The beginning of the end for the BBC...

Bloody hell, it's hard work taking away privileges from the wealthiest pensioner ever isn't it.

It makes no sense for average-to-wealthy pensioners to get the service for free, especially given they're the ones who are watching it the most (the average age of BBC viewers is around 65 years old).

It's a shame no government will touch the ridiculous triple-lock pension. But looking at the outrage caused by a hundred and fifty quid, or around 10p an hour for the average pensioner, I see why they wouldn't touch it with a 10ft barge pole.

Luckily this time the government has a scapegoat, as you simply don't annoy people with lots of resources to make a fuss, and all the time in the world in which to do it.

 

You can see the role of the Daily Mail, Express etc in stirring the pot on behalf of its wealthy (rival) media proprietors and vocalising to let the Government off the blame.

It's the politics of the UK in miniature, older folk some well off, some poor, vote to disadvantage others, because of a drip drip of negativity and then are outraged when it happens to them.

 

Isn't it now the 'double lock'?

 

In some respects you are right. What sort of evidence do you need? A newsreader in the London studio tells us what has happened in some far flung country. We then go to a link to speak to the correspondent who has been flown out especially, with a film crew. The Correspondent tells us exactly the same as what the newsreader has already told us, but in a long drawn out manner. Do we need that correspondent out there? Why do we need a film crew? In years gone by the correspondent will tell us anything new on his mobile. We don't need a film crew! It is just vanity and so wasteful. Why do we need 455 BBC staff to cover the Olympics? Why do we need 11 weather people to tell us the weather, one for national and one for each of the regions? Can a weather person not film ten 30 second forecasts? I dont know what our local East Midlands TV station does, as we only see about one hour a day from their news studio, but it is a big modern building near the Nottingham City centre. I've been in there, got lost and couldn't find anyone to direct me, as it seemed to be empty, apart from that the news studio.

But the real evidence will only be found by getting behind the scenes and examining the processes and priorities. In my little bit of the civil service, I was brought in to get something done, and whilst doing it, a sideline is that I have reduced costs by almost 15% (in the bit I'm working in) in about 10 months. No job losses, merely improving how things are done, thereby releasing resource elsewhere. But then I claimed for my food on a rail trip a few weeks ago. Rather than buy on the train, I bought a "meal deal" (sandwich, a packet of crisps and a drink) at the Co-op in Nottingham station for £3.50. My overall claim covering many trips was refused because I had included the 5p bag to put the meal in and it showed on a receipt for £3.55p. 3 emails later and about 30 minutes of our combined time, and an adjusted claim, the DfE saved 5p. There is probably no evidence of that sort of waste anywhere to be seen by the public. But it all exists, it isn't just about the highly paid TV execs.

I think the extra cost of allowing free TV licences for all pensioners is about £500m, with the other £250m odd being for the pensioners on pension credit that they say they will pay for. Not sure though.

 

They certainly stir the pot, but disagree they won't try and put pressure on the government. How long until the Sun/ Express launches a 'Boris - stop the unfair licence fee' campaign, alongside a commemorative Princess Diana coin.

 

Has it? I know that TM was considering it, but not sure it will happen before Boris comes in.

At which point, there's about a 1000% chance it will be scrapped.

 

There is a judgement call to be made about the size of the story and whether journalists need to go there. Mostly, of course, you are watching a correspondent already based in that area, but without question the placing of TV journalists, who can then use their own skills to talk to individuals on the ground and tell an important story, is important. But of course yours is a narrow view, Britain First. The rest of the world 'far flung' despite your desire for Britain to trade across it. This view of yours diminishes the UK in every way, fails to take into account the importance of influence, language, culture and information. It's one of the UK's greatest assets, this soft power.

As usual you present a fantasy solution, a unicorn, that there are always 'savings' this time in sandwich expenses. Maybe when Beyonce is next on they could get her a meal deal.

 

You're right it seems. I thought it had come in but as it hasn't there's no chance now.

 

If they wanted to blame the Government they could have done so already. They want the BBC to bear the full brunt to who knows what end, probably to break it up for sale or privatisation to the likes of their owners.

 

And by the way, the rest of us use bags for life these days.

 

Two issues
Licence fee & programming

Licence fee is easy to fix:
Calculate what the BBC collected last year.
Add 3%.
Take that from central taxation (and raise taxation by enough to cover it) and protect that figure increasing by rpi/cpi or 3% in statute running forward.
It's means tested without any further testing and you save the admin and enforcement costs which can recycle straight into programming.

