We've already established that BBC 3 is not your thing. Don't watch it! It's not for you to decide what others should or should not watch.
The problem there is that I am not allowed to watch any live TV without funding it, it's not an issue of simply don't like don't watch. Imagine if there was an Internet licence that sent all the funds to Wikipedia even though you may not like it.
I didn't ask for examples of "weird shows". I asked for examples of programmes which trying to push abnormal views. Which of these programmes are trying to push "abnormal" views views? Is it the drag race?
It was all the ones I listed. I don't know about you, but I consider a show about getting to know stalkers and their side of the story is abnormal.
I asked you to back up your assertions. You haven't, really, done that then got annoyed when challenged to do so.
If nothing I have said means anything at all, please just tell me what evidence would be acceptable that BBC3 and the other BBCs are not superb in every single way?
I knew it would be Gary Lineker. I wonder if the issue is not so much his salary and more that he says things on twitter you don't like/your favoured media commentators tell you not to like.
The salaries of most programmes are over-inflated, the newscasters like the royal correspondent for example, who does less than an hour's worth of TV time a week for decades on so called news stories such as "the palace has released a new picture". I don't use Twitter or follow any media commentators in any way.
Now your argument has changed from it being all snobby snobby to it is all repeats. Which is it?
Looking through the schedule again, BBC4 is mostly repeats everyday, but they did have a lot of shows about classical music when I had live TV a couple of years back.
no, that is exactly what you are asking for. You want this channel "cancelled" because you don't like it. The channel isn't designed to deliver the "basics" as you see them as they are covered elsewhere on the BBC but to appeal to a particular demographic who the BBC feel are under represented elsewhere.
I want ideally, people to be able to watch TV freely. As that is not the case, the compromise is that people should only have to pay for TV channels that they actually use. BBC3 is funded by every TV licence holder and very few will ever watch it.
Not sure I understand this point. It seems to be that the BBC shouldn't complete. You complain they spend money then complain they try to earn money/viewers! It cant be both.
You are right there, it can't be both, however the BBC is trying to be both a public service broadcaster, one which is funded by the public for various reasons, while also trying to be a commercial network earning vast sums by selling products back to their other UKTV channels with adverts, charging for former Iplayer shows on Britbox, etc, which is damaging to the rest of the domestic TV sector while they are guaranteed funding anyway.
I know. I found them very calming at a time when I needed some calm.
BBC1 does have a rather calm edge to it, until Eastenders time I guess.
The Wright Stuff on Channel 5 was the extreme opposite. I find calm in my old video games (Civ3 for example), it is needed in this hectic world of scary news like WW3 looming, bills going to skyrocket etc.
I respect that you feel calm from them, and I am glad you do.
My ultimate point is that the BBC should be slimmed to one entertainment channel, a few radio channels, and the news channel to reduce costs to the public, repeat airings, low quality programs, and the BBC should either make their money through the licence fee or through commercial ways, not both at the same time.
Just respect that when I get letters through my letterbox threatening me with £1,000 fines when I never watch live TV or Iplayer, I lose my sense of calm.