BBC to axe 1000 jobs. Wheels are comming off....

[TTwiggy]

Eric Mc said:

TTwiggy said:

If you stopped spamming almost every thread on here with tenuous and lengthy diatribes based on your own personal views, I wouldn't have to bother.

To be fair, I thought that was why the internet was invented.

For the benefit of TB?

[mikal83]

Its old, bloated and past its sell by date. Journos interviewing them selves, pundits talking to other pundits, who then yak to touchline pundits. 3/4 journos/pundits all talking to themselves for hours b4 a F1 race......its bloated and should go.

[V8forweekends]

I stopped watching live telly (and buying a TV Licence) when it became clear that they were giving millions in golden goodbyes to all their pals - in many cases where the people leaving were going because they'd done something crap.

Peter Fincham got £500k even though he resigned - he was in charge of BBC TV when that infamous documentary was edited to stitch up the Queen.

They even gave Mark Byford airtime to plug his new book after he'd left with £0.94 Million redundancy and 3+ million Pension pot.

They didn't do anything about Saville, Hall, Harris and their pals who used the BBC for their own purposes whilst being handsomely paid.

They always claim to need big salaries and extra non-contractual payouts to attract the best staff and presenters but if they expect to operate in that commercial competitive environment, then they should expect to have to face the same commercial realities on funding.

Similarly, they claim to have no adverts, but their TV (when I watched it) and radio output is jammed full of propaganda and promotions for their various programmes and enterprises.

Yet they still don't get it. I would be very happy if they chose to encrypt iPlayer and make it subscription-based, then I could choose not to subscribe unless/until they clean up their act. The problem they have is that stuff like Netflix offers an online on-demand subscription model with no adverts and no requirement for a TV licence.

If they are seriously talking about making everyone who uses Netflix (and ITV player et al) get a TV licence - they are making a serious grab. On the other hand, if there's no logical reason to make Netflix viewers pay the BBC licence fee, there's none to make SKY subscribers either.

I feel bad being so anti-BBC - it was the fabric of my life for so long, but I feel they have abandoned me and treated me with contempt. Their sneering in reports today "people who say they don't watch live TV don't need a licence" was sickening - the clear implication that those of us who aren't watching live TV are dodgy evaders rather than ordinary folk acting entirely within the law.

I don't wish to align myself with freemen of the land nutters - or even Sky subscribers - I don't willingly give any money to the Murdoch empire either.

Edited by V8forweekends on Thursday 2nd July 17:26

[turbobloke]

TTwiggy said:

If you stopped spamming almost every thread on here with tenuous and lengthy diatribes based on your own personal views, I wouldn't have to bother.

Only almost every thread, dammit.

Posting my personal views, that's just unacceptable, whatever next, etc. I blame the BBC and Labour for being such a bunch of lefty losers.

Then again if you don't like accurate descriptions of the reaction of sore losers at the lefty BBC when Labour's losers lost the election, then that's your loss. It's hilarious

See you in the next thread that mentions BBC losers losing the plot at their Labour hero losers losing an election

TTwiggy said:

Eric Mc said:

To be fair, I thought that was why the internet was invented.

For the benefit of TB?

Awesome! Tim Berners-Lee, thanks mate

[technodup]

AJL308 said:

I still see no good reason as to why it wouldn't have a reasonable number of viewers. I mean, the BBC still feels the repeats of the old episodes garner enough viewers to broadcast so it's reasonable to assume that it resurrected would do no worse and probably a bit better with current acts performing rather than mostly old dead ones.

Repeats are free. Music is so splintered and available in so many places now it'd be pointless to try it imo.

AJL308 said:

There are no other regularly broadcast live music shows that I can think of at present.

Jools Holland? Other than that I can't think of any, for good reason. Anything and everything is available on Youtube whenever you want.

There's literally no music I could imagine the BBC would broadcast that I'd be interested in watching.

[Eric Mc]

TTwiggy said:

Eric Mc said:

TTwiggy said:

If you stopped spamming almost every thread on here with tenuous and lengthy diatribes based on your own personal views, I wouldn't have to bother.

To be fair, I thought that was why the internet was invented.

For the benefit of TB?

Absolutely.

[Eric Mc]

mikal83 said:

Its old, bloated and past its sell by date. Journos interviewing them selves, pundits talking to other pundits, who then yak to touchline pundits. 3/4 journos/pundits all talking to themselves for hours b4 a F1 race......its bloated and should go.

You'be been watching Channel 4 news again.

