BBC Golden Goodbyes
Discussion
DonkeyApple said:
Seeing as the public want blood for Jimmy and there is no one to directly blame then the compromise of paying people to take a ceremonial fall to appease the gods is the only real option.
But it's palpable b
ks; most of these pinheads have been serially incompetent, BBC news has been without meaningful oversight or management for years the way the report told it. If they are so fking impressive, why haven't they all been headhunted by the US networks and fked off the states? They're at the BBC because no-one else will employ them! The argument that they are getting industry standard rewards is a steaming turd as well; the BBC are by far the largest media employer in the UK, they set the fking average!hidetheelephants said:
It's ridiculous because the Sun, Times etc. each have one editor-in-chief, and they get fired unceremoniously if they fk up. BBC news appears to have dozens of mandarins with vague jobtitles, apparently no management/hierarchy tree indicating who is responsible for what, and little consequence for careers if they do balls up as they can just 'move sideways'; despite serial fk-ups the titular head and deputy of news get to retire.
Well said. Too much frittering away other people's money in the public sector. Let them do it when they've earned it, not been given it. Notable exceptions of course.k up. BBC news appears to have dozens of mandarins with vague jobtitles, apparently no management/hierarchy tree indicating who is responsible for what, and little consequence for careers if they do balls up as they can just 'move sideways'; despite serial fk-ups the titular head and deputy of news get to retire.hidetheelephants said:
But it's palpable bks; most of these pinheads have been serially incompetent, BBC news has been without meaningful oversight or management for years the way the report told it. If they are so fking impressive, why haven't they all been headhunted by the US networks and fked off the states? They're at the BBC because no-one else will employ them! The argument that they are getting industry standard rewards is a steaming turd as well; the BBC are by far the largest media employer in the UK, they set the fking average!
That isn't true though is it? That's just an angry rant. ks; most of these pinheads have been serially incompetent, BBC news has been without meaningful oversight or management for years the way the report told it. If they are so fking impressive, why haven't they all been headhunted by the US networks and fked off the states? They're at the BBC because no-one else will employ them! The argument that they are getting industry standard rewards is a steaming turd as well; the BBC are by far the largest media employer in the UK, they set the fking average!
Most of our commercial stations are staffed by people who learned their trade at the BBC and are paid considerably more than the BBC is permitted.
The BBC has been able to halt the crippling exodus of quality staff in recent years by allowing 'external' contract companies in. Just have a peek at all the production firms that have sprung up in the last 15 years and who works for them.
But I always do find these BBC threads amusing. People seem so emotional and angry about it and then willingly pay a voluntary license fee to help support it.
DonkeyApple said:
But I always do find these BBC threads amusing. People seem so emotional and angry about it and then willingly pay a voluntary license fee to help support it.
How is the fee "voluntary" when you have to pay it if you watch any television channel and never watch the BBC?That isn't emotional and angry BTW, just not sure how it could ever be considered voluntary?
Slobberchops said:
Voluntary? Tell me how I can watch tv without one and without being threatened that I need to buy one.
Step 1 Cancel Sky (do note those that moan the most about the BBC license fee joyfully pay £800 a year to sky)Step 2 Cancel the license fee
Step 3 remove aerial lead from telly
Step 4 Watch BBC iplayer, buy DVD box sets, join love film or netflix or the scariest option of them all go out and see the real world
hornetrider said:
Also, the implication here is many have received more than was written into their contract. Entwhistle being the prime example.
Hmm, not sure about this one. Entwistle was entitled to 2x salary if he was fired, and 1x salary if he resigned. When it became apparent that he had to go, he contacted his lawyers and gave the board two options:1. Fire me, and pay me my contractually entitled 2x salary. And I'll bring an employment tribunal against you.
2. Agree to pay me 2x salary,I'll resign quietly and save you the hassle of firing me and the subsequent tribunal.
I'm not sure the BBC was ever in a position to not pay 2x salary, and I don't blame them for taking option 2.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: How is the fee "voluntary" when you have to pay it if you watch any television channel and never watch the BBC?
That isn't emotional and angry BTW, just not sure how it could ever be considered voluntary?
Its voluntary in the same way that buying car insurance is voluntaryThat isn't emotional and angry BTW, just not sure how it could ever be considered voluntary?
3 of my cars aren't insured as i don't use them on the public road and i haven't broken any laws.
In the same way it isn't illegal to not watch the telly
DonkeyApple said:
That isn't true though is it? That's just an angry rant.
Most of our commercial stations are staffed by people who learned their trade at the BBC and are paid considerably more than the BBC is permitted.
The BBC has been able to halt the crippling exodus of quality staff in recent years by allowing 'external' contract companies in. Just have a peek at all the production firms that have sprung up in the last 15 years and who works for them.
But I always do find these BBC threads amusing. People seem so emotional and angry about it and then willingly pay a voluntary license fee to help support it.
