'Austerity' at the BBC

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by martyh

Basically Peel Holdings sell an empty shell which the beeb have to pay external contractors to fit out ,who in turn see the "tax money" available and treble their normal costs ,the same as any other commercial lease so either way you look at it ,it was a Billion £ + move

I know what they do as i have been in those offices many times. I was shocked at the facilities they get for free sorry at the tax payers expense

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Exactly, with a garanteed income no matter how epic the failures ...

Such as? Yes. A couple of dodgy decisions news-wise this year which, in fact, were polar opposites of each other.

...there'll be no change.

Well, there will, of course, be changes. But whatever they do, some people won't be happy.

Normal advertising/subscription income would have run a mile over the Savile affair...

Something you simply cannot prove. And what about the NHS? They didn't "run a mile" from him. In fact, they embraced him and placed him un-supervised nearer even-more vunerable young people than the BBC ever did.

but apart from paying off an incompetent DG with twice the amount needed...

It was either that or potentially a lot more money after a costly legal battle. And, of course, this was after his 20+ years at the BBC, not just for his 54 days as DG.

But don't let facts get in your way, will you?

True austerity would be a 20-25% cut in the TV tax.

Well they have already had a 16-20% cut in real terms with the latest settlement. So you're not far off.

---------- Post added at 14:39 ---------- Previous post was at 14:38 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

Question for you CARL have you been in the BBC buildings at Media City ?????

Yes. But not inside. I have seen the privately-owned Media City.

---------- Post added at 14:40 ---------- Previous post was at 14:39 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

Carl what they PUT in there buildings as everything to do with them or do peel holdings say what computers and coffee machines they use, what mood rooms they have, what rest areas they have with snooze chairs and other delights.

Fair enough. I see your point now. However, you expect them to have crap in there?

Originally Posted by Chris

I have - and to be honest I didn't think they were so different to any other modern work space I've been in, especially not different to any comparable creative workspace.

But this is the BBC. They're supposed to make do with what everyone else throw's out aren't they?

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Chris

I have - and to be honest I didn't think they were so different to any other modern work space I've been in, especially not different to any comparable creative workspace.

I suppose it depends on what your used to, i certainly don't get the free facilities they get.

---------- Post added at 14:46 ---------- Previous post was at 14:41 ----------

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Fair enough. I see your point now. However, you expect them to have crap in there?

No i don't but i don't expect them to waste money on top of the range kit ether.

The BBC are arrogant in the extreme because they have money presented on a plate to them every year via what equates to a tax.

Originally Posted by carlwaring

But this is the BBC. They're supposed to make do with what everyone else throw's out aren't they?

No ,they are supposed use tax money with care and efficiency.The NAO will look to see if that is the case or not ,and i have a feeling it will not look favourable for the BBC

[Mick Fisher]

Originally Posted by denphone

We basically watched what we have recorded in the last few weeks as that way you miss out on the rubbish being served up

Me too.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

But this is the BBC. They're supposed to make do with what everyone else throw's out aren't they?

Not at all they are to use tax payers money in such a way as to get value for money.

[Mick Fisher]

The Beeb are just the same as most other large organisations that have seen their income curtailed. They just cut services and customer facing staff or in the Beeb's case drastically reduce the quantity and quality of programming across the board.

Meanwhile Exec and senior management continue to live the high life and trouser seemingly ever increasing perks, bonuses and pensions.

As well as the EU I think it's time for a referendum on whether or not we really need the burden of the BBC in it's present form or if at all.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Sirius

The BBC are arrogant in the extreme because they have money presented on a plate to them every year via what equates to a tax.

As do the NHS and, IIRC, they have wasted far more than the BBC on many things on many occasions. Like a £12bn computer system for example. That was 3x what the BBC get every year.

---------- Post added at 15:24 ---------- Previous post was at 15:23 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

Not at all they are to use tax payers money in such a way as to get value for money.

Which, for the most part, they do. Unlike, say, the NHS.

