Tory plan to destroy the Beeb...

[chaileyjem]

£180/year doesn't sound so great if you're not a Cash in the Attic fan.

Its £145.50.

 

[Codner's Wallop]

As someone who understands and works closely alongside the BBC, I can say, quite categorically, it is the most overblown, self-indulgent, exclusive club in the world. Ironic, for an institution often touted as a socialist, leftie machine.The lack of accountability is a disgrace. And it's all you guys (me included) paying the membership fees. The BBC, as an institution, can exist only by the generosity (enforced) of its patrons. Without this obscene and wholly undemocratic 'tax', the BBC would disintegrate and die. In a world of fairies and happy endings, this would be a tragedy. But what about the billion other companies and institutions which no longer exist in the real world? Should we also be dipping in our pockets to save them too? Of course not. Axe the BBC, save the money and make its club members find 'real' jobs.

 

[drew]

How to make something expensive seem cheap: divide by 365 and quote per day.

£180/year doesn't sound so great if you're not a Cash in the Attic fan.

Keep the news, keep the national radio and website, keep the core channels, scrap the rest and maybe it could be 10p a day!

The easiest way to make something cheap sound more expensive is to quote an incorrect price!!!!

 

[BBassic]

There is nothing in that article to suggest they want to 'destroy the Beeb', it all seems pretty sensible. I think the BBC has become too arrogant and complacent, there is precious little to watch other than endless soaps, serials, gameshows, repeats, award ceremonies etc,etc. What are they doing with all the billions they get? certainly not spending it on new talent and productions.

I think a percentage of the license fee should be made available to the other broadcasters and independent production companies so they can compete on an even footing and produce new ideas. The BBC should then reduce it's staffing levels by about 25% and spend the savings on new programming.

The BBC is out of touch with the real world and needs a good shake-up if it is to survive.

The BBC isn't just BBC1, 2, 3 and 4.

Its an unrivalled, worldwide British export. The radio, the news, the various worldwide channels etc etc.

I'm more than happy paying for that service to remain available.

 

[boik]

All of these people saying scrap the BBC, what do you suggest those of us that enjoy quality programmes replace it with? Obviously there must be cheaper alternatives out there or you wouldn't be proposing it.

 

[El Sid]

More than happy myself to pay the licence fee but for those who choose not to watch or listen to BBC output there should be an opt-out.

I choose not to pay Sky and have gone the freesat route - what's the difference?

 

[drew]

As someone who understands and works closely alongside the BBC, I can say, quite categorically, it is the most overblown, self-indulgent, exclusive club in the world. Ironic, for an institution often touted as a socialist, leftie machine.The lack of accountability is a disgrace. And it's all you guys (me included) paying the membership fees. The BBC, as an institution, can exist only by the generosity (enforced) of its patrons. Without this obscene and wholly undemocratic 'tax', the BBC would disintegrate and die. In a world of fairies and happy endings, this would be a tragedy. But what about the billion other companies and institutions which no longer exist in the real world? Should we also be dipping in our pockets to save them too? Of course not. Axe the BBC, save the money and make its club members find 'real' jobs.

I don't think anyone is claiming it is perfect but is it changing from what it used to be? Haven't they started to address over inflated salaries and change management structures.

 

[Bold Seagull]

As someone who understands and works closely alongside the BBC, I can say, quite categorically, it is the most overblown, self-indulgent, exclusive club in the world. Ironic, for an institution often touted as a socialist, leftie machine.The lack of accountability is a disgrace. And it's all you guys (me included) paying the membership fees. The BBC, as an institution, can exist only by the generosity (enforced) of its patrons. Without this obscene and wholly undemocratic 'tax', the BBC would disintegrate and die. In a world of fairies and happy endings, this would be a tragedy. But what about the billion other companies and institutions which no longer exist in the real world? Should we also be dipping in our pockets to save them too? Of course not. Axe the BBC, save the money and make its club members find 'real' jobs.

Didn't we dip in to save the banks?

 

[Codner's Wallop]

I don't think anyone is claiming it is perfect but is it changing from what it used to be? Haven't they started to address over inflated salaries and change management structures.

Like turning a tanker in a phonebox.

 

[chaileyjem]

I think a percentage of the license fee should be made available to the other broadcasters and independent production companies so they can compete on an even footing and produce new ideas. The BBC should then reduce it's staffing levels by about 25% and spend the savings on new programming.

