'Austerity' at the BBC

Originally Posted by carlwaring

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

Yes it was and you where quite clear about it because

i said

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

you said

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

so i stand by my point of many, many people in many countries could manage perfectly fine without it and since you introduced "many, many people in many countries" into the discussion (so you must be referring to the world service as well) ,let those many ,many people in many countries contribute if they want the service

Personally I'd rather have the Beeb acting as a public broadcaster than leave it to the private media who frankly have shown themselves to be irresponsible when it comes to disseminating info and creativity to the country.

Looking at what's been available all across the 100 or so channels I have access to recently I'm afraid the Beeb still wins hands down and because ALL political parties accuse the BBC of bias on a very regular basis I think they are still doing a good job.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by martyh

Yes it was and you where quite clear about it because

i said



you said ...

As I said, I was referring to other country's PSB equivalents rather than the BBC specifically. Obviously I should have been clearer in the distinction. So apologies for that.

---------- Post added at 19:52 ---------- Previous post was at 19:45 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Personally I'd rather have the Beeb acting as a public broadcaster than leave it to the private media who frankly have shown themselves to be irresponsible when it comes to disseminating info and creativity to the country.

Exactly. Plus the fact that they can (and have to) produce such a wide variety of programmes and they can and do do so precisely because of the way they are funded; ie because the do not have to rely exclusively on the commercially-successful programmes.

If we didn't have the BBC we'd only have ITV

Looking at what's been available all across the 100 or so channels I have access to recently I'm afraid the Beeb still wins hands down and because ALL political parties accuse the BBC of bias on a very regular basis I think they are still doing a good job.

And this

Also, I'm sure someone said that "the BBC could shut down tomorrow" and it wouldn't make any difference to anything. Well, apart from all those lost jobs, and the couple of £1bn that the company contributes to the UK economy each year, I suppose they might be right. On the upside, those with transferable skills will certainly be able to get a similar job earning a lot more money

However, in the interests of not going round and round in circles for days on end not getting anywhere, I would like to suggest we leave it there.

[carlwaring]

One final post from me, just to put it into perspective a little.

Well, I say "from me". It's a link and quotes of a post over on the DS Forums.

This is the original post

http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.u...Forest_s_ex_MP

FORMER Wyre Forest MP, Dr Richard Taylor, will receive £32,383 as a golden goodbye after losing his seat in the General Election.

Departing MPs are receiving one-off resettlement grants of 50 to 100 per cent of their annual salary, dependent on their age and length of service.

The first £30,000 is tax-free and is in addition to a Parliamentary pension.

The grant has been seen as the equivalent of a redundancy payment, so MPs find it easier “adjusting to non–Parliamentary life”.

<snipped>

According to research by The Taxpayers’ Alliance (TPA), 218 departing MPs are entitled to a total of £10.4 million – an average of £47,706.

Within that figure, defeated MPs are entitled to £3,312,328 in total.

In their submission to Sir Christopher Kelly’s inquiry into MPs’ pay and expenses, the TPA has recommended awarding defeated MPs one month’s pay.

According to its research, the highest payout in the West Midlands go to former Birmingham, Ladywood MP, Clare Short and Cannock Chase’s Tony Wright, who both stepped down and will receive £64,766 each.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-1692548.html

The dozen MPs who are quitting at the next election in the wake of the expenses scandal will receive from the taxpayer "golden goodbyes" worth more than £1m combined.

Their continuing salaries will cost a further £600,000 if the Prime Minister Gordon Brown delays calling the polling day until next spring.

And they will leave Westminster knowing that they sit on a combined taxpayer-subsidised pension pot of some £12.5m – more than £1m each.

<snipped>

Seven of the 12, including Mr MacKay, will get handouts worth more than £105,000. Ms Moran is in line to pick up £95,000, while Ms Kirkbride will receive £73,000.

Apart from Michael Martin, who is quitting as both Speaker and as an MP next month, the MPs qualify for two handouts because they are remaining in the Commons until next year.

All MPs who step down or are defeated at a general election are paid a "resettlement grant" of up to a year's salary – currently £64,766 – varying according to their age and length of service. The first £30,000 is tax-free.

In addition, all MPs can claim a maximum of £40,799 for "winding-up costs", covering the cost of paying off staff and ending office leases.

Their final salary pension schemes mean that departing MPs with 27 years' service are entitled to an annual pension of £43,400 at today's prices when they reach the age of 65.

