Reader Letter: Licence fee should be subscription based
PUBLISHED: 16:27 17 August 2018 | UPDATED: 16:27 17 August 2018
One reader thinks license fees should be made subscription based. What do you think?
What could you do with an extra £150.50 this year? For many struggling people this is well over a month’s food shopping.
For others, it is easily 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 free choice to fund it and receive its services or not?
As someone with centre-left political views, a social democrat, I believe this regressive fee is ludicrous. It is not only unfair, but in my opinion, immoral. I wonder why Jeremy Corbyn and Caroline Lucas, who say they want a fair society, aren’t campaigning against this.
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.
What is wrong with giving every home a 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 enjoy 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.
It’s time to ditch this outdated nonsense and offer every home a fair choice.
Do you agree with our reader? Let us know in the comments below or write to us at email@example.com