The Government Has It In For the BBC

[Si Hunt]

The BBC is under threat again. The government is planning a massive raid on the BBC’s licence fee. They want to force the BBC to pay for things currently paid for by government departments.

That would mean a massive cut to BBC budgets. It looks like it could be up to 26%, or the whole cost of BBC2.

This whole forum is dedicated to Doctor Who - what will next years season look like if these cuts go ahead? It'd probably just be the Doctor and Amy living in a cardboard box or something.


Take a few moments to sign this on-line petition and MAKE A DIFFERENCE!*

* you might not make a difference, but it's good to try

[SiHart]

This is all because they want to be in with Rupert Murdoch... and which TV company is the biggest threat to Sky? Oh let me think...

I've signed the petition. The BBC needs to be protected from ill thought out plans like this.

Si xx

[Si Hunt]

Hurrah for Si.

Bloody Rupert Murdoch...

Si.

[Dirk Gently]

I too have signed.

[Dino]

Did it! And seeing as Angela Eagle is on the shadow cabinet...

Oh well. I signed an online petition. I should do this more often for other things.
And it isn't Rupert Murdoch we should worry about, it's his son James who looks to inherit it all?
Or just as bad ex-porn baron Richard Desmond who took over Channel 5 and insisted on whoever was left on "Live From Studio Five" and "Five News" showing more leg?

[SiHart]

Just on the news:

* BBC are going to have to pay for the World Service (radio) instead of the F&CO.
* To take over and pay for S4C
* Licence Fee frozen at current levels until 2016

Si xx

[Alex]

Tis such a shame, but this was predicted before the election, so I can't say I'm too surprised. I sent a letter to my MP (Glenda Jackson) a while back and received a positive response saying she intended to fight this, but whether that's true or not I guess we'll soon find out.

If the cuts have to be made, I think they should get rid of BBC3 (Sorry, but the majority of stuff on it is just absolute rubbish, and any good programmes could be moved to BBC2 or 4) and lose some of the radio stations as well. Oh, and fire Chris Moyles, and hire someone much cheaper. And that's not just because I think he's a twat, honest.*



*Yeah, yeah, I know no one believes me there. And you'd be right not to!

[Lissa]

The requirement to fund S4C is pretty appalling. The channel only exists because Welsh language militants committed acts of violence and threaten more if the channel is left to fend for itself. Hardly anyone watches it either -

FEWER than one-in-five S4C programmes within a three-week period attracted more than 10,000 viewers, the Western Mail has learned.

Leaked documents handed to us show that over a 20-day period between February and March this year, more programmes on the Welsh-language channel were watched by statistically zero people than pulled in a five-figure audience.

If the channel was wanted then it would pay for itself, if it was needed then the Welsh assembly would fund it and since neither of those happens it is left to Westminster to try and find someone to foot the bill in an effort to stop a tiny minority of Glendowannabes setting fire to English owned buildings in Wales.

[Captain Tancredi]

The S4C thing is odd- presumably at some stage it'll be merged into BBC Wales as there are presumably savings to be made by producing factual programmes which can have both English and Welsh narration for a start. It should certainly be funded from within Wales, however, although the tricky bit may be their sports rights- for a start, they have terrestrial rights to Heineken Cup rugby where they take Sky's footage and produce their own commentary.

As regards the World Service, a lot of the current affairs programming is or can be recycled from Radio 4, although as an occasional listener to 'From Our Own Correspondent', I do find myself asking what these correspondents are doing all the time when they're not filing five minutes of reportage every three months.

Freezing the licence fee until 2016 is however effectively a way of postponing a bigger decision until the next Parliament and seeing whether and how the new digital media affect the way that people consume television and radio. At least the BBC knows where it stands now and can cut its coat according to its cloth rather than being rushed into sudden and dramatic cuts.

[Alex]

I don't know how it would work legally, but I've always been surprised that the BBC haven't tried introducing a system where international viewers could watch BBC programmes on iplayer for a small fee. I can't see how anyone could complain about this, and it could make a lot of money for the corporation.

