Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 9, 2010 17:21:43 GMT
There are various strategies that successful businesses use to achieve greater success and ensure their continuance.
Basically they revolve around providing a greater service, an improved product, or giving better value for money.
What the BBC does however is the exact opposite of any of these dynamics, not to mention consciously and wilfully abusing their position to further their own political or personal agendas in direct contravention of their mandate.
Why are they allowed to continue?
Presumably the government feels that this media outlet masquerading as an unbiased source of news and quality programming must serve them sufficiently well, or else the BBC is holding the government by their respective 'balls'. We already know that the previous government spent public money far in excess of anything in the coffers. So much so that if you are 20 years old today, your great-grandchildren will still be paying it off. This is the legacy of our times, and it should be no surprise that the BBC fully supported the labour government that put us into this state.
Shows you exactly how the public are regarded by these evil corrupt slime who want to convince you by their toffee mouthed English that they are really civilised.
And if you think the latest mob to co-inhabit at number 10 are really going to redress the balance and put an end to the injustice visited upon a largely ignorant public, forget it.
Here's a couple of articles in today's Daily Mail to illustrate a similar point.
Before reading the next one consider this
Big spenders: The BBC spent up to £1million on a pentagonal glass studio in Cape Town for its World Cup coverage after it deemed the tournament's logistical centre in Johannesburg 'too ugly'
In actual fact the BBC did not have to even have their studio there. With the technology available today they could have sat in their regular studios in London or Salford or wherever, with a backdrop of Cape Town or Timbuktu, and interviewed with direct link whoever they wanted from where the action was really taking place - which is what they did anyway. Cape Town is 1000 miles from Joburg, would it matter if they were 10,000 miles or 1 million. You at home would be none the wiser
Basically they revolve around providing a greater service, an improved product, or giving better value for money.
What the BBC does however is the exact opposite of any of these dynamics, not to mention consciously and wilfully abusing their position to further their own political or personal agendas in direct contravention of their mandate.
Why are they allowed to continue?
Presumably the government feels that this media outlet masquerading as an unbiased source of news and quality programming must serve them sufficiently well, or else the BBC is holding the government by their respective 'balls'. We already know that the previous government spent public money far in excess of anything in the coffers. So much so that if you are 20 years old today, your great-grandchildren will still be paying it off. This is the legacy of our times, and it should be no surprise that the BBC fully supported the labour government that put us into this state.
Shows you exactly how the public are regarded by these evil corrupt slime who want to convince you by their toffee mouthed English that they are really civilised.
And if you think the latest mob to co-inhabit at number 10 are really going to redress the balance and put an end to the injustice visited upon a largely ignorant public, forget it.
Here's a couple of articles in today's Daily Mail to illustrate a similar point.
Bloated BBC is delivering less for more - and must face cuts
By Harry Phibbs
Last updated at 3:46 PM on 9th August 2010
In the past the Conservatives worried about taking on the National Union of Mineworkers. These days they are worried about battling the BBC.
All around there is talk of cuts and austerity. But one of the most bloated bits of the public sector, the BBC, has been declared untouchable.
While Government departments suffer cuts averaging 25 per cent, the corporation’s annual budget could rise from £3.5billion to £4.3billion by 2016 - an increase of £800million.
BBC studio in South Africa
Of this, £500million would come from the licence fee increasing at the projected rate of inflation, currently three per cent, after 2012.
Until then, a deal is in place which will see it rise to £151.50 per household, from £145.50 this year.
And according to the Office for Budget responsibility, the BBC could be in line for an additional £300 million as the number of households (and hence licence fee payers) increases because of the soaring divorce rate.
A BBC spokesman has the audacity to talk about delivering ‘more for less.’ But their audience ratings are far lower than in previous years while their budget is set to rise by 23 per cent.
The BBC is delivering less for more – and in the modern world a licence fee levied on all viewers to pay for a giant, monolithic state broadcaster is an anachronism.
With Channel 4 and Channel 5, videos then DVDs, cable and satellite, and the internet, we are a nation that has taken control of our viewing habits. No longer do we just sit back and watch the BBC because we don't like what is on ITV.
In 1980 The Two Ronnies used to get nearly 19 million viewers in the Saturday evening peak slot. Strictly Come Dancing is another Saturday night success story but gets half as many viewers for the peak slot 30 years on.
It seems a scandal for the BBC’s massive budget to expand further under these circumstances, and for the Government to be allowing it to happen is extraordinarily timid politically.
