The Police cuts are all wrong though, in fact many of this government's cuts are wrong.
Cutting the BBC is wrong also - Particularly as the reasons for doing so are only to satisfy the commercial sector, who will NOT provide all that the BBC does, and will cost the viewer more.
I would hazard a guess that cuts at the BBC are way down the list of most people's concerns, way, WAY down in fact.
And the commercial sector are providing far better localised radio services in Scotland (which isn't difficult) than the BBC yet licence fee payers there soon have to share the burden of the World Service which should be slashed, astonishingly it's bigger than the US Government's Voice Of America! (VOA).
I would hazard a guess that cuts at the BBC are way down the list of most people's concerns, way, WAY down in fact.
And the commercial sector are providing far better localised radio services in Scotland (which isn't difficult) than the BBC yet licence fee payers there soon have to share the burden of the World Service which should be slashed, astonishingly it's bigger than the US Government's Voice Of America! (VOA).
I'm not sure i agree about the commercial sector in Scotland!
Besides, any commercial station in Scotland that hasn't been homogenised into a "Heart" or "Capital" format soon will.
The Police cuts are all wrong though, in fact many of this government's cuts are wrong.
Cutting the BBC is wrong also - Particularly as the reasons for doing so are only to satisfy the commercial sector, who will NOT provide all that the BBC does, and will cost the viewer more.
I'm no Tory apologist, but what would you cut instead, given that cuts have to be made because Gordon Brown helped bankrupt the country over 13 years?
I'm not sure i agree about the commercial sector in Scotland!
Besides, any commercial station in Scotland that hasn't been homogenised into a "Heart" or "Capital" format soon will.
I think anyone will agree the commercial sector offers far more regionalised radio services in Scotland than the BBC, what they are called dosen't matter as long as they are truly regional but this thread is about the BBC being too big which it is. Do you not find it staggering the World Service is considerably bigger than VOA? It is laughable if it is for influence, we haven't got much influence in Europe never mind elsewhere. £261m is this years budget which has been reduced from the planned £272 which in my opinion is astonishing.
I think the Government and the BBC still think we have an empire.
I Do you not find it staggering the World Service is considerably bigger than VOA?
And having listened to both,a whole lot better as well. Certainly, NPR (National Public Radio), seems to think so, considering the extent they rely on the BBC, rather that VOA.
And having listened to both,a whole lot better as well. Certainly, NPR (National Public Radio), seems to think so, considering the extent they rely on the BBC, rather that VOA.
I am not questioning the quality of the World Service (given it's budget It should be excellent). What I question is why do we provide it as it exists in the first place.
Dosen't anyone else think it is odd that we provide such a service, are we really important enough to warrant doing so these days, No one else, not even the US, provides a service to this extent so why do we?
And from 2014 it will be funded by the Licence Fee.
I think anyone will agree the commercial sector offers far more regionalised radio services in Scotland than the BBC, what they are called dosen't matter as long as they are truly regional but this thread is about the BBC being too big which it is. Do you not find it staggering the World Service is considerably bigger than VOA? It is laughable if it is for influence, we haven't got much influence in Europe never mind elsewhere. £261m is this years budget which has been reduced from the planned £272 which in my opinion is astonishing.
I think the Government and the BBC still think we have an empire.
Ignoring the rather silly ""empire" comment, have you ever stopped to think for a moment what these commercial radio stations do?
Usually short corporate links, with minimal content, and the same 50-70 songs on repeat.
You'll find that these will be homogensised one day soon, and ALL local content removed, and the stations closed down and co-located and networked.
Just like has happened in England.
Now THAT is what cutbacks do, and all so the same few people can get rich, and the REAL empire expands.
And now it will be us directly paying for it so therefore surely it will be upto the BBC from 2014, not Government.
And you don't think that, as part of the budgetary handover conditions, the Government might have stated that no part of the World Service should be cut back? Because they would have been remiss not to seeing as it is really an FCO-sponsored service that has no real broadcast value to licence fee payers.
And you don't think that, as part of the budgetary handover conditions, the Government might have stated that no part of the World Service should be cut back? Because they would have been remiss not to seeing as it is really an FCO-sponsored service that has no real broadcast value to licence fee payers.
