- Jun 27, 2012
- 14,614
£180/year doesn't sound so great if you're not a Cash in the Attic fan.
Its £145.50.
£180/year doesn't sound so great if you're not a Cash in the Attic fan.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
4% of the population don't consume any BBC output in an average week.
(or 96% do)
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.
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.
Any organisation that pays Nick (****) Grimshaw a seven figure salary clearly has some issues.
A question that arises is is it the same 4% every week? Is there a link to the statistics.
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