Usual Arguments Against Abolition And Our Responses

WHAT ABOUT THE EMPLOYEES AND CONTRACTORS WHO WILL BE PUT OUT OF WORK IF THE BBC IS SHUT DOWN?  WHAT ABOUT THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ABOLITION AND CLOSURE?

BBC employees, workers and contractors at all levels tend to be highly-skilled and successful in their relevant trades and professions.  If there is one thing that can be said for the BBC, it is a magnet for talent in its various fields.  We can't imagine most of these people, from the junior to the senior tiers, would have much difficulty finding work.  Furthermore, the closure of the BBC would open up new opportunities for broadcasting and media, as there would no longer be a super-dominant state broadcaster in the picture.

Regarding the economic impact of closure - for businesses near BBC premises and so on - no doubt there will be some, but businesses will adjust, as they do when other large concerns close, and new economic activity will in time replace that of the BBC.

YOU JUST DON'T LIKE THE BBC

Liking or disliking an institution is not in itself an argument for or against it.  Some of us have liked the BBC’s programmes in the past, but that is not an argument for keeping the BBC any more than disliking a particular programme is an argument for abolishing it.

WHY DON'T YOU JUST TELL PEOPLE NOT TO PAY FOR THEIR TV LICENCE?  THE BBC WILL EVENTUALLY COLLAPSE IF ENOUGH PEOPLE DO THIS.

No it won’t.  What will actually happen is that a new funding model will be found that keeps the BBC going, and if the 2017 parliamentary debate is anything to go by, the BBC will then be funded out of general taxation.  If you don’t believe us, we would suggest watching the 2017 parliamentary debate on the last anti-BBC petition.

The point is that an end to the TV licence, while that would be welcome, would not in itself bring an end to the evils of the BBC.  Even if the BBC is commercialised, or even privatised, the problems it causes will not be cured.  If anything, the BBC’s position will be strengthened because it will no longer face criticism about the flawed licence fee system.

ISN'T ABOLITION A BIT EXTREME?

People once regarded the idea of Britain withdrawing from the European Union as too extreme and, within living memory, those who advocated it have been disparaged as lunatics (literally that word was used to describe them).  Yet withdrawal from the EU is now part of the mainstream agenda.  The same is possible with the BBC.  We can bring it down.  It’s just a matter of political will.

Besides, what is ‘extreme’ is a matter of perspective.  We think a state-owned broadcaster dominating the media is an extreme and indefensible situation.  We’d like some moderacy!

I LIKE/FAVOUR/SUPPORT THE IDEA OF A PUBLIC SECTOR BROADCASTER

The BBC is a religion in Britain and public service broadcasting is its underpinning dogma, yet nobody really stops to consider what this phrase ‘public service broadcasting’ means or why it should just be associated with the BBC exclusively. 

If impartiality is considered desirable, the BBC manifestly does not fulfil this mission most of the time. 

If we want our broadcasters to be unbiased, the BBC cannot meet this obligation and it’s doubtful whether anybody can. 

If we want broadcasting that caters for everybody, then we should leave that to the market: we have 100s of TV channels and thousands of radio stations, not to mention individuals and groups who produce their own content on digital platforms. 

If public broadcasting is about the assurance of production values and quality, again commercial and private content creators are perfectly capable of producing work of the highest standard, as has been proved time and again. 

In every particular, we don’t need the BBC or any other state-owned or public sector broadcaster.  We can have ‘public service broadcasting’ without it.

I DON'T LIKE THE COMMERCIAL BREAKS ON OTHER CHANNELS, AND I THINK IT'S GOOD THAT WE HAVE A CHANNEL WITHOUT THEM

From a viewer satisfaction point-of-view, this admittedly has been one of the major upsides of the BBC, but as providers gradually switch to digitised subscription-based services and other platforms, they are innovating, and consequently, commercial ad breaks are coming to be seen as outmoded.  Netflix, for instance, offer content without advertisement breaks.  There is no reason why more commercial providers cannot move to break-free programming using subscriptions.

Besides which, is ad-free programming really a price worth paying for all the problems of the BBC and all the iniquities and injustices of the TV licence?  Bear in mind too that even if the licence fee is abolished, that could still leave us with a BBC funded out of general taxation - an even worse position than now.

EVEN WHEN PEOPLE ARE CAUGHT, PROSECUTED AND CONVICTED FOR EVASION, IT'S NO BIG DEAL - THEY DON'T RECEIVE A CRIMINAL RECORD - SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

First, under current sentencing guidelines, the usual punishment for evasion is still a fine.  Remember that those who are caught are often vulnerable people and often of little or no financial means, yet non-payment of a criminal fine can lead to imprisonment - and sometimes does.

Second, the assertion that a conviction for TV licence payment evasion does not lead to a criminal record is, unfortunately, not actually true.  The assertion is based on the fact that these convictions are officially 'non-recordable', but non-recordable is not the same thing as not recorded, it only means that there is no searchable record of the conviction on the Police National Computer.  It is true that if and when you request a DBS check, the conviction will not show in any way, but it does not follow from this that the conviction is unrecorded.  At the very least, a judicial record is retained by the court(s) at which your case was heard - this includes your name and address (the usual details), the offence, the proceedings against you, the conviction and the punishment imposed or other disposal.  In principle, there is nothing to prevent the authorities from collating this information from the various courts around the country on to the Police National Computer (assuming it's not there already, which it might well be - remember, the conviction is not searchable, that doesn't mean it's not there).  From there, it just becomes a question of whether they can lawfully include the information in a DBS Certificate, something that would only require a small change in the law.