The second part of my post would imply that I do not know but would be surprised if they had not indicated as such.
My view would be that the BBC should save the money and close down all of the BBC World Service as it has no broadcast value to the UK LF payers. But I know that would not happen or be allowed to happen.
The second part of my post would imply that I do not know but would be surprised if they had not indicated as such.
I don't know, I could speculate as you have but I know as fact the current WS budget is £261m, that has been cut already from £272m but should we really be spending anywhere near that, not one other country does.
And I mean anywhere near that. We are going to have to pay for the WS yet the capital city of Scotland dosen't even have it's own BBC radio station!
I don't say it should be closed but for example, why does it broadcast to Western Europe, it is hardly a news and information blackspot is it?
Ignoring the rather silly ""empire" comment, have you ever stopped to think for a moment what these commercial radio stations do?.
What's silly about calling it an Empire. It seems to be ok for the left wing media to call Sky an Empire and they're a lot smaller than the state funded Goliath known as the BBC
What's silly about calling it an Empire. It seems to be ok for the left wing media to call Sky an Empire and they're a lot smaller than the state funded Goliath known as the BBC
I was referring to the BBC and the Government possibly thinking we still have an Empire given the vast scope of the WS, not the BBC being an Empire. But you are right, it is a behemoth.
It was a throw away comment but I used it in the context of why a country like ours who, let's face it, has very little influence in our own backyard of Europe never mind globally, thinking we have any need for a worldwide radio service bigger than any other country on the planet, the US, Russia and China obviously included.
It has more to do with misplaced prestige both on the BBC and the Government's behalf, it is to be frank ridiculous. The French and Germans must laugh out loud watching us waste so much money on our delusions.
What's silly about calling it an Empire. It seems to be ok for the left wing media to call Sky an Empire and they're a lot smaller than the state funded Goliath known as the BBC
Really? Sky's turn-over is, in fact, around £1.1bn more than the BBCs. So on that basis alone, Sky's bigger.
Oh, and of course it's not actually "state funded" but you knew that, right? :rolleyes:
What's silly about calling it an Empire. It seems to be ok for the left wing media to call Sky an Empire and they're a lot smaller than the state funded Goliath known as the BBC
Erm, no, Sky are bigger now and getting bigger with each passing day.
Do you think the BBC should not be spending money on these new buildings, bare in mind TV Centre will eventually close, the building up north was forced on the by the government.
Do you think it is all too expensive, what alternatives were there for the BBC to take.
Do you have proof of this 'let's pay as much licence payers money to our celebs as we can' ethos. By the way just saying Jonathan Ross inst debate unless you can keep on going with a very very long list after that. Look forward to it.
Wogan's salary is irrelevant as he is talking about BBC money being spent on buildings and not on talent, although its easy to tar every talent with the now much maligned phrase 'celeb'. What wage should on of the most regarded radio/tv presenters be on? Who's radio show was the most listened to in the country.
The whole Wogan's wage is a nice, but pretty dumb, side step by those that have nothing to say about the issue at hand and on Wogan's comments about new BBC buildings.
Or is it what it is, a lame DS piece of news, along with juicy headline (notice the head line isnt 'Wogans Supports Lisence Fee' strange that isn't it??) piss poor cut and paste internet journalist designed to spoon feed moronic threads by the same old same old posters that need things like this to form their own opinion. Posters that have not even discussed the issues but have just nodded their head at hilariously bad DS shock headline tabloid guff.
Debate...I'll look forward to it and your alternative suggestions and costings as the debate certainly isn't going to come from Slo Mo.
"piss poor" and "moronic threads". Is that what you call debate?
I'll see if I can do better. I thought he'd left, if he hasn't he doesn't do quite what he used to, does he.
Don't know about the buildings, perhaps someone who wants to debate will supply some facts.
His money from the BBC is more relevant because he didn't mention it! His pay was mentioned as high, forget how high, in the undenied leak of BBC radio presenters earnings, not forgetting the NAO report that R2 salaries were uduly high.
mRebel
"piss poor" and "moronic threads". Is that what you call debate?
In the context and as an opinion within my entire post. Yes.
