Well, that was a sodding joke.
For months we eagerly awaited the outcome of the government's latest deliberations on the future of the BBC - perhaps the tax guzzling behemoth who's programming I have so easily ignored this past year, will be left to make some changes. But no, the License Fee remains unchanged and now they get more money whilst simultaneously calling for an above inflation increase over the coming years.
I feel compelled to refer to [this](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1822818,00.html) Times letters page.
Here's a star pick, which in my fantasy magazine would win you the ridiculous kettle or toaster they give away each week:
>Sir, The BBC does not exist democratically on the basis of ability and consumer choice, but on the basis of government coercion and market manipulation at the expense of independent companies which seek to compete fairly on the quality and popularity of their programming.
It is a testament to the quality of commercial channels that, in spite of the way the BBC is funded and operates, these companies remain so popular.
>D. S. A. MURRAY
>Dorking, Surrey
As for me, I refuse to pay for someone's products if I'm not consuming them. I find it insulting that this tax is levied against people who don't even have any intention of watching the BBC. So far the only two notable series I've seen the BBC produce in the past 2 years have been Spooks and Dr. Who and the Doctor's exciting new brand of mediocrity eventually put me off.
If they want to save money, just sack a bunch of editorial staff over at BBC News 24. I mean how much can it cost to write “AMERICA BAD, HUMPHRYS SMASH!” and reel it across the bottom of the screen for 24 hours a day?
Posted by John Swaine at October 3, 2005 12:26 PM