The point is that once a record exists, it's permanent.  That wasn't always the case.  It used to be that police and criminal records in England were routinely discarded and destroyed after a period of time, even in respect of serious offences.  A burglary conviction is not of much relevance after ten years.  But with computerisation, it became more practicable to hold records permanently - for life - and that is the position now.

Another point to consider is that, in the context of offending, non-recordable is not always the same as non-disclosable.  In certain situations (which we won't enumerate here), if you are asked about your criminal convictions and police cautions (and sometimes arrests and investigations as well), you must always disclose them or risk a range of sanctions and consequences.  This can apply even if the incidents in your history are considered spent or are non-recordable (whatever that may actually mean).

In addition, local newspapers are often in the pocket of the BBC and TVL (the BBC's enforcers) due to advertising and the structure of news gathering.  No doubt you will have seen the propaganda they print. They will often also print details in their 'Courts column' of TV licensing disposals.  This, too, amounts to a de facto criminal record, and if it is published on the web, it becomes a searchable criminal record that potentially exists for all time - even if you object and have it taken down.

JUST GET THE BBC TO STOP BEING BIASED.  THAT WILL SOLVE EVERYTHING.

We set a challenge for somebody who told us this to come up with the name of just one media organisation in the world that is unbiased, and also to come up with the name of any media organisation anywhere in the world that was once biased and then somehow became unbiased.  They were unable to do so.  We do not believe anybody will be able to provide us with examples.  Unbiased media organisations do not exist.

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO WATCH IT, JUST DON'T GET THE TV LICENCE.

This objection is bogus, for three reasons:

First, under the relevant statutory law, a TV licence is required by anybody in possession of television-receiving equipment.  Yes, in practice the BBC’s enforcement arm, TVL, will not pursue people who do not watch live TV broadcasts, nevertheless if you do watch TV, you need to pay for a TV licence even if you do not watch the BBC.  Further, television-receiving equipment can include not just a conventional TV set, but also a PC or mobile phone.

Second, in addition to the TV licence, the BBC is still funded out of general taxation – mainly but not entirely, through government grant aid for the BBC World Service – and there also are various indirect forms of subsidy that the BBC will benefit from in the same way as any other going concern.  This means we all pay for the BBC, even those of us who don't own a TV at all.
 

Third, what defenders of the system also ignore is the way that TVL, who undertake enforcement of the TV licence, will often threaten and bully individuals into paying the fee.

THE BBC IS SUCCESSFUL.  WHY DISSOLVE IT?  IT MAKES NO SENSE.

From a financial point-of-view, the BBC is not successful: it relies almost-entirely on public funding.  From a programming point-of-view, the BBC is successful in some respects but not others.  To use an analogy, its output is a mixture of poetry and pushpin: some of it is good, most of it is trashy.  The good parts could be produced by privately-owned providers, and the general rule of thumb is that if there is a market for the BBC to produce it, then there must be a market for commercial broadcasters to produce it too.   

THE BBC IS LOVED BY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD WHO WATCH AND LISTEN EVERY WEEK.

This is a good point for the BBC, but it also raises a genuine concern.  Why has a media organisation - and a state broadcaster at that - been allowed to grow as massive as this in its scope and reach?  It's a dangerous position.  Why haven't the regulators or the government intervened to keep the BBC in check, by breaking-up its operations and taking other measures to preserve standards, information diversity and independence?  Looked at this way, you will - we hope - see that even points such as this are not really arguments against abolition.  It's not terribly difficult anyway for a state broadcaster, with access to significant resources, to achieve dominance in its market.  We think it's rather worrying that such a state of affairs has been permitted to happen and we want it to stop.

ISN'T IT UNPATRIOTIC TO ABOLISH A MAJOR BRITISH INSTITUTION?

The BBC itself is unpatriotic and subversive  The word ‘British’ in the title is now a misdescription.  This in fact is one of the major arguments for abolition of the BBC rather than reform.

THE BBC IS BIASED, BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER AS WE STILL HAVE CHOICE.  I CAN JUST WATCH ANOTHER CHANNEL.

That being the case, why do you want to pay for the BBC?  Let’s remember that the BBC is the state broadcaster funded by a mandatory tax under threat of imprisonment.  We admit that no media organisation can be unbiased, but shouldn’t we stop pretending that the BBC can fulfil its mission when we know it can’t?  And if, as you say, people are capable of freely choosing what content they watch, what do we need the BBC for?  Isn’t it time we started treating viewers and listeners as adults?

THE BBC IS MAINLY FUNDED BY A TAX, AND THAT'S NOT A PERFECT SYSTEM, BUT THE BBC OPERATES WITHIN A FRAMEWORK OF ACCOUNTABILITY - TO VIEWERS AND LISTENERS, AND TO POLITICIANS.  THIS IS A GOOD SUBSTITUTE FOR THE WAY THE MARKET WOULD WORK IN MEASURING SATISFACTION AND RESPONSIVENESS.

The BBC’s governance arrangements consist of a group of unelected bureaucrats and TV executives presuming to decide what is good for the rest of us.  We would rather leave these questions to the marketplace, especially when it is now possible for virtually anybody to produce their own content and reach thousands.

THE BBC PRODUCES HIGH-QUALITY PROGRAMMES.

All the main terrestrial channels have produced high-quality, considered programming over the years, not just the BBC.  Furthermore, thanks in part to the liberalisation of domestic broadcasting during the 1980s and 1990s, much of this high-quality output is the work of independent production companies, and often these are not even commissioned by the BBC for the work – the BBC has merely acted as buyer.  And quite apart from all that, are you seriously suggesting that we should sacrifice a large part of our liberty because the BBC happens to make a good Charles Dickens adaptation every now and then?  Let other people adapt Charles Dickens and we can each choose whether we want to pay for it.