More envy gripes about excessive salaries.

[Murph7355]

thinfourth2 said:

And all the channels i have mentioned would vanish as they are the channels no commercial operator could run

If there's insufficient demand for an entertainment service, why should it exist?

[anonymous-user]

BBC is worth every penny IMHO. The is more quality TV/Radio than every other channel combined (@ 5x the price via SkyVirginEtc) FreeView is a load of tosh too (apart from the BBC channels).

[crankedup]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

crankedup said:

'all' the link has to do is take instructions from the gallery / director and ensure a flow of punditry exudes from guests.

Well if it's that easy, why aren't you doing it? Or are you earning more than £2M a year elsewhere?

It is that easy and I am now retired
Its not the difficulty of the job itself, you need to be well connected and a decent manager helps. Like most things once you have managed to prise open the door and get yourself in, your in for life. Unless you do something really stupid, like make racist comments into a live mike.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

Its not just lineker who is over paid, start digging and you see just how excessive the Beeb has been with other peoples money.

I'm at a woss as to who you might be thinking of.

Wot a man wossy was.

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

Its not just lineker who is over paid, start digging and you see just how excessive the Beeb has been with other peoples money.

I'm at a woss as to who you might be thinking of.

Wot a man wossy was.

The poor chap is reportedly slumming it over at ITV compared to his milk and honey Beeb days.

[Murph7355]

Just been thinking, but why aren't the likes of Lineker getting nailed by the IR35 legislation?

[dmulally]

Globs said:

garyhun said:

Gogoplata said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwcaT2VKEy8&fea...

Never seen that before - excellent

Lovely bloke, enthusiastic, would be perfect.
And £1,900,000 per year cheaper too.

That is hilarious. He doesnt even care that they are taking the piss. Good on him.

[0a]

The BBC should exist to commission programmes that would not be tried out by commercial broadcasters. If the programme is sucuessful, the format should be auctioned off to the highest bidder in the commercial world.

By providing content in so many areas (and paying "stars" so much, the BBC crowds out the private sector. MOTD has proved to be a popular format, so it should be licenced for 5 years at a time to the highest bidder with the agreement that the BBC does not produce a similar programme.

If GL is worth it a commercial broadcaster will continue to pay him as much.

The other channels are starved of eyeballs (and therefore money) to make quality and popular programmes because the BBC feels it has to put down roots in every single possible niche and being publicly funded it has a massive advantage.

The BBC could be 20% as expensive as it is now and commercial channels would be booming.

[thinfourth2]

0a said:

The BBC should exist to commission programmes that would not be tried out by commercial broadcasters. If the programme is sucuessful, the format should be auctioned off to the highest bidder in the commercial world.

Define successful

Viewing figures?

As stuff like question time and a lot of the decent documentaries hiding away on the smaller channels have small viewing figures.

I challenge you to spend a morning listening to BBC radios most popular presenter Chris Moyles


This is the line the beeb must walk producing small stuff that will never be a success in commercial land while churning out mass market crap to give the mass market value for money

[turbobloke]

thinfourth2 said:

I challenge you to spend a morning listening to BBC radios most popular presenter Chris Moyles

I'll get back to you on that one.

[anonymous-user]

dmulally said:

That is hilarious. He doesnt even care that they are taking the piss. Good on him.

That's what go me. He's just having a great time, taking the piss out of himself and admitting he screwed up.

"Sending off?. I thought he was being substituted!"

[Murph7355]

0a said:

The BBC should exist to commission programmes that would not be tried out by commercial broadcasters....
.

Out of interest, why?

Is the greater good of the nation being protected by the BBC? (Before you answer, think about the Chris Moyles challenge above. Or Eastenders. Or the Jonathan Ross debacle).

What good does the BBC do that warrants it being publicly funded in the way it is?

We all have different ways of enriching our lives, why is the BBC a special case in terms of how it's funded?

(All genuine questions - am very open to having my mind changed).

[TwigtheWonderkid]

crankedup said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

crankedup said:

'all' the link has to do is take instructions from the gallery / director and ensure a flow of punditry exudes from guests.

Well if it's that easy, why aren't you doing it? Or are you earning more than £2M a year elsewhere?

It is that easy and I am now retired
Its not the difficulty of the job itself, you need to be well connected and a decent manager helps. Like most things once you have managed to prise open the door and get yourself in, your in for life. Unless you do something really stupid, like make racist comments into a live mike.

Yes, it's a common theme of the untalented to convince themselves that jobs that are way beyond them are easy. Acting, tv presenting, modern art etc. Makes you feel better if you can delude yourself into thinking you could do it, and it's only bad luck or lack of connections that stopped you becomming a Hollywood star!

It's a bit pathetic really, but hey..you carry on fella. Like Marlon Brando in On The Waterfont...You could have been someone, you could have been a contender.

