Options

The BBC is a national disgrace.

17891113

Comments

  • Options
    ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jjwales wrote: »
    Why would there be such a saving? Wouldn't someone else have to replace him?

    I was rather assuming he would be declared redundant and the series would quietly disappear. After all the BBC was able to make the deputy DG redundant and it had no visible effect on any output.
  • Options
    calico_piecalico_pie Posts: 10,060
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I would have thought something like Imagine is exactly the sort of thing the BBc should be doing. Even with his salary, its still probably comparatively cheap to produce. And his salary presumably covers more than doing Imagine.
  • Options
    jjwalesjjwales Posts: 48,581
    Forum Member
    ftv wrote: »
    I was rather assuming he would be declared redundant and the series would quietly disappear.

    He doesn't just present the Imagine series - he is also the BBC's Creative Director, so presumably would need to be replaced. From the BBC site:

    "Alan is responsible for overseeing the BBC’s creative strategy and its implementation across all content and services; he is also the focal point for talent management across the whole of the BBC.
    His role includes building BBC partnerships with arts and cultural organisations across the UK; he is also closely involved with the BBC’s preparations for Charter Renewal.
    Alan is Chairman of BBC Films."
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/corporate2/insidethebbc/managementstructure/biographies/yentob_alan.html

    And I would not like to see the Imagine series "quietly disappear"!
  • Options
    Ray266Ray266 Posts: 3,576
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    All I'm going to say is it is a matter funding on the wider issue on broadcasting do people want the BBC to be scrapped or at least take adds as away of income? My guess is ITV & the rest would say no to that because they would have to fight a lot more for the adverising revenue, I think the public as a whole should be asked about the future of the BBC because with all the channels now the licence fee can't be maintained for ever some government will have to decide what to do it's as simple as that.
  • Options
    ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jjwales wrote: »
    He doesn't just present the Imagine series - he is also the BBC's Creative Director, so presumably would need to be replaced. From the BBC site:

    "Alan is responsible for overseeing the BBC’s creative strategy and its implementation across all content and services; he is also the focal point for talent management across the whole of the BBC.
    His role includes building BBC partnerships with arts and cultural organisations across the UK; he is also closely involved with the BBC’s preparations for Charter Renewal.
    Alan is Chairman of BBC Films."
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/corporate2/insidethebbc/managementstructure/biographies/yentob_alan.html

    And I would not like to see the Imagine series "quietly disappear"!

    The series he did on American TV last year was actually bought-in from PBS but somehow he forgot to give them a credit.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,718
    Forum Member
    spiney2 wrote: »
    as a beeb supporter i too deplore the disgusting management salaries but they are certainly no higher than those paid in our privateering robber baron "industries" ......

    Surely public services shouldn't pay as highly as the private sector as they have other perks?
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,718
    Forum Member
    Ray266 wrote: »
    All I'm going to say is it is a matter funding on the wider issue on broadcasting do people want the BBC to be scrapped or at least take adds as away of income? My guess is ITV & the rest would say no to that because they would have to fight a lot more for the adverising revenue, I think the public as a whole should be asked about the future of the BBC because with all the channels now the licence fee can't be maintained for ever some government will have to decide what to do it's as simple as that.

    Even the most ardent anti-BBC people shouldn't want the BBC scrapped its a public asset that could be worth a large amount of money.

    Personally I favour a voluntary subscription service.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,718
    Forum Member
    There's a lot of stuff on the BBC that even I, as a staunch licence fee supporter, find poor (Radio 1) or wasteful (Top Gear).

    But then I remember that the licence caters for everyone, and if it produces something I don't like, I will always have a BBC-provided alternative. I love a lot of BBC Four's output, I regularly watch EastEnders and many of the classic sitcoms the Beeb has produced over the years, I use the BBC News and Sport apps, my children make much use of CBBC and CBeebies, and though I don't use it a great deal, I think the iPlayer is excellent.

    More than compensates for the crap. And one persons crap is another's cream! None of us could ever get an entire BBC that was tailored just to our tastes and needs, it's impossible. Besides, it's 40p a day. A lot of people pay more than that for an agenda-driven, fear-fuelling newspaper that provides little more than political sniping, vacuous celebrity/royalty page-filling, and last nights football results.