Even an MP with only 13 years in the Commons, such as Ms Kirkbride or Ms Moran, could expect to receive a pension of more than £20,000.

Pensions expert Tom McPhail, of Hargreaves Lansdown, said: "The scheme is unsustainably generous. It exists in a different world to the 28 million working taxpayers."

---------- Post added 27-12-2012 at 00:01 ---------- Previous post was 26-12-2012 at 23:04 ----------

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20844251
"National Audit Office to examine BBC pay-offs"

As with the previous investigation of this type (ie executive pay), I'm sure they will find nothing wrong.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

As with the previous investigation of this type (ie executive pay), I'm sure they will find nothing wrong.

Meanwhile i hope they do, they might think twice next time.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Meanwhile i hope they do, they might think twice next time.

Can't see it sadly. Some people just feel they're 'entitled' no matter what the prevailing economic circumstances. Clearly the way in which the BBC enters in contracts with senior managers is also an issue. If that doesn't change then the payoffs and perks won't either.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Meanwhile i hope they do, they might think twice next time.

Given that, as has been clearly demonstrated, the BBC is no different than any other public sector company in its pay and pay-off systems, what exactly do you think they're going to find?

Personally, I think the £2m the BBC was forced to waste because some anti-BBC newspapers screamed "cover-up" over the Jimmy Savile 'Newsnight' issue was a bigger waste of money than they industry/public sector-standard pay deals.

Originally Posted by Osem

Some people just feel they're 'entitled' no matter what the prevailing economic circumstances.

A problem which, has also been clearly demonstrated seems to not be confined to the BBC.

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Given that, as has been clearly demonstrated, the BBC is no different than any other public sector company in its pay and pay-off systems, what exactly do you think they're going to find?

Personally, I think the £2m the BBC was forced to waste because some anti-BBC newspapers screamed "cover-up" over the Jimmy Savile 'Newsnight' issue was a bigger waste of money than they industry/public sector-standard pay deals.


A problem which, has also been clearly demonstrated seems to not be confined to the BBC.

The BBC is not a private enterprise ,it is run using tax money and is accountable to fee payers not share holders .Private companies can pay what they like ,the BBC or any other state run company for that matter can't .I wish you would stop the comparisons as there aren't any ,the BBC is unique and has no viable comparator in the media industry

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by martyh

The BBC is not a private enterprise ,it is run using tax money and is accountable to fee payers not share holders.

True. But it does have to live and survive in the commercial world of broadcasting.

It already pays lower rates than the commercial sector. You want it to lower it's other benefits too?

"Come and work for the BBC. We don't pay as much as your Final Salary Pension (and other benefits) won't be as high, but we do have a nice Cafe. Oh, yes, but it's in Manchester!"

Sorry. Not good enough! I want my BBC to be staffed by professionals who know what they're doing, not everyone who can't get a job elsewhere.

Private companies can pay what they like

But I have given you actual figures of what other public sector bosses, etc., are getting (as well as that other "publically-funded" UK broadcaster, Channel 4). IIRC I have only mentioned one 'private company' and they gave their boss £7m when she resigned after breaking the law!!

I wish you would stop the comparisons as there aren't any ,the BBC is unique and has no viable comparator in the media industry

Exactly. Works both ways though. And, as I said, it has to survive using workers from that same media industry.

Originally Posted by carlwaring

True. But it does have to live and survive in the commercial world of broadcasting.

.

No it doesn't .The bbc gets it's money regardless .Commercial stations have to produce programs that advertisers are willing to pay money to advertise next to ,ones that will grab the audience and so watch the adverts .I they don't, advertisers will pull out, revenue will fall and share holders will kick off ,ultimately the company will fail .To get it's revenue the BBC simply has to produce programs ,if viewing figures fall then the only consequence is a change in manager ,no loss of income at all ,so in reality no competition at all

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by martyh

No it doesn't. The bbc gets it's money regardless.

Well I meant in terms of staffing, for a start. You think it would get the money if it didn't do it's job well enough? Pretty sure if it got no viewers and wasted every penny it received it would not go down very well with anyone.

Commercial stations have to produce programs that advertisers are willing to pay money to advertise next to...

Whereas the BBC do not and can therefore take risks with some programming and have a dedicated channel for programmes that may not get a lot of viewers but which is appreciated by many; BBC4.

You know you just made the case for the BBC there, don't you?

To get it's revenue the BBC simply has to produce programs..

