“Do you have a loicense for that bias?”

I’m with free speech.

I’m against the TV license.

This whole thing blows up because a well known TV pundit has personal opinions that conflict with ‘50% of the nation’, while the BBC Charter has a requirement for impartiality because its funding model means millions are forced by law to contribute to Gary’s wealth and privileged position while profoundly disagreeing with his expressed views. It was bound to happen at some point, if not now with Gary, one day, with someone.

Force begats more force. This is what happens when you force people under threat of prison to fund a broadcasting company whether they like it or not. Such force removes the free market aspect of choice. In a free market we can choose to withdraw our custom from any business or individual we choose, for any reason we choose, including because we disagree with their publicly spouted opinions. That’s how it should be. But the coercive BBC license fee removes that free market expression of opposition. So what recourse is left to license payers? Unable to withdraw their funding, by law, instead they protest and pressure the BBC to ‘do something about Gary’. And so, at least in the short term, balancing the public backlash and the ‘impartiality’ requirement of the BBC Charter, they take Gary out of the spotlight.

None of this is satisfactory, and all because force begats more force.

Given that free speech ought to be defended, and that the TV license is indefensible, what is to be done? Let’s get rid of the license. Then Gary can say what he wants (employment contract permitting) without having those who disagree with him forced to pay him.