[thinfourth2]

Murph7355 said:

0a said:

The BBC should exist to commission programmes that would not be tried out by commercial broadcasters....
.

Out of interest, why?

Is the greater good of the nation being protected by the BBC? (Before you answer, think about the Chris Moyles challenge above. Or Eastenders. Or the Jonathan Ross debacle).

What good does the BBC do that warrants it being publicly funded in the way it is?

We all have different ways of enriching our lives, why is the BBC a special case in terms of how it's funded?

(All genuine questions - am very open to having my mind changed).

i like alot of the fringe stuff the BBC does as my tastes are far from mainstream and having more then 3 working braincells i appreciate this. commercial telly seems to chase the lowest common demonater aka morons

Its not fair on the majority of morons who love chris moyles and eastenders but i don't care as the majority of my telly tax goes towards this crap

In a fair world there would be no BBC it would only be free to air moron fodder


However many folk completely forget that the bbc also has some radio stations. These radio stations have the "bbc introducing" mantra where new artists are brought into the limelight which is very much the legacy of John Peel. This brings so many muscians into the main stream it is part of the reason the UK music industry is one of the biggest. I don't know if BBC telly provides the same but it should.

[otolith]

thinfourth2 said:

Murph7355 said:

thinfourth2 said:

...

Keep BBC 2, BBC 4, radio 4 and 6 music and bin the rest

Just bin them all.

And all the channels i have mentioned would vanish as they are the channels no commercial operator could run

Because the people who want them (of whom I am one) are not willing to pay what it really costs to provide them?

I don't see why minority TV can't be funded by subscription.

[thinfourth2]

otolith said:

thinfourth2 said:

Murph7355 said:

thinfourth2 said:

...

Keep BBC 2, BBC 4, radio 4 and 6 music and bin the rest

Just bin them all.

And all the channels i have mentioned would vanish as they are the channels no commercial operator could run

Because the people who want them (of whom I am one) are not willing to pay what it really costs to provide them?

I don't see why minority TV can't be funded by subscription.

Can't be bother to hunt for figures but i don't know if BBC 4 is more expensive then BBC 1 per viewer as i can't see BBC 4 being hugely expensive. I also love horison on BBC 2 and i can't see that being hugely costly

The problem is if it went subscription then it would be lumped in with the rest of the dross on sky and to be honest i can't be bothered to pay for sky dish etc. but i am perfectly happy to pay for the BBC because of what i want and listen to. i know this makes no sense but i don't care.

[randlemarcus]

thinfourth2 said:

Can't be bother to hunt for figures but i don't know if BBC 4 is more expensive then BBC 1 per viewer as i can't see BBC 4 being hugely expensive. I also love horison on BBC 2 and i can't see that being hugely costly

The problem is if it went subscription then it would be lumped in with the rest of the dross on sky and to be honest i can't be bothered to pay for sky dish etc. but i am perfectly happy to pay for the BBC because of what i want and listen to. i know this makes no sense but i don't care.

Makes perfect sense to me. I violently dislike EastEnders and reality guff, but feel that the Beeb provides enough decent content across all its channels to justify the licence fee in my particular case.

[Murph7355]

otolith said:

Because the people who want them (of whom I am one) are not willing to pay what it really costs to provide them?

I don't see why minority TV can't be funded by subscription.

I don't either.

It's another common sense solution to a dumb "tax".

Tbh I probably listen to similar stuff to you guys (not old nor crusty enough for R4 yet though ). But I would much prefer no license fee and to be free to subscribe to what I do want.

Cures the Lineker problem too

[thinfourth2]

Murph7355 said:

otolith said:

Because the people who want them (of whom I am one) are not willing to pay what it really costs to provide them?

I don't see why minority TV can't be funded by subscription.

I don't either.

It's another common sense solution to a dumb "tax".

Tbh I probably listen to similar stuff to you guys (not old nor crusty enough for R4 yet though ). But I would much prefer no license fee and to be free to subscribe to what I do want.

Cures the Lineker problem too

The problem is for every viewer wanting BBC4 there are 20 half brains wanting eastenders.

Hence commercial operations will chase the half brains

its not that minority telly can't be done by subscription its the fact that it won't.

ITV which airs shockingly st stuff on ITV actually produced "climbing great buildings" which was a series hidden away in the BBC schedules where a team of rope access climb all over a famous building showing you the history of it and how it was built. I thought it was fantastic its not that commercial operations can't do quality it appears they don't want to

[johnfm]

Murph7355 said:

thinfourth2 said:

And all the channels i have mentioned would vanish as they are the channels no commercial operator could run

If there's insufficient demand for an entertainment service, why should it exist?

That is the point of public service broadcasting - to make programmes that commercial channels won't invest in.