---------- Post added at 15:30 ---------- Previous post was at 15:24 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

The Beeb are just the same as most other large organisations that have seen their income curtailed. They just cut services and customer facing staff or in the Beeb's case drastically reduce the quantity and quality of programming across the board.

Quality is subjective. And I think prime-time programming has been 'protcted', as has some other. But yes, some things have been changed; for the better some might say,

Meanwhile Exec and senior management continue to live the high life and trouser seemingly ever increasing perks, bonuses and pensions.

Not according to this article. ISTR a more recent one saying that this had actually happened from earlier this year but can't find it right now.

As well as the EU I think it's time for a referendum on whether or not we really need the burden of the BBC in it's present form or if at all.

Do we need a national broadcaster, free from commercial pressures? Sure we do. As do many other countries.

Originally Posted by carlwaring

As do the NHS and, IIRC, they have wasted far more than the BBC on many things on many occasions. Like a £12bn computer system for example. That was 3x what the BBC get every year.
.

This thread is about the BBC though,and the NHS budget is far greater than the BBC's ,also the BBC is a luxury ,a non essential service

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by martyh

This thread is about the BBC though,and the NHS budget is far greater than the BBC's ,also the BBC is a luxury ,a non essential service

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by martyh

This thread is about the BBC though...

As both are, essentially, public services, the comparison is valid.

..and the NHS budget is far greater than the BBC's

If the comparison was "public services that waste money" then it is valid.

..also the BBC is a luxury ,a non essential service

Many, many people (in many countries) would disagree with you on that.

Why is a public service broadcaster, free from the pressures of commercialisation, not essential?

Perhaps Libraries aren't really essential as you can buy books from bookshops, but we still have them.

Is the NHS essential when we could all buy our healthcare needs from BUPA? (for example.)

(For the avoidance of doubt, my answer in all cases, is yes!)

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Many, many people (in many countries) would disagree with you on that.

Carl the BBC is NOT in the same league as the BBC not matter how much you say it is. One saves lives the other peddles entertainment. You always try to put the BBC on the same level as the NHS or other essencial services, when the BBC can carry out life saving operations i might agree with you till then all i see is you spouting your usual "I say the BBC is great and therefor you should all think so as well"

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Carl the BBC is NOT in the same league as the NHS not matter how much you say it is. One saves lives the other peddles entertainment.

(I am assuming, before you edit it, that you meant "the NHS" there?!)

I'm not saying anything. But that you think the BBC only "peddles entertainment" says more about your problem (one might say "bias") with the BBC than it does about the BBC itself.

---------- Post added at 16:37 ---------- Previous post was at 16:31 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

You always try to put the BBC on the same level as the NHS or other essencial services...

Actually, no. Not at all. They are - whether you agree or not - currently both public services and that is the only level on which I am comparing them.

Besides, who says that public services have to only and exclusively be absolutely essential? Are local, council-run public swimming pools essential? Debatable, but most councils seem to have one.

Originally Posted by carlwaring

As both are, essentially, public services, the comparison is valid.


If the comparison was "public services that waste money" then it is valid.


Many, many people (in many countries) would disagree with you on that.

Why is a public service broadcaster, free from the pressures of commercialisation, not essential?

Perhaps Libraries aren't really essential as you can buy books from bookshops, but we still have them.

Is the NHS essential when we could all buy our healthcare needs from BUPA? (for example.)

(For the avoidance of doubt, my answer in all cases, is yes!)

Everybody in the whole wide world could function quite adequately if the BBC was taken off air tomorrow.And since you keep bringing up the world service which is part funded by licence fees how about some of those extremely greatfull foreigners cough up some wedge to pay for it and then see how long it lasts

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by martyh

Everybody in the whole wide world could function quite adequately if the BBC was taken off air tomorrow.

True. But that wasn't my point. Which, again, seems to have been completely ignored. I wonder why?

And since you keep bringing up the world service...

I have not once mentioned the World Service so I don't know where you got that from?

I was, in fact, referring to public services broadcasters in other countries; many of which are also funded by a TV Licence of some description.