The beginning of the end for the BBC...

I think that question is valid. But as I have previously said, I think the BBC news should be factual as much as possible, with little entertainment or comment. That is what I think their role is in regard to news. Leave the entertainment to Ch4 and others. The BBC have opportunity to create more entertaining programs, such as Newsnight, QT, Panorama, etc. But the News, for me, should be just that.

 

Police?

Yes, on Christmas Day, certainly. But they certainly shouldn't be sitting in the station.

Yes, they also have police on duty just being "visible", but isn't want the public is demanding?

 

I also prefer my news to be as factual and fluff free as possible.

But I suspect we are in the minority and, as the BBC is being paid for by everyone, then I accept it is their duty to give the majority of the public what they want.

 

But likewise as UEA says, I am sure that news correspondents don’t just sit around waiting for a news story to break either. That’s just a perception that those not doing that job might have.

Also - we have had this debate before - what do you mean by “factual”? Really speaking, something can only be a “fact” if you have seen it with your own eyes. Or, perhaps, if it is simple reporting of a statistic. All news is a construct. Agreed, there can be more or less analysis and opinion, but simple reporting of “facts” doesn’t preclude editorialising. And it would rapidly become very dull indeed.

 

I think 50 years ago when BBC was one of the few sources of information for the public the argument about interference was justified.

Today we have hundreds, no thousands, of sources of news delivering to our smart devices in real time. It’s a very different world. The chances of a government ever achieving managed disinformation is just about zero.

 

Yes, OK: maybe not editorial interference then. But what’s to stop a government tuning off the taxation tap if they don’t like what the BBC does, or says? There are a plenty of (mainly Tory) politicians who intensely dislike it and/or want it commercialised and would be happy to slash taxation to achieve that. Why give them the chance?

 

The mechanism is the same one that stops a government turning off the taxation tap for any other valuable public service.

The BBC is no more protected from privatisation if parliament chose to do so now than if it were funded openly through tax.

You sound like you trust politics even less than I!

 

I’m just inherently uncomfortable with the idea of a “state broadcaster”. Probably a vestige of being brought up during the Cold War. Arguably the BBC is close to this already, but explicitly linking its funding to taxation would make it difficult to view it in any other light.

 

For me it already passes the duck test, no one is fooled by calling it a chicken.

 

I used to live in East Sheen and, yes, we used to have a body fall into our garden most weeks. Fortunately you could put them out on the pavement and the council would take them away.

 

Don't sit down my arse!

I used to call the transport police at Euston quite regularly to taxi touts or aggressive beggars etc and there was never anyone able to respond. They were all "tucked up" was the phrase they used to use.

We used to stroll round to their yard where you could see in the back windows of their office where they were all lounging around chatting, or sharing a nice Indian takeaway.

One thing that is true of the cops is that they're often very lazy. If it's a case of wandering round at some time of their choosing and nicking someone who won't run away, then that's fine, they can manage that. Anything that's a bit tricky or arduous or involves them moving their big flat feet at anything more than a slow amble is out of the question though...

 

The BBC is one of those institutions, which due to its size and the myriad pressures on it from all sides, is far from perfect, but is still well worth keeping.

There are many things we get from the BBC which we don't get from commercial stations. Radio drama and comedy, original children's programmes without commercials persuading their impressionable minds that they need to have X or Y to be cool or happy, radio stations and tv channels without adverts.

the solutions of getting rid of it, just making it carry adverts or even adding the licence fee to income tax, all miss the point.

Adding to tax, seems fine, but firstly, no way in hell does anyone in this country want their tax to go up, and moreover, that gives government more power to influence and reduce the independence of the BBC, if their only source of funding is controlled by MPs.

Moreover, it's unfair on people who don't pay for a TV licence now, either because they have no TV or have been able to demonstrate that they do not receive a television signal or use any of the BBC services.

We would be much worse off, in my view, if we got rid of the Beeb. Claims of bias are pretty miopic, as it can't be biased against both Labour and the Tories. People tend to zoom in on individual segments or programmes and claim to see bias, ignoring that overall, the BBC does level things out, and, more importantly, is accountable if it does not.

I'd be really saddened if we ended up with a US style, NBC vs Fox News situation. It's bad enough that our printed news is all either lefty guardian nonsense or Daily Heil fascist propaganda. We're lucky that we have an independent, verifiable middle ground with real news.

Like I say, it's not perfect, but let's keep the baby and look at what we can do about the bathwater.

 

The Transport Police aren't the real police. Merely imitations.

Indeed, I would guess that those you saw lounging about may well have been cardboard cut-outs.

We were the real police at the sharp end, laying our lives on the line for the public, whereas the Transport police mainly dealt with civil disputes caused by the Union Shop Stewards.

 

So, today the Orifice of Budget Responsibility predicts the £745m saving to the Exchequer as a result of moving the over-75s TV licence responsibility to the BBC will be offset by a £850m rise in the pension credit bill, thanks to increased awareness and motivation from those eligible to claim it so they can keep their free licence. Whoopsie! Another Tory masterpiece. Experts eh?

 

Yes, trusting the BBC to keep to their agreement (and they agreed was a good agreement at the time) was the height of stupidity.

 

Citation please? I mean, I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm no expert, but I understood that the BBC had the terms foisted upon them.

 

What agreement? The consequences were known at the time of the decision. I highlighted it on here.

Tony Hall denies there was any such agreement:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/entertainment-arts-49020015

And John Whittingdale has already publicly stated he knew it was at risk after 3 years, when government funding ended. There was never any guarantee or agreement it would continue after 2020.

