£150.50 each year is a lot for many struggling people/households - over a months' food shopping. It is also the price of a quarterly gas/electricity bill. Isn't it about time, in this digital age, that the BBC licence fee was made subscription based? Shouldn't every household have a fair choice to fund it and receive its services or not?
I believe this regressive fee is ludicrous. It is not only unfair, but in my opinion, immoral. Vulnerable people are being threatened in their own castles by clipboard carrying Capita staff to pay for a service they have never asked for/do not want, and it is not on. It is almost like a legalised protection racket. Those with mental health issues, myself including, are having their illness worsened due to the fear and threats. How can this be right?
What is wrong with giving every home a free choice? £150+ is a lot "to the many."
An old excuse is, 'then don't have a TV.' But that argument is flawed. If I go into a pub and order a pint of Carling, I don't have to fund Fosters in order to enoy a pint of lager. Why should someone who doesn't want the BBC (for whatever reason) have to fund it in order to watch shows on other channels?
Another excuse is, 'at just £2.89 a week, the BBC is great value for money.' Well, if that is true, then giving every home a fair choice won't be a problem - because the vast majority will happily subscribe...
I believe BBC's Crimewatch would investigate any other company acting in a similar way. It's time to ditch this outdated nonsense and offer every home a fair choice.
My policy proposal is: to make the BBC services subscription-based so every households receives a free and fair choice to fund and receive them, or not.