BBC Licence Fee - licenced robbery

I've just had my latest direct debit through the post for the BBC licence fee. £142.50. The Licence Fee seems to be one of those things, like rain in the summer, that people seem to think is inevitable unless you go abroad. Except that it isn't. The Licence Fee should be abolished and the BBC privatised.

The licence fee is an anachronism, as well as being unfair and an inefficient way of funding what remains an organisation that still produces a lot of good stuff. Anachronism because the BBC is no longer the only channel out there. Unfair because you are forced to pay - under pain of jail - whether you watch the BBC or not. And inefficient because it stifles innovation and distorts output.

There is simply no coherent reason why the entire TV-watching population should fund a media organisation, even if they never watch it. The counter-argument is that the BBC is a source of excellence and a national institution: "Auntie". Well, I like my aunties but I still think they should pay their way.

I've always thought that simply being around a long time and having a bit of history - or being old, in plain English - is not sufficient to isolate an instutution from changing times. A bit like the Royal Family.

There are lots of sources of excellence in TV (and other media) - the internet has opened the floodgates and the market is king. If people like it, it will pay it's way; it they don't, it dies. I do actually support the state stepping in and preserving and nurturing our cultural heritage if society becomes more Philistine and prefers Big Brother to quality documentaries.

But the irony is that the BBC cannot escape market forces; it actually has to join the mob and pay Jonathan Ross his millions, bid for cricket, Wimbledon, football and other sport, buy film rights to screen them. So in fact the BBC would be better off being freed from the grip of the Government and the Culture Secretary telling them how to spend our money (not 'their' money) and going it alone by selling its output, having adverts and making better use of the internet and newer technologies. If the BBC's supporters are so confident that its output is first-rate, world-beating and second to none, then why not put their money where their mouth is? Why do you need a subsidy?

This isn't the USSR. Why should the Government control the BBC? What's that you say? They don't control the output? Au contraire, the Govenment can raise or lower the licence fee and appoint the Director General and therefore has the BBC by the short and curlies. The irony is it's our money, not the Government's. Any yet the licence-fee payers have very little, if any, control over the BBC's output.

The licence fee has also distorted the political slant of the BBC. Ever wondered why the BBC advertises its jobs in the Guardian and not The Telegraph? Surprise, surprise. BBC, of course, has a left-wing slant, which unless you've been living on the dark side of the moon for the last 50 years you can't have failed to spot. Left-wing, by the way, means more state influence and control as opposed to free enterprise; it does not mean equality as opposed to racism, as some people seem to think. State influence - it's starting to make sense, isn't it?

It's said by some that privatising 'Auntie' would lead to a political slant anyway. Maybe. But so what? At least people would have a choice whether to fund it or not (by watching it). Right now there is no choice. A company that forces money out of you and then creates content that has a slant you may not agree with! Want to switch over? Fine, don't watch us, but guess what - we'll take your money anyway! We don't care if you think it's mad, it's the law.

Scrap the licence fee and privatise the BBC.