The BBC is far from perfect, however you don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone

Idon’t know about you – and maybe it’s a function of age, or so they tell me – but I find I quite enjoy shouting at the telly. A favourite pastime, it is said, of those long in years and short of fuse.

Any road up, I can see, in spite of my limited vision of both contemporary TV and the bigger picture of the world in general, that there are arguments for reforming the BBC licence fee system.

The corporation, it should be said, has not always covered itself in glory in terms of engaging with its audience or, in some cases, its staff.

Threatening people with court appearances and penalties for nonpayment is never going to win friends and influence people, although I might put it to an impartial observer that the methods used are hardly more draconian than some of the stuff now being enacted in other public arenas.

It’s probably true that young people get their news and entertainment elsewhere but the prevalence of other outlets doesn’t necessarily guarantee quality or reliability.

I agree that many BBC presenters appear to be paid vast amounts of money and that the corporation’s record on equal pay isn’t of the best.

I suspect it is not alone there, although being publicly funded, it understandably takes more flak than “commercial” companies which are indirectly funded by viewers who buy the products being advertised.

You get what you pay for is a concept that moves in many mysterious ways.

Of course, there is a long-established train of thought especially in current government circles that the “woke” and “elitist” BBC is its natural enemy, being intrinsically biased against it.

Then again, there are those, I understand, who believe the opposite, calling present political editor Laura Kuenssberg “a Tory stooge” and “guilty of shameful bias” in favour of the government.

You pays your money – if not your licence fee – and you takes your choice.

I like to think that if any organisation or individual is managing to brass off all sides and the middle of the political set-up they must be doing something right.

I myself admit a level of involvement here.

The Significant Other worked for the BBC for more than 20 years – and, I have to say, is these days a frequent critic of the standards of some of its news output in these parts, so it doesn’t necessarily follow that bias pro or con comes built in and unchangeable.

Another argument, as cited by the Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries, is that £159 a year is a lot of money to many people.

So it is. So, it might be argued, is the “always temporary” £20 removed from the Universal Credit payment, not to mention the knock-on effect of the government’s decision to stop funding free TV licences for the over-75s.

To quote the title of that satirical comedy show of yesteryear: “Laugh? I Nearly Paid My Licence Fee.”

Apparently the £159 fee comes out at 43p a day, although whether that is before or after factoring in the highest rate of inflation in the last 30 years is yet to be acknowledged.

And I suspect, in spite of the element of personal choice, that most subscription costs are a lot higher and don’t offer so much range.

It is claimed that funding the monarchy costs every Briton between 69p and £1.24 per diem.

Being more of a moanarchist than a monarchist, I nevertheless accept fully that most people in this country want a monarchy and are prepared to pay for it.

With one’s tongue firmly in one’s cheek, one could argue that although both institutions are closely associated with venerable nonagenarians widely regarded as above reproach (in the shape of David Attenborough and H.M.), the general public only gets one faintly seedy soap opera out of the monarchy at a much greater cost to the public purse.

So do we see these current intentions as a blow for freedom of choice or a threat to yet another great British institution whose face currently doesn’t fit?

I don’t know.

But being a sweet, old-fashioned thing, I still think there is a lot to be said for a publicly-funded, public service broadcaster which does a lot more for its buck than just get up the noses of national leadership.

I’d rather pay for it myself than have it rely on governments of whichever political colour.

Like the National Health Service, it should be constantly monitored and updated if need be.

Heed the words of Winston Churchill (from more than 75 years ago) on the pros and cons of democracy itself.

“Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government – except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time…”

I think there is a lot to be said for a public service broadcaster

CRITICISM: The BBC receives flak from both sides of the political divide, accused of being in favour of one or the other.