[Ian Lethbridge-Stewart]

I've signed the petition too

[Si Hunt]

Can we pay more for our license fee if we want to? I'd happily have my license fee rise with inflation if it meant they didn't have to cut the budgets of my favourite programs.

Si.

[Andrew Curnow]

The S4C thing is bizarre isn't it.

I agree with Alex though - surely it would be a very easy thing for the BBC to make some pretty major savings by reducing the number of channels. I'm not saying there's never anything good on BBC3 or BBC4, but a lot of it is the same programme shown several times (tonight's First Men in the Moon for example is on at 9, and again later at about 12:30), or an advance showing of next week's BBC1 something, or whatever - and more to the point, rather than struggling to fill up all those hours, they could move the BBC3/4 output onto BBC1/2, which I'd've thought would kill two birds with one stone.

[Andrew Curnow]

I must admit, also, that the TV licence is actually one of the bills I don't begrudge paying. For just under 12 pound a month I think it's b****y good value - I'm not sure that the council tax, which is about ten times as much, can claim to be anywhere near as worthwhile!!

[Anthony Williams]

Parents who post to this forum might want to shoot me for this, but do we really need CBBC and CBeebies? Could they not just be merged into one children's channel?

In terms of radio, I know some channels have been mooted as going, and I don't know what, but I don't see any of the following as necessary:
BBC 1Xtra
BBC Radio 7
BBC Asian Network

On top of that, axe those "big names" who require extortionate salaries - Jonathan Ross may have already gone, but can't the BBC get rid of Chris Moyles and anyone else who demands a ridiculous fee? There are plenty of people out there who can do just as good a job, if not better, than they do - the BBC should be out finding new talent, not paying over-the-odds for people such as Moyles.

Ant x

[Andrew Curnow]

No I agree - one kids channel is ample. I know the BBC is trying to compete on the multi-channel, digital stage but at times like this, they should be addressing fundamental things like, do we need all these channels? I think, to be fair, they have been addressing the cost of talent (didn't Brucie say he'd taken a paycut this year?) but there's doubtless a lot more they could do.

Slightly tongue in cheek, but I presume it was cheaper to hire Matt Smith for his first year, than it was to hire David Tennant in his last years, so Who has made a saving this year I'm sure!!

Also, if the BBC's priority is good programming on the TV (which I guess it is) then they could perhaps scale back on some of their websites.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Picking up from Alex and Ant's comments - the problem is the BBC exploded into way too many digital channels, expecting to just increasing the license fee to cover it.

Like Alex I don't think we really need BBC 3 AND 4. And neither do we need all these additional radio stations like 1Xtra - doesn't Radio 1 play enough hip-hop as it is? We could probably do with losing local radio stations - local commercial stations probably do a similar job.

I think the change of things to the BBC is probably well overdue. For years the BBC has been a bit of a joke for all it's layers of middle-managers. Change has happened just about everywhere in the UK - I'm sure it's way overdue in the BBC.

Ironically I can imagine BBC bosses claiming "this will be a disaster - it'll mean we'll have to scale back popular programs like Doctor Who and Top Gear". Which would just be typical - slash the popular programs that bring money into the BBC, over all the overproduced dross that no-one watches. Private Eye has mentioned there have been specialised BBC4 programs that have screened and have barely 100 viewers.

But of course in BBC speak - providing for those 100 specialist viewers will outweigh providing for 8 million Doctor Who viewers. This is why a dose of reality is needed ...

[Jason Thompson]

The BBC needs to cut channels, because it isn't producing the material to fill them. It is common now to have one program shown three times in as many days over the digital channels. Cut them down and stop paying for a channel you're filling with repeats of stuff that is mere days old. With VHS, DVD recorders and Sky+ around, anyone can record anything at any time these days, so why all the repeats?

Also, News 24. OK news doesn't happen at conveniently timed intervals, but neither does it happen 24 hours per day, so all the news channel is is people sitting at a desk reading the same stories over and over again. What was wrong with the regular news programs on BBC 1? Major events interrupt programs anyway. I remember 9/11 being covered by the BBC as BBC 1 turned into Nedws 24, so they actually had two channels showing exactly the same thing at the same time. As big as those events were, that seems pretty damn pointless to me.

