I don't favour a change from Licence Fee to subscription. That would be the totally wrong way to go about it. I am happy for the Licence Fee (in some form or another) to continue. My views differ because I am not too perturbed by the freeze. £145.40 per year per household will still give the BBC a huge amount of income. I don't want the BBC to be destroyed (and the way Ash posts suggests the Tories are going to reduce them to a cupboard, a desk and a handyman), but I have no issue with the Government to expect them to look at themselves and consider how they can offer the excellent service they are capable of providing at the current rate.
Now, I take on board the content vs channel point which indicated the bulk of the expense goes into programme making, and it's a point I agree with.
But, even if BBC3 and BBC4 closed down these programmes would still be made.
Here are my very reasonable suggestions as to how the BBC can overcome the Licence Fee budget cut/freeze.
1: Close Down BBC3 and BBC4
Yes, controversial I know and as pointed out, the loss of running the channel wouldn't be the biggest money saver but it would save some money.
But what about programming?
Well, it wouldn't take many people to analyse BBC3's and BBC4's output and content and work out exactly how many hours per week is allocated to the age group BBC3 is aimed at and the arts and factual that BBC4 provides. Compare this to the amount of repeats and feature films that take up the remaining space on each channel and then commission programming that is relevant to the audience demographics that can be aired on BBC2 and BBC1. The programming wouldn't be lost and the viewer wouldn't lose out.
For instance, many of the commissions for BBC3 that would air on BBC1 can be scheduled for in various slots such as Monday - Wednesday post 10.35pm or on Saturday and Sunday afternoons. This would not only ensure the viewers who watch BBC3 and BBC4 still get their programming at regular times, but it would also make BBC1 and BBC2 much stronger in both appeal and in content.
2: Children's Programming
As I said in a previous post, I don't see the value in transmitting childrens programmes at times they are meant to be at school. The school hours should be used to transmit CBeebies programming with CBBC kicking in at around 3pm. BBC2 could also reinstate CBBC programming on Saturday and Sunday mornings and during school holidays.
Again, no one loses out as everyone is catered for. This would now free up funds from having to air 3 channels whilst at the same time maintaining the services and strengthening the output of the two main channels.
3: BBC Parliament
This would move online and on red button with key debates from the House of Commons and/or devolved parliaments on BBC2 or BBC2 for the relevant region.
4: BBC News
No change, except that from 1am until 6am a simulcast with World News would be implemented.
5: BBC1 and BBC2
BBC1 would largely be unaffected, but late night programming and weekend afternoon programming enhanced by having the previous BBC3 content moved into those mentioned slots. Repeats on the main channel would be fewer. Programmes such as Omnibus would also be reprieved to sit alongside Imagine to strengthen the arts output on BBC1.
BBC2 would air from around 11am each weekday. It would start broadcasting when Daily Politics started and would focus on daytime events like Commons debates, Budget announcements and so on. Repeats of BBC1 programmes that you would normally see retransmitted on BBC1 post 10.35pm would be aired in the afternoons if no "event" was taking place. (Subject to progranmme content of course). On Saturday and Sunday mornings a new best of CBBC strand would air with classic repeats of comedies and US shows airing from mid-day until around 3pm where regular BBC2 programming would air.
BBC2's evening schedule would of course be strengthened by the inclusion of previous BBC4 programming, again virtually reducing the amount of repeats in peaktime to zero.
6: Staffing
The staff would also need re-evaluating. Does each department need as many staff and especially managers? Could some departments operate equally as well with less staff whilst reallocating staff to departments who genuinely need more?
7: The BBC Trust
This would be scrapped and BBC affairs that the Trust deal with would be dealt with in a BBC Only department of Ofcom. BBC Ofcom would save money because it would be independent from the BBC and only a small subsidy from the BBC would go towards funding this service.