Clearly stuffing their mouths with gold Bevan-style isn't working, as they're still sMost of our commercial stations are staffed by people who learned their trade at the BBC and are paid considerably more than the BBC is permitted.
The BBC has been able to halt the crippling exodus of quality staff in recent years by allowing 'external' contract companies in. Just have a peek at all the production firms that have sprung up in the last 15 years and who works for them.
But I always do find these BBC threads amusing. People seem so emotional and angry about it and then willingly pay a voluntary license fee to help support it.
t. Have you any more compelling arguments? DonkeyApple said:
Have you? The ranting is amusing but does lack content or relevance. 
The entire spinning bowtie extravaganza that has been the Savile fk-up is fairly compelling evidence of their stness to me; what does it say to you? Are you going to hire Peter Rippon to see if he can fk up your business too?10 Pence Short said:
The outrage about the BBC and their pay-offs is ultimately because WE are paying for it. If it was executives at GlaxoSmithKline or BP or almost any other private organisation, there would be no story.
If Rupert Murdoch wants to pay his staff a generous severance package, it's none of our business because we're not forced to pay for it. It's immaterial to our lives.
If a publicly funded organisation chooses to hand out contracts that spend tax payer's money in a wasteful way, that IS our business.
If you cannot see the difference, I wonder how you manage to tie shoelaces or even remember to breath in once in a while.
You seem to have missed the numerous stories about outrage over executive pay over the last few years, which everyone pays for through higher prices from the companies concerned and reduced profits for the company/pension schemes etc.If Rupert Murdoch wants to pay his staff a generous severance package, it's none of our business because we're not forced to pay for it. It's immaterial to our lives.
If a publicly funded organisation chooses to hand out contracts that spend tax payer's money in a wasteful way, that IS our business.
If you cannot see the difference, I wonder how you manage to tie shoelaces or even remember to breath in once in a while.
Incidentally if you're going to imply I have difficulty with routine tasks then it is breathe in.
greygoose said:
10 Pence Short said:
The outrage about the BBC and their pay-offs is ultimately because WE are paying for it. If it was executives at GlaxoSmithKline or BP or almost any other private organisation, there would be no story.
If Rupert Murdoch wants to pay his staff a generous severance package, it's none of our business because we're not forced to pay for it. It's immaterial to our lives.
If a publicly funded organisation chooses to hand out contracts that spend tax payer's money in a wasteful way, that IS our business.
If you cannot see the difference, I wonder how you manage to tie shoelaces or even remember to breath in once in a while.
You seem to have missed the numerous stories about outrage over executive pay over the last few years, which everyone pays for through higher prices from the companies concerned and reduced profits for the company/pension schemes etc.If Rupert Murdoch wants to pay his staff a generous severance package, it's none of our business because we're not forced to pay for it. It's immaterial to our lives.
If a publicly funded organisation chooses to hand out contracts that spend tax payer's money in a wasteful way, that IS our business.
If you cannot see the difference, I wonder how you manage to tie shoelaces or even remember to breath in once in a while.
Incidentally if you're going to imply I have difficulty with routine tasks then it is breathe in.
10p short, saying that a media tycoon who wants to dominate all media channels and whose organisation engaged in serious breaches of privacy and whose employees had the ear of the government doesn't matter is quite frankly amazing. He paid 10 million to someone that is now facing criminal charges. It puts the BBC severance payouts into perspective, but no public outrage from politicians
If you think that paying the licence fee is bad wait until Rupert gets his monopoly.
tubbystu said:
Many of the recent payouts will be caused by the move of much of the BBC's production to Manchester. If you have a fixed term contract to work for the BBC in London, and mid-term they shift the location to Manchester you would either get offered a relocation package, redundancy or severance depending on the job/role/person/needs/contract etc. Because the employer is changing the terms of the contract, the carrot waived will be generous.
It amused me that so many of the BBC 'Islington set' luvvies where put out when asked to move 'up North' to Manchester , no doubt that led to lots of people leaving and claiming their severance. Suspect that they couldn't see themselves mixing it with the dirty unwashed outside of London.bhstewie said:
hstewie said:DonkeyApple said:
But I always do find these BBC threads amusing. People seem so emotional and angry about it and then willingly pay a voluntary license fee to help support it.
How is the fee "voluntary" when you have to pay it if you watch any television channel and never watch the BBC?That isn't emotional and angry BTW, just not sure how it could ever be considered voluntary?
But a tenner a month to have the 30/40 channels streamed live is very cheap in contrast to the other alternatives.
The general reason why so many people are angry is down to the fact that they are buying a license without ever bothering to read what it is actually for.
thinfourth2 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: How is the fee "voluntary" when you have to pay it if you watch any television channel and never watch the BBC?
That isn't emotional and angry BTW, just not sure how it could ever be considered voluntary?
Its voluntary in the same way that buying car insurance is voluntaryThat isn't emotional and angry BTW, just not sure how it could ever be considered voluntary?
