BBC spent £28m of licence-fee payers' money gagging 500 staff

[Market Where?]

Its a government/ tax payer funded organisation. Simply set up an independent body that anyone who has signed a compromise agreement can report concerns to. If there are any grounds to the concerns then the compromise agreement is declared null and void and an open investigation / criminal prosecution follows.

 

[rokerexile]

When did that change then, because it used to be that if you had equipment capable of receiving a signal you had to have a licence.

From the TV Licencing website: "If you watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV or an online TV service, you need to be covered by a TV Licence. This is the case whether you use a TV, computer, tablet, mobile phone, games console, digital box, DVD/VHS recorder or any other device." The salient words from that are "as they're being shown". It doesn't only mean live broadcasts!

Impossible to police of course.

 

[Cockney Mackem]

That's common knowledge, surely. Also the more people that do that, the more the Tories will push for an internet tax.

Why people bitch about the BBC I do not know, its a small price to pay for an excellent service. I wish I had the chance to pay for it over here. Do these same people complain about paying for other services they may never need? Like the NHS, public transport, Police, fire service, coastguard, army, etc? How about English Heritage? Or is this actually part of the cost of living in a society?

Also, imagine if the alternative that would exist without those services was right in front of them and obviously hideous, the way ITV and Rupert Murdoch are regarding the BBC? Like the people going around saying the fire brigade should stop receiving public funding were a bunch of arsonists whose operations involved flying over cities in a crop duster plane spraying accelerant onto all the buildings, and fire trucks with flame throwers instead of hoses, and everyone stood around saying yeah I wish the fire brigade was like THAT

 

[alzeebub]

I'm slightly surprised the Tories aren't flogging it. The BBC has created many brands; Horizon, Top Gear, etc etc. Shirley these could be sold individually and rake in an absolute fortune?

 

[PinzaC55]

Left wing organisation in wasting money shocker

Under a Conservative government for the last 5 years.

 

[Jester]

It's not just the BBC that gets public money

I have acknowledged this. I was wrong.

 

[JumpingAnaconda]

Well, I stand corrected.

From BBC WEB PAGE: The fee you pay provides a wide range of TV, radio and online content, as well as developing new ways to deliver it to you. In addition to funding BBC programmes and services, a proportion of the licence fee contributes to the costs of rolling out broadband to the UK population and funding Welsh Language TV channel S4C and local TV channels.

Off to blow my brains out for not being fully clued up,before posting on here. Mind, you were right to correct me. Thanks.

Now I know my measly contribution is helping the Welsh, I shall be campaigning to increase the license fee to £50 a month and for all senior executives to receive a 300 per cent salary increase and for them to be exempt from paying income tax.

But Channel 4 (which is also a public service broadcaster) definitely does not receive any money from the licence fee. In fact during the advertising recession, which massively impacted Channel 4, moves were made to propose Channel 4 receive a small allocation from the licence fee to help maintain the channel's public service remit. The BBC went absolutely mental and did everything it could to oppose the idea, until it was eventually dropped. It is pretty annoying that the BBC are now revealed to have paid £28 million in hush money to keep people from shitting in their nest, when this is probably more than the share that would have been allocated to Channel 4 anyway.

That money is just the tip of the iceberg. There has been a culture of colossal spending with very little return from the BBC for years. In turn they have used as an excuse to demand more funding the switch to widescreen, the switch to digital broadcasting, expanding online presence,HD, iPlayer, and 3D. One every occasion they have arbitrarily expanded their own remit without anybody asking them to do it while pricing the work well beyond what is needed. The BBC are still complaining that they cut their news teams from individual online, TV and radio teams even though to was the obvious that they needed to be consolidated into one team. No other company runs with those kind of inefficiencies.

And then there is the insane expense of leaving the BBC Television Centre in Wood Lane and moving to Manchester. No only did the physical move cost huge amounts of money, they had to offer massive packages to those who would not move, early retirement with terrific benefits to others, crazy benefits packages for relocation to those who would move, and crazy support packages for those who retained their jobs but decided to commute. This was all because the BBC was worried about being too London centric, and within 10 years of controversially demolishing Pebble Mill studios in the West Midlands to relocate to facilities that were later found to be unsuitable for being adapting to their need, resulting in more waste and the development of yet another studio facility.