Of course other measures would need to be taken too such as the halting of BBC1+1, and Radio Stations and services such as Alba and how to maintain it at a realistic level also need looking at, but I am sure that by implementing my proposals the services would still be readily available and the "something for everyone" remit would still be relevant. Savings would also be made which is, after all, the purpose of the Licence Fee freeze. Having a little bit less of the BBC does not mean a less quality output. Quite the opposite I would say, as my suggestions have tried to demonstrate.
Firstly, I am pleased you are opposed to privatisation.
Secondly - before I go any further - I am opposed to any cuts at all. Licence fee increases should be pegged to inflation. Taking money out of the system benefits no-one. Did you read the comprehensive article attached above entitled 'What If There Was No BBC'?
Now to the meat... we all use and benefit from different BBC services. Our viewing behaviours and tastes are therefore going to influence our opinions re: the BBC.
For arguments sake, I am going to define 'peak time' as the hours from 7-10pm (3 hours a night). I accept that outside those hours, most (not all) content will be repeats for obvious reasons. Imagine we only had BBC1 and 2. Does the BBC only produce 42 hours of original peak-time content a week? If it produces more than that, where is the content going to go? All demographics (bar children) should have their programming during peak times.
BBC Parliament Moving To The Red Button - I'm opposed to this (the politicians will be too I suspect) completely. The Red Button is currently used as like a BBC Xtra service whereby viewers can get Xtra content following a programme just viewed. I'm thinking Glastonbury, Chelsea Flower Show, Eurovision and Wimbledon, to name but a few. That content needs to be maintained. Maintain the Red Button, Parliament and News as is. Simulcasting with World News from 1 - 6 am is probably sensible.
BBC2 starting at 11? Why? Don't like that at all. BBC2 schedule needs stability. Drama from the Commons can continue uninterrupted on Parliament with the News Channel drawing viewers attention to any significant events.
Staffing - we've got to get away from this 'more for less' / 'more with less' obsession. High standards and high quality expected of the BBC (and rightly so) are not achieved with not enough staff (and funds).
BBC1+1 - when I responded to the BBC Trust's consultation on BBC3/BBC1+1 I said that I was against it. I maintain the same position. The catch-up channels are understandable and justafiable for the ad-channels, but not for the BBC. Ironically, the 'repeats schedule' currently employed across BBC1-4 kinda does the 'catch-up' bit already, useful if you miss the first screening, have poor broadband and/or don't have a PVR. As technology advances, broadband improves and more people have PVRs, the 'repeats' will be harder to justify. Something to bear in mind for the future.
One of the most valuable things about the BBC is it's independence. Any proposed change to the BBC's regulation must safeguard it's independence. Future funding should also be decided by an independent body and taken out of the hands of politicians.
I don't favour a change from Licence Fee to subscription. That would be the totally wrong way to go about it. I am happy for the Licence Fee (in some form or another) to continue. My views differ because I am not too perturbed by the freeze. £145.40 per year per household will still give the BBC a huge amount of income. I don't want the BBC to be destroyed (and the way Ash posts suggests the Tories are going to reduce them to a cupboard, a desk and a handyman), but I have no issue with the Government to expect them to look at themselves and consider how they can offer the excellent service they are capable of providing at the current rate.
Now, I take on board the content vs channel point which indicated the bulk of the expense goes into programme making, and it's a point I agree with.
But, even if BBC3 and BBC4 closed down these programmes would still be made.
Here are my very reasonable suggestions as to how the BBC can overcome the Licence Fee budget cut/freeze.
1: Close Down BBC3 and BBC4
Yes, controversial I know and as pointed out, the loss of running the channel wouldn't be the biggest money saver but it would save some money.
But what about programming?
Well, it wouldn't take many people to analyse BBC3's and BBC4's output and content and work out exactly how many hours per week is allocated to the age group BBC3 is aimed at and the arts and factual that BBC4 provides. Compare this to the amount of repeats and feature films that take up the remaining space on each channel and then commission programming that is relevant to the audience demographics that can be aired on BBC2 and BBC1. The programming wouldn't be lost and the viewer wouldn't lose out.
