BBC Licence Payers Association anyone?

[Guest]

Having got increasingly infuriated about the way the BBC is going and its gradual abandonment of any attempts to cater for people with IQs over 100; its failure to respond to any negative feedback; its misuse of licence payer's money to pay vastly inflated salaries to "stars"; and all the rest I wonder whether pressure should be brought to bear on the government to scrap the ineffectual BBC Trust and establish a new governing body run by and for the benefit of licence payers.

As I see it this body would have the powers to ensure that programmes were made that satisfied all viewers and listeners. Targets would be set and Controllers placed on 18 month contracts after which they could be dismissed without cost.

This is a tax we all have to pay and I for one don't think the fee is acceptable for the very small amount of radio and TV I can bear to watch

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Following RW's disgraceful performance on Feedback I certainly feel there is the need for a body than has the teeth to ensure greater and fairer accountability to the Licence payers, but I'm not sure your suggestions are entirely feasible, BobDM.

this body would have the powers to ensure that programmes were made that satisfied all viewers and listeners.

How "all"? How "ensure" (please NOT a "reading panel" that decided what programmes could be made and which not!)

Targets would be set

Again, PLEASE No! "Set" by whom? The entire Association? What sort of "targets"? (a minimum number of minutes/hours of Mozart over the year? Maximum number of words to be spoken between pieces of Music? Wages docked if announcers say "less" instead of "fewer"? - Actually, I'm all in favour of that!)

This is a tax we all have to pay

Well, no, we don't: if anyone really finds that TV offers them so little, they can opt out and return their sets. Households with Radio only do not have to pay for a Licence.

and I for one don't think the fee is acceptable for the very small amount of radio and TV I can bear to watch

Just under 40p per day - £2.80 per week - £12.13 per month? Even if you only watch the News, that's less than the price of a daily newspaper - no crossword, I know, but ... AND, for the over 75-year-olds, everything is free.

There is plenty to complain about that the arrogant bosses of the Beeb are ignoring, but a wide broadside at the entire Network and its funding is misplaced, I believe.

[MrGongGong]

no no no no no no no

It's not a "tax we all have to pay" at all

"As I see it this body would have the powers to ensure that programmes were made that satisfied all viewers and listeners."
oh dear me and exactly HOW would you do that ??????

[Simon]

Just under 40p per day - £2.80 per week - £12.13 per month? Even if you only watch the News, that's less than the price of a daily newspaper - no crossword, I know, but ... AND, for the over 75-year-olds, everything is free.

There is plenty to complain about that the arrogant bosses of the Beeb are ignoring, but a wide broadside at the entire Network and its funding is misplaced, I believe.

Absolutely. My hardly extensive listenings to both R4 and R3 this week would, in my view, fully have justified any licence fee that we would have paid for the whole month if we had a TV. And anyone with a TV would also have been able to see at least a few worthwhile programmes to boot.

As for satisfying everyone: you can't.

[Stunsworth]

Watch ITV, and think that if there was no BBC, or subscription TV, this would be as good as it gets.

Then watch the first episode of Frozen Planet.

[aeolium]

There ought certainly to be a debate about what constitutes public service broadcasting and the extent to which the BBC currently fulfils its PSB remit. Also it is right that a debate is going on about the governance of the BBC, and specifically the role of the BBC Trust. A House of Lords select committee produced a report on the matter a few months ago, and the Chairman of the BBC Trust Chris Patten is reviewing the issue himself.

As for the licence fee, I still find it curious that the BBC is AFAIK the only national public service which is not funded through general taxation (which does of course take account of ability to pay and exempts the poorest) but through a flat charge, which represents a substantial slice of the income of those on benefits and e.g. pensioners under 75 at a time when they are struggling to pay heating bills.

[amateur51]

Absolutely. My hardly extensive listenings to both R4 and R3 this week would, in my view, fully have justified any licence fee that we would have paid for the whole month if we had a TV. And anyone with a TV would also have been able to see at least a few worthwhile programmes to boot.

As for satisfying everyone: you can't.

Why don't you buy a licence anyway and support the BBC's output anyway? I have a television but never turn it on, watching the programmes I'm interested in on iplayer.

[MrGongGong]

Why don't you buy a licence anyway and support the BBC's output anyway? I have a television but never turn it on, watching the programmes I'm interested in on iplayer.

come on Am51 that would mean supporting the anarcho-marxist collective that is the BBC , one can't let the staff know that one has leftist leanings or the very fabric of society will crumble

[agingjb]

I suspect that if the BBC were to be closed down tomorrow, the Treasury would continue to impose, and extend, a tax on equipment capable of receiving visual transmissions of any kind.

