Three cheers for the BBC

[#1]

The BBC is hoping to bring back BBC Three as a regular TV channel, four years after it was taken off air and moved online.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52719883

[#2]

So that's why they wanted a raise when Boris was talking about scrapping the fee.. such a selfish organisation in so many ways.

[#3]

There was never enough content to fill two channels in the first place.

Should have just had one channel then stick the youth stuff on Monday - Thursday & leave Friday to Sunday for the grown up stuff.

[#4]

In my view the BBC should be scrapped and replaced by a new tax payer funded service, it only needs one channel for TV and another for radio..

This should concentrate of reporting factual news, not the interpretation put on the facts by biassed political commentators, weather reports, traffic information and other such important announcements.

Obviously there would be no need for a licence and those who choose to watch politically biassed news reports and other stuff such as adults kicking a ball around a field and other programmes dressed up as entertainment should pay for it the same way as for other subscription services out of their savings from the licence fee.

[#5]

See what is on BBC3 HERE - then ask yourself what is the intellectual level of those who watch it. In any household I doubt very much that it is the person actually paying the licence fee.....

[#6]

@TeeGee  - yeah,  good point.

[#7]

I would suggest three boos for the BBC.  They lost the plot years ago when John Birt took over: they have forgotten that they are a public broadcaster and  - not a commercial organisation paying enormous fees to egos such as Lineker and their rabble of newscaster who should be presenting the news and not making a name for themselves.

Take a look here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFXdWWiF0oU&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2ngU40xkpKHtMtUWhLc_o5wt2PAz...

Makes for bad reading if true, which seems to be the case.

Going back to a simple single TV channel paid for by public subscription seems a very good idea to me. Let the BBC go their own way and compete head on with commercial TV with no license fee.

Cheers

Mike

[#8]

---

@TeeGee wrote:

See what is on BBC3 HERE - then ask yourself what is the intellectual level of those who watch it. In any household I doubt very much that it is the person actually paying the licence fee.....

---

Not that I've paid much attention to that channel, even when it was available OTA, but I thought it's original purpose was to broadcast 'niche' programmes aimed at people wanting a bit 'heavier' content than that broadcast on 1 & 2. It appears to have been redefined as the BBCs cheap answer to what C5 used to be when it first aired.

[#9]

---

@Baldrick1 wrote:

In my view the BBC should be scrapped and replaced by a new tax payer funded service, it only needs one channel for TV and another for radio..

---

How can they duplicate content like Tennis and Football if they only have one channel

[#10]

---

@TeeGee wrote:

See what is on BBC3 HERE - then ask yourself what is the intellectual level of those who watch it. In any household I doubt very much that it is the person actually paying the licence fee.....

---

That's now, after it's budget was slashed and essentially turned into little more than an online brand/dumping ground.

You're obviously not, and never were it's intended audience, but BBC Three back in its hayday, when it was edgy and experimental produced some truly great comedy and drama, not to mention youth focused news and documentaries and superb music festival coverage. A true Public service IMO. 

One would hope that if it's brought back it's budget would be increased if it's to be anything more than a shadow of its former self..

[#11]

Why do we need any TV channel or radio station paid for by public subscription?

[#12]

Lets face it, BBC3 was only ever really suspended anyway - the BBC always intended to bring it back. That's why they scrapped 3 - it was the only one they could scrap.

If they scrapped 4 it would look terminal. If they scrapped 3, it's a missing number which would in the future have to be filled again to make a complete set.

I thought at the time they announced it was gonna be scrapped that it would be back in the future i just didn't think it would be before 6 years.

[#13]

---

@Jonpe wrote:

Why do we need any TV channel or radio station paid for by public subscription?

---

Public service - no ads, no political or commercial bias.

Like the BBC was when they had one TV channel and three radio channels. It all started to go wrong in 1967!

[#14]

I do believe that the BBC has a place in the nation and a duty however these days the BBC seems to be set on continued expansion with an unknown motive. Why do they want so many channels and radio stations?

They're funded by public money and they are well aware that their ever increasing licence fee is causing frustration to the nation so it seems odd that they would deliberately set about further expanding and increasing the licence fee even more.

They should return to their original purpose - public / state broadcasting / education and shrink back down to the 2 channels + radion. Scrap the world service radio too - they don't contribute towards it's running so why should we fund it?

[#15]

They were going to scrap their text service in January but too many people complained so they extended it to March.  Since it's still there, I assume their final decision was to keep it going.  I find it handy for getting a quick overview of the issues of the day first thing in the morning.