BBC cuts jobs / Charter renewal

I thought no-one actually knows what the cost was?

Oh for goodness sake, can we end this here?

Ronnie operates on a 'if you repeat a fantastical figure often enough, it eventually becomes truth' way of thinking.


Apparently, we are allowed to respond to his musings with 'No, I think you're wrong.' but should we dare to expand our thoughts with further considered counter-arguments, or, heaven forbid, facts based on actual industry experience, we shall be told we need to 'calm down' lest we be accused of labelling dear Ronnie as some kind of 'idiot'.

No-one has done such a thing, of course, although the person in question seems incredibly paranoid about such a diagnosis being prevalent.

I have not made anything up, the posts are there in black and white citing articles from various sources. If you want to dismiss this that is up to you.

Have a good weekend.

For what it's worth Ronnie, I think you are completely right in your point that the BBC wastes too much money. I am, however, pretty bored with this thread now.

This is your LAST day:

https://consultations.external.bbc.co.uk/bbc/provisional-decision-on-bbc-three-and-others

I really cannot see why the BBC is not targeting at least some radio services in this round of cuts. Many pages back in this thread, Charlie Wells linked to the BBC annual report which outlined the spending on all their services. Radio 3 has roughly half the budget of BBC Three and the same budget as BBC One. Its reach is approx. 1 million listeners. Radio 1 has a reach of approx. 10 million and BBC Three 4 Million. And considering their costs and respective reaches, Asian Network, 1Xtra and 6Music should all be in line for the axe or some deep, deep cuts.

The same does admittedly apply to BBC Parliament.

I wonder why they aren't looking into these areas - it may seem more brutal, but axing a number of services could have a significantly lesser impact than cuts to the more popular aspects of the BBC.

It might make sense to you, but the politics is all wrong. The Government has outlined many times very loudly what it thinks the BBC *should* be doing. It's fixated with a view that the BBC is too popular in places, and *should* be doing the stuff no commercial broadcaster wants to do. They want to see the BBC spending money on minority programmes for niche audiences - which is why those you mentioned aren't in the firing line.

That would be the same 6Music which has more listeners than Radio 3 on a fifth of the budget?

6Music provides the most distinctive service of any of the BBC's "popular music" stations. The idea that it should be axed is ridiculous -- it is the very embodiment of public service (no commercial station comes close to filling its remit), and I really wish people would stop this nonsense of trying to get rid of it.

If anything Radio 1 and 2 should be looked at for cost savings. Radio 2 in particular is just covering the same old "oldies" format that commercial stations have sorted over and over.

Don't compare it to Radio 3 and then argue with my point, I specifically called out Radio 3 for its distinct lack of listeners and high budget.

I agree with scottishtv that the politics is all wrong. It might be the BBC's remit to provide a 'distinctive service' to a small audience, but it shouldn't be: we all pay for it! If there is no commercial station filling a remit, there is a reason for that...

So in your view what's the point in the BBC at all? If you want to judge a programme or service on its commercial potential alone then surely you might as well close the BBC and let the rest of the market cover whatever it finds profitable?

Tells me what to do and then implies that the BBC should be just another commercial operation.

Sod off back to Digital Spy where you belong, please.