for funding the BBC and will stay in place until at least 2026, Culture Secretary John Whittingdale said today.

The top Tory cabinet minister said the compulsory annual charge will have to stay in place 'for the moment' because it is currently too hard to introduce a Sky-style subscription model.

However, Mr Whittingdale - who has previously described the licence fee as 'worse than the poll tax' - said there would 'come a time' when it would have to be phased out.

Speaking at the Edinburgh International Television Festival, Mr Whittingdale denied he wanted to 'dismantle' the BBC and insisted the government would never interfere in what shows the BBC airs.

But Mr Whittingdale insisted the BBC should not be producing 'commercially-driven' shows which were 'indistinguishable from its rivals'.

He also reiterated his criticism of the hit BBC programme The Voice. He said: 'The Voice has been very popular, but the fact that the Voice was contested between the BBC and ITV... you can say the result was to force up the money that had to be paid for it.

'It was going to be shown on FreeToAir [whether on ITV or BBC]... should the BBC get into bidding wars? It is worth at least raising, is that a good use of the licence payers' money?'

In contrast Mr Whittingdale praised Sherlock, Strictly Come Dancing and the Great British Bake Off.

He said Strictly was an 'absolutely appropriate' programme for the corporation and applauded the success of 'The Great British Bake Off' as 'risky, unusual, distinctive, but also successful'.

Mr Whittingdale has sparked concern among some supporters of the BBC after saying that a review of the BBC's royal charter next year would look at whether the broadcaster should continue to be 'all things to all people' or have a more 'precisely targeted' mission.

But he said the licence fee is likely to stay in place. He said: 'A lot of people have said it's the least worst option.

'What the select committee said, for this charter period, at the moment, movement to subscription is not really possible.

'There will come a time, and we should start thinking about preparations for that... but in the short term, I slightly think that, for the moment, the licence fee or something like it.'

Interviewed by Alastair Stewart in front of an audience at the Edinburgh International Television Festival, Mr Whittingdale said: 'Who is talking about dismantling the BBC? I've never suggested dismantling the BBC.'

He added: 'We are having a debate about the role of the BBC in a very different broadcasting landscape and whether or not it needs to do absolutely everything it has done in the past ... or whether there are areas where perhaps it should do more. That is an open debate.'

Mr Whittingdale said he has a slight sense that people who are rushing to defend the BBC are 'trying to have an argument that's never been started'.

And, he said: 'Whatever my view is, I don't determine what programmes the BBC should show. That's the job of the BBC.'

Mr Whittingdale said any speculation that the Conservative Party has always wanted to change the BBC due to issues such as its editorial line was 'absolute nonsense'.

He added that there have been times when he has been driven 'into a fury' because he has not liked something they have broadcast, but he said Labour governments would say the same.

'The BBC is always going to occasionally broadcast things which the Government doesn't like.

'But it is absolutely right that the BBC's editorial independence is paramount and that the BBC should not be pressurised by Government as to what it can and cannot broadcast,' he said.

Mr Whittingdale said a lot of people think there is still scope for 'further efficiencies in terms of the bureaucracy and the management of the BBC' - and he referred to BBC sitcom W1A which deals with the day-to-day running of the corporation.

The show features people who have job titles such as head of values and it shows employees regularly in meetings and getting very little work done.

'One of the reasons why W1A is such a wonderful programme is because in just in the same way as The Thick Of It and Yes Prime Minister had a ring of truth about Whitehall, people think that W1A has a ring of truth about the BBC.

'And you do say, you know, head of values, what on earth is that?'

In the course of the interview, Mr Whittingdale said: 'I would be very unhappy if the BBC didn't exist.'

[Teddy Bear]

Fraser Nelson at the Telegraph conjectures on why he believes Cameron and his cronies have done nothing to limit or address the BBC and its biased output and ongoing excesses.

I don't agree with his view, for what I see as the main reason.
The majority of politicians believe that given the real decline of this nation following years of failed policies that have led to it, they need a propaganda outlet that makes them believe that they are still ruling a great nation.
The BBC fits the bill, and with its hegemonic agenda, can only feed this illusion more.
If one lacks real vision to deal with the problems within and without, then one clings to an illusion.

They are entwined in a deeply descending spiral - a death pact.