Programming is a direct issue of the licence fee. The BBC feel they need to justify the fee with viewing figures yet are also duty bound to run loss making services like regional programs languages etc. So what you get is a squeeze on it's resources. Free the BBC of the licence fee justification and they can bow out of sports coverage showing recent movies etc, which is all better done elsewhere anyway. They can be left to concentrate on niche stuff, documentaries, drama and the excellent programming their commercial (profit making ) arm produces.

It's not rocket science.


I think the BBC is about as impartial and as good as we are going to get considering the calibre of person that gets into "media" looking at the alternatives provided or not provided in other countries I think we should be grateful.

 

That was a Sky series, initially sponsored by, I think, Foster’s lager.

By far the best Partridge of recent times. Miles ahead of the tame fare recently served up by the BBC.

 

I barely recognise this as my own work.

I would see it as a new super premium product:

Standard petrol
Premium enhanced makes you go faster petrol
Super premium ITK Jim petrol.

 

That clearly went over your head. When did you become such a blowhard?

 

I'm not sure that the BBC providing a little bit of everything is dead though. It still tries to bear in mind that some (often older) people don't have subscription services and levying a licence gives it a responsibility to serve them broadly, so some films, light entertainment and key sporting and state coverage. I think people would be surprised how many people live a bit off grid in this country, whether through age or rurality. We cannot get my mother-in-law to have broadband in her 80s. Just won't consider it, only went beyond five channel tv when compelled to.

In ten years this may be obsolete if every home has broadband and most are used to using it. The BBC model has been pretty unique though and has contributed to the cohesion and education of the nation. I think we should be careful what we wish for. It's very easy to break things up and much more difficult to recreate them.

 

I can’t understand how the BBC justify paying Lineker £1.75m and Shearer £440k to be on MotD. Do they really think fewer people would watch if it was presented by someone else? It’s not the same as paying a radio DJ, or someone like Graham Norton for his show. I record MotD specifically so I can fast forward and just watch the actual football. In general I think sports coverage was much better when professional TV presenters were used, rather than ex-sportspeople, only a few of whom really have the talent to carry it off.

 

It can’t be justified.

You could say that people like personalities and it would certainly help if Alan Shearer had one.

 

I think Gary Lineker, Laura Kuenessberg, Graham Norton, Chris Evans etc etc etc are absolutely marvellous and well worth the 170 quid (or whatever it is) that every household has to pay each year for the privilege of seeing them on the BBC. Anyone refusing to pay the TV licence - especially the over 75s - should be thrown in to prison immediately

 

Chris Evans isn't on the Beeb any more.

 

Really? In that case the licence fee is an absolute joke that should be scrapped straightaway

 

So that's two extra taxes to pay then?
Currently a licence isn't needed to listen to the radio - and neither is one needed to watch films or box sets via DVDs

 

I don’t mind paying the TV licence . I have sky which has **** knows how many channels (most of which seem to just show repeats of BBC programs) , but all I ever watch is BBC 1,2 or the discovery channels.

Yes i would like the BBC to be more efficient and I don’t know why linker is paid so much to sprout his gibberish but the alternative to the BBC is a whole lot more American trash TV (which has its place) and more cheap **** like love island and big brother.

 

I never watch the BBC. But I rarely spend more than 1-2 hours a week watching TV anyway and that is invariably Sky which offers a far better quality of program imo.

I object to the license fee on the basis it's a stealth tax. Lets call it what it is, add it to income tax, and then the government can give away free service to whosoever it chooses, and answers to the public at a GE.

Right now we are taxed and no one answers to anyone. That's called taxation without representation.

 

Odd position for you to take given your distrust of politicians. If it becomes an explicit tax then there is much more scope for governmental interference in output and content.

 

I've been a big fan of the BBC all my life, with the only exception being its coverage on news and current affairs. I can think of many BBC programs from my adult years that I genuinely cherish the memory of, as just brilliant entertainment. I don't think I can think of one such program (off the top of my head) from ITV.

Of course whether to send a correspondent and a film crew to report on an incident, is a judgement call. I just think they make the judgement for vanity reasons more than any other, too often. The same applies to whether or not the BBC sending a correspondent and film crew to an empty street in Clapham 2 days after a body fell out of a plane from Kenya, is money well spent. I say not. The story was about the poor bloke that fell, not which street he fell into.

We already knew it was just a street as it was already on their website;

"Offerton Road in Clapham, on a bright summer's day, is a tranquil and leafy corner of south-west London. You could be forgiven for thinking nothing of any significance had happened here recently. Other than journalists arriving, there is little activity, with many people presumably out at work."