There are programmes of very little cost broadcast by the BBC through the bulk of the day which somehow manage to consume vast amounts of money by the time they get to air. They have also had a habit of adopting monopolistic approaches to many areas of the media, especially radio. Their producers have largely been brainwashed into the mantra that the BBC are saintly and wonderful and superior to all else because they do not have 'annoying adverts' yet they seem to not acknowledge that their business model of having money freely handed too them is a privileged position. There is a clear BBC culture which sneers down its nose at the mortals relying on commercial aspects to provide their funding. The sooner that culture is obliterated the better.

 

[PinzaC55]

When you look at this, politicians awarding themselves (via an "independent review body" before anyone corrects me) and the charities thread here, it's clear that "they" (the Establishment) are laughing at "us". They have it sewn up and they just chuck huge sums of public money at each other and pretend to be shocked when they are found out. I would love to go into one of the clubs where these people meet with a hidden microphone and record them.

That's common knowledge, surely. Also the more people that do that, the more the Tories will push for an internet tax.

Why people bitch about the BBC I do not know, its a small price to pay for an excellent service. I wish I had the chance to pay for it over here. Do these same people complain about paying for other services they may never need? Like the NHS, public transport, Police, fire service, coastguard, army, etc? How about English Heritage? Or is this actually part of the cost of living in a society?

If I was in a house fire or needed a triple bypass I don't think I would phone the BBC or English Heritage to come help me. Some of those services are essential, some are marginally useful. I expect NHS staff, the Police and firemen to be well paid , but I don't expect the knobs who are nominally in charge of those services to be well paid. They should think themselves lucky to have a job which includes an almost guaranteed knighthood or lordship at the end of it.

 

[ProfessionalMackem]

That's common knowledge, surely. Also the more people that do that, the more the Tories will push for an internet tax.

Why people bitch about the BBC I do not know, its a small price to pay for an excellent service. I wish I had the chance to pay for it over here. Do these same people complain about paying for other services they may never need? Like the NHS, public transport, Police, fire service, coastguard, army, etc? How about English Heritage? Or is this actually part of the cost of living in a society?

Why should I pay for something I don't use mate?

I'd like to see the tories try to implement a Internet tax.

When did that change then, because it used to be that if you had equipment capable of receiving a signal you had to have a licence.

Not sure if it ever changed mate.

From the TV Licencing website: "If you watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV or an online TV service, you need to be covered by a TV Licence. This is the case whether you use a TV, computer, tablet, mobile phone, games console, digital box, DVD/VHS recorder or any other device." The salient words from that are "as they're being shown". It doesn't only mean live broadcasts!

Impossible to police of course.

Quite. They play on this though. People's ignorance.

So you only need a licence to watch stuff as it happens. Don't need a TV licence for any catch up stuff.

 

[Paddy O'Dors]

Not exactly hot off the press. That story is over 2 years old.

 

[Pepe]

Somebody is always using somebody else's money to do something.

Pull it and watch the pigs squirm.

 

[ANonnyMoose]

When you look at this, politicians awarding themselves (via an "independent review body" before anyone corrects me) and the charities thread here, it's clear that "they" (the Establishment) are laughing at "us". They have it sewn up and they just chuck huge sums of public money at each other and pretend to be shocked when they are found out. I would love to go into one of the clubs where these people meet with a hidden microphone and record them.



If I was in a house fire or needed a triple bypass I don't think I would phone the BBC or English Heritage to come help me. Some of those services are essential, some are marginally useful. I expect NHS staff, the Police and firemen to be well paid , but I don't expect the knobs who are nominally in charge of those services to be well paid. They should think themselves lucky to have a job which includes an almost guaranteed knighthood or lordship at the end of it.

Which ones are essential? Because over time, not all of those were considered essential and today in other countries are not considered essential either. So which are essential to you, as a taxpayer you are already paying towards all of them.

Why should I pay for something I don't use mate?

I'd like to see the tories try to implement a Internet tax.

Its called living in a society mate, where we all contribute small amounts for the greater good. I live in a country without the BBC and trust me, its a huge miss. So how would you like to live your life, PPV only? Good luck with that, where the popular stuff just goes up and up in price and the non-popular niche stuff never gets televised at all. Want to pay 100 quid a month for the football? How about 200? 500?

I would rather sort out the issues at the BBC then to go to the American model - why are so many UK people attracted to living like the USA so much? Its a shit country for the average person to live!

 

[ProfessionalMackem]

Which ones are essential? Because over time, not all of those were considered essential and today in other countries are not considered essential either. So which are essential to you, as a taxpayer you are already paying towards all of them.


