The news that a new funding system is being planned for the BBC to replace the TV Licence that has been a very lucrative system giving the BBC not less than 3 billion Pound a year has sent shockwaves. A few days ago, some journalists were asking why a shining star of BBC television - Susanna Reid - had decided to jump over board and join the private sector. Well, the explanation is plain an simple: it is always better to jump when it is safe to do so and there is not a crow of BBC presenters trying to find a floating board to survive.
What happened to the World Service of the BBC is now happening to local and national television with ideas being floated about taking television channel off the air and setting them up in Internet for people to watch them using BBC I-player.
This does not change the fact that some channels are rarely watched and some radio stations are rarely listened to. When digital media came about, we all saw the possibilities of having a myriad of channels and a much better offer in terms of programming. Instead, we ended up with endless repeats and programmes sold in the can that offered very little value.
Having said that, lack of proper investment in programmes has been combined with the most appalling biased. The BBC used to do a lot of research and produce its own exclusive material. Now it 'lifts' news from The Guardian and from news agencies very much like a small radio station in a small and remote town in Latin America does. Nothing exclusive. Merely copying materials of dubious credibility.
The question is: to produce such low quality output, why does the BBC need more than 3 billion Pound. The answer is pretty evident: The BBC only needs more than 3 billion Pound to feed a lot of fat low quality cats and to pay people to forced them to keep quiet about the many scandalous realities of the BBC.