The licence fee is already spent on Broadband roll out, S4C, the World Service (used to be funded by Foreign Office) and Monitoring (used to be funded direct by govt)
Currently c40% of BBC TV production, 25% of that is guaranteed and has been for decades, is spent with independent production companies. The BBC has plans for this to be potentially far more.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/10/tony-hall-bbc-compete-compare-speech

 

[chaileyjem]

More than happy myself to pay the licence fee but for those who choose not to watch or listen to BBC output there should be an opt-out.

4% of the population don't consume any BBC output in an average week.
(or 96% do)

 

[beorhthelm]

More than happy myself to pay the licence fee but for those who choose not to watch or listen to BBC output there should be an opt-out.

I choose not to pay Sky and have gone the freesat route - what's the difference?

technology. Sky impose a smart card, so can restrict your programming. for the BBC to be directly funded by subscription they'd have to do the same, so everyone would have to have a suitable set top box. now, thats not so big a problem now we've gone digital, but its a big consideration.

 

[drew]

4% of the population don't consume any BBC output in an average week.
(or 96% do)

A question that arises is is it the same 4% every week? Is there a link to the statistics.

 

[WhingForPresident]

Any organisation that pays Nick (****) Grimshaw a seven figure salary clearly has some issues.

 

[El Sid]

technology. Sky impose a smart card, so can restrict your programming. for the BBC to be directly funded by subscription they'd have to do the same, so everyone would have to have a suitable set top box. now, thats not so big a problem now we've gone digital, but its a big consideration.

I'm sure Lawd Sugar could knock up a cheap box.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

As someone who understands and works closely alongside the BBC, I can say, quite categorically, it is the most overblown, self-indulgent, exclusive club in the world. Ironic, for an institution often touted as a socialist, leftie machine.The lack of accountability is a disgrace. And it's all you guys (me included) paying the membership fees. The BBC, as an institution, can exist only by the generosity (enforced) of its patrons. Without this obscene and wholly undemocratic 'tax', the BBC would disintegrate and die. In a world of fairies and happy endings, this would be a tragedy. But what about the billion other companies and institutions which no longer exist in the real world? Should we also be dipping in our pockets to save them too? Of course not. Axe the BBC, save the money and make its club members find 'real' jobs.

That would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. By all means, reform it, although that would take time and determination, but scrapping it, would be a big mistake imo.

 

[chaileyjem]

Any organisation that pays Nick (****) Grimshaw a seven figure salary clearly has some issues.

Most people (58%) think the BBC represents value for money and that figure is rising year on year. If you use BBC radio, online and tv then that figure increases to 71% who think the BBC is "good value for money."
via http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/pdf/2013-14/bbc_annualreport_201314.pdf

 

[chaileyjem]

A question that arises is is it the same 4% every week? Is there a link to the statistics.

Not clear from the data i'm afraid although yes.There are obviously a tiny minority who don't consume the BBC's services every week, every year..
Source of this data is via
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/pdf/2013-14/bbc_annualreport_201314.pdf
The 96% figure is unchanged from 12/13 although the average hours of consumption has dipped slightly.
Its now an average of about 18 hours a week.. The new annual report is due in a couple of months and will have more up to date data..

 

[chaileyjem]

Of course not. Axe the BBC, save the money and make its club members find 'real' jobs.

Of the £3.7billion in yearly income of the BBC, far more of it is spent outside of the BBC and funds jobs/income in the commercial sector.
An estimate of £2.6bn according to this study via http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthe...ontribution_to_the_UK_creative_industries.pdf

 

[Codner's Wallop]

Of the £3.7billion in yearly income of the BBC, far more of it is spent outside of the BBC and funds jobs/income in the commercial sector.
An estimate of £2.6bn according to this study via http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthe...ontribution_to_the_UK_creative_industries.pdf

You don't by any chance...work for the BBC? A passionate defence. The fact remains: It is a service which exists exclusively by the generosity of its patrons. None of whom has a choice whether to donate - or spend their subscription elsewhere. Thankfully, we have FREEDOM OF CHOICE everywhere else in this wonderful democratic country we live in. How can the possibly BBC raise its standards when it's devoid of competition or stringent accountability from its donors? As I stated earlier, it's just a bloated cash cow for its thousands of private club members (employees) and in the main its content is frankly dull and disconnected from the real world.