BBC tries to ‘save its disguise’ developing with ‘political’ method to get extra funds | UK | News | EUROtoday

The BBC has been accused of being “opportunistic” and developing with a “political” method to “save its hide”.

In April, the price of a TV licence will rise by £10.50 per 12 months to £169.50. The BBC funds a free licence for households the place these over 75 obtain the means-tested pension credit score.

BBC’s director basic, Tim Davie, stated that the broadcaster was open to “reform and making the licence fee “more progressive”.

This hinted that the payment needs to be means-tested, which might power wealthier Brits to pay greater than the poor.

It has brought on an uproar and a former BBC News producer has hit again on the thought, saying it’s “opportunistic”.

David Keighley advised GB News: “I think it’s nonsense, it’s political opportunism. It’s rather interesting the timing of this – just as Labour is expected to be elected, up comes the director general of the BBC with the message: ‘Let’s cane the rich.’

“I think underneath that there are other objections. How on earth would this be administered? There’s already a huge bureaucracy behind the licence fee. The BBC will have to find out who is rich and who is not. How they’ll do that I don’t know.

“It’s a non-flyer and it’s the BBC, once again, trying to save its own hide and coming up with a political opportunist way of doing things.”

Former BBC government Roger Bolton, additionally showing on GB News, disagreed and stated: “You could take the view that everyone should pay the same for everything, but then the rich do rather well and the poor do rather badly.

“If you’re talking about a public service, you’re trying to create something for everybody regardless of how rich or poor they are. The rich will always have access, they can do anything. But what about those who aren’t rich? Are they do be denied these services?

“In principle, the idea that the better off should pay more than the worse off for a national service is reasonable. That’s our approach to tax. I think it’s more complicated in practise.”