The BBC – another damning report!

The “Damning report” that the OP entitled the thread is actually quite far from the truth. The BBC were commended for controlling the relocation on time and on budget but as I said, the rest of the press and the usual anti-BBC brigade ignored that section and instead concentrated on a handful of excessive payments.

Keeping up with Jones = competitive

I don’t think the License should be scrapped but that the populist elements should be detached to the commercial world and a much smaller license, say £50 p.a for a BBC 4 type TV channel, Radios 3 and 4 and local radio and a much trimmed news service.

The BBC also feel the need to keep up with the Joneses. (at our expense)
Years ago, ITV announced they were going to have breakfast time TV. The BBC then had to rush to beat them to it.
They brought the 24hr news channel in after seeing that SKY news managed to cover breaking stories live.
That’s only two examples.

There will be a lot of huffing and puffing, but that will be as far as it goes.

The BBC is a law unto itself, and is allowed to do whatever it likes.
They always manage to justify their extravagant behaviour. Using the excuse that we (who fund them) don’t understand.

Re 17

“Meanwhile away from the hysteria..”

Well, if it was from the Guardian that’s ok by me ! They won’t put a ‘leftie’ spin on anything.

I don’t think the License should be scrapped but that the populist elements should be detached to the commercial world and a much smaller license, say £50 p.a for a BBC 4 type TV channel, Radios 3 and 4 and local radio and a much trimmed news service.

Margaret Hodge
Public Accounts Committee chairman Margaret Hodge
Many BBC staff who work in Salford were unwilling to speak to Sky News about the relocation allowances, with one describing the move to the North West as a “sensitive issue” within the corporation.

I’m surprised that the BBC didn’t try to offer even more licence-fee money so as to force them into not giving interviews or airing their grievances (least of all to Sky News!).

Anyone else think that the licence-fee should be scrapped?

If they had to generate their revenue from the placing of commerical adverts, I’d have no problem with the amount of money that they spend on things other than producing television programs because the money it generates doesn’t come from the public purse. That said, I know that this would result in even more No-Win, No-Fee accident claim, insurance comparison and PPI claim adverts, so it might not be such a bad thing after all.

Anyway, I’m not sure MPs are best placed to criticize other’s allowances.

Totally agree…and it’s only getting worse by the looks of things! http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/12/mps-expenses-rise-record-high

Meanwhile, away from the hysteria,

From the Guardian in May 2013.

The majority of Salford relocation packages – 458 out of 854 in total – were £10,000 or less. However, 188 BBC staff received £50,000 or more and 11 between £100,000 and £150,000.

Another quote from the same article which, no doubt, will be ignored.

Overall, the NAO said that the corporation had done a good job in controlling the cost of establishing its new BBC North broadcasting and production base in Salford

In which case that is truly damning if true because the only way they would attract a 50% tax rate is if the recipients were top rate tax payers!

50% of what? The payments to move? Well of course – it is income. But 50%…? Or have I misunderstood?

The payments to individuals who moved half or so went into taxes.

50% of what? The payments to move? Well of course – it is income. But 50%…? Or have I misunderstood?

Radio 5 drive time Anna Foster interviewed the BBC North director– it’s not all as the headlines make it.Not sure if it will be on podcast later http://www.bbc.co.uk/5live what the goverment don’t tell you is that about 50% of it went back to them i taxes etc.

They would certainly have to offer me lots of lucre to move to Manchester ; )

I am not anti BBC or any other corporation, I was just pointing out that you offer redundancy or the option to move.
I am sure in a few years time there will be frontpage headlines similar to the MPs expenses row. Just remember it all comes back to us the paying public for any of these events.

That’s what I said. The BBC will probably have offered redundancy for those that don’t want to move or a relocation package for those that do. Is that a problem? If the company want you to move then the company should pay for it.

A list of payments (the amounts, recipients and their job descriptions) should be made public. Only then will we see if this is yet more waste.

If the culture of obscene backhanders continues at the BBC, we will end up losing it to private business IMO, which would be a tragedy.

I am not anti BBC or any other corporation, I was just pointing out that you offer redundancy or the option to move.
I am sure in a few years time there will be frontpage headlines similar to the MPs expenses row. Just remember it all comes back to us the paying public for any of these events.

it should of been redundancies but if you wish to move fine, god almighty what is it coming to. In my day if you could not get to the workplace then you did not get the work.

in the 80s if I worked away from home my allowance was £12.00 and told because I am working away I will be working longer so earning more ! I refused and got a job close to home.
so in fact the reason to go to Manchester to save money has cost money.

BBC or not it does seem a bit extravagant

If the company you work for relocates your work then that company has to pay for you to move. Either that or it offers you redundancy. Most companies will try and retain as many of its workers as possible as it saves on retraining and disruption to productivity.
On a relocation, all of the removal costs, estate agents fees, solicitors fees etc, are normally paid by the company. And rightly so.

Was the move worth it? It is too soon to tell. Ask in another 5 years.

I appreciate that this may go against the normal anti-BBC rants we normally see but there you have it.

Summed up perfectly! Although the move to Salford has cost about a billion pounds and was not made to save money at all.

it should of been redundancies but if you wish to move fine, god almighty what is it coming to. In my day if you could not get to the workplace then you did not get the work.

in the 80s if I worked away from home my allowance was £12.00 and told because I am working away I will be working longer so earning more ! I refused and got a job close to home.
so in fact the reason to go to Manchester to save money has cost money.

BBC or not it does seem a bit extravagant

I’m sure the loss of London Weighting would have been part of their re-location settlement.
If some got £100k and the average is £28k then it goes without saying that some will have received less than £28k.

Anyway, I’m not sure MPs are best placed to criticize other’s allowances.

I don’t know how that works any more. Many of them were based at White City not Central London and it used to depend from where you commuted to qualify.