    It would be near impossible IMO to like all of the BBCs output, and I don't really think producing a wide variety of output is actually a criticism.
  • Options
    Glenn AGlenn A Posts: 23,877
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    A lot of BBC programmes are absolute rubbish, but the same can be said of every other broadcaster, but at least the BBC covers events like The Olympics well, some of their dramas are excellent and BBC Radio is far better than the commercial variety.
  • Options
    calico_piecalico_pie Posts: 10,060
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Jack1 wrote: »
    Even the most ardent anti-BBC people shouldn't want the BBC scrapped its a public asset that could be worth a large amount of money.

    Personally I favour a voluntary subscription service.

    Which would mean it would be subject to the same commercial pressures as other broadcasters, and probably be more expensive.

    That might be good for the tiny minority who watch tv, but don't watch any BBC.

    But would be bad for the majority of tv viewers.

    Is that why you favour that option?
  • Options
    calico_piecalico_pie Posts: 10,060
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Jack1 wrote: »
    Surely public services shouldn't pay as highly as the private sector as they have other perks?

    They don't pay as high.
  • Options
    Diamond statDiamond stat Posts: 1,473
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    BBC jobs only open to insiders: Half of all vacancies at the Corporation are never publicly advertised
    Only 52% of BBC job vacancies are advertised externally, new figures show
    The rest are advertised on an internal jobs website meaning that only current BBC employees can apply

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2894716/BBC-jobs-open-insiders-Half-vacancies-Corporation-never-publicly-advertised.html
  • Options
    barbelerbarbeler Posts: 23,827
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    BBC jobs only open to insiders: Half of all vacancies at the Corporation are never publicly advertised
    Only 52% of BBC job vacancies are advertised externally, new figures show
    The rest are advertised on an internal jobs website meaning that only current BBC employees can apply

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2894716/BBC-jobs-open-insiders-Half-vacancies-Corporation-never-publicly-advertised.html
    Isn't that the same everywhere?
  • Options
    jjwalesjjwales Posts: 48,581
    Forum Member
    BBC jobs only open to insiders: Half of all vacancies at the Corporation are never publicly advertised
    Only 52% of BBC job vacancies are advertised externally, new figures show
    The rest are advertised on an internal jobs website meaning that only current BBC employees can apply
    Presumably the vacancies that are filled by insiders lead eventually to outsiders being appointed to fill the gaps.
  • Options
    VerenceVerence Posts: 104,601
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    barbeler wrote: »
    Isn't that the same everywhere?

    I've heard that only 20% of jobs are ever advertised publicly while the others are filled internally or by word of mouth.

    IF that's true then according to that Daily Mail report the Beeb are doing far better than average
  • Options
    A.D.PA.D.P Posts: 10,393
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Worth looking at Christmas day and see of those who switched their TVs on, what channel they chose to watch.

    Christmas Day 2014 consolidated Top 10

    BBC1
    1. Mrs Brown's Boys, BBC1 9.69 million
    2. Call the Midwife, BBC1 9.41 million
    3. Strictly Come Dancing, BBC1 8.98 million
    4. Miranda, BBC1 8.65 million
    5. EastEnders, BBC1 8.60 million
    6. Doctor Who, BBC1 8.2 million

    Three Channels

    7. The Queen's Christmas Message, BBC1, ITV, Sky News 8.04 million

    Then ITV comes in at 8th!!

    8. Coronation Street, ITV 6.65 million
    9. Downton Abbey, ITV 6.25 million
    10. Emmerdale, ITV 5.64 million
  • Options
    human naturehuman nature Posts: 13,384
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    BBC jobs only open to insiders: Half of all vacancies at the Corporation are never publicly advertised
    Only 52% of BBC job vacancies are advertised externally, new figures show
    The rest are advertised on an internal jobs website meaning that only current BBC employees can apply

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2894716/BBC-jobs-open-insiders-Half-vacancies-Corporation-never-publicly-advertised.html
    Isn't that because there have been a lot of redundancies in the BBC recently? It's fairly standard practice for employers to relocate workers (if they're suitable) when individual vacancies arise rather than make people redundant and then take on new staff from outside.

    I do hope you're not an employer, Diamond stat.
  • Options
    Glenn AGlenn A Posts: 23,877
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    A.D.P wrote: »
    Worth looking at Christmas day and see of those who switched their TVs on, what channel they chose to watch.

    Christmas Day 2014 consolidated Top 10

    BBC1
    1. Mrs Brown's Boys, BBC1 9.69 million
    2. Call the Midwife, BBC1 9.41 million
    3. Strictly Come Dancing, BBC1 8.98 million
    4. Miranda, BBC1 8.65 million
    5. EastEnders, BBC1 8.60 million
    6. Doctor Who, BBC1 8.2 million

    Three Channels

    7. The Queen's Christmas Message, BBC1, ITV, Sky News 8.04 million

    Then ITV comes in at 8th!!