The licence fee is already £145.50 a year. That is a lot of money for people on low incomes, especially when many have had pay cuts during the recession.
The licence fee goes up and up when pay at the BBC seems to be unrelated to the real world. Jonathan Ross was on an £18 million deal over three years - for a contribution to public service broadcasting that was less than clear.
Earlier this year a Freedom of Information request revealed that 382 BBC staff were paid more than £100,000 in 2009. The arrogance in spending licence fee-payers’ money spills over into their editorial policy. ‘Are you doing this to save money?’ seems to be the most damning question a BBC interviewer can ask.
We can't go on like this. But there are plenty of positive alternatives. It is just not a choice of closing down the BBC or carrying on as we are.
Former Panorama producer David Graham has written some proposals for the Adam Smith Institute. His report, ‘Global Player or Subsidy Junkie? Decision time for the BBC’, says the licence fee should go and be replaced by a subscription system.
‘This would free the BBC from the justified hostility of competitors over the unfair advantages conferred by subsidy,’ said Graham. ‘It would harness its huge reputation and high-calibre staff to new, ambitious objectives, and would encourage the BBC to lead the drive to create a bigger presence for itself and other UK players in global media.’
He offers an example of how the BBC could be more flexible and have a new income stream: ‘According to BBC data published in 2006, an estimated 5.5m British people live permanently abroad – almost one in 10 of the UK population. A large number of other Britons are travelling at any one time.
‘Currently none of these can access the BBC via the iPlayer although it would be quite possible for them to do so. Some will have paid their Licence Fees, and are therefore being deprived of what they have paid for. Others, if the right mechanism was available, could become a new audience for the BBC, and, if the BBC was smart enough, a new source of income.’
Genuine public service broadcasting - such as the news - should continue to be available free. Graham suggests this should be paid for by the Government out of general taxation - at a cost of perhaps £300 million a year – compared to the £3.6 billion raised by the licence fee.
I suspect the Government will not be bold enough to adopt Graham's proposals. Not yet anyway. But that approach is the wave of the future – and technological change will make the case stronger as the years go by.
For the 168,000 people a year prosecuted because they can't afford to pay the licence fee, the sooner the change comes, the better.
By Harry Phibbs
Last updated at 3:46 PM on 9th August 2010
In the past the Conservatives worried about taking on the National Union of Mineworkers. These days they are worried about battling the BBC.
All around there is talk of cuts and austerity. But one of the most bloated bits of the public sector, the BBC, has been declared untouchable.
While Government departments suffer cuts averaging 25 per cent, the corporation’s annual budget could rise from £3.5billion to £4.3billion by 2016 - an increase of £800million.
BBC studio in South Africa
Of this, £500million would come from the licence fee increasing at the projected rate of inflation, currently three per cent, after 2012.
Until then, a deal is in place which will see it rise to £151.50 per household, from £145.50 this year.
And according to the Office for Budget responsibility, the BBC could be in line for an additional £300 million as the number of households (and hence licence fee payers) increases because of the soaring divorce rate.
A BBC spokesman has the audacity to talk about delivering ‘more for less.’ But their audience ratings are far lower than in previous years while their budget is set to rise by 23 per cent.
The BBC is delivering less for more – and in the modern world a licence fee levied on all viewers to pay for a giant, monolithic state broadcaster is an anachronism.
With Channel 4 and Channel 5, videos then DVDs, cable and satellite, and the internet, we are a nation that has taken control of our viewing habits. No longer do we just sit back and watch the BBC because we don't like what is on ITV.
In 1980 The Two Ronnies used to get nearly 19 million viewers in the Saturday evening peak slot. Strictly Come Dancing is another Saturday night success story but gets half as many viewers for the peak slot 30 years on.
It seems a scandal for the BBC’s massive budget to expand further under these circumstances, and for the Government to be allowing it to happen is extraordinarily timid politically.
The licence fee is already £145.50 a year. That is a lot of money for people on low incomes, especially when many have had pay cuts during the recession.
The licence fee goes up and up when pay at the BBC seems to be unrelated to the real world. Jonathan Ross was on an £18 million deal over three years - for a contribution to public service broadcasting that was less than clear.
Earlier this year a Freedom of Information request revealed that 382 BBC staff were paid more than £100,000 in 2009. The arrogance in spending licence fee-payers’ money spills over into their editorial policy. ‘Are you doing this to save money?’ seems to be the most damning question a BBC interviewer can ask.
We can't go on like this. But there are plenty of positive alternatives. It is just not a choice of closing down the BBC or carrying on as we are.