If I had just posted that one line and nothing else, like the one liners you do a lot of and then laughably demand debate, you might have had a point.
I'll see if I can do better. I thought he'd left, if he hasn't he doesn't do quite what he used to, does he.
Maybe check things out before you make a critism of someone.
Don't know about the buildings, perhaps someone who wants to debate will supply some facts.
But that is what the thread is about?? Not Wogans wage. Its a nice detour because lets face it talking about buildings inst that much fun is it.
His money from the BBC is more relevant because he didn't mention it
!
Is he supposed to mention his wage in every interview now?
He was talking about the BBC and the new building projects and not about wages. The two are unrelated, that is unless you want to cram them together so that they are glaringly poles apart.
Should Wogan not have had an opinion because he is on the BBC payroll? Im sure you would have had something to say about that, or if the BBc took action against him for talking about 'biuldings':eek: So whenever a BBC employee talks about the BBc they have to mention their wages. Yes Mrebel, great debate, well thought out. Nothing at all to do with the actual article though is it?
His pay was mentioned as high, forget how high, in the undenied leak of BBC radio presenters earnings, not forgetting the NAO report that R2 salaries were uduly high.
That isnt this article though is it?
What has that got to do with BBC building projects as per the article?
There, hows that for a bit of debate?
Deflective, rambling and pretty poor if Im honest.considering the OP is about BBC building projects.
Do you , REALLY, deny that hasn't happened on commercial radio over the last couple of decades??!!
I don't really know why you originally mentioned commercial radio as this thread is about the BBC's size but if you are comparing services I think you really need to look at the BBC's output for all the nations, not just England. Also I am not aware of what you say happenning everywhere. Liverpool's commercial radio services have grown in the last few years and there is no suggestion any are going to close or become 'Heart' or 'Capital' which isn't really a shock as they are part of Bauer, as are many Scottish stations.
But If you think it is fair for someone in Edinburgh to pay for the WS yet not even have their own local BBC service that is fine.
Just a reminder to everyone, The BBC World Service currently costs £261m a year, massively larger than the United States Government worldwide service.
The total budget of Radio 1,2,3,4 & 5 is a similar figure to that of just the World Service.
Comments
I would hazard a guess that cuts at the BBC are way down the list of most people's concerns, way, WAY down in fact.
And the commercial sector are providing far better localised radio services in Scotland (which isn't difficult) than the BBC yet licence fee payers there soon have to share the burden of the World Service which should be slashed, astonishingly it's bigger than the US Government's Voice Of America! (VOA).
I'm not sure i agree about the commercial sector in Scotland!
Besides, any commercial station in Scotland that hasn't been homogenised into a "Heart" or "Capital" format soon will.
I'm no Tory apologist, but what would you cut instead, given that cuts have to be made because Gordon Brown helped bankrupt the country over 13 years?
I think anyone will agree the commercial sector offers far more regionalised radio services in Scotland than the BBC, what they are called dosen't matter as long as they are truly regional but this thread is about the BBC being too big which it is. Do you not find it staggering the World Service is considerably bigger than VOA? It is laughable if it is for influence, we haven't got much influence in Europe never mind elsewhere. £261m is this years budget which has been reduced from the planned £272 which in my opinion is astonishing.
I think the Government and the BBC still think we have an empire.
And having listened to both,a whole lot better as well. Certainly, NPR (National Public Radio), seems to think so, considering the extent they rely on the BBC, rather that VOA.
I am not questioning the quality of the World Service (given it's budget It should be excellent). What I question is why do we provide it as it exists in the first place.
Dosen't anyone else think it is odd that we provide such a service, are we really important enough to warrant doing so these days, No one else, not even the US, provides a service to this extent so why do we?
And from 2014 it will be funded by the Licence Fee.
Ignoring the rather silly ""empire" comment, have you ever stopped to think for a moment what these commercial radio stations do?
Usually short corporate links, with minimal content, and the same 50-70 songs on repeat.
You'll find that these will be homogensised one day soon, and ALL local content removed, and the stations closed down and co-located and networked.
Just like has happened in England.
Now THAT is what cutbacks do, and all so the same few people can get rich, and the REAL empire expands.
