The BBC

Aaaah, it had to come didn't it?

So, everyone is all up in arms about the BBC closing down the Asian Network and 6 Music. Well, maybe if more of you actually listened to it, they wouldn't be shutting down!

I jest, I jest. My actual position is thus: I believe the government has a role and a mandate to inform its citizens of certain things. These things are a bit vague, so there's room for manouvre, but current affairs, changes in the law and emergency information are well within its remit. Entertainment shows are not. I understand where it came from - at first it was the only channel around. But it's not now.

I have literally no idea how people can justify the government taking money off everyone who wants to watch TV to just fund a handful of channels. Again, if all they were doing was the above functions, I'd understand it. But why do they need to take money from people just to provide the same shows that the other, commercial channels manage to provide without coercing money from people? A lot of people seem to be complaining that they should cut out the minority crap and just stick to what's popular. That's the worst idea imaginable - I'd rather have a BBC that caters for everyone than a BBC that caters for the majority who can already get their entertainment (so much as it is) elsewhere.

I also don't like that it regularly comes down to a debate about the quality of the output. That's not really the point. Whether or not something is a justified use of government resources (and power - if you want to watch Channel 4 and don't pay the TV License, they'll fine you. If you don't pay that, they'll put you in prison.) shouldn't come down to whether or not its entertaining enough (and I don't think I'm alone in this, or else people wouldn't be so up-in-arms about the apparantly brilliant quality 6 Music being shut down [note, I'm not saying it's not good - I've never listened to it]). I mean christ, it's entertainment - what other forms of entertainment should the government arbitrarily supply at the detriment of the private sector trying to provide the same thing. And why why why does the BBC find itself in the business of trying to win ratings wars? They're actively damaging the competition, which would be fine if they were a private company and offering a better service for a better price, but they aren't - their programmes cost significantly more to make to the point where there are certain sectors that the other channels can't even begin to compete in because they don't have a £3bn budget that they're entirely unaccountable about.

The government (and it is is the government, since they force you to pay the License Fee even if you want to watch Dave all day) shouldn't be in the business of entertainment (in the same way it shouldn't be in the business of making nutty concept cars, or plastic trumpets, or any other arbitrary good). They don't pay my entry into a club, so why are they paying Graham Norton millions to make camp jokes at my expense? Well, it's not my expense, I refuse to pay the License Fee, but if I did then it'd be my expense.

If you want to watch Strictly Come Dancing or, at the other end of the spectrum, a documentary about the wilds of the Hampshire country side, then go ahead. Just don't force me to pay for it, is all I'm asking.