Former Panorama producer David Graham has written some proposals for the Adam Smith Institute. His report, ‘Global Player or Subsidy Junkie? Decision time for the BBC’, says the licence fee should go and be replaced by a subscription system.
‘This would free the BBC from the justified hostility of competitors over the unfair advantages conferred by subsidy,’ said Graham. ‘It would harness its huge reputation and high-calibre staff to new, ambitious objectives, and would encourage the BBC to lead the drive to create a bigger presence for itself and other UK players in global media.’
He offers an example of how the BBC could be more flexible and have a new income stream: ‘According to BBC data published in 2006, an estimated 5.5m British people live permanently abroad – almost one in 10 of the UK population. A large number of other Britons are travelling at any one time.
‘Currently none of these can access the BBC via the iPlayer although it would be quite possible for them to do so. Some will have paid their Licence Fees, and are therefore being deprived of what they have paid for. Others, if the right mechanism was available, could become a new audience for the BBC, and, if the BBC was smart enough, a new source of income.’
Genuine public service broadcasting - such as the news - should continue to be available free. Graham suggests this should be paid for by the Government out of general taxation - at a cost of perhaps £300 million a year – compared to the £3.6 billion raised by the licence fee.
I suspect the Government will not be bold enough to adopt Graham's proposals. Not yet anyway. But that approach is the wave of the future – and technological change will make the case stronger as the years go by.
For the 168,000 people a year prosecuted because they can't afford to pay the licence fee, the sooner the change comes, the better.
Before reading the next one consider this
Big spenders: The BBC spent up to £1million on a pentagonal glass studio in Cape Town for its World Cup coverage after it deemed the tournament's logistical centre in Johannesburg 'too ugly'
In actual fact the BBC did not have to even have their studio there. With the technology available today they could have sat in their regular studios in London or Salford or wherever, with a backdrop of Cape Town or Timbuktu, and interviewed with direct link whoever they wanted from where the action was really taking place - which is what they did anyway. Cape Town is 1000 miles from Joburg, would it matter if they were 10,000 miles or 1 million. You at home would be none the wiser
BBC's £800m licence to spend: 23% rise in budget as public sector faces savage cuts
By Jason Groves
Last updated at 1:40 PM on 9th August 2010
The BBC is in line for an inflation-busting budget increase - despite savage cuts in the rest of the public sector.
The corporation has come under huge pressure to reduce what one minister described as its ‘extraordinary and astonishing waste’.
Yet it is forecast to receive a 23 per cent increase in funding over the next six years.
While Government departments suffer cuts averaging 25 per cent and millions of middle-class families face rising taxes, the BBC’s annual budget could rise from £3.5billion to £4.3billion by 2016 - an increase of £800million.
Of this, £500million would come from the licence fee increasing at the projected rate of inflation, currently three per cent, after 2012.
Until then, a deal is in place which will see it rise to £151.50 per household, from £145.50 this year.
The £300million remainder of the increase, forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility, is because the licence fee is charged per household and the number of households is increasing as more people live alone because of rising divorce rates and greater longevity.
The figures brought demands for ministers to slash the fee when it comes up for renewal next year, and for the rules governing rises in the fee to be torn up.
The BBC has become a byword for waste, with the extraordinary £18million pay deal handed to the former presenter Jonathan Ross and the controversial move to relocate hundreds of staff to Salford at a cost of £900million.
Recent figures revealed that 382 staff were paid more than £100,000 last year.
The National Audit Office has criticised the BBC for its ‘casual approach’ to spending after its coverage of the Glastonbury music festival cost £580,000 a day.
It also spent up to £1million on a pentagonal glass studio in Cape Town for its coverage of this year’s World Cup, as it deemed the tournament’s logistical centre in Johannesburg ‘too ugly’.
Tory MP Philip Davies, a member of the Commons culture, media and sport committee, described any increase in the licence fee as ‘completely unacceptable’.
He said: ‘We have seen excessive management costs and huge sums being paid to the stars. The people who are more deserving of the money are the licence fee payers.
'The Government should now start looking at how to reduce the licence fee – the BBC has to start living in the real world.’
Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt has already suggested that the licence fee could be slashed.
Last month he lambasted the corporation for its ‘extraordinary and astonishing waste’.
But the fee has never been cut before, and the BBC is expected to mount a fierce rearguard action to defend the status quo.
BBC
It also spent up to £1million on a glass studio in Cape Town for its World Cup coverage after it deemed the logistical centre in Johannesburg 'too ugly'
The figures also raise the extraordinary prospect that even if the fee were cut, the BBC budget could still rise because of the increase in households.