He dosen't answer the question about BBC budgets I see and he is always big on speculation, what I have said is fact (empire thing aside!)
The World Service budget is about the same as the total budget of Radio's 1,2,3,4 and 5.
And now it will be us directly paying for it so therefore surely it will be upto the BBC from 2014, not Government.
I don't know, have they?
My view would be that the BBC should save the money and close down all of the BBC World Service as it has no broadcast value to the UK LF payers. But I know that would not happen or be allowed to happen.
I don't know, I could speculate as you have but I know as fact the current WS budget is £261m, that has been cut already from £272m but should we really be spending anywhere near that, not one other country does.
And I mean anywhere near that. We are going to have to pay for the WS yet the capital city of Scotland dosen't even have it's own BBC radio station!
I don't say it should be closed but for example, why does it broadcast to Western Europe, it is hardly a news and information blackspot is it?
How do you know this ?
What's silly about calling it an Empire. It seems to be ok for the left wing media to call Sky an Empire and they're a lot smaller than the state funded Goliath known as the BBC
I was referring to the BBC and the Government possibly thinking we still have an Empire given the vast scope of the WS, not the BBC being an Empire. But you are right, it is a behemoth.
It was a throw away comment but I used it in the context of why a country like ours who, let's face it, has very little influence in our own backyard of Europe never mind globally, thinking we have any need for a worldwide radio service bigger than any other country on the planet, the US, Russia and China obviously included.
It has more to do with misplaced prestige both on the BBC and the Government's behalf, it is to be frank ridiculous. The French and Germans must laugh out loud watching us waste so much money on our delusions.
Too true. If anyone in the BBC is overpaid it is this overrated jerk.
Oh, and of course it's not actually "state funded" but you knew that, right? :rolleyes:
"big on speculation"??!!
Do you , REALLY, deny that hasn't happened on commercial radio over the last couple of decades??!!
Erm, no, Sky are bigger now and getting bigger with each passing day.
"piss poor" and "moronic threads". Is that what you call debate?
I'll see if I can do better. I thought he'd left, if he hasn't he doesn't do quite what he used to, does he.
Don't know about the buildings, perhaps someone who wants to debate will supply some facts.
His money from the BBC is more relevant because he didn't mention it! His pay was mentioned as high, forget how high, in the undenied leak of BBC radio presenters earnings, not forgetting the NAO report that R2 salaries were uduly high.
There, hows that for a bit of debate?
In the context and as an opinion within my entire post. Yes.
If I had just posted that one line and nothing else, like the one liners you do a lot of and then laughably demand debate, you might have had a point.
Maybe check things out before you make a critism of someone.
But that is what the thread is about?? Not Wogans wage. Its a nice detour because lets face it talking about buildings inst that much fun is it.
!
Is he supposed to mention his wage in every interview now?
He was talking about the BBC and the new building projects and not about wages. The two are unrelated, that is unless you want to cram them together so that they are glaringly poles apart.
Should Wogan not have had an opinion because he is on the BBC payroll? Im sure you would have had something to say about that, or if the BBc took action against him for talking about 'biuldings':eek: So whenever a BBC employee talks about the BBc they have to mention their wages. Yes Mrebel, great debate, well thought out. Nothing at all to do with the actual article though is it?
That isnt this article though is it?
What has that got to do with BBC building projects as per the article?
Deflective, rambling and pretty poor if Im honest.considering the OP is about BBC building projects.
I don't really know why you originally mentioned commercial radio as this thread is about the BBC's size but if you are comparing services I think you really need to look at the BBC's output for all the nations, not just England. Also I am not aware of what you say happenning everywhere. Liverpool's commercial radio services have grown in the last few years and there is no suggestion any are going to close or become 'Heart' or 'Capital' which isn't really a shock as they are part of Bauer, as are many Scottish stations.
But If you think it is fair for someone in Edinburgh to pay for the WS yet not even have their own local BBC service that is fine.
Just a reminder to everyone, The BBC World Service currently costs £261m a year, massively larger than the United States Government worldwide service.
The total budget of Radio 1,2,3,4 & 5 is a similar figure to that of just the World Service.