On the other hand I wonder if online sound transmission will eventually reach such a high quality, and low cost, that would enable, in effect, radio stations to be set up, independently, sustainable with such small audiences that a satisfactory Radio 3 (or even Third Programme) would not be ruled out.

[kernelbogey]

As I have no tv, I don't pay a licence fee. (The licensing mobsters bombarded me with letters before I could get them to stop - they just don't believe that someone can not have a tv.)

I would willingly pay a radio licence fee, provided that I could allocate where the money went - e.g 85% R3, 10% R4 and 5% R2 and none to tv. It would have to be voluntary as it would be impossibly expensive to monitor a universal licence.

Reverting to the thread's premise, I think that governance could be vastly improved by creating a statutory body of licence payers/viewers and listeners.

I watched Frozen Planet 1 (on iPlayer) - magnificent television - and agree with M5.

[french frank]

Reverting to the thread's premise, I think that governance could be vastly improved by creating a statutory body of licence payers/viewers and listeners.

I can see that it might not be any worse than what we have now. But as far as Radio 3 is concerned, it would be no improvement. I imagine such a body would be much like the BBC's own Audience Councils which, if representative of the general public, would be 96% unaware of Radio 3's existence. And if someone told them about it, they would wonder what point there was to it.

The BBC has inherited at least the tradition of lip-service to public service cultural broadcasting, and we owe what we have to that. Hand over to the general public and I think Radio 3 could be the first to be sacrificed on the altar of light entertainment. Probably on the grounds that Classic FM caters adequately for classical music listeners!

Far better is just to keep plugging away at the Trust to try and persuade them to think about the contradictions implicit in management's strategies.

[kernelbogey]

[...] the BBC's own Audience Councils which, if representative of the general public, would be 96% unaware of Radio 3's existence. [...]

Over 25 years ago my Dad was, for many years, on a listeners' panel. Each week he would receive a wodge of green forms, each representing a programme, and be asked to say whether he's listened, add comments if he wished,and post them to John Snagge .

I wonder when this was abandoned. It would be much easier and cheaper to organise electronically today.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

which leaves us with the option of subscription based fundiing ... even if augmented by grant and donations .... imagine Boots sponsoring Dvorak or Barclays Bank sponsoring Haydn Trios ....

[kernelbogey]

[...] the BBC's own Audience Councils[...]

BTW, do you mean these exist, ff? How are the members appointed?

[french frank]

Over 25 years ago my Dad was, for many years, on a listeners' panel. Each week he would receive a wodge of green forms, each representing a programme, and be asked to say whether he's listened, add comments if he wished,and post them to John Snagge .

I wonder when this was abandoned. It would be much easier and cheaper to organise electronically today.

The RAJAR system isn't that different except that they no longer have panels. Each week listening diaries are distributed (according to post codes) to a different set of people. I'm not sure whether they have introduced online recording of listening, or whether they intend to. But that's a detail. If they distribute 2,500 diaries each week, that means that 30,000+ people are canvassed each quarter, better than a panel of 2,500 people who may or may not be representative.

They have been experimenting with electronic metering but as yet aren't satisfied with the results.

The Audience Councils are made up of small groups from the regions and nations who are consulted for 'qualitative' research. I'm trying to find out how they were used for the Radio 3 review research for the Trust. As far as I can see, about 170 people from the English regions were invited to listen to selected R3 programmes and then asked specific questions to gauge their opinions. On the basis that R3 has a reach of just over 4% of the population, 170 might yield 7 or 8 R3 listeners. Listeners were asked whether the programmes seemed 'high quality' and 'distinctive'; whether the presenters were knowledgeable; and (it appears) they had the opportunity to say whether they found the programmes engaging, interesting, intimidating &c. It was stated that many of the interviewees were not regular R3 listeners and did not find classical music appealing. Either they interviewed a very small group or the R3 listeners were considerably outnumbered. The general views expressed were that R3 was high quality and distinctive, the presenters very knowledgeable but the station needed to try harder to be more accessible to people with little knowledge of classical music. QED as far as BBC management was concerned - and hence the new morning programming, based on the general public's preferences?

In fine, the general public's'/icence fee payers' view of what R3 should be is very different from what the station's devotees might want.


kb: How are they appointed? I haven't the faintest idea!