For instance, many of the commissions for BBC3 that would air on BBC1 can be scheduled for in various slots such as Monday - Wednesday post 10.35pm or on Saturday and Sunday afternoons. This would not only ensure the viewers who watch BBC3 and BBC4 still get their programming at regular times, but it would also make BBC1 and BBC2 much stronger in both appeal and in content.
2: Children's Programming
As I said in a previous post, I don't see the value in transmitting childrens programmes at times they are meant to be at school. The school hours should be used to transmit CBeebies programming with CBBC kicking in at around 3pm. BBC2 could also reinstate CBBC programming on Saturday and Sunday mornings and during school holidays.
Again, no one loses out as everyone is catered for. This would now free up funds from having to air 3 channels whilst at the same time maintaining the services and strengthening the output of the two main channels.
3: BBC Parliament
This would move online and on red button with key debates from the House of Commons and/or devolved parliaments on BBC2 or BBC2 for the relevant region.
4: BBC News
No change, except that from 1am until 6am a simulcast with World News would be implemented.
5: BBC1 and BBC2
BBC1 would largely be unaffected, but late night programming and weekend afternoon programming enhanced by having the previous BBC3 content moved into those mentioned slots. Repeats on the main channel would be fewer. Programmes such as Omnibus would also be reprieved to sit alongside Imagine to strengthen the arts output on BBC1.
BBC2 would air from around 11am each weekday. It would start broadcasting when Daily Politics started and would focus on daytime events like Commons debates, Budget announcements and so on. Repeats of BBC1 programmes that you would normally see retransmitted on BBC1 post 10.35pm would be aired in the afternoons if no "event" was taking place. (Subject to progranmme content of course). On Saturday and Sunday mornings a new best of CBBC strand would air with classic repeats of comedies and US shows airing from mid-day until around 3pm where regular BBC2 programming would air.
BBC2's evening schedule would of course be strengthened by the inclusion of previous BBC4 programming, again virtually reducing the amount of repeats in peaktime to zero.
6: Staffing
The staff would also need re-evaluating. Does each department need as many staff and especially managers? Could some departments operate equally as well with less staff whilst reallocating staff to departments who genuinely need more?
7: The BBC Trust
This would be scrapped and BBC affairs that the Trust deal with would be dealt with in a BBC Only department of Ofcom. BBC Ofcom would save money because it would be independent from the BBC and only a small subsidy from the BBC would go towards funding this service.
Of course other measures would need to be taken too such as the halting of BBC1+1, and Radio Stations and services such as Alba and how to maintain it at a realistic level also need looking at, but I am sure that by implementing my proposals the services would still be readily available and the "something for everyone" remit would still be relevant. Savings would also be made which is, after all, the purpose of the Licence Fee freeze. Having a little bit less of the BBC does not mean a less quality output. Quite the opposite I would say, as my suggestions have tried to demonstrate.
If this is based on the fact that the BBC faces cutbacks, and so has to do something, then I wouldn't necessarily disagree with a lot of that.
But I would disagree with the premise that there was any significant upside to the BBC having to face those cutbacks in the first place.
A lot is made about how the BBC has become too big, and the licence fee too expensive - but the fact is that in real terms the licence fee is about the same as it always has been. The TV landscape grew massively from 3/4/5 channels to dozens then hundreds of channels. As that was largely down to technical limitations being lifted, I don't think the BBC has grown excessively - it has just had a bit more room to allow it to spread stuff out a bit, and not have to shoehorn everything into just BBC1 and BBC2.
That is has done that without the licence fee really increasing in real terms is actually pretty remarkable.
If the licence fee had increased in correlation with the increase in number of channels and services, I would absolutely agree that licence fee increases were completely ridiculous and should be brought back under control.