Basically, this was a cack handed attempt to end an expensive and increasingly indefensible taxpayer subsidy by stealth. Tory politicians didn't have the stones to be up front and do it themselves - even going as far as to hilariously claim they mistakenly included a pledge to fund it in their 2017 manifesto - then shoved responsibility to the BBC against its will during 'negotiations' in which the government held all the cards. Having already run a million miles from any political argument for making the change, the economic argument has now gone up in smoke too.

File with reforms to the probation service, the police, forensic science, the contract with Seabourne Ferries, various botched rail franchises...

 

Have a guess on past form.

 

Why would Hall think there was a risk, if there was no agreement to carry on supporting the pensioners after 2020?

It is not disputed that Hall described agreement as a "good deal for the BBC", and he said that the agreement, taking into the closing loopholes on digital and guaranteed increases was "cash positive".

He was obviously aware of the BBC's responsibility that was planned with the reduction in subsidy over the years. The BBC just failed to plan for the eventuality.

 

There’s no funding from the government for over-75 TV licences after 2020. That’s the point. It agreed to send the BBC the dosh for the remaining 3 years covering its 2015-2020 manifesto commitment but no more. The removal of that is where the risk to the BBC (both financial and reputational) comes in. The government washed its hands of it from 2020 onwards, cunningly replacing it with a vague expectation that the BBC should fund the concession instead.

There’s no real planning for an ‘eventuality’ of this scale. It’s 20% of the annual budget. No amount of fiddling around the edges by sacking Linekar, reducing executive pay or binning off regional weather girls, or whatever other cause celebre detractors want to pick on, is going to save that amount. If the plan was to massively reduce the BBC’s budget and output, why didn’t the government simply say that was the objective? Would have been more honest, no? Of course, it would also have looked like massive political interference at a time of negotiating a new royal charter. Not a great look either.

The fact you keep presenting it as an agreement, as if two equally powerful parties sat down and trashed out a deal with benefits and costs for both, says it all. What was the BBC to do when Whittingdale presented his terms? “No thanks, forget the charter, we’ll go our own way”?

 

Well Hall referred to it as an agreement.

“We have secured the right deal for the BBC in difficult economic circumstances for the country. This agreement secures the long-term funding for a strong BBC over the next charter period.”

https://rts.org.uk/article/bbc-faces-bill-licence-fees

 

Just wondering why you havn't responded, UEA. What do you think of Hall clearly saying it was an agreement, when you say it wasn't.

Is he wrong?

 

Chief Inspector René ‘Doubty’ Descartes on duty?

 

Only every other Tuesday now.

 

The Tour de France this year has been notable for two things.

The return of panache to French cycling & the lassitude of their police.

One sees the police only in groups. Of 4, 5, 6.

Wearing Thunderbirds caps & the easy, sly smile of someone who has cracked the system.

 

I think we need higher standards than this.

Does the BBC need to be a compete level in all content areas across all platforms?

I question the benefit of 90% of their website, the fatuous claim that they need to ‘compete for talent’ with egregious wages, the breakfast show & the Saturday night hokum singing competitions.

On news, I go to the Guardian, the FT, C4, the Economist &, weird but actually true, WFC Forums before the BBC.

 

Mmmm. Austerity measures kicking in.

 

More that the bin gang seems to be attracting more fl*neurs & boulevardiers than previously.

 

I once put a wheel clamp on a taxi touts vehicle in the basement roadway at Euston. I was "arrested" for restraining the touts property. It was the only time I actually witnessed that portly BTP saergent arrest anyone. He was either on Police Federation business or frightening free food and drink from the station catering concessions. I got my own back by installing electricity meters on the BTP police station when I discivered it was not on the traction supply circuit.

 

I've been on my holidays. But with some time to kill in the baggage reclaim at Gatwick now I'll oblige.

I don't think that quote particularly dents my argument. I wouldn't call it an agreement. Tony Hall no longer calls it an agreement. Common sense dictates the imbalance in power between the parties means most people wouldn't think it was an agreement in the typical use of the word.

I questioned why you called it an agreement. If the answer is 'because Tony Hall did 3 years ago' then that's fair enough. Incidentally, part of the legal paperwork for the charter itself is referred to as an 'agreement'. Is there any precedent for a DG not signing?

 

Anywhere nice?

Austria?

 

You only have to look at some of the munters they get to read the news these days to see what total disregard the BBC has for the licence fee payer

 

Slightly loaded headline here. The thing with the beeb is they don’t lie, they tell a truth.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49076294

During this highly charged and partisan time in this county why lead with that headline?

 

I think you are being unnecessarily pedantic. You used the word "agreed" yourself in that post. The fact is that Hall said it was a good agreeement for the BBC. As far as I know, there are no surprises, no stings in the tail, just a clear message that the BBC had to reduce their costs in some way over the next 3 to 5 years. The fact that Hall has now changed his mind either demonstrates that he is totally incompetent, as he didn't understand what he was signing, or he is trying to cover up the mismanagement, by just blaming the government.

I think that the BBC can reduce costs in places that do not affect any disadvantaged minority. For example, Six Music, that currently caters for people that mainly use the internet for their entertainment needs, they don't actually need the BBC to provide something they can easily get online.

I don't think we need foreign language stations either. Again, there are plenty on offer elsewhere, and we should be encouraging integration rather than division.

There are many other areas, and I have already spoken about the news, where they seem to spend vanity money everywhere, attempt to create news, rather than merely just aiming to report the news.