Should the BBC have shown the allegedly blasphemous programme, Jerry Springer: The Opera? Or should it instead as a public body not offend (or potentially offend) the religious sensibilities of a large section of the population? The BBC received 45,000 complaints before the 'Opera' had even been shown!

Many Christians feel their license fee - a yearly tax on all televisions used in the UK - should not be used to show a program which offends their views. Other viewers believe that since they have paid for a license, they should therefore have the option of watching this programme. Both have paid their dues, who gets to decide? Surely any decision is arbitrary one way or the other?

The solution is simple - cut through the Gordian knot by removing the conflict from the public domain. If Sky were to air the contentious show (or indeed Jerry Springer the program, as they have done on a multitude of occasions), you may protest to them but in the end it's the 'consumer is king'. If Sky isn't providing what you want, you may cancel your subscription. No one can legitimately claim to be wronged by this system, provided private channels don't force people to join by threat of violence (fines) and kidnapping (imprisonment) like the current system.

Abolishing the license fee and privatizing the BBC would right many wrongs currently imposed upon TV viewers. Those who do not wish to pay for such low brow humour would not have to. The invisible hand works well elsewhere in the media such as in newspapers and magazines, so why shouldn't it be given the chance in regular TV broadcasting?