'Austerity' at the BBC

Originally Posted by carlwaring

The point being that they aren't paying "over the odds". They're paying in line with others. Whether that is "over the odds" is merely personal opinion.

Sorry if I have to tighten my belt and public services are being cut back and public service workers face redundancy and job losses then the BBC has to face up to some solid truths.Even the commercial broadcasters are going to have to make cutbacks eventually.Being in line is not going to keep the revenues coming in.They are all getting a smaller and smaller slice of the revenue pie.

Originally Posted by carlwaring

...but it is a minority view.

Originally Posted by carlwaring

The point being that they aren't paying "over the odds".

These are also merely your "personal opinions".

I strongly advise you stop rubbishing other peoples opinions in every other post.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

BBC1 and BBC2 are the most-watched pair of channels from any single broadcaster.

Now, either people are simply watching the BBC "because they're forced to pay for it" or the BBC are actually making programmes that people want to watch.

However, that's OT so if you want to carry on with it, start another thread

That is nothing to do with what i asked.

martyh said

Originally Posted by martyh

well it's not ,and its ridiculous to suggest it is

You said

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Well that may be your opinion, and of course you are welcome to it, but it is a minority view.

I asked

Originally Posted by Sirius

Would you like to show proof ?

You answered with this

Originally Posted by carlwaring

BBC1 and BBC2 are the most-watched pair of channels from any single broadcaster.

Now, either people are simply watching the BBC "because they're forced to pay for it" or the BBC are actually making programmes that people want to watch.

However, that's OT so if you want to carry on with it, start another thread

Which did not answer the QUESTION raised where is the proof in you statement, i did not see you state it was your opinion, your post indecated to me it was a fact.

Originally Posted by carlwaring

but it is a minority view.

So please answer the question asked.

The BBC do need to pay inline with other broadcasters otherwise they'll continually struggle to attract talented and qualified people and find the ones they do have poached by the likes of Sky. Spending less on less talented people is just wasting all our money.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Damien

The BBC do need to pay inline with other broadcasters otherwise they'll continually struggle to attract talented and qualified people and find the ones they do have poached by the likes of Sky. Spending less on less talented people is just wasting all our money.

But giving that money away in high pay offs to managers and directors because they are not good enough or drop the BBC in the poo is a waste of our licence tax as well.

Originally Posted by martyh

well it's not ,and its ridiculous to suggest it is

It's not essential but I do think it's important. The BBC has been a strong developer of British writers, directors, comedians and actors. It's presence has a positive effect on all the other channels who need to keep to a certain standard in order not to be absolutely trounced by the Beeb. It also allows other channels to take advertising revenue for themselves, if the BBC went to an ad-supported network ITV and Channel 4 would find it very difficult indeed.

Go to France and look at the quality of their TV. It's awful. This is a country with a good artistic culture and yet their TV is so devoid of any creativity it's shameful. It's very bad. We would probably follow with extremely cheap to produce TV Studio shows and American imports.

Monty Python?
Yes, Minister?
In the Thick of It?
Planet Earth?
So many of the BBC's nature, science and history series?

The list goes on and how many of those shows would be commissioned when advertising money is king? Planet Earth is simply not possible, it's ratings were never, ever, going to be good enough to recoup the vast investment had. Especially in a country whose population isn't large enough to make enough money from anything considered to be a niche market. We couldn't make a British HBO work for example...

So it's not essential but I think it's very important.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Damien

It's not essential but I do think it's important. The BBC has been a strong developer of British writers, directors, comedians and actors. It's presence has a positive effect on all the other channels who need to keep to a certain standard in order not to be absolutely trounced by the Beeb. It also allows other channels not to take advertising revenue for themselves, if the BBC went to an ad-supported network ITV and Channel 4 would find it very difficult indeed.

Go to France and look at the quality of their TV. It's awful. This is a country with a good artistic culture and yet their TV is so devoid of any creativity it's shameful. It's very bad. We would probably follow to extremely cheap to produce TV Studio shows and American importants.

Monty Python?
Yes, Minister?
In the Thick of It?
Planet Earth?
So many of the BBC's nature, science and history series?

The list goes on and how many of those shows would be commissioned when advertising money is king? Planet Earth is simply not possible, it's ratings were never, ever, going to be good enough to recoup the vast investment had. Especially in a country whose population isn't large enough to make enough money from anything considered to be a niche market. We couldn't make a British HBO work for example...

So it's not essential but I think it's very important.

Damien


Thats a much better answer than a "Thats rubbish"

Thank you

It would be nice to see Carl's proof for his statement however.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Sirius

But giving that money away in high pay offs to managers and directors because they are not good enough or drop the BBC in the poo is a waste of our licence tax as well.

Quite right.

Given they are the custodians of so much heritage and a good deal of public money they really ought to be beyond reproach in their financial arrangements, ensuring the public value for money and not being seen to reward failure.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Paul M

These are also merely your "personal opinions".

I strongly advise you stop rubbishing other peoples opinions in every other post.

I have posted links which prove that it is not just my opinion. I can't help it if people won't read what I post.

---------- Post added at 15:25 ---------- Previous post was at 15:11 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

Given they are the custodians of so much heritage and a good deal of public money they really ought to be beyond reproach in their financial arrangements, ensuring the public value for money and not being seen to reward failure.

And so they are. They receive no more or less than those in similar positions in other public sector positions (as I have recently proved) and often much less than other broadcasters.

That you feel they should get less is a valid opinion of course.

Originally Posted by Damien

The BBC do need to pay inline with other broadcasters otherwise they'll continually struggle to attract talented and qualified people and find the ones they do have poached by the likes of Sky. Spending less on less talented people is just wasting all our money.

So is over paying for inept people who cannot do the job.

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J

So telling the TVL that you don't need a licence would put a stop to the threatening letters and the enforcement officers knocking at the door? Nah...

Nope, they also won't even believe you if you say its only on for the dog

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Qtx

Nope, they also won't even believe you if you say its only on for the dog

Then the dog can pay his own BBC tax

Originally Posted by Maggy J

So is over paying for inept people who cannot do the job.

Yes but for the most part I don't think that is a feature of the BBC. The last Director General was, by most accounts, a talented and capable man but was caught out by the crisis. He didn't really do anything too wrong until he claimed he hadn't read the papers about the Lord McAlpin scandal.

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Then the dog can pay his own BBC tax

She only watches 3D stuff though (seriously). She should get a discount!

Originally Posted by Damien

Yes but for the most part I don't think that is a feature of the BBC. The last Director General was, by most accounts, a talented and capable man but was caught out by the crisis. He didn't really do anything too wrong until he claimed he hadn't read the papers about the Lord McAlpin scandal.

I'm sorry but someone at that level in the BBC should be more on the ball.I'm sorry that he was in over his head but we need people of better calibre.We need more Rieths