Ignore the histrionics – Cameron can’t be bothered to take on the BBC
The hardest questions that the BBC needs to address will be left for another time

By Fraser Nelson

Armando Iannucci is one of the finest satirists of our age. His political characters – in The Thick of It, In the Loop and Veep – are so funny because they contain so much truth; an exaggeration, but not much of one. This week, at the Edinburgh Festival, he unveiled a new act: a television luvvie, hysterical about the very notion of the BBC being asked to slim down. The Tories who harbour such dark thoughts, he said, are like doctors urging their patients “to consider the benefits of assisted suicide”. So to trim the BBC is to kill it off entirely; a hilarious extrapolation, worthy of Malcolm Tucker himself.

The fact that Iannucci was entirely serious, and genuinely holds such views, does not make them any less comic. They sum up a paranoid attitude that seems to have gripped the corporation since it realised that a Tory government, rather than a Labour one, would be reviewing the terms of its Charter. The review process is a once-in-a-decade chance for a government to impose conditions on the BBC, and ask questions like: why does it have so many digital radio stations? Do you really need so many bureaucrats? If you believe that Tories are inherently wicked, as a few in the corporation do, then you may believe that the end is nigh.

In fact the Prime Minister admits, in private, that he’s quite happy with the BBC and is baffled by colleagues who loathe it. He grumbles about Nick Robinson having kept him awake by filming reports outside his bedroom in No 10, but his animus doesn’t run much deeper. His wife, Samantha, has been his personal BBC monitor. She is an avid fan of 6 Music, its digital-only radio station, and alerts the Prime Minister if she hears a story going badly for his government in its morning news bulletin. He then scrambles his spin team and if the story is fixed in time for 6 Music’s lunchtime bulletin, he’s happy.

There are Tories who would love to dismember the BBC, but they’re not in positions of power. John Whittingdale, the Culture Secretary, was hawkish on the BBC during the election campaign when bookmakers gave the Tories a 10-1 chance of being able to do anything about it. But in power, he is cooling quickly; when speaking at the Edinburgh Festival earlier this week, he even dropped his criticism of Strictly Come Dancing. Mr Cameron’s overall feeling is that he doesn’t want to be drawn into a “never-ending argument”.

So why the panic? Perhaps because any rational analysis of the BBC highlights several anomalies crying out for change – and none bigger than the licence fee. It may have once made sense that those who wanted a new-fangled television screen should pay for the cost of the programmes too. Today, high-quality television is provided by a wide range of broadcasters, and even British-dominated drama like Game of Thrones is made by Americans (in Belfast). Sky Arts has proven that commercial stations can do highbrow just as well as state broadcasting; never have British viewers had more stations to choose from. But only the BBC has the power to jail its non-customers.

Every week some 3,500 are hauled through a magistrate’s court on the BBC’s behalf, making up one in eight criminal prosecutions. As the convictions mount, the ugly side of Auntie is becoming harder to ignore. Even devoted fans of the BBC can wish it were self-financing, simply to stop the prosecutions. I’m a voracious consumer of BBC’s output, and would happily pay the licence fee for John Humphrys alone (or CBeebies). But indefensibly, my BBC addiction is subsidised by families who need £145.50 more than they need more TV channels. The debate about the licence fee is becoming one of basic fairness, yet it’s a debate which Mr Cameron is likely to duck. He has asked the BBC to finance the free licences for the over-75s, and has decided to leave it at that.

The other problem is the BBC’s market share. While it likes to describe newspapers as all-powerful entities run by ocean-going villains like Rupert Murdoch, the truth is that newspaper sales have almost halved in since the BBC Charter was last reviewed 10 years ago. Today, 53 per cent of the public get news from BBC One and its website is read by far more people than any newspaper. Publishing moguls have had their day; the Beeb is the hegemon now, as politicians know. Oliver Letwin, one of Mr Cameron’s closest advisers, has for years argued that newspapers are influential only insofar as they inform what the BBC says.

With this power comes the potential to abuse power. Why, you might ask, did the charity Kids Company ask Alan Yentob, the BBC’s creative director, to serve as its chairman? Certainly not for his ability to run things, as the charity’s collapse attests. But he was useful when it came to dealing with a pesky £590,000 tax bill. Yentob said he’d call a friendly Treasury minister; a few months later, the bill was magically written off. When the charity was in trouble, he accompanied its founder Camila Batmanghelidjh to the BBC radio studio – which will, as he knew, have sent its own message. Yentob’s behaviour is rare, however, and few BBC executives would dream of using their influence in this way.