But that clearly is not what has happened, and I just don't really see the issue with the licence fee remaining broadly the same in real terms - cut it, in real terms, and the loss of services to everyone IMO far outweighs the financial gain, which is just going to be a few quid per year per household.
Regarding your scheduling suggestions - can I ask why you would put the BBC3/4 content on at 11pm on weeknights and weekend afternoons, rather than put that content on at the same time on BBC1/2 as it currently is and shift the primetime content on BBC1/BBC2 to the graveyard slots?
Whilst it may not be your intent, that seems to be you saying "I don't watch that stuff, so stick it on out of the way" and never mind that those programmes are now on at a far more inconvenient time than their audience might like.
There is also a bit of an assumption that the cuts the BBC faces don't really matter because they can, by and large, be solved by sticking stuff from BBC3/4 onto BBC1/2. It would be a more compelling argument if you had figures for the real terms cuts compared to the actual savings those measures would make.
If this is based on the fact that the BBC faces cutbacks, and so has to do something, then I wouldn't necessarily disagree with a lot of that.
But I would disagree with the premise that there was any significant upside to the BBC having to face those cutbacks in the first place.
A lot is made about how the BBC has become too big, and the licence fee too expensive - but the fact is that in real terms the licence fee is about the same as it always has been. The TV landscape grew massively from 3/4/5 channels to dozens then hundreds of channels. As that was largely down to technical limitations being lifted, I don't think the BBC has grown excessively - it has just had a bit more room to allow it to spread stuff out a bit, and not have to shoehorn everything into just BBC1 and BBC2.
That is has done that without the licence fee really increasing in real terms is actually pretty remarkable.
If the licence fee had increased in correlation with the increase in number of channels and services, I would absolutely agree that licence fee increases were completely ridiculous and should be brought back under control.
But that clearly is not what has happened, and I just don't really see the issue with the licence fee remaining broadly the same in real terms - cut it, in real terms, and the loss of services to everyone IMO far outweighs the financial gain, which is just going to be a few quid per year per household.
Regarding your scheduling suggestions - can I ask why you would put the BBC3/4 content on at 11pm on weeknights and weekend afternoons, rather than put that content on at the same time on BBC1/2 as it currently is and shift the primetime content on BBC1/BBC2 to the graveyard slots?
Whilst it may not be your intent, that seems to be you saying "I don't watch that stuff, so stick it on out of the way" and never mind that those programmes are now on at a far more inconvenient time than their audience might like.
There is also a bit of an assumption that the cuts the BBC faces don't really matter because they can, by and large, be solved by sticking stuff from BBC3/4 onto BBC1/2. It would be a more compelling argument if you had figures for the real terms cuts compared to the actual savings those measures would make.
I would, in an ideal world, like the BBC to continue receiving funding in the way it does, and for increases to accrue annually at the rate of inflation, as Ash suggested. Since however, we are currently just coming out of deflation and inflation is very low, AND, considering train fares have now been frozen for five years too, it is inevitable to expect the BBC's funding to follow suit.
My proposals are indeed a result of the inevitable freeze and that money has to come from somewhere. I agree 100% that the BBC has been absolutely incredible to be able to provide what it does on the restricted income it has received. Most of the world's biggest companies could learn a lot from the BBC.
I have no problem with BBC1 showing previous BBC3 content during peak hours. But it would of course depend on suitability. My suggestion for post 10.35pm was merely to allow new and additional programming beyond 11pm, but of course this could also be BBC1 shows like Traffic Cops and similar.
The principle of the BBC should be "if the programme is worthy of prime time, show it at prime time" regardless as to what channel it would have been originally commissioned for. There have been several BBC3 shows that I enjoyed and several I didn't. That applies to all programmes across all channels on all platforms.
BBC4 programming was the EXACT sort of programming that used to be on BBC2. Infact Storyville is an original BBC2 show and BBC2 would often show cultural things like ballet and opera at weekends. The Christmas lectures were also shown on BBC2. Nothing on BBC4 can't be shown on BBC2.
