I often wonder how they spend my licence fee

Nothing like a bit of forum trolling on a Monday afternoon. 😀

Watch out for “In Coming”, Both Charlie and Derek are on a roll today :eek::eek:
Jim.
Lincoln .7

I think, “Pot, Kettle, Black” springs to mind.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Nothing like a bit of forum trolling on a Monday afternoon. 😀

Not unable, just unwilling. I can if I wished reply without resorting to insulting forum members.

charliehunt – you should try it.

OK, you’ve tied yourself in knots over this and I don’t want to get into a Clive Dunn/character type argument (amusing though that was) so I’ll leave you to your pipedream of an emasculated BBC.

What you really mean Derek, is that you are unable to answer Charlies comments, and capitulated?.:rolleyes:

Jim.
Lincoln .7

If you cannot understand the suggestions, I seriously doubt your ability to read and understand simple English. And I rather think the Clive Dunn exchanges prove my point. You don’t even know what emasculated means, if that’s how you describe the suggestions.

My proposal would have the opposite effect. Instead of depriving the BBC of strength it would strengthen its most important role, enabling it to spend the money where it is most needed, whilst getting rid of what it least needs to do.

OK, you’ve tied yourself in knots over this and I don’t want to get into a Clive Dunn/character type argument (amusing though that was) so I’ll leave you to your pipedream of an emasculated BBC.

DerekF – No, no no! Are you being perverse in intentionally misunderstanding what I am suggesting?

I had better spell it out for the avoidance any further misunderstanding.

I want an entirely different BBC – not “lite” nor “heavy”. The taxpayer should not have to fund radio and television programmes which are available elsewhere. The point of the public service broadcaster is to provide what the commercial sector cannot. And the taxpayer should certainly not have to fund vainglorious expenditure like Salford, which has cost about a billion pounds for little or nothing.

Radio 3 and Radio 4, plus local radio and BBC1 and BBC2 should be the prime broadcasting channels. BBC4 programming should return to BBC2 from whence it came. There is probably an argument for a reduction in daytime and all-night broadcasting as well.

I visualise high quality programming, some attracting low ratings, across these outlets. Production expenditure should be concentrated on programme making not administration. The ridiculous duplication and sometimes triplication of news reporters/presenters should be eliminated and there should be far more use made of high quality reporting for both radio and television by one reporter in one place.

The BBC is too large, too self-serving and too arrogant. The whole enterprise can be summed up by the BBC’s programme of cuts called DQF – delivering quality first. Well, some of us thought that’s what they always did and should always have been doing, not offering it as the new valhalla for the Corporation.

So, lets check out BBC2 for today. That pithy home of radical commedy and current affairs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/programmes/schedules/england

Good to see Hitler is still popular!

The last sentence shows that you have not read what I said. Your last point does not flow from the first.

Yes I have and yes it does.

What you want is a BBC-lite. Quality but cheap so therefore less of it. So which bits would you get rid of? Presumably the bits you don’t like or that don’t interest you, but as you also said, the BBC shouldn’t be involved in vying for ratings. The upshot of that would be that they could make any old rubbish and it wouldn’t matter anyway. Another good idea.

I hear there’s a vacancy at the BBC for a top job….

I’m glad that we agree on the regional coverage- although you’d be wrong to think that it was not a major expense!

As for freeloading off your wife’s age you should be ashamed of yourself!! 😀

I meant a major expense in relation to the total BBC costs. Regional and local radio costs about £100 million out of nearly £3 billion.

I am – deeply!:o

er… here?

Yes but in your reply you misquoted me. I can’t be bothered to make the point for a fourth time. Just read what I said and then read what you said.

Why do you want to break it up? Just so it costs less? Good idea! Add even more mediocre TV to what we already have.

The last sentence shows that you have not read what I said. Your last point does not flow from the first.

Well if you have, then you will know exactly what I mean!

I totally agree – the local and regional coverage should be protected – it is hardly a major expense. In fact I am in the middle of an ongoing argument with the BBC about cuts to local radio.

Thanks to my wife it is already free!!:)

Last year as about now, I was setting up some media coverage for a major aviation event in this part of the world for a major Canadian broadcaster that had a bureau and news team in London. As soon as they knew that the BBC was also covering the event, they didn’t even leave the capital they just syndicated the coverage because they knew that it would fully meet their needs. Actions speak louder than words in my book.

I’m glad that we agree on the regional coverage- although you’d be wrong to think that it was not a major expense!

As for freeloading off your wife’s age you should be ashamed of yourself!! 😀

Charlie, I have to agree with your comment about Sky News being your default News Channel, Mine also, I only commented to my wife the other day, when the Beeb stated a bit of News that had been told by Sky, the day previously:rolleyes:

Jim.
Lincoln .7

er… here?
Hampden 98 – ITV? Seriously?

After this weeks (months, possibly years) debacles I should be responding with…

“Derekf – BBC? Seriously?” :dev2:

Hampden 98 – ITV? Seriously?

Perhaps he’s a Downton Abbey fan? After all the BBC could never and have never produced anything as remotely good or original as that. :rolleyes:

Regards,

kev35

No. Where did I say that?

er… here?

“I would be more than happy to pay for reputable and reliable news and good drama and documentary for a fraction of what the BBC currently costs us.”

Why do you want to break it up? Just so it costs less? Good idea! Add even more mediocre TV to what we already have. The BBC still provides high quality drama, documentaries, sports coverage, internet, radio etc that is sold, listened to and broadcast all over the world. It is not perfect but anyone who has been abroad and watched local TV realizes how good the BBC actually is.

Hampden 98 – ITV? Seriously?

Charlie, rest assured that I have a broad knowledge of a range of broadcast media across the world; but it’s not just the ‘international’ aspects that the BBC prides itself on – it’s local and regional coverage is second to none and that gives people the opportunity to become engaged. Break it up and you risk losing this.

Look on the bright side if the BBC is still around and funded by a license fee; in about 7 years yours should become free! 😀

Well if you have, then you will know exactly what I mean!

I totally agree – the local and regional coverage should be protected – it is hardly a major expense. In fact I am in the middle of an ongoing argument with the BBC about cuts to local radio.

Thanks to my wife it is already free!!:)

Well, perhaps you have not watched/read much from overseas news providers. The BBC’s is only one view of the world – there are others.

In any case I think you missed my point. I said that from a broken up BBC “I would be more than happy to pay for reputable and reliable news and good drama and documentary for a fraction of what the BBC currently costs us.”

Charlie, rest assured that I have a broad knowledge of a range of broadcast media across the world; but it’s not just the ‘international’ aspects that the BBC prides itself on – it’s local and regional coverage is second to none and that gives people the opportunity to become engaged. Break it up and you risk losing this.

Look on the bright side if the BBC is still around and funded by a license fee; in about 7 years yours should become free! 😀

For all you BBC supporters make the beeb a subscription channel. Then at least we (I) can choose.
But I fear this will not happen as no one will subscribe.
As for quality. I’ll stick with the internet. ITV, CNN, Reuters.