    8. Coronation Street, ITV 6.65 million
    9. Downton Abbey, ITV 6.25 million
    10. Emmerdale, ITV 5.64 million
    From a ratings point of view, it's clear viewers prefer BBC One nowadays. ITV only really has a handful of shows that get good ratings and even their two big soaps, which guarantee them an audience five nights a week, are falling in the ratings.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 34
    Forum Member
    Jack1 wrote: »
    Surely public services shouldn't pay as highly as the private sector as they have other perks?
    Which are being whittled away, so I'll assume you will support higher salaries for public service workers then.

    Shall I hold my breath?:D
  • Options
    technologisttechnologist Posts: 13,401
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Verence wrote: »
    I've heard that only 20% of jobs are ever advertised publicly while the others are filled internally or by word of mouth.

    IF that's true then according to that Daily Mail report the Beeb are doing far better than average

    There are lots of where the bbc is doing "better" than the average .....and very few were it is worse ....

    Senior staff pay is highly discounted ..... Traditional it was at a discount
    But John Birt was told to recruit externally at full market rates........ But Greg Dyke discounted pay and Mark T did even more so... ( arround the first years of MT , ch4 a public corporation , paid it's top three people more than the top ten in the BBC... It currently pays its CEO one and a half times what Lord hall gets.)

    The pay offs saved more money more quickly than the trust required ....
    And with a very few exception were typical to what other industries do ... With PILON .
    ...and with some typical BBC touchs like not serving notice on pregnant women,

    And the current BBC pension scheme is far from generous ....
  • Options
    mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,309
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    BBC jobs only open to insiders: Half of all vacancies at the Corporation are never publicly advertised
    Only 52% of BBC job vacancies are advertised externally, new figures show
    The rest are advertised on an internal jobs website meaning that only current BBC employees can apply

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2894716/BBC-jobs-open-insiders-Half-vacancies-Corporation-never-publicly-advertised.html
    barbeler wrote: »
    Isn't that the same everywhere?
    Verence wrote: »
    I've heard that only 20% of jobs are ever advertised publicly while the others are filled internally or by word of mouth.

    IF that's true then according to that Daily Mail report the Beeb are doing far better than average
    Yes, and it's far cheaper to fill internally, with no recruitment agencies to pay/less time having to weed out unsuitable applicants etc (which is why most companies advertise internally first, then externally should no suitable applicant arise). And if employees have been made redundant, then it is standard practice to offer any later vacancies to displaced ex-exployees.

    But of course, little facts like this don't matter to the Mail with its anti-BBC agenda
  • Options
    Jimmy_BarnesJimmy_Barnes Posts: 895
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Jack1 wrote: »
    It would be near impossible IMO to like all of the BBCs output, and I don't really think producing a wide variety of output is actually a criticism.

    Very true. What should we be criticising them for, then?
  • Options
    Dan SetteDan Sette Posts: 5,816
    Forum Member
    BBC jobs only open to insiders: Half of all vacancies at the Corporation are never publicly advertised

    Probably about right. No problem there. Typical Mail sensationalising. In any company, where there are large scale redundancies / office closure existing staff are tried to be redeployed (the unions would have a day if that wasn't the case)

    So, from the same story, from the same person quoted

    Philip Pepper, a partner at Midlands-based law firm Shakespeares said that organisations 'have a duty to avoid redundancy', adding that employers are less likely to face a claim from a laid-off worker if they can show that they have made a reasonable attempt to rehire him or her in a different job.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,718
    Forum Member
    Which are being whittled away, so I'll assume you will support higher salaries for public service workers then.

    Shall I hold my breath?:D

    Still more favorable then the private sector ... but we'll leave this for another debate :)
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,718
    Forum Member
    calico_pie wrote: »
    Which would mean it would be subject to the same commercial pressures as other broadcasters, and probably be more expensive.

    That might be good for the tiny minority who watch tv, but don't watch any BBC.

    But would be bad for the majority of tv viewers.

    Is that why you favour that option?

    I don't think TV is a necessity or is something that needs to be paid for collectively.

    The reason it is cheaper collectively is that people who subscribe to it have to pay for it, hardly a point of fairness.
Sign In or Register to comment.