BBC1 viewers in general have a wider range of tastes. Don't forget it was BBC1 that commissioned the animated series "The Fat Slags" a few years ago. They are also repeating BBC3 comedies like Cuckoo and Touchstone 42 already. Why do you assume that "BBC1 Viewers" would object to less repeats post 10pm News and why do you assume they wouldn't enjoy some of the commissioning that they get from BBC3's budget? It really isn't a strong enough argument to say BBC3 content isn't suited to BBC1 when one of BBC3's biggest successes "Don't Tell The Bride" moves to BBC1 next week.
As for "displacement"? Not at all. BBC content has always been varied and diverse. It would make their output much more varied and diverse far more consistent to the viewer which in turn can only be a good thing.
It isn't free by the way to broadcast, create, present, design and maintain TV channels. Airwaves charge money. The BBC don't air any of their channels on the digital network for free, and regardless as to how minimal these costs are, they are genuine savings that the BBC could invest in other projects with whilst still maintaining their full service.
Well I don't remember BBC2 having that much music content? And where are these BBC4 shows going to fit on BBC2? For starters they have Newsnight on every night filling up the post watershed schedule.
BBC4 programming was the EXACT sort of programming that used to be on BBC2. Infact Storyville is an original BBC2 show and BBC2 would often show cultural things like ballet and opera at weekends. The Christmas lectures were also shown on BBC2. Nothing on BBC4 can't be shown on BBC2.
BBC1 viewers in general have a wider range of tastes. Don't forget it was BBC1 that commissioned the animated series "The Fat Slags" a few years ago. They are also repeating BBC3 comedies like Cuckoo and Touchstone 42 already. Why do you assume that "BBC1 Viewers" would object to less repeats post 10pm News and why do you assume they wouldn't enjoy some of the commissioning that they get from BBC3's budget? It really isn't a strong enough argument to say BBC3 content isn't suited to BBC1 when one of BBC3's biggest successes "Don't Tell The Bride" moves to BBC1 next week.
As for "displacement"? Not at all. BBC content has always been varied and diverse. It would make their output much more varied and diverse far more consistent to the viewer which in turn can only be a good thing.
It isn't free by the way to broadcast, create, present, design and maintain TV channels. Airwaves charge money. The BBC don't air any of their channels on the digital network for free, and regardless as to how minimal these costs are, they are genuine savings that the BBC could invest in other projects with whilst still maintaining their full service.
I would say that BBC4 content is much more highbrow than BBC2 of old. That's the first point.
BBC3 content is commissioned for BBC3's demographic, some of which I enjoy immensely. Do you watch BBC3 much?
I will present a balanced overview of what BBC3 does, avoiding the 'cliches' often wheeled out to suite certain agendas:
Abby and Brittany: Joined For Life
Abortion: Ireland's Dirty Little Secret
Alex: A Life Fast Forward
Bad Boy Olympian
Bad Education
Backchat
Beaten By My Boyfriend
Bluestone 42
Britain's Gay Footballers
Britian In Bed
The Call Centre
Cannibus: What's The Harm?
Can We Trust The Police?
Cookoo
Deaf Teens: Hearing World
Drunk and Disorderlies
EDL Girls: Don't Call Me Racist
Excluded: Kicked Out Of School
Extreme OCD Camp
Failed By The NHS
Football's Suicide Secret
Free Speech
Gavin And Stacey
Glastonbury
Is Oral Sex Safe?
Is Football Racist?
Junior Doctors: Your Life In Their Hands
Junior Paramedics
Kids Behind Bars
Lee Nelson's Well Good Show
Murdered By My Boyfriend
My Brother The Islamist
Otto: Love, Lust and Las Vegas
Our War
Our Crime
Porn: What's The Harm?
Pramface
Prostitution: What's The Harm?