Well yes. Apart from that Royal Charter nonsense and it's remit to "inform, educate and entertain" then yes, it can do what it likes

... ,if viewing figures fall then the only consequence is a change in manager ,no loss of income at all ,so in reality no competition at all

Yeah. Okay. Well done on completely missing the point though

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Well I meant in terms of staffing, for a start. You think it would get the money if it didn't do it's job well enough? Pretty sure if it got no viewers and wasted every penny it received it would not go down very well with anyone.

It's not going down well with ministers at the moment ,hence the investigation

Whereas the BBC do not and can therefore take risks with some programming and have a dedicated channel for programmes that may not get a lot of viewers but which is appreciated by many; BBC4.

You know you just made the case for the BBC there, don't you?

you looked at those channels recently ,BBC 3 and 4 only transmit for a few hours and when they do they are mostly repeats from BBC 1 and old stuff .Less channels and more new content is badly needed ,and i don't mean more reality tv

Well yes. Apart from that Royal Charter nonsense and it's remit to "inform, educate and entertain" then yes, it can do what it likes

which means that their remit is to produce quality programs not provide cradle to the grave luxury lifestyles for it's execs at the expense of those quality programs

Yeah. Okay. Well done on completely missing the point though

What point is that then ?you have failed to make a valid one and i just pointed out how it works .

The BBC have a market advantage in that their revenue is guaranteed and only likely to go up in the future ,i feel that program making is suffering so they can overpay their senior management .In my opinion the BBC has to change ,it cannot continue to fund all the new channels ,i player ,HD etc on it's current income and pay the wages it is to the senior management something has to give .

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by martyh

It's not going down well with ministers at the moment ,hence the investigation.

Which, as with all the previous such investigations, will find nothing out of the ordinary. So another waste of public money.

You have been reading the links and quotes I posted I assume?

you looked at those channels recently ,BBC 3 and 4 only transmit for a few hours and when they do they are mostly repeats from BBC 1 and old stuff.

I haven't had a detailed, close look, no. Have you or are you just looking at the odd day and assuming?

which means that their remit is to produce quality programs not provide cradle to the grave luxury lifestyles for it's execs at the expense of those quality programs

Good job they don't actually do that then, isn't it?!

What point is that then ?you have failed to make a valid one and i just pointed out how it works .

I give up. No, really. I have spent the last couple of days making very good points, all of which seem to have been completely ignored. Which doesn't really help in a discussion.

The BBC have a market advantage in that their revenue is guaranteed and only likely to go up in the future

Apart from the recent 16% real-terms cut, you mean? See. You aren't actually reading my responses, are you?

i feel that program making is suffering so they can overpay their senior management.

What you 'feel' is completely irrelevant. The fact is that the BBC make far more programmes of a wider range than any other UK broadcaster.

In my opinion...

And you are welcome to it.

I'm done here.

Oh how i wish bbc threads just died sorry but it always descends into the same loyal bbc diehards defending it no matter how stupidly (there are some who raise valid points but get lost in the complete rubbish spouted by others) and those who do not want it. My personal views on the bbc have been stated before so not doing it again the fact is go ask staff at other media companys and the bbc is not that highly regarded and often is the butt of jokes and perhaps it is envy but they way the bbc spends money also draws many negative comments. When you get payoffs as high as the bbc has made recently i question the "public sevice" spirit of many of it's high end staff they just seem like snouts in the trough no different to many politicians.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Oh how i wish bbc threads just died sorry but it always descends into the same loyal bbc diehards defending it no matter how stupidly (there are some who raise valid points but get lost in the complete rubbish spouted by others) and those who do not want it. My personal views on the bbc have been stated before so not doing it again the fact is go ask staff at other media companys and the bbc is not that highly regarded and often is the butt of jokes and perhaps it is envy but they way the bbc spends money also draws many negative comments. When you get payoffs as high as the bbc has made recently i question the "public sevice" spirit of many of it's high end staff they just seem like snouts in the trough no different to many politicians.

My issue with the BBC is how they force themselves on you, of course the BBC zealots will say you don't have to pay your licence and dont watch the BBC.

However if you don't pay for a licence because you dont watch the BBC rubbish and you only watch commercial stations you will still be hounded to death by the TLA who will call at your house every week till you give in and pay your TAX.

If the BBC think there product is so good then issue cards to everyone for the freeview boxes and make the BBC a subscription service to the same amount as the licence fee. That way you have the CHOICE if you want to watch the BBC then pay your subscription if you dont then you dont pay and dont watch. This will remove the other argument that they should go to a advert based system.