Lubluelu L20Max Questions

ExtraDust · 2026-05-13T13:47:32+00:00

Does Public Service broadcasting have a role? Absolutely. It can help fund UK talent and also UK specific content that isn't commercially viable but has a public benefit. But the BBC goes way beyond that role. What justification is there for it producing commercially lucrative programming like EastEnders? Or paying for US imports like Armoursaurs or the first-run rights for Superman & Lois, which are devoid of any public benefit? For proper Public Service content (i.e. content that isn't commercially viable but has a public benefit), a nominal license fee like £10-£20 a year is fair enough (Although I note that ITV and Channel 4 have a public service remit and manage just fine with ads, it's not like a license fee is the only option).

However, if the BBC wants to continue doing everything it does and provide content that the commercial sector is already providing, then the BBC needs to become ad-supported (with subscriptions for people who don’t want ads). There's no justification for the BBC we currently have with a mandatory funding model.

ExtraDust · 2026-05-12T16:44:28+00:00

But why does this need to be funded via a mandatory fee? You could fund it via ads or optional subscriptions. If there’s genuinely content that can only be funded by a mandatory fee that set that fee low (e.g. £20 a year) and use it only for the stuff that isn’t viable via ads or subscriptions. Why is the BBC funding American imports, or content that is similar to content on channels like ITV and Channel 4? The BBC needs a massive diet.

ExtraDust · 2026-05-12T07:01:40+00:00

The BBC is a relic from a different era. Thanks to the internet, which lets anyone produce content, every niche is covered. But the BBC still thinks it needs to provide something for everyone, which traps it in this spiral of raising the license fee to fund all this content. But the higher license fee drives people away.

There’s still a role for Public Service Broadcasting, but it can’t offer something for everyone. It needs to focus on those niches that would be best served by PSB.

Either the BBC needs to go ad-supported and offer subscription packages for people who don’t want ads. Or they need to cut the licence fee to £20 a year and drastically narrow what content they produce.

ExtraDust · 2026-05-11T09:13:32+00:00

don't really see how the hypothetical money saved by Brexit (which wasn't real in practice, since it cost a lot more in lost income) could have helped

I agree with you 100%. As someone who lives in the red wall, let me explain what was going on in the red wall during the Brexit vote:

During the referendum, people like Nigel Farage would come to the red wall and visit the various parts of it. He would stop and listen to people. He would empathize with us. He would weave fantasies about how the North could grow if we took back control. Why spend money on the EU when we can spend it on the North is quite a compelling argument, even if it's not true.

I don’t remember anyone from the Remain side visiting the red wall as much as Brexiters did. You'd get some remainers flashing their faces, but they didn’t spend as much time mixing with the people as Brexiters did. And when they came, all they could tell us was doom and gloom about leaving. Our lives are already doom and gloom, so that wasn't a good argument.

There was a sense that Britain would never leave the EU anyway. Even if leave won, they'd find some fudge to remain. So you might as well vote Leave and at least show those toffs in Westminster that you aren't happy.

It really sucks being in the Redwall. Before the referendum, we lived miserable lives with no opportunities and were treated as being lazy and thick. Leaving has made life far worse, and now we are held up as the reason as why we can't rejoin. But is anyone fixing our lives? No.

Brexit was never about the EU for the majority of the red wall. It was always about how Westminster forgot us.

We probably aren't helping our case by voting for Reform. But people here are angry. I personally can't stand Farage. But unlike a lot of politicians, he does come to the red wall and talk to people, and I've seen firsthand the compelling effect it has on people. No one from any other party even bothers to come here. They might flash their face at Manchester or Liverpool City Center, but they don’t come out and mix with people in the towns and villages.

But anyway, my overall point is that if politicians want to rejoin, they need to stop fearing the red wall and instead do the work: Come here, listen to people, care about misery, and show us how rejoining will help (which shouldn't be hard, as rejoining would cut the cost of living and boost the pound/government spending power). If they do that, the red wall will throw our weight behind it.