[SiHart]

I got a reply from my MP's secretary saying that I can expect a reply from him sometime soon... so at least he got it.

Si xx

[Jon Masters]

Parents who post to this forum might want to shoot me for this, but do we really need CBBC and CBeebies? Could they not just be merged into one children's channel?

In terms of radio, I know some channels have been mooted as going, and I don't know what, but I don't see any of the following as necessary:
BBC 1Xtra
BBC Radio 7
BBC Asian Network

Well, my kids don't watch either because we don't have digital, but I can see that differentiating the ages of the intended audiences makes more sense on 2 channels than one. Otherwise you could just easily say why have BBC1 and 2, when they often show similar programmes.

I competely disagree about the radio - BBC 7 is consistently one of the best things that the BBC puts out in any format.

Again, as a non-digital viewer I'm not impressed on how much money is spent on programmes that , ATM, I cannot watch - esp US imports that are banned from i-player. And given how much tat there is on daytime BBC1 and 2, I'd scrap all of that and either repeat the content from BBC3 and 4 from the night before, or daringly - SHOW NOTHING !!

[Lissa]

S4C are apparently not happy at being given money they don't deserve.

John Walter Jones, the chairman of S4C's governing body the S4C Authority, which has been completely sidelined during the frantic negotiations between the Treasury and the BBC over the past few days, accused the government of showing "contempt" for the broadcaster and "the Welsh people and indeed the language itself".

Harsh words. Though it makes more sense when you pair

John Walter Jones, the chairman of S4C's governing body the S4C Authority

and

The S4C Authority faces extinction if the government plan is implemented

So contempt for the Welsh people and their language actually means getting rid of him and his no doubt well paid job.

[Perry Vale]

Can we pay more for our license fee if we want to? I'd happily have my license fee rise with inflation if it meant they didn't have to cut the budgets of my favourite programs.

Si.

I agree with this, and Mr.Curnow's comments. The license fee provides me with the best value of anything I have to pay out for in this life, I think. Thousands of hours of enjoyment every year from TV, Radio and it's website....

Very bad news, but as someone said, most people knew the Tories would do this if they got in. Cameron is in bed with Murdoch, you just have to look at the appointment of Andy Coulson to know that. The smug look on Jeremy Hunt's face when they announced these new measures in Parliament made me very sad.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

I agree with this, and Mr.Curnow's comments. The license fee provides me with the best value of anything I have to pay out for in this life, I think. Thousands of hours of enjoyment every year from TV, Radio and it's website....

Really? Aside from Doctor Who, Being Human and the *odd* interesting documentary I didn't watch much (Channel 4 does much better docus). So I felt if not so much ripped off, badly represented on BBC programming.

[Alex]

Really? Aside from Doctor Who, Being Human and the *odd* interesting documentary I didn't watch much (Channel 4 does much better docus). So I felt if not so much ripped off, badly represented on BBC programming.

I feel the same way. I've an indoor ariel and have to move it around to pick up various freeview channels, and at one point I couldn't get BBC1 or 2, and yet didn't miss them for about two weeks.

I like a few more shows than mentioned above (The Thick of It, and a couple of other comedy's have been quite good) but all too often I can scan the tv listings and not want to watch anything that week.

[Jason Thompson]

The way the TV licence works at the moment, however, you need one for any television at all. I'm not saying that is necessarily right, given where the money actually goes compared to the number of channels, but I really don't understand the complaints of those who say their TV licence is a rip-off. Where else can you get the right to have that much entertainment beamed into your home all year for such a low cost? The same price wouldn't get you a year's access to a single theatre.

Aside from Doctor Who, Being Human and the *odd* interesting documentary I didn't watch much (Channel 4 does much better docus). So I felt if not so much ripped off, badly represented on BBC programming.

I'm wondering how much of the BBC's output you expect to find particularly aimed at you, given that its remit is to cater to effectively all tastes and all ages. Of course you're not going to find the whole channel to your taste, but the fact remains that it does put out some damn good stuff, and it is the home of the one TV series that brought us all here in the first place.