Lisa Nandy is (re)introduce the idea of the mutualisation of the BBC.
Lke a building society, license fee payers would then have a more direct influence the BBC... there are many positive aspects to such a move but one difficult issue would be the enforceability of license fees.
Unless the state retains the power to prosecute non-payers (compromising mutual status?), the BBC would need to rely on privatised investigation & prosecution, which might be quite expensive & disruptive?
#BBC
h/t FT
@ChrisMayLA6 so what would the legislation achieve versus the cost of doing a bunch of politics and producing glossy literature about the future of the BBC?
What about stopping the roundabout between BBC news and political parties and ask new presenters if they’re sexually attracted to children (answering yes prohibits them working) and leave it at that?
Its one of those ideas that seems to be a solution looking for a problem to solve....
@ChrisMayLA6 the existing fines are unenforceable anyway. I know several people who have stopped paying over journalistic bias without consequence.
They can’t force their way into your house, so can’t get proof to prosecute if you don’t comply. Not a lawyer, so obviously ymmv. I pay because I support the other 99% of what they do.
yes, I think that's fair.... but with the state behind it the fee is mostly paid; without that 'threat' of enforcement, I wonder how many more would stop paying... which was the sentiment behind the post I was making
@ChrisMayLA6 Mutualisation makes way more sense for Channel 4 than the BBC, IMHO, especially given the latter's status of critical national infrastructure.
And yes, when decriminalisation has been looked at before the 2nd order effects of enforcement has its downsides
The magistrates can (in theory and capacity allowing) tailor the fine for non-payment to the offender's financial circumstances, which is not something that would be easily or appropriately done via a civil enforcement mechanism.