3 of my cars aren't insured as i don't use them on the public road and i haven't broken any laws.
In the same way it isn't illegal to not watch the telly
And if you think people pay the license fee willingly, then make it truly voluntary and optional and see what happens.
DonkeyApple said:
Because the fee is for watching tv as it is broadcast. As such, with modern on demand and playback services you have no need to watch tv as it is broadcast meaning that it boils down to choice.
But a tenner a month to have the 30/40 channels streamed live is very cheap in contrast to the other alternatives.
.
If what you say is actually true, then why isn't the fee shared between all of the 30/40 channels? But a tenner a month to have the 30/40 channels streamed live is very cheap in contrast to the other alternatives.
.
By the way, do you know the difference between broadcasting and streaming?
REALIST123 said:
DonkeyApple said:
Because the fee is for watching tv as it is broadcast. As such, with modern on demand and playback services you have no need to watch tv as it is broadcast meaning that it boils down to choice.
But a tenner a month to have the 30/40 channels streamed live is very cheap in contrast to the other alternatives.
.
If what you say is actually true, then why isn't the fee shared between all of the 30/40 channels? But a tenner a month to have the 30/40 channels streamed live is very cheap in contrast to the other alternatives.
.
By the way, do you know the difference between broadcasting and streaming?
The License Fee is to allow you to watch television and radio as it is broadcast or streamed. So this is for all channels, stations. You are paying to watch tv.
That is what the license is. So you need it to watch BBC channels or any other commercial content.
Now, separately, the money raised is used in part (not all) to fund a nationalised broadcasting service.
It is important to note that without this service the commercial stations would be more heavily regulated in regards to what content they could show. So, even if you do not utilise the BBC it is permitting a wider range of services in the commercial sphere.
In addition, a free service serves to regulate the cost of the commercial services. In the same way that a nationalised utility company would serve to keep utility costs more competitive.
So, the license serves a series of valuable services.
But, if you do not watch TV as it is broadcast then you obviously have no need of the license.
Seeing as almost all broadcast TV is available 'non live' via the web and on demand services the license in the last decade has become 100% optional. This is why I don't understand why people froth like illiterate, rabid dogs over it.
The fact that the license fee is structured in this way and the rapid move towards all TV being OD means that the license will have to change shortly.
Ps. Am aware of the subtleties between broadcast and streaming. But suspect you may be considering 'streaming' in only one of its wide uses
If you wish to watch streamed content live you require a TV License.
Edited by DonkeyApple on Thursday 27th December 10:10
It could be worse
You could be forced to give 20% of your sky subscription to the government
and with the top package being £65.75 a month being £789 a year then £131 a year would be going straight into the government blackhole
Thats more the the license fee which mostly goes towards running the beeb
You could be forced to give 20% of your sky subscription to the government
and with the top package being £65.75 a month being £789 a year then £131 a year would be going straight into the government blackhole
Thats more the the license fee which mostly goes towards running the beeb
DonkeyApple said:
REALIST123 said:
DonkeyApple said:
Because the fee is for watching tv as it is broadcast. As such, with modern on demand and playback services you have no need to watch tv as it is broadcast meaning that it boils down to choice.
But a tenner a month to have the 30/40 channels streamed live is very cheap in contrast to the other alternatives.
.
If what you say is actually true, then why isn't the fee shared between all of the 30/40 channels? But a tenner a month to have the 30/40 channels streamed live is very cheap in contrast to the other alternatives.
.
By the way, do you know the difference between broadcasting and streaming?
The License Fee is to allow you to watch television and radio as it is broadcast or streamed. So this is for all channels, stations. You are paying to watch tv.
That is what the license is. So you need it to watch BBC channels or any other commercial content.
Now, separately, the money raised is used in part (not all) to fund a nationalised broadcasting service.
It is important to note that without this service the commercial stations would be more heavily regulated in regards to what content they could show. So, even if you do not utilise the BBC it is permitting a wider range of services in the commercial sphere.
In addition, a free service serves to regulate the cost of the commercial services. In the same way that a nationalised utility company would serve to keep utility costs more competitive.
So, the license serves a series of valuable services.
But, if you do not watch TV as it is broadcast then you obviously have no need of the license.
Seeing as almost all broadcast TV is available 'non live' via the web and on demand services the license in the last decade has become 100% optional. This is why I don't understand why people froth like illiterate, rabid dogs over it.
The fact that the license fee is structured in this way and the rapid move towards all TV being OD means that the license will have to change shortly.
Ps. Am aware of the subtleties between broadcast and streaming. But suspect you may be considering 'streaming' in only one of its wide uses
If you wish to watch streamed content live you require a TV License.
Edited by DonkeyApple on Thursday 27th December 10:10
So what about an "steerable" sat system in which UK FTA/V transponders are not in the receivers memory?
<and off>
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff