BBC cutbacks

Frank the tank

I believe in the BBC and I'm happy to pay my licence fee.

If I was making cutbacks the first one would be the 24hr news channel even if it meant seeing less of Kate "oral sex die of pleasure lips" Silverton.

Cleat Eastwood

ive got a mate who works at the beeb and the wastage is incredible. they actually pay some staff up 4 grand a year extra for the inconvenience of having change their shifts at short notice. The beeb is a bourgeois conceit and should be made to face up the harsh realties of biz in the 21st century.

Keith1983

Why would they be making cuts? My licence fee hasn't been reduced.

rick_chasey

Keith1983 wrote:

Why would they be making cuts? My licence fee hasn't been reduced.

The licence fee has been reduced in real terms (i.e. it hasn't been raised along with inflation).

msmancunia

Rick Chasey wrote:

Keith1983 wrote:

Why would they be making cuts? My licence fee hasn't been reduced.

The licence fee has been reduced in real terms (i.e. it hasn't been raised along with inflation).

They are also having to take on financial responsibility for the BBC World Service and also help fund S4C in the next couple of years. BBCWS was funded through grant-in-aid from the Foreign Office. I work for the Beeb, and we're also pretty sick of the wastage, and the red tape, and the crap programmes like Bargain Hunt and pretty much every single programme on BBC3....

Smokin Joe

Rick Chasey wrote:

Keith1983 wrote:

Why would they be making cuts? My licence fee hasn't been reduced.

The licence fee has been reduced in real terms (i.e. it hasn't been raised along with inflation).

Like most people's wages over the last five years.

Margaret Thatcher (yeah, whatever) once commented that when she was interviewed on the BBC there were three times as many staff in the studio as were used by ITV, all for the same picture and sound output.

And dump Radio 3, hardly anyone listens to it.

Pru

I don't have a TV licence (or a TV), primarily to save money as nobody is making good television and secondly that I despise the BBCs monopolistic hold over the media industry.

It is unfair that that money should go to the BBC exclusively, when other channels are simply providing better content. In addition to the fact that the BBC provide so many services abroad for free, the BBC is a joke.

WisePranker

Rick Chasey wrote:

The licence fee has been reduced in real terms (i.e. it hasn't been raised along with inflation).

Much the same as the quality of the BBC's programmes really!

Cleat Eastwood

Smokin Joe wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Keith1983 wrote:

Why would they be making cuts? My licence fee hasn't been reduced.

The licence fee has been reduced in real terms (i.e. it hasn't been raised along with inflation).

Like most people's wages over the last five years.

Margaret Thatcher (yeah, whatever) once commented that when she was interviewed on the BBC there were three times as many staff in the studio as were used by ITV, all for the same picture and sound output.

And dump Radio 3, hardly anyone listens to it.

radio 3 is brilliant. best plays on the radio EVA

DavidBelcher

msmancunia wrote:

and the crap programmes like Bargain Hunt and pretty much every single programme on BBC3....

Trouble is, though, I'd imagine BH is relatively cheap to make and easily used to fill out daytime schedules by repeating it a few times.

David

rick_chasey

msmancunia wrote:

I work for the Beeb, and we're also pretty sick of the wastage, and the red tape, and the crap programmes like Bargain Hunt and pretty much every single programme on BBC3....

Gavin & Stacey was excellent.

Tom Butcher

They can start by simply repeating kids TV on a 3-4 year cycle - there is a whole generation of kids who have never seen Pipkins,The Herb Garden, Hector's House or Rainbow (well unless they have cable) - let them watch those.

Stewie Griffin

Rick Chasey wrote:

msmancunia wrote:

I work for the Beeb, and we're also pretty sick of the wastage, and the red tape, and the crap programmes like Bargain Hunt and pretty much every single programme on BBC3....

Gavin & Stacey was excellent.

Family Guy, American Dad and Wilfred too.

rick_chasey

Stewie Griffin wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

msmancunia wrote:

I work for the Beeb, and we're also pretty sick of the wastage, and the red tape, and the crap programmes like Bargain Hunt and pretty much every single programme on BBC3....

Gavin & Stacey was excellent.

Family Guy, American Dad and Wilfred too.

Yeah.

Seth MacFarlane cartoons aren't original programming though..

Stewie Griffin

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stewie Griffin wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

msmancunia wrote:

I work for the Beeb, and we're also pretty sick of the wastage, and the red tape, and the crap programmes like Bargain Hunt and pretty much every single programme on BBC3....

Gavin & Stacey was excellent.

Family Guy, American Dad and Wilfred too.

Yeah.

Seth MacFarlane cartoons aren't original programming though..

Granted they arent original, they are bloody funny though. :P

desweller

Smokin Joe wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Keith1983 wrote:

Why would they be making cuts? My licence fee hasn't been reduced.

The licence fee has been reduced in real terms (i.e. it hasn't been raised along with inflation).

Like most people's wages over the last five years.

Margaret Thatcher (yeah, whatever) once commented that when she was interviewed on the BBC there were three times as many staff in the studio as were used by ITV, all for the same picture and sound output.

And dump Radio 3, hardly anyone listens to it.

Hands off Radio 3. I listen to it all the time!

verylonglegs

They are more likely to cut the interesting nuanced stuff that a public broadcaster should be doing and keep the nonsense like Eastenders, quite how it can justify making that I've no idea.

Tom Butcher

I'm worried this might put The National Lottery Show at risk.

inkyfingers

verylonglegs wrote:

They are more likely to cut the interesting nuanced stuff that a public broadcaster should be doing and keep the nonsense like Eastenders, quite how it can justify making that I've no idea.