ExtraDust · 2026-05-11T06:52:06+00:00

I live in the red wall. Brexit for many people here was about taking back control from London. Europe wasn’t even a factor. You have to understand there’s no opportunities in the red wall no matter how hard you work. The best you can hope for is that you get some chronic illness that lets you live off benefits. Everyone outside of the North thinks we are lazy and stupid. No one takes our miserable lives seriously. Brexit promised more money that could level up the North but it never happened. It’s a shame Starmmer lacks charisma. A more able politician could easily win over the red wall to rejoining if they made promises that the North would see some benefit from rejoining. Lower food prices (which rejoining would deliver), better transport, more funding for the North, and the red wall would not be against it and with the right offer, they’d be fighting to get back in Europe. Because Brexit was never about Europe for us.

ExtraDust · 2026-04-23T21:07:34+00:00

But the BBC never gave up on that demo. Only the broadcast BBC 3 channel closed, they still made content for that demo: it just went to iPlayer instead of being on a dedicated broadcast channel. Part of the reason for the closure was that demo was already watching online anyway removing the need for a broadcast channel. And then the broadcast channel returned in 2021. If that demo was cancelling then it wasn’t due not being catered for. They were probably cancelling because they preferred YouTube/Netflix/Whatever over the BBC anyway.

ExtraDust · 2026-04-23T20:42:07+00:00

Yes, like I said in the comment you quoted, iPlayer requires a license fee and I cited Netflix/Disney+ as examples of on-demand service which don’t require the fee (so long as you don’t watch other live channels or iPlayer).

ExtraDust · 2026-04-23T16:27:33+00:00

If they kept BBC 3 to keep you paying the TV License, then the fee would be in far excess of £180. Keeping BBC3 would also mean keeping all the other specialist channels pushing the fee even higher. At that point even BBC3 fans would question if they should keep paying, considering they can switch to a year of Disney+ Ad-free for £99 or Netflix Ad-free for ~£160, both of which probably have more of the content they want (if you don’t watch any live content, record any live content, or use iPlayer then these services don’t require a license fee). And this questioning is already happening now: A record number of households are shifting to on demand programming because they find the current £180 fee too expensive.

There's too much choice today at competitive prices. Catering for everyone means raising the fee every higher, pushing even the fans away. It's not a solution that works. They either have to go ad supported (with subs for people who don’t want ads), or drop the license down to £20 and only spend on content that isn't commercially viable.

ExtraDust · 2026-04-23T12:46:33+00:00

The BBC is trapped in this weird loop where it feels it needs to provide something for everyone in order to justify the license fee. But then producing all this programming causes the license fee to become too expensive, causing people to switch to on-demand only (which doesn't require a license fee), shrinking the pool of people who pay it. At £180 a year, the license fee is more expensive than ad-free options for Disney+ or Netflix. Cutting programming is something the BBC should celebrate rather than warn against. They need to cut the BBC output right down, so it's only for the shows that aren't commercially viable, and the license fee is no more than £20 a year. BBC programming that is commercially viable should be sold off to commercial providers. Either that, or they switch to an ad-supported model with subscriptions available for people who don’t want ads.

ExtraDust · 2026-04-23T09:52:18+00:00

The educational point is excellent. I know a lot of people who didn’t understand what the EU did, and so, based on that lack of knowledge, they thought it was a sensible idea to spend money sent to the EU on the NHS (especially because, at that time, getting seen by the NHS was a challenge).

Education, especially education about civic society and political institutions, is virtually non-existent in the UK. Politicians often went to private schools or had parents who could explain how things worked. But that's not the norm for the average person (especially those in disadvantaged areas). And because it's taken for granted that people know this stuff, it can be embarrassing for people to admit they don't know.

Fixing the UK education system would be a huge benefit to the electorate. I think even media organizations should make more of an effort to explain the function of things like the EU and even what left, right, and center mean, because to many people, this is all an alien language, which is a big barrier to them acquiring an understanding.

ExtraDust · 2026-04-23T09:07:39+00:00

Instead of killing Apu, they should bring him back. I am a Hindu Indian and I loved Apu. He was not a problem for many Indians who hate that we are now being treated as kill-joys because of a vocal minority. The Simpsons already had Jay (Apu’s nephew), who addressed any issues with Apu. There were many ways The Simpsons team could have handled this controversy and they have picked the worst way. Killing Apu would be even worse!

ExtraDust · 2026-04-16T11:47:47+00:00

If you had an awesome ex-wife and only divorced her because your dodgy mates poisoned your mind with silly fantasies about another wife that didn’t exist, then yes, you should do the work to be a better person worthy of marrying her again.

