[Non-footy] Do we really need the BBC anymore?

Erm, I think Mr Cryne, would prefer us not to talk about that...

 

If you don't think the BBC is good value, you obviously don't get enough out of it. Which isn't the BBC's fault. Your council tax pays for Library services too BTW. Why not have a really good chelp about that one too.

 

This point makes me think why do I pay tax to pay teachers? I don't have a child at school so I shouldn't pay.

Me, Me,Me,Me, Me,Me.

 

Without the BBC how much Smart TV content would be worth watching?

 

You're not allowed to mention that seeing as iSoft were involved...

 

Why is it a bad decision?

It's been driven by cost savings

 

Quite a lot, and you don't need a TV license to watch iPlayer, but even if that wasn't there there's still plenty of other free stuff to watch...YouTube is full of documentaries from National Geographic although I know there are copyright issues here.

 

How do you even spend that kind of money, especially on an IT project where the costs are mainly just paying people to write computer programmes as opposed to infrastructure which comes at the end I would have thought.

 

I think it should be in the capital, just my opinion. What do you have in London if you don't have your national broadcasting company? It's a proper shame. Financially, it hasn't quite panned out as they hoped, particularly as we are having to sub all the executive and celebrity expenses ferrying them to Manchester and back.

 

Were you not educated at a public school?

Ftr i know you were just digging him out but its a poor point.

 

Honestly dont see the need for the beeb to be in the capital where costs would be far higher? Cant see many tourists cancelling there trips as the BBC has shifted north.

 

There was some feeling from those outside London that the BBC was very London-centric to the point where it was almost as if life didn't exist outside of the capital, especially up north. I wouldn't say this has changed particularly and the news centre is still in London.

Any idea who paid for the Media City place in Manchester? I walked round it a few months ago thinking there would be all sorts of media companies there but the place is dominated by the BBC, I'd say at least 95% occupied by them. Even a new tram line was built to serve it as well as some pretty big new roads.

 

Okay, it would be cheaper too to host the Houses of Parliament somewhere off the M6 and build a travel lodge for it's members to crash in. I wouldn't miss them. Foreign investors could buy up Westminster Palace and turn it into a hotel.

 

To compare the central government to a poor bbc is apples and oranges but im sure youd recognise that.

 

I certainly feel that needs redressing, I was into the idea of provincial sub-centres being developed and contributing to the national output rather than purely localised broadcasting. It's not that I think London should have everything, I just like tradition. I would have liked to see the BBC go back to Alexandra Palace and give that place some life, it's just rotting away as it is.

 

Actually, it's all bananas to me!!

 

Of course I was but my view is that once you "un-socialise" the costs of one thing how long until all costs are "un-socialised"?

 

Agree with that was just pointing out how the argument could be floored.

 

Some people would also use the same argument against the NHS. Not everything has to be run for the sole purpose of profit and shareholders.

 

Its not a case of if we need it or how good their factual programmes are etc. Its a case of that it can't be allowed to keep wasting money like it does, stupid salaries (Hansen ffs), pay offs for execs that had to go because they deserved to, stupid projects that never come to fruition. They seem to think because the money well is bottomless.