The Commons culture, media and sport committee will question both Mr Hunt and the BBC director-general Mark Thompson on the corporation’s spending next month.
Committee chairman John Whittingdale said the time had come for a ‘fundamental re-examination’ of what the BBC does.
‘I do not understand why the BBC needs the £3.5billion it receives now,’ he said.
‘There is a terrible tendency at the BBC to say, “This is the amount the licence fee provides, what shall we spend it on?”.'
A source close to Mr Hunt said detailed negotiations with the BBC would not begin until next year on what the licence fee should be beyond 2013.
But the source said: ‘I don’t think the BBC are expecting to get an increase. It would be very difficult to argue in the current climate.’
The BBC said it had already announced a £2billion ‘efficiency programme’ and was cutting the pay of top executives by 14.5 per cent.
A spokesman said: ‘The BBC is committed to becoming more efficient and maximising value for the licence fee payer. The tough financial environment for all publicly funded organisations requires the BBC to deliver more for less.'
By Jason Groves
Last updated at 1:40 PM on 9th August 2010
The BBC is in line for an inflation-busting budget increase - despite savage cuts in the rest of the public sector.
The corporation has come under huge pressure to reduce what one minister described as its ‘extraordinary and astonishing waste’.
Yet it is forecast to receive a 23 per cent increase in funding over the next six years.
While Government departments suffer cuts averaging 25 per cent and millions of middle-class families face rising taxes, the BBC’s annual budget could rise from £3.5billion to £4.3billion by 2016 - an increase of £800million.
Of this, £500million would come from the licence fee increasing at the projected rate of inflation, currently three per cent, after 2012.
Until then, a deal is in place which will see it rise to £151.50 per household, from £145.50 this year.
The £300million remainder of the increase, forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility, is because the licence fee is charged per household and the number of households is increasing as more people live alone because of rising divorce rates and greater longevity.
The figures brought demands for ministers to slash the fee when it comes up for renewal next year, and for the rules governing rises in the fee to be torn up.
The BBC has become a byword for waste, with the extraordinary £18million pay deal handed to the former presenter Jonathan Ross and the controversial move to relocate hundreds of staff to Salford at a cost of £900million.
Recent figures revealed that 382 staff were paid more than £100,000 last year.
The National Audit Office has criticised the BBC for its ‘casual approach’ to spending after its coverage of the Glastonbury music festival cost £580,000 a day.
It also spent up to £1million on a pentagonal glass studio in Cape Town for its coverage of this year’s World Cup, as it deemed the tournament’s logistical centre in Johannesburg ‘too ugly’.
Tory MP Philip Davies, a member of the Commons culture, media and sport committee, described any increase in the licence fee as ‘completely unacceptable’.
He said: ‘We have seen excessive management costs and huge sums being paid to the stars. The people who are more deserving of the money are the licence fee payers.
'The Government should now start looking at how to reduce the licence fee – the BBC has to start living in the real world.’
Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt has already suggested that the licence fee could be slashed.
Last month he lambasted the corporation for its ‘extraordinary and astonishing waste’.
But the fee has never been cut before, and the BBC is expected to mount a fierce rearguard action to defend the status quo.
BBC
It also spent up to £1million on a glass studio in Cape Town for its World Cup coverage after it deemed the logistical centre in Johannesburg 'too ugly'
The figures also raise the extraordinary prospect that even if the fee were cut, the BBC budget could still rise because of the increase in households.
The Commons culture, media and sport committee will question both Mr Hunt and the BBC director-general Mark Thompson on the corporation’s spending next month.
Committee chairman John Whittingdale said the time had come for a ‘fundamental re-examination’ of what the BBC does.
‘I do not understand why the BBC needs the £3.5billion it receives now,’ he said.
‘There is a terrible tendency at the BBC to say, “This is the amount the licence fee provides, what shall we spend it on?”.'
A source close to Mr Hunt said detailed negotiations with the BBC would not begin until next year on what the licence fee should be beyond 2013.
But the source said: ‘I don’t think the BBC are expecting to get an increase. It would be very difficult to argue in the current climate.’
The BBC said it had already announced a £2billion ‘efficiency programme’ and was cutting the pay of top executives by 14.5 per cent.
A spokesman said: ‘The BBC is committed to becoming more efficient and maximising value for the licence fee payer. The tough financial environment for all publicly funded organisations requires the BBC to deliver more for less.'