That's what I worry about. The BBC make (or at least commission) some cracking drama's and documentaries which i'd hate to see cut back (Wonders of The Solar System, Planet Earth, Spooks for example). Unfortunately they are probably the most expensive programs to make whereas the likes of Eastenders/Homes Under The Hammer etc are probably relatively cheap ways of packing out the schedules. The BBC need to keep the program quality high and allow ITV and other channels to cater for the middle of the road market, otherwise they risk losing what seperates them from the multitude of Freeview channels showing reality/cooking/property programs.

I've always been a big supporter of the BBC, but they have to slim down and change with the modern world.

rick_chasey

inkyfingers wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

They are more likely to cut the interesting nuanced stuff that a public broadcaster should be doing and keep the nonsense like Eastenders, quite how it can justify making that I've no idea.

That's what I worry about. The BBC make (or at least commission) some cracking drama's and documentaries which i'd hate to see cut back (Wonders of The Solar System, Planet Earth, Spooks for example). Unfortunately they are probably the most expensive programs to make whereas the likes of Eastenders/Homes Under The Hammer etc are probably relatively cheap ways of packing out the schedules. The BBC need to keep the program quality high and allow ITV and other channels to cater for the middle of the road market, otherwise they risk losing what seperates them from the multitude of Freeview channels showing reality/cooking/property programs.

I've always been a big supporter of the BBC, but they have to slim down and change with the modern world.

Sport's the easiest to cut. I read somewhere that the formula one cuts cover one or two entire radio stations.

inkyfingers

Rick Chasey wrote:

inkyfingers wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

They are more likely to cut the interesting nuanced stuff that a public broadcaster should be doing and keep the nonsense like Eastenders, quite how it can justify making that I've no idea.

That's what I worry about. The BBC make (or at least commission) some cracking drama's and documentaries which i'd hate to see cut back (Wonders of The Solar System, Planet Earth, Spooks for example). Unfortunately they are probably the most expensive programs to make whereas the likes of Eastenders/Homes Under The Hammer etc are probably relatively cheap ways of packing out the schedules. The BBC need to keep the program quality high and allow ITV and other channels to cater for the middle of the road market, otherwise they risk losing what seperates them from the multitude of Freeview channels showing reality/cooking/property programs.

I've always been a big supporter of the BBC, but they have to slim down and change with the modern world.

Sport's the easiest to cut. I read somewhere that the formula one cuts cover one or two entire radio stations.

Personally I don't mind the BBC losing sports, so long as they are covered elsewhere. It's a bit selfish but I pay for Sky anyway so don't midn if they take more sports so long as BBC keeps doing the other stuff it does well (drama, comedy and documentaries etc).

cornerblock

Cut rubbish like Snog Marry Avoid for a start, then get rid of all those who commissioned it, might not save that much money, but it could prevent such utter crap being shown on the BBC in the future.

lifeform

Since the freeview/cable/satellite channels opened up to the BBC, it does seem to have become an excuse to commission any old sh1te.

Things like Top Gear make a profit for the Beeb, so no worries with that. But Brian Cox being paid to smile at the sky at a variety of exotic far-flung locations does have me wondering if that one is nothing more than a terribly nice gig for all involved.

Otherwise I'm relatively nonplussed as to the fate of the Beeb - they've not commissioned anything that interests me recently, so I usually have to get my Bettany Hughes fix down in the depths of the History/Nat Geo/Blighty channels.

They do often do some rather odd things though; for example, the much respected military historian Richard Holmes passed away recently. Have they re-run the excellent War Walks series? Nope. Have they re-released it on DVD after it went OOP some year back? Nope.

This is rather typical of the BBC now - there used to be a book or DVD 'accompanying the series' for their serious documentaries... nothing these days.

rick_chasey

inkyfingers wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sport's the easiest to cut. I read somewhere that the formula one cuts cover one or two entire radio stations.

Personally I don't mind the BBC losing sports, so long as they are covered elsewhere. It's a bit selfish but I pay for Sky anyway so don't midn if they take more sports so long as BBC keeps doing the other stuff it does well (drama, comedy and documentaries etc).

I'm unfortunately coming round to the idea that watching sport, even on TV, will have to cost me.

Rather like the slow realisation that my generation's unlikely to experience the kind of improvement in living standards from 1950-2008, so this poor TV will continue.

*sighs*

DavidBelcher

Cornerblock wrote:

Cut rubbish like Snog Marry Avoid for a start, then get rid of all those who commissioned it, might not save that much money, but it could prevent such utter crap being shown on the BBC in the future.

The other problem with shows like that is that they tend to be made by outside production companies on the Beeb's behalf, so the actual cost to the BBC is pared to a minimum since no studio space, camera/sound/ighting crew etc., etc. is needed.

David

DavidBelcher

lifeform wrote:

But Brian Cox being paid to smile at the sky at a variety of exotic far-flung locations does have me wondering if that one is nothing more than a terribly nice gig for all involved.

A little light relief (if all too true) concerning Brian "billions" Cox here;

http://newsthump.com/2011/03/14/i-must- ... ee-payers/



David

inkyfingers

DavidBelcher wrote:

lifeform wrote:

But Brian Cox being paid to smile at the sky at a variety of exotic far-flung locations does have me wondering if that one is nothing more than a terribly nice gig for all involved.

A little light relief (if all too true) concerning Brian "billions" Cox here;

http://newsthump.com/2011/03/14/i-must- ... ee-payers/



David

Very good! I used to say the same thing about Dr Iain Stewart, who taught me geology at University before he decided that he would rather spend more time getting paid by the BBC to teach geology in more exotic locations than the lecture hall of Brunel University!

Selfishly, I have less of an issue with these programs, as whilst they are probably expensive to make they are genuinely educational and the quality of the production is simply superb.