How long do we have to put up with the BBC wasting our license fee money?

£24 million wasted on relocation packages. We need a bill through Parliament putting an end to the insulting £15 a month we are paying towards this, its a national disgrace.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Gary-Linekers-taxis-talent-commuting-jet.html

 

The BBC is worth every penny

 

Instutionalised paedophilia

well worth the money.

 

You're spot on, it's an absolute disgrace the way that our money is spent (wasted). If everybody refused to pay until changes were forced on the BBC it wouldn't take long before they got their acts together.

 

yet another great example of a company/institution that doesn't have to work for its money and despite promise after promise to do otherwise is happy to (metaphorically speaking) piss it up against the wall.
The sooner they bring them into the real world and make it earn its own money the better,its not as if they don't get enough back door product placement in as it is, in fact I would be tempted to investigate if I was the authorities to see if money or favours are changing hands on the QT anyway.

 

"Due to the way the BBC is uniquely funded.."

translates as we can do what we f.u,/cking want.

 

Yeah let's run it as a business and cut anything that doesn't pull in millions of viewers and reduce all our tv output to the lowest common denominator and we can let our brains turn to mush watching Take Me Out

 

So you believe all the b****cks in the Daily Mail?

Sad git.

 

Re: So you believe all the b****cks in the Daily Mail?

They've moved as part of cost saving measures, there is an initial cost but overall it will save money.

And I'm another who things the BBC is good value for money.

 

Of course

will this do you?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/may/14/bbc-salford-relocation-packages-nao

 

Because the BBC dont turn out tripe at peak time?

You'll be watching 3 hours of Eurovision this Saturday then?

This notion that everything will go 'mainstream' if adverts are put on TV is complete ******, Channel 4 is infinately more watchable than BBC 2, for example.

Its a dinosaur that is out of control, £15 a month means a lot to a lot of families in the current climate and as a public sector worker in an environment where we are now forced to cut vital public services that affect the elderly and vulnerable, to read what is going on with the BBC makes my f.u,cki,ng blood boil.

 

Would you rather the world was run by Sky?

Surprised at you TBH.

 

Re: Of course

That wasn't your point. You said you wanted to stop paying 15 pound per month on the BBC because its a waste of money.

Now let's say they overspent on relocation fees by 50%, then that is 12 million. I don't know how many licence fee payers there are but I'm pretty sure it will be in excess of 12 million people so basically it is at most 1 pound per licence fee payer. Yet that, apparently, justifies a bill through parliament, which would cost in excess of 12 million, so we don't have to pay towards the BBC each month.

I'm not saying BBC spending shouldn't be scrutinised, but to suggest it isn't value for money for the wide range of world respected services it delivers, or that it should be commercialised with the dumbing down that would involve, is a wild over reaction.

 

Re: So you believe all the b****cks in the Daily Mail?

Tbf, the relocation will save a lot of money in the long term. Office space/salaries are much less up north. What they shouldn't be doing is catering to overpaid tv 'stars' through ridiculous relocation packages, if they don't like it, then they can find another job. It's not like other companies haven't moved out of London, making employees redundant. Jobs to the north I say!

 

Re: Because the BBC dont turn out tripe at peak time?

Channel 4 is infinitely more watchable in your opinion. Which is the point. BBC 2 will offer alternatives to mainstream shows such as Embarrassing Bodies and RudeTube pranks. That's not to say they don't have value or an audience, but someone might want to watch a drama such as The Hour, or a documentary on archaeology instead. Or some **** on gardening.

And the older people I know probably use the BBC the most, whether that be tv, radio, or the easy to use web site.

The BBC drops the ball occasionally, but on the whole it is worth the money IMO.

 

I have several objections to the BBC

1. Its a legal obligation if you want a TV, you have to buy a license, irrespective of whether you watch or listen to BBC programmes.
2. Therefore they are a public funded body but seemingly we have no input into how the money is spent and they have no accountability
3. Hence story after story after story of wasting money - £15million on showing the Beijing Olympics? £1.7 million on showing Glastonbury? the list goes on.
4. The added ignominy of what has transpired inside the walls of the BBC emerging from Saville investigation, all funded by our money.

Its an outdated, out of contol institutional dinosaur, needs dragging into the 21st century and in times of austerity, it must start by removing the license fee.

 

If it heralds the end

Of Harry Gration and Toby Foster then I'm all for it.

 

Have a look at this:

http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/

tell me you're happy with where your £15pm is going...

 

Re: Have a look at this:

Not always happy, but I prefer the BBC to the plethora of mainly ***** commercial output there is out there.

 

Re: Have a look at this:

The website name says it all. It's like reading the ***** the taxpayers alliance spouts. From the quick glance I gave it the majority of articles related to the failings of the BBC (with other media outlets) to deal with the horror of child abuse 30 years ago. Those involved should feel the full force of the law, but I fail to see why it means we should privatise the BBC