The Demise of the BBC?

Hundreds of thousands are ditching the licence fee – and it’s a crisis for the BBC

An exodus of paying viewers has sparked soul-searching at Britain’s biggest public broadcaster

By James Warrington 25 July 2024 • 10:00am

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/07/25/hundreds-thousands-ditching-licence-fee-crisis-bbc/

It will be a sad day indeed to see the demise of the BBC after over 10 decades service - to be replaced by what exactly? Another pay as you go service?

Never mind the perpetual moans and groans about political alliance and licence fee payment (you don't have to pay, it's your choice just the same as any contemporary viewing by subscription only platform), think more about everything the BBC has to offer! Be very careful what you wish for, you won't get anything like it again.

Or does GovPoll (whatever that might be) and Gen Z (whatever that might be) tell you something different ....

we once also had a system where you had to pay a fee for listening and viewing national radio and tv broadcasting, but in 2000 it was just taken down, and become part of the common taxes.

much better, and there is not that much state in it, the news is still there, but most is from smaller broadcast organisations, and besides number of members i think even amounts of viewers and type of content decides how many time they got each year.

keeping it around is still useful for the odd crisis if they ever happen, it can be watched through cable, or digital boxes, or online, you have to pay a provider for that, and it is free online, but you still need a internet connection or use wifi for that.

i stopped years ago with the classic tv viewings, the things i wanted to see at that time came on unpleasant hours of a day for me, and i do not need subtitles for german, english or french, so i get most simply online. we had 26 tv channels, but most were commercial, not the kind i liked.
and i can if i want get the live tv broadcast simply online too. but i am always been more of a reader so i simply like the news outlets better. i simply like the freedom of the internet, because i can get what i want usually easier as before.

usually you still get quite a divers range of programs on the state owned ones, and it is much easier to make it an obligation to put it in a packet of channels, so at least a few are still there to cover important stuff when needed.

No problem with believing in something close to your heart, or some other part of the anatomy, we all have differing opinions on just about every topic under the sun but that doesn't give us the righteous badge of honour, the automatic right to claim superiority - to the contrary, there is seldom living proof of anything outside our individual sphere of everyday life.  Sometimes not even then do we have a clear picture of detail, words and actions can be very deceiving be it intentional or inadvertent.

Does that simple fact give sectors of society carte-blanche to be so openly bitchy and confrontational about isolated news reports?  This is about a very sick man - mentally sick, with a penchant for little children .... Huw Edwards, a man who has been seen for decades across the UK on national television has been exposed as a sick pervert.  

Okay so that's been established, the big problem however seems to be, not so much what he has done but more who he was employed by whilst doing it!  Why the BBC of course.

The British national press is currently swamped with images of Edwards with rather unpleasant captions and reports, seemingly pushing the current 'activists' performance across the nation into the background - the murder of little children being of lesser importance it would seem.  Now it's not known just how far Edwards' perversion extends, i.e. whether just looking or actively participating, nonetheless the anti-BBC warriors are out for blood - not necessarily Edwards blood but the BBC itself, naturally implying they were all in the know prior to the man's public exposure - pardon the pun!

This may be the case or may not but what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty, more to the point why should it reflect on the man's lengthy career working with the BBC?  Not condoning what the man has done but more the reaction to his employer!

Scandal is regretfully rife in the public sector, it's shown itself not to be a BBC exclusive.  What of the numerous scandals surrounding employees and ex-employees of GB News - the people's channel, by way of example.  Why of course they are just ignored or glossed over or, worse still, defended!

One rule for one, another rule for everyone else .... hypocrites !!!