Radio 1 Teen Awards
Reggie Yates: Extreme Russia
Riots: The Aftershock
Small Teen, Bigger World
Stacey Dooley Documentaries
Sun, Sex And Suspicious Parents
Sweet The Small Stuff
The Anti-Social Network
Tough Young Teachers
Two Pints Of Lager And A Packet Of Crisps
Tyger Takes On...
Uncle
Unsafe Sex In The City
Woman's World Cup
Young Soldiers
Young, British And Angry
Young, British And Broke: The Truth About Pay Day Loans
Now, I define anyone to suggest that the above (documentaries, sport, music, comedy) would 'fit on BBC1' or BBC2 for that matter.
P.S. New Don't Tell The Bride won't be anything like BBC3's version. It has been BBC1'd.
I would, in an ideal world, like the BBC to continue receiving funding in the way it does, and for increases to accrue annually at the rate of inflation, as Ash suggested. Since however, we are currently just coming out of deflation and inflation is very low, AND, considering train fares have now been frozen for five years too, it is inevitable to expect the BBC's funding to follow suit.
My proposals are indeed a result of the inevitable freeze and that money has to come from somewhere. I agree 100% that the BBC has been absolutely incredible to be able to provide what it does on the restricted income it has received. Most of the world's biggest companies could learn a lot from the BBC.
I have no problem with BBC1 showing previous BBC3 content during peak hours. But it would of course depend on suitability. My suggestion for post 10.35pm was merely to allow new and additional programming beyond 11pm, but of course this could also be BBC1 shows like Traffic Cops and similar.
The principle of the BBC should be "if the programme is worthy of prime time, show it at prime time" regardless as to what channel it would have been originally commissioned for. There have been several BBC3 shows that I enjoyed and several I didn't. That applies to all programmes across all channels on all platforms.
Then we might be nearing a consensus - I guess a discussion about how could the BBC save money if it absolutely had to is actually an entirely different discussion to one about how the licence fee needs to be slashed because the BBC is crap and the whole world is just so unfair.
I don't know if its my imagination, or just noticed because of the decision to move BBC3 online etc, but it does seem to have had a few decent looking programmes recently. Reggie Yates' documentaries were excellent - I remember not thinking much of him back in the day when he did TOTP with Fearne, but Reggie and Ade Edmundson were brilliant together when they did Comic Relief does Fame Academy years ago (chatting about life, the universe and everything on the red button coverage, not so much the singing), and think he has matured into a very good presenter, and perfect for doing that sort of documentary aimed at a younger audience.
And what really gets my goat up about BBC3 is when older people judge it on the titles of programmes that really are not aimed at them, and oblivious to the fact that numerous programmes (particularly the ones they used to do on body image) actually had a much more serious element to than the title suggested.
In short, exactly the right sorts of programmes for the audience they are aimed at - and I think its a huge shame that BBC3 has been the whipping boy in a lot of the anti BBC sentiment, especially when its harshest critics don't seem to know what they are even talking about except what has been spoon fed to them by the likes of the Mail.
I would, in an ideal world, like the BBC to continue receiving funding in the way it does, and for increases to accrue annually at the rate of inflation, as Ash suggested. Since however, we are currently just coming out of deflation and inflation is very low, AND, considering train fares have now been frozen for five years too, it is inevitable to expect the BBC's funding to follow suit.
My proposals are indeed a result of the inevitable freeze and that money has to come from somewhere. I agree 100% that the BBC has been absolutely incredible to be able to provide what it does on the restricted income it has received. Most of the world's biggest companies could learn a lot from the BBC.
I have no problem with BBC1 showing previous BBC3 content during peak hours. But it would of course depend on suitability. My suggestion for post 10.35pm was merely to allow new and additional programming beyond 11pm, but of course this could also be BBC1 shows like Traffic Cops and similar.
The principle of the BBC should be "if the programme is worthy of prime time