The BBC’s dominance explains why Nicola Sturgeon is so keen for BBC Scotland to be spun off into something that her government could better manipulate. The Scottish nationalists have long been obsessed with broadcasting, seeing it as an opportunity to mould voters’ world view so they see themselves as Scottish, rather than British. They dream of a Scottish Six O’Clock TV news programme, relegating goings-on in Westminster to a “foreign affairs” slot. Worryingly, the BBC has been giving this seriously consideration – which raises questions over the very idea of British television news. It may be one of the more consequential outcomes of the Charter review.

And as for the other outcomes? For all of the histrionics, there will be very few of them. A dollop of belt-tightening here, a bit of housekeeping there. But the hardest questions that the BBC needs to address will be left for another time.

[Teddy Bear]

You have probably heard Boris 'suggest' recently that he may decriminalize not paying the licence fee.
If you have read the previous posts here on the topic of the government actually doing something to change the way the BBC is funded then you might be somewhat pessimistic that they will actually do something this time around.

We can certainly expect all the lefties to tell us how valuable the BBC is, and their potential loss by ending forced funding is untenable. Let's see if Boris really has the courage and intelligence to actually carry it through, but I won't be holding my breath.

BBC Says It Will Have $270M Less to Spend After Boris Johnson Demands Accountability

Relected British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has set his sights on the publicly funded British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), promising a slew of changes in the mechanisms that previously guaranteed the broadcaster immunity from fiscal accountability.

The BBC is commercial-free and funded by the compulsory licence fee, payment of which is legally required from all those who watch live television, even if they do not watch the BBC, or iPlayer.

Failure to pay the licence fee can result in a £1,000 ($1300) fine, a court appearance, prosecution, and even imprisonment.

During the election campaign, Johnson threatened to take the BBC’s licence fee away as he called into question its status as a publicly funded broadcaster.

The prime minister suggested the licence fee, which is guaranteed to continue until at least 2027, was a general tax that could no longer be justified when other media organisations had found other ways of funding themselves.

The BBC has already pleaded it will have at least £200M ($267M) less to spend on TV shows if the incoming government makes good on threats to decriminalize non-payment of the fee.

Johnson was asked last week if the licence fee “still makes sense,” and now his government has said it is going to look into sweeping away criminal sanctions for people who watch television but do no pay the £154.50 impost.

“That is something the prime minister has said we will look at, and has instructed people to look at that,” Rishi Sunak, chief secretary to the Treasury, told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show on Sunday.

The thought of intense scrutiny of its budget has caused panic in the corridors of the public broadcaster.

In a statement addressing the matter, the BBC warned that decriminalizing non-payment of the licence fee would mean it has “at least £200M less to spend on programs and services our audiences love.”

A spokesperson added: “The government has already commissioned a QC to take an in-depth look at this matter and he found that ‘the current system of criminal deterrence and prosecution should be maintained’ and that it is fair and value for money to licence fee payers.”

As Breitbart London reported, broadcasting watchdog Ofcom has warned that the mandatory TV tax that funds the BBC is at risk of being undermined because young people are “tuning out” because they find the broadcaster irrelevant.

For the first time, fewer than half (49 per cent) of Britons aged 16 to 24 say that they watch the BBC’s television programmes even a minimum of once a week, according to the regulator’s report.

Johnson’s senior adviser Dominic Cummings is known to be a strong critic of the BBC, its arcane funding model and its output. He is particularly dismissive of the Today programme, which he argues operates in a metropolitan bubble out of touch with the rest of the country.

Downing Street also attacked Channel 4’s election coverage after it replaced Johnson with an ice sculpture when he refused to take part in a leaders’ debate on the climate crisis.

[1steevo]

Hey old friend...

It's good to see Boris at the head but I suspect even with a clear majority he may not shake the politician's politician and keep this with his finger stuck in the wind. But Brexit first right?

Hope you're well... Steve

[Teddy Bear]

Hi Mate Really great to hear from you - BIG HUG
I had a feeling it might be you re-registering and was wondering if you had forgotten your old password or something.
Boris is certainly an improvement on May but is no Trump. I doubt he has the moral and ethical courage to take on the left to the extent he would need to in order to end BBC entitlement to exist. So far I just think he's using this threat in a bid to get the BBC to not be too negative towards him.