Oh right, we had better get a BBC TV correspondent with a film crew out to film "nothing of any significance", "journalists" and "little activity", so we can show our news viewers.

It is just a waste of money and adds nothing.

The BBC saying that they would have to get rid of the likes of Radio Five Live (costs about 1.65% of the BBC budget), to pay for the oap's licence would only be true if they made no cuts or efficiencies elsewhere. It is like a normal family saying when they £5 a week extra tax, that they will have to stop putting their baby in nappies as they cost £4.99 a pack. It is a disingenuous comment made for effect.

 

That is unusually early in the flight path for a body to fall out.

More often around E Sheen/Kew/Richmond.

 

How much money is wasted (or even spent) in that example?

The staff involved will all be paid anyway. The equipment needed for recording/broadcasting is already owed by the BBC. Presumably they'd have been bumped onto a bigger story if one had justified it.

Also, your point about the website misses the point of the whole furore, which seems to be at lonely old folk don't get their content from other sources and so won't be aware of what it says on the Beeb's website.

 

One Day Travelcards all round?

 

The answer is in my last sentence. Taxation with representation is the principle.

 

I don't know how much, it is just an example repeated hundreds of times. If staff are getting paid anyway? What for? Do they sit around waiting to go and film an empty street? Are we suggesting BBC staff should get paid to sit around waiting for someone to fall out of a plane? If your argument is that the BBC is paying the staff anyway, then the pensioners could equally say that the BBC was providing the service, anyway, regardless of whether they were sitting at home watching it.

It is just an example as you specifically asked for evidence. I was watching the "news" reporter at the scene, whilst reading the website report from a different bloke, and I wondered why the correspondent was there.

But, as I have previously said, the "evidence" is best seen from within, not from what we see on the screens. You may not think the BBC can make significant savings, but I do. I ask if you have any evidence to back your claim up? That isn't a genuine question, by the way, I am merely pointing out that it is daft asking me for evidence.

No, you miss the point I was making about the website, maybe I didnt make it clear. There had already been a BBC man down at the scene, and nothing was going on, he reported it on the website. Do we then need a film crew and a different correspondent to go down to a street where nothing was going on so we can show pensioners that nothing was going on?

 

I think it's down to news now being seen as entertainment.

Is it a "waste" to have a film crew sent to an empty street or a correspondent standing knee deep in flood water just to illustrate a flood? Well, if the news is just about communicating a story then it obviously is.

But, if you believe in supply and demand, commercial news shows the public do have a demand to be entertained while being informed. That is why the news now covers everything from the latest hit TV show to potential conflict in the Middle East.

Should the BBC compete with this "entertainment news", that is the question.

As with all their entertainment programs, they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they provided bland factual news then their viewing figures would drop off and the need for their existence would be questioned. Provide entertaining and informative news and they are criticised for wasting the licence fee.

 

Fine, but that doesn’t stop government interference, does it? And since we rarely have a government which achieves a majority of votes, we can’t even claim that that any such interference is that which most people support.

I get where you are coming from on “stealth” but adding to taxation is not the best answer.

 

BBC news correspondent is a job like any other isn’t it? Why shouldn’t they be paid for “sitting around”, just like civil servants, accountants, lawyers - even policemen - sometimes do?

 

News without reporters on the scene looks, unfortunately, all a bit Soviet.

 

I thought the examples you gave in your response to me earlier in the thread were better, to be honest. I should have replied to that post - though I doubt they'd provide savings approaching the level required to meet the cost of the Over 75s concession. And when I was talking about evidence, I meant on the part of your comment where you said such savings could be made easily. What's easy to you, or an acceptable cut to you, may not be to someone else. Half the reason I guess you would find the things you talk about easy to cut is you don't care much for them anyway. That's human nature.

Presumably, like lots of demand-led occupations, the staff are otherwise engaged in other tasks until they're needed for that role. Writing, interviewing, researching, investigating, preparing for the next job. I don't know exactly. I expect they have generalists and specialists like most occupations. Obviously the nature of editorial decisions mean a feature isn't always going to inform or please everyone. I don't see much point in having that boring twot Whitchell stood dribbling outside the Palace at 10pm on a day when there's been some minor royal news, but accept it's right up others' street.

I absolutely accept the BBC can make savings. I expect it could make significant savings if it took on a significantly lesser role. I'd definitely be in favour of it trimming the fat and scaling back some things. But, on the topic in hand, I don't think it'd make enough of a difference to ensure old folk can have their free licences.

I suppose they could have just shown the website on the news?