[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by toonlight

Well a tax payer in general carl plus a private sector worker for many years who seen all how the public sectors workers get for doing sweet fanny adams nothing but moan when they have work by pulling their finger out to work for there "self called" little amount of money.....

So basically no actual relevant experience to say whether or not the BBC are actually over-staffed then. Just a general feeling that "well they're public sector workers so they must be? Okay. Glad we got that cleared up and we can safely ignore your opinion as just that.

like the BBC workers are public servants right ? Yes it's publicly funded for peats sake

Except that they're actually not "public sector" workers in the sense that you mean it.

So like any other public owned service it should be run on a tight shoe string no more extra expense than need unlike now days.

So do you have any examples of this "extra un-necessary expense" then, or are you just parroting the Daily Wail?

You have person for H & S person for paper pushing, person for that then this, then that it goes on!!! Typical time wasting exercises to fool unquestioning fellow tax payer/s paying their wages I may add,

This makes no sense, so I'm going to have to ignore it as nonsense.

then they ask for a license fee on top after we paid for them already...

More nonsense. What have we "paid them already" that they then shouldn't need to "ask for a Licence Fee for"?

I never leave nothing anything to chance as you have gathered, you have question everything leave nothing unturned I may add in todays world if you don't you will never know how little we a taxpayers have to rightly pay not be mugged at every corner with tax like untold numbers that do willing & not wake there feeling to the system of big government that make them slaves to the system.

Good question, fellow kind sir....

I thought so.

well all the red tape jobs first & easy one like as that of a eg; personal manager, all H + S enforcers staff + alike then work your way from the top down, like it should be like.

I assume you mean "personnel" manager?

So the BBC shouldn't employ anyone who is "..responsible for managing the welfare and performance of everyone within the organization." (link) You don't think the welfare and performance of a company's employees is anything for said company to bother about?

Shear off most top level management, then their paid followers.

Well they're cutting their pay. That's a start

Hows for a start my second would be to drive down the cost of production to the minimum unlike now even only pay on percentage then the rest on performance rated pay.

The BBC already pays far less than any equivalent commercial-sector job, so I don't think there's any reason to cut things further. However, there is a more cuts to come and it's all detailed here.

{snip a load of stuff I cba to read}

Well like all of the BBC's assortment of media outlets, they leach from other sources rather that source it for themselves..

Again, you're going to have to provide some examples of what you mean because I don't know what you're on about

Reading a piece the other day, how the BBC is trying to muscle out all the commercial sources in all type of media these days..

No, they really aren't

take "the voice" on BBC1 theres a good example for you where corp' is heading - wanting to be a commercial but still over funded by tax payers squeezing out the smaller players that produce a higher quality of programming other than what rubbish the BBC produces in todays world.

They don't "want to be commercial" at all. No commercial channel wants them to be commercial either because it would be very bad for them. But it is true that the BBC does operate in a commercial media environment.

All repeats...

Massive over-statement there

poor lack luster type of programming, no new ideas + or themes but the old form of produced rubbish..

Subjective. I disagree.

..then they wonder why are they viewing figure are falling big each year... any one guess why?

Because ever TV channel viewing figures are falling due to there being ever more channels to watch.

However, despite that, BBC1 and BBC2 remain by far the most-watched pair of channels from any single broadcaster.

Thats true, each of us have our own views but the BBC corp needs to brought down to it's knees & it to be cut down to it real size - cut 75% of the lot of it

As I understand it, a report a few years ago by the Conservative Party concluded that, to strip the BBC down to "PSB only" (though they didn't say whose definition of PSB they were using) would save each LF payer a grand total of just £6 per year. So they buried it and turned it into "LF freeze" instead.

..plus run on shoe string budget no extra expense

You got any examples? Here's one. For the entire Beijing Olympics, the BBC took a team of a little over 400 people. That's for their entire coverage; start to finish on all outlets. For one, standard, 90m football match in the UK, Sky use 120 people. So, in your opinion, which of those is the more wasteful?

So I hope I've answered all your questions...

Not so much, really. You've ranted a lot, though. Hope you feel better now