Where should the BBC cut costs?

Hope they don't axe Mollie Green on WM, even though she's never right in the head!

Surely one of the most obvious cost-cutting measures will be Heroes. It may well be a coup for BBC2 if they've been given first refusal on future series but how do we know this won't turn into another Neighbours' situation, where the makers of Heroes will end up demanding exhorbitant amounts of (licence payers') money for each episode?

Sad as it is that Neighbours is leaving BBC1, the money would have been better invested into home-grown production and the BBC was right to withdraw their bid. Can the BBC justify spending so much on an acquired series, especially when the main appeal seems to be to menopausal males who enjoy watching a 17-year old flouncing around in a cheerleader outfit?

And how can Roly Keating claim that BBC2 doesn't "depend" on acquisitions but then offers not one, but TWO repeat showings of that week's Heroes?

Didn't I read that the recent Heroes deal includes a price guarantee as well - so the Beeb don't get into a bidding war and aren't held to ransom in the way that they have been for shows they've originally helped nurture, like 24 and Neigbours, in the past. I think it was announced in those terms - as a reward for the BBC signing up early and putting significant amounts of promotion behind the show - such as making their own behind-the-scenes programmes.

However the Beeb now also have exclusive UK rights - for both terrestrial and multi-channel (meaning SciFi who showed Series 1 first, will not be able to show further series) - so may be paying more than they did previously - but will be able to show the series with less delay than previously.

Oh great, more saturation Heroes trailers - just what we need.

The makers might be promising a fixed price now, but how can we be sure they won't change their minds? And if Heroes is a success, what's to stop BBC2 becoming like C4 and buying up as many acquired series as they can get (with our money, which in turn will be re-appropriated from home production?)

I enjoy it because it's exciting, innovative, ideas-driven drama. And being a bummer, I have no interest in cheerleaders whatsoever.

And... since when did men have menopauses? It was always just the ladies in my school biology books. Don't tell me, Simon, it's the PC brigade at it again!

Now if I said "bummer" I'd be branded homophobic...

Men certainly have mid-life crises if not a biological menopause.

That's because you're not one (I presume).

I'm not.

Are you having yours at the moment?

[/deserves a slap comment]

Seconded!

No, I'd have to agree there, very little makes this man happy other than ranting about Grange Hill and deriding pretty much everything which isn't done as it was in the 1970's. How old are you anyway, Simon? Near certain someone said before you were the at the later end of your twenties.

*cough* And the rest.

Simon could legitimately argue that he is entitled to watch Grange Hill at any age without there being some kind of insidious ulterior motive.

Odd that he would throw such a suggestion towards other men.