[turbobloke]

Eric Mc said:

TTwiggy said:

Eric Mc said:

TTwiggy said:

If you stopped spamming almost every thread on here with tenuous and lengthy diatribes based on your own personal views, I wouldn't have to bother.

To be fair, I thought that was why the internet was invented.

For the benefit of TB?

Absolutely.

80,895 posts

[NoNeed]

It is to be expected, and to most of us welcomed.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberalde...


There is so much waste it really is unbelievable.

[Eric Mc]

turbobloke said:

80,895 posts

I didn't say it was ONLY for you.

[eccles]

Eric Mc said:

mikal83 said:

Its old, bloated and past its sell by date. Journos interviewing them selves, pundits talking to other pundits, who then yak to touchline pundits. 3/4 journos/pundits all talking to themselves for hours b4 a F1 race......its bloated and should go.

You'be been watching Channel 4 news again.

So no different to broadcast sport in general, accross all channels.

[Ali G]

Eric Mc said:

turbobloke said:

80,895 posts

I didn't say it was ONLY for you.

I'd say that between the two of you - you've pretty much cornered the market!

[LHRFlightman]

NoNeed said:

It is to be expected, and to most of us welcomed.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberalde...


There is so much waste it really is unbelievable.

From the article, but don't let the facts get in the way of a headline eh?

BBC spokesman said: "We won’t be sending anywhere near 200 journalists, we’ve just registered plenty of names whilst it’s free so we don’t incur charges once we know who will actually be attending."

[turbobloke]

LHRFlightman said:

NoNeed said:

It is to be expected, and to most of us welcomed.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberalde...


There is so much waste it really is unbelievable.

From the article, but don't let the facts get in the way of a headline eh?

BBC spokesman said: "We won’t be sending anywhere near 200 journalists, we’ve just registered plenty of names whilst it’s free so we don’t incur charges once we know who will actually be attending."

Two should be enough, a spare is always handy. It's only the LibDems.

ITV 5 is a bit OTT but not bad.

[Fantic SuperT]

Eric Mc said:

mikal83 said:

Its old, bloated and past its sell by date. Journos interviewing them selves, pundits talking to other pundits, who then yak to touchline pundits. 3/4 journos/pundits all talking to themselves for hours b4 a F1 race......its bloated and should go.

You'be been watching Channel 4 news again.

Isn't Channel 4 also subsidized by the licence fee to churn out more opinions from the Guardian?
I wouldn't miss much of their news output if they had to find real jobs instead.

[Crush]

Not that huge a job loss, don't know what the worry is?

We are an evil non-licence payer, mainly because we can watch most things that we want via Netflix and Amazon Prime (plus our lives are not dominated by sitting on our arses watching a TV).

I do wonder if all media groups will have to change their structure in the future as more viewers switch to streaming services?

As for the BBC, I couldn't care less if they vanished as they've been a biased news source for a number of years.

[Laurel Green]

DrDoofenshmirtz said:

Laurel Green said:

DrDoofenshmirtz said:

Loss of Top Gear WW sales as well, perhaps?

Well,

BBC said:

The BBC is to cut 1,000 jobs because of a £150m budget gap in its licence fee income.

...now what was the estimated WW sales of TG?

Google said:

Top Gear generates enormous profits for BBC Worldwide, at an estimated £20m each year. In 2009, one of its best years, it brought in a revenue of £147.3m, which was higher than any other show. Since then, it has consistently appeared among the most successful shows broadcast by BBC.

http://www.cityam.com/211254/why-losing-jeremy-clarkson-would-cost-bbc-dearly

But they'll never actually admit how much they've lost just from Top Gear will they.

Yeah, that was one heavy slap!

[toohuge]

My wife made an interesting observation on a flight from Germany to London last week.

There were several news crews following the Queen in Germany and were all on the return journey home.

Sky news had sent 2 employees, presumably a presenter and camera operator / sound operator. These two flew in economy.

The BBC sent a crew of 8 all of whom flew business class....

[eccles]

toohuge said:

My wife made an interesting observation on a flight from Germany to London last week.

There were several news crews following the Queen in Germany and were all on the return journey home.

Sky news had sent 2 employees, presumably a presenter and camera operator / sound operator. These two flew in economy.

The BBC sent a crew of 8 all of whom flew business class....

Of course there were no other Sky employees on any other flights?

[mikal83]

eccles said:

So no different to broadcast sport in general, accross all channels.

True.....BUT all the licence fee goes to the BBC