Its called living in a society mate, where we all contribute small amounts for the greater good. I live in a country without the BBC and trust me, its a huge miss. So how would you like to live your life, PPV only? Good luck with that, where the popular stuff just goes up and up in price and the non-popular niche stuff never gets televised at all. Want to pay 100 quid a month for the football? How about 200? 500?

I would rather sort out the issues at the BBC then to go to the American model - why are so many UK people attracted to living like the USA so much? Its a shit country for the average person to live!

You make some good points mate. Apart from that I would miss BBC. Not seen anything on it for years. If I do like something they produce like documentaries or series such as Luther and sherlock I buy them on did

 

[AB22 Easy Tiger]

Another thing, why does the BBC appear to cover America more than the UK? I've noticed it in the morning, are those in America charged a subscription fee etc?

Yes we are, (it comes as part of an add on package - so about $220 per month) and we have to put up with incessant adverts (about 20 mins for every hour broadcast.)

If I was in a house fire or needed a triple bypass I don't think I would phone the BBC or English Heritage to come help me. Some of those services are essential, some are marginally useful. .

I just had to pay $1712 for a ten minute ambulance ride. Even though I was going into intensive care, getting me there was not considered essential. Apparently I "should have driven"

You make some good points mate. Apart from that I would miss BBC. Not seen anything on it for years. If I do like something they produce like documentaries or series such as Luther and sherlock I buy them on did

They wouldn't be able to produce them without the licence fee and we'd be back to the lowest common denominator as we are here: 400 channels of unmitigated shite with 50% or so advert time, plus some add on channels that cost a bloody fortune.

 

[ReidysLeftLug]

Yes we are, (it comes as part of an add on package - so about $220 per month) and we have to put up with incessant adverts (about 20 mins for every hour broadcast.)


I just had to pay $1712 for a ten minute ambulance ride. Even though I was going into intensive care, getting me there was not considered essential. Apparently I "should have driven"


They wouldn't be able to produce them without the licence fee and we'd be back to the lowest common denominator as we are here: 400 channels of unmitigated shite with 50% or so advert time, plus some add on channels that cost a bloody fortune.

The BBC is turning into the shite that comes from America though so you can be sure that within a few years the BBC will resemble FOX.

 

[ANonnyMoose]

Yes we are, (it comes as part of an add on package - so about $220 per month) and we have to put up with incessant adverts (about 20 mins for every hour broadcast.)


I just had to pay $1712 for a ten minute ambulance ride. Even though I was going into intensive care, getting me there was not considered essential. Apparently I "should have driven"


They wouldn't be able to produce them without the licence fee and we'd be back to the lowest common denominator as we are here: 400 channels of unmitigated shite with 50% or so advert time, plus some add on channels that cost a bloody fortune.

Ironically (or not) the best American TV is HBO - a subscription service without adverts. Its the closest the USA comes to a "BBC" type service. Of course, you are not forced to subscribe, but then their coverage and remit are a tiny percentage of the BBC's in comparison.

One thing I do really miss from the UK is BBC R5, which yes, I can get on the web, but all the good stuff - like the actual matches, is blocked "The program you are trying to listen to is not available in your territory - welcome to Radio 5 Live from the BBC - the program you are trying to listen to is not available in your territory......"

 

[ProfessionalMackem]

Yes we are, (it comes as part of an add on package - so about $220 per month) and we have to put up with incessant adverts (about 20 mins for every hour broadcast.)


I just had to pay $1712 for a ten minute ambulance ride. Even though I was going into intensive care, getting me there was not considered essential. Apparently I "should have driven"


They wouldn't be able to produce them without the licence fee and we'd be back to the lowest common denominator as we are here: 400 channels of unmitigated shite with 50% or so advert time, plus some add on channels that cost a bloody fortune.

Fair enough mate. But I do my part by buying their stuff I like, and not paying for stuff I don't want. Plus I'm not sure. Maybe I'm being naive but I reckon they would still get made, if the BBC dont pick it up, someone else will, if the show is good enough.

 

[JumpingAnaconda]

BBC Commissioning has been carving up budgets and funding for nominally independent productions companies staffed by BBC cronies ever since the BBC had an obligation to give work to independent productions. The best example of this is Red Bee. Red Bee was originally BBC Post-Production, where all the effects and titles were done. The BBC were told that they had to give some of their post-production work to independents, so they sold BBC Post into private ownership (i.e. BBC cronies got their hands on it) renamed it Red Bee and then proceeded to give 95% of the tenders to them. It is completely blatant and all in the public domain for all to see.