Save the BBC petition.

[nicko31]

F**ked over by the Tories

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/23/met-office-loses-bbc-weather-forecasting-contract

Slowly dismantling anything good left about the UK

 

[Springal]

F**ked over by the Tories

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/23/met-office-loses-bbc-weather-forecasting-contract

Slowly dismantling anything good left about the UK

Or maybe just an organisation in a very comfortable position supplying services to a publicly funded organisation ?

 

[nicko31]

Or maybe just an organisation in a very comfortable position supplying services to a publicly funded organisation ?

Coming soon Channel 5 style weather bulletins.

It really all about the government undermining the Beeb under the veil of saving money, and cosying up to the Murdoch's

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...l-always-likes-to-back-a-winner-10431838.html

We had Leveson, little has changed.

 

[chaileyjem]

PS: I work for the BBC so you can take these with a pinch of salt but here's some useful quotes.

97% of adults in the UK consume some of the BBC's output every week. ie: pretty much everyone. There are some, including on this thread, that say they don't use the BBC or don't watch its programmes but its a tiny tiny minority.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/2015/annual_report.html

Some on here think the licence fee isn't fair. The existing government recently reviewed how the licence fee was collected and existing sanctions and concluded
"the current system is appropriate and fair"
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/independent-review-on-tv-licence-enforcement-published

Some, on other NSC threads say the BBC shouldn't be trusted yet its by far the most trusted news source in the UK
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/624533364352135168

Some, argue that the licence fee is too much. In real terms its cost has declined substantially over the last decade (unlike Sky, BT or Virgin)
https://twitter.com/AboutTheBBC/status/620927761746690049

Some on here argue that the BBC wastes money. In fact the DCMS committee said earlier this year
"The BBC’s achievement of cumulative savings of £1.1 billion since 2007 is commendable given the relatively small negative impact they have had on audiences’ appreciation and on reach of its services"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2015/nao-efficiency

The National Audit office when asked to audit the BBC said
"It has so far delivered value for money in that overall reported savings of £374m are broadly in line with forecasts, exceed implementations costs and appear to have had a limited impact on performance. The BBC has made savings from sources such as renegotiating existing contracts, limiting salary increases and reducing the number of more expensive senior staff.”

 

[JOLovegrove]

PS: I work for the BBC so you can take these with a pinch of salt but here's some useful quotes.

97% of adults in the UK consume some of the BBC's output every week. ie: pretty much everyone. There are some, including on this thread, that say they don't use the BBC or don't watch its programmes but its a tiny tiny minority.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/2015/annual_report.html

Some on here think the licence fee isn't fair. The existing government recently reviewed how the licence fee was collected and existing sanctions and concluded
"the current system is appropriate and fair"
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/independent-review-on-tv-licence-enforcement-published

Some, on other NSC threads say the BBC shouldn't be trusted yet its by far the most trusted news source in the UK
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/624533364352135168

Some, argue that the licence fee is too much. In real terms its cost has declined substantially over the last decade (unlike Sky, BT or Virgin)
https://twitter.com/AboutTheBBC/status/620927761746690049

Some on here argue that the BBC wastes money. In fact the DCMS committee said earlier this year
"The BBC’s achievement of cumulative savings of £1.1 billion since 2007 is commendable given the relatively small negative impact they have had on audiences’ appreciation and on reach of its services"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2015/nao-efficiency

The National Audit office when asked to audit the BBC said
"It has so far delivered value for money in that overall reported savings of £374m are broadly in line with forecasts, exceed implementations costs and appear to have had a limited impact on performance. The BBC has made savings from sources such as renegotiating existing contracts, limiting salary increases and reducing the number of more expensive senior staff.”

Some really intersting points. Just out of curiosity, what do you do at the BBC?

 

[Working class pride]

The BBC have been very good historically and is a real asset for the country. However the BBC does cross the line between reporting the news and trying to make the news. Radio 5 Live are now very guilty of that and I have stopped listening to it as a result. Taking it away from Tories v Labour, the women's world cup coverage is a good example. They were calling the ladies players "legends" and they spent allot of money on that. Reality from a comparative / objective test perspective is that the product and quality of women's football is poor. The players are not "legends". To call them so is to promote a good or bad political opinion depending on your viewpoint. It might be a good thing to do to promote women's football. I happen to think that it is good thing to do but that is irrelevant. It is not the role of the BBC to promote anything. Their job is to report, not make the news. It was an agenda that we can agree or disagree with but the BBC should not be forming a political opinion to create that agenda in the first place. Their job is just to provide entertainment and news. What they spend the money on should be objective and not coloured by good or bad political opinions. The BBC is not free. It should not be forgotten that the BBC is paid for by a forced fee. From a liberal perspective, forcing anyone to do anything is not a good thing and so the scope of that has to be looked at. There is an argument to say that the news should be funded by a compulsory forced licence fee but the rest should not. The BBC and their employees have no divine right to take our money to then do what they want with it. A licence fee to pay for a quality news service is something I follow, but I can the argument from ITV that Eastenders as a show should compete with Coronation Street on a level playing field. The down side will of course be even more adverts on telly.

 

[nicko31]

PS: I work for the BBC so you can take these with a pinch of salt but here's some useful quotes.

97% of adults in the UK consume some of the BBC's output every week. ie: pretty much everyone. There are some, including on this thread, that say they don't use the BBC or don't watch its programmes but its a tiny tiny minority.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/2015/annual_report.html

Some on here think the licence fee isn't fair. The existing government recently reviewed how the licence fee was collected and existing sanctions and concluded
"the current system is appropriate and fair"
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/independent-review-on-tv-licence-enforcement-published

Some, on other NSC threads say the BBC shouldn't be trusted yet its by far the most trusted news source in the UK
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/624533364352135168

Some, argue that the licence fee is too much. In real terms its cost has declined substantially over the last decade (unlike Sky, BT or Virgin)
https://twitter.com/AboutTheBBC/status/620927761746690049

Some on here argue that the BBC wastes money. In fact the DCMS committee said earlier this year
"The BBC’s achievement of cumulative savings of £1.1 billion since 2007 is commendable given the relatively small negative impact they have had on audiences’ appreciation and on reach of its services"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2015/nao-efficiency

The National Audit office when asked to audit the BBC said
"It has so far delivered value for money in that overall reported savings of £374m are broadly in line with forecasts, exceed implementations costs and appear to have had a limited impact on performance. The BBC has made savings from sources such as renegotiating existing contracts, limiting salary increases and reducing the number of more expensive senior staff.”

I feel for you, the Tories really do want Fox News UK as soon as possible