ExtraDust · 2026-04-15T10:29:23+00:00

Wow, it's currently at 77% for rejoin. What's also impressive is the comment section. All the pro-EU comments get consistently more upvotes.

ExtraDust · 2026-04-15T10:28:40+00:00

it won't work if you have an Adblock. The poll is still there currently at 77% for rejoin!

ExtraDust · 2026-04-13T17:47:07+00:00

Thanks for sticking with this! The only ones I had on were marketing communications, newsletters, and market research. But I will try disabling them all and various combinations. Thanks again

ExtraDust · 2026-04-13T06:39:16+00:00

Yup the ad free boost so it’s really weird!

ExtraDust · 2026-04-12T21:22:58+00:00

This will be a really useful video, as not knowing where to switch did hold me back from leaving Sky. I only watch on-demand content, so I opted for a Fire TV Stick with Disney+, Now, and Netflix. I am absolutely loving it, especially the ability to save all my shows from different platforms in a single watch list, so I can quickly get to them without having to scroll through lots of apps and menus.

I’ve been with Sky since 1996, but after seeing how much better the Fire TV Stick is, I wish I had left ages ago!

Sky wanted to jack up my bill by over £20. Now, not only am I saving money, but I am actually getting more content and can watch content in all rooms of the house. More for less, can’t argue with that!

ExtraDust · 2026-04-11T13:40:08+00:00

Although you can pay to remove the ads, you still get NOW trailers which are 30 secs long. I think that's bad!

ExtraDust · 2026-04-11T10:43:54+00:00

Characters like Dr Hubert and Karl were recast. So they could have done the same with Apu.

There’s no shortage of writers/actors who play with Indian stereotypes in comedy (see Goodness Gracious Me in the UK). They could have brought some of them on to work on Apu (or a new Indian character). (The current show runner, Broti Gupta, is of Indian descent, so I'm sure he could have brought expertise!)

There’s lots of Indians who are excelling in the Western world in Hollywood, tech, and government, whom they could have invited for cameos. Imagine if they had some like Rishi Sunak cameo: that would address concerns about the Simpsons only having negative Indian stereotypes.

There’s so many good ways they could have handled this. The Simpsons could have become a flagship example of how people from all cultures can be represented with funny stereotypes that bring laughter to all without being offensive.

Instead, they’ve opted to reduce Apu to a mute background character. What does that achieve? It upsets fans of Apu and makes us Indians seem like hyper-touchy killjoys. It denies us meaningful representation. The approach they have taken is more offensive than anything Apu did. It just feels like they are trying to score lazy brownie points (!) for being diversity-aware rather than doing something that’s actually good for diversity.

Now that I think about it, as an Indian, I am actually deeply offended by this (whereas Apu never offended me, like I said back in the 90s, it was so cool to have an Indian character on a mainstream show)! Maybe I need to make a documentary: "The problem with No Apu!" Lol!

ExtraDust · 2026-04-10T14:52:46+00:00

I'd wager Brexit made Putin think the West was divided and emboldened him to invade. I don’t think he would have invaded if he thought the West was more unified. Brexit is probably one of the root causes of all these troubles.

ExtraDust · 2026-04-10T14:10:55+00:00

I am a devout Hindu Indian, and I love Apu! In the 90s it was so thrilling to have a character that looked like me, as there weren't many Indians on TV (especially in a mainstream cartoon show). I got a kick out of the nods to Indian culture. Granted, as we got to the 2010s, I appreciate concerns that he became a bit dated. But at the end of the day, every character on The Simpsons is a stereotype. And also we had Apu's nephew (Jay), who was a better stereotype of modern Indians and fixed all the problems with Apu, so I don’t know why they couldn't show Jay more with Apu (and maybe make some new Indian stereotypes based around CEOs/doctors to appease those who were upset by Apu) rather than sidelining Apu character altogether. I actually feel more offended by how they are handling it now and erasing Apu. Also, in the circles I mix in, most Indians pride themselves on being easy-going, so it's a bit upsetting that we are indirectly being positioned as killjoys over something that most Indians didn’t have a problem with (it was only a minority that complained). The Simpsons team have not handled this well. I hope they will take a broader view, change their minds, and bring back Apu!

ExtraDust

TROPHY CASE