I often wonder how they spend my licence fee

[QUOTE=Derekf;1950009]Jim

Do you have a list of things which you have to bring up in every thread?

EU? – check
Immigrants? – check

This is about the large pay-off that the outgoing DG receives and yet incredibly you’ve managed to include a dig at the EU and immigrants in it.

Well Derek, YOU gave me the link re the Licence fees, and it seems there are indeed many in the EU who don’t have to pay, so why should we?.

As regards I immigrants, there is a finite amount of room left in this Country.
And has been said elswhere on the forum, we should tighten up those we do let in. Skilled workers especialy.
But in answer to your question, no I don’t have a list.

Let you get back on thread now.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

So you want the quality of BBC programming but want to pay a fraction of the cost of it. I suspect you’ll end up with a fraction of the quality.

No. Where did I say that? At the risk of repeating myself three times I want a far smaller BBC at a fraction of the cost. If you strip out more than half the broadcasting, and more than half the radio and television channels together with the management and production staff to service them you will have a far leaner and potentially far more effective and focussed public service broadcaster.

So you want the quality of BBC programming but want to pay a fraction of the cost of it. I suspect you’ll end up with a fraction of the quality.

Only a few months the BBC were rightly praised for their high-quality coverage of the Olympic games – now they have to be broken up because of an editorial ****-up? No wonder the DG resigned!

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.”

Go for it then Charlie – rather you than me!

At least the BBC has the bottle to cover the stories!!

You only have to look at things like targeted adds etc. to see what you’ll eventually get; only what they want you to see and all for the highest price or bid!! …. and that comment comes from someone involved in PR & marketing for a living!

Oh, I have no fear of the alternative. 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. John Simpson, BBC’s Foreign Editor, sees the BBC’s reputation badly tarnished and hopes it is recoverable, but is uncertain that it will be.

I find very good authoritative reporting and comment from a number of different news services – in fact it is interesting how parochial and introverted the BBC is in some of its coverage.

Be careful what you wish for in breaking up the BBC or indeed getting rid of it!

Yes it has got things wrong, everyone does!

However ponder this thought, what other news organisation would be providing the depth of coverage about itself and its problems, in such a time of immense uncertainty?

I venture to suggest none!

Cherish what you have before it gets squandered away to some foreign corporation!

The soloution is very clear.
Break up the BBC.
Make it free, get rid of the licence fee.
Have advertising.

Now those pitiful few channels will be like the remaining 80 or so.
I don’t care. Get rid of em.

Had a very informative Sunday rememberance and never once watched the Beeb.

I partially agree. Yes, it should be broken up, as I said earlier, but we need a smaller cheaper public broadcaster which does not have to nod to ratings, which has always obsessed the BBC, and which is GENUINELY non-partisan in its broadcasting.

Jim

Do you have a list of things which you have to bring up in every thread?

EU? – check
Immigrants? – check

This is about the large pay-off that the outgoing DG receives and yet incredibly you’ve managed to include a dig at the EU and immigrants in it.

Hampden 98

Make it free, get rid of the licence fee.
Have advertising.

So it isn’t free then. How much advertising would you need to provide a broadcasting service such as the BBC? We have enough advertising revenue funded TV. We don’t need more. What we need is properly managed public service broadcasting – like the BBC.
Funny how some are happy to pay £30-£50 for Sky, which is weighed down with advertising even with a subscription, and yet are whining about having to pay £12 a month for advert-free telly.

The soloution is very clear.
Break up the BBC.
Make it free, get rid of the licence fee.
Have advertising.

Now those pitiful few channels will be like the remaining 80 or so.
I don’t care. Get rid of em.

Had a very informative Sunday rememberance and never once watched the Beeb.

No

LMGTFY

Seems like we are once again screwed. I want parity with Spain, well, they too are in the E.U. 😉

Jim.
Lincoln .7

Personally Alan, I much prefer to watch SKY news, anytime.

Jim.
Lincoln .7

It has been my default news for over a year now.

Just out of interest, but are we the only Country in the World who have to buy a T.V. Licence?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

No

LMGTFY

…and especially coming from a fairly small population.[/QUOTE]

Ah, John, but growing larger by each passing day, thanks to the E.U. 😉

Jim.
Lincoln .7

Personally Alan, I much prefer to watch SKY news, anytime.

Jim.
Lincoln .7

I find the attitude of the BBC executives summed up very well in their
Newswatch programme.
A programme (Saturday 7:45am) where members of the public comment on
the way the BBC report the news.

Not once has a representative put their hand up and said “yes we got it
wrong”. The smug attitude being, we are the BBC and are always right.

Just out of interest, but are we the only Country in the World who have to buy a T.V. Licence?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

a long-awaited excuse to bash the BBC.

The BBC has been bashed by those of all political inclinations, usually justifiably, for several years. There is nothing new here but it is at least shining a beacon on root problems which the BBC has to address, if it is to survive.

Good pieces here by David Dimbleby and John Simpson:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9671353/How-the-BBC-can-salvage-its-reputation.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9670915/David-Dimbleby-the-BBC-has-throttled-itself-with-its-own-bureaucracy.html

It looks like the right wing are jumping on this particular band-wagon in a long-awaited excuse to bash the BBC.

What happened here? A editorial mistake in a programme. When a newspaper does this, does it face calls to be closed and broken up? Of course not.
It is unfortunate that it happened so close after the Savile allegations but in many ways, it is totally unrelated.
Sadly Entwhistle isn’t coming out of this at all well. He should have either stayed and sorted it out, so his resignation smacks of cowardice, or he should never have been appointed in the first place.
The vast majority of the BBC is neither involved nor affected by this affair so why should it suffer?

The more this sort of thing goes on, the more the real problem fades away. It wouldn’t be some sort of smoke-screen would it?……

It’s time for an orderly break up of the BBC. It’s far too big, far too diverse and far too self-serving. The Charter should not be renewed in 2016 but varied for a much smaller public broadcasting organisation and a much lower license fee. The Trust should be scrapped and the Board of Governors re-instated. Oh, and Patten should go as well since he has palpably failed in his prime duty, to represent our interests.