BBC cuts jobs / Charter renewal

Spare a thought for those of us working from 9am till 1am 6 days a week after being forced to opt out of the European directive on working hours to bring you the shows that you and millions of others enjoy. A taxi home to ensure we can get what little sleep we can before another exhausting day is hardly unreasonable to the license fee payer. Television is no 9 to 5 job.

I have to say Ronnie, I appreciate that you don't have an insight into the industry, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that many of your posts in this thread have displayed quite a staggering display of stupidity, the photography posts especially. You really do need to learn not to get sucked in by what the tabloids say.

I am far more concerned about all these MPs claiming for car journeys of less than one mile than the BBC taxi bill.

I have no wish to hear about the hardships of a media worker, everyone in the world has their own. We should help each other, but its not a discussion for here.

I have openly admitted I was duped by the photography article, in the sense that I thought the BBC were paying with the license fee, but even when its paid for with commercial funds, I believe the cost to be too high. The rest I stand by also.

If a person does not have any insight into the industry, then opinions will be formed based on articles and the media. I am not into believing everything in the media, but when it comes to the BBC, I tend to take interest.

Its not really possible to have a debate on internet forums, for example, how someone can be presented with cold hard facts across the media board, the 100 million failed computer system for example, and then try to spin this to make it appear money has not been wasted, what more can be said.

I am surprised it has taken so long for an insult to be thrown, its a common tactic and won't be the last time it happens. I have said my piece, its been dismissed as the ramblings of an idiot, and that is the end.

As I said before, life is too short!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

MP's are even worse for burning money. But that is not a discussion for here.

Yet at the same time he complains about the number of staff the BBC send to events. So he'd be encouraging sackings in that situation.

MPs is another similar issue, many will say they are all rubbish so don't deserve more than the minimum wage that apparently everyone else in the UK is on, but if that was the case, you'd have nobody wanting to be an MP.

I'm still waiting to see Huw Edwards finishing the Ten and then catching a late night bus and then a train and then another bus to the home counties where he probably lives, or Chris Evans cycling in on a Boris bike before his show every weekday morning.

Not sure why he keeps going on about that failed IT system. What does he want them to do, it's in the past.

That's a rather stunning lack of empathy when someone has just told you they work 9am to 1am 6 days a week (which I calculate to be 108 hours a week).

I feel like Donald Trump, you have cut off the rest of the sentence.



And to the poster further up, the IT system cost 100 million, it is in the past, but that 100 million equals many jobs. So it has bearing on how many people are going.

If what I pay in the licence fee ensures that staff can get safely home either late at night or early in the morning by cab or other means, then I'm more than happy with that. At least I know the money that I contribute even though it's a minuscule amount considering the amount of money the BBC gets in from the licence fee.

So do I, but if it was a choice between a person keeping their job and a person getting a cab home, I would choose the job. I don't have a problem with the cabs when its absolutely necessary, not an employer perk.

Always.

People move in different circles, but I think it indicates something when posters (not yourself) resort to insults to support their argument, and try to slash a post up trying to suggest a user is stupid. Maybe I am wrong, but no matter what the debate/argument, it should not involve that. "I do not agree with you" is sufficient.

But I guess its the internet world.

So you would you get the night bus or walk it home at say 3 in the morning? I know I certainly wouldn't if my employer was ensuring that transport home was being provided...

I have walked home at 3am in the morning many a time, not from work, in a worser state. I am male, If I were female I would not, and the BBC should take that factor into account if they ever adjust the scheme. But that is another can of worms we best not open.

If they offered a cab I would take it. I don't have anything against the staff for accepting it.

Plus the issue with the IT system is they only found out if failed after trying it, when they came up with the idea the Beeb had no idea that it would be a flop. It also ignores the huge amounts of Research & Development Projects the BBC has been wholly or partly invested in which have led to great advances in technology - Ceefax was brilliant it its time and haven't the BBC assisted NHK in HD broadcasting?

When you mention MPs, it is actually better they get paid a substantial amount - until 1911 MPs didn't get regular pay but were found to be open to corruption (not surprisingly). A similar thing with Judges - at the end of the day it can be beneficial to pay people in positions of public power higher salaries. I know it isn't the same with the BBC but a lot of these people who campaign for lower star pay are also those who want the BBC to make programmes with these big names. The BBC is in a difficult position - sure it may be crowd pleasing to cut star pay but at the end of the day the realities of the market dictates that they'll go elsewhere. Especially when Sky, ITV and now online companies are willing to and can pay more. The BBC is in between a rock and a hard place - something that isn't helped by 20% of the license fee going on concessions for OAPs come 2018. One of my concerns here is I expect that one of the first places the axe will fall will probably be the World Service, who always bear the brunt of the cuts. This is a real tragedy when the World Service does so much good work and the FCO should be helping it - particularly on the Arabic Service that is probably needed more than ever in the propaganda war with IS. During the Cold War the World Service was significant in the Eastern Bloc as it was seen as impartial and not the anti-Soviet propaganda of the American alternatives - a similar is necessary now.

I can confirm that no one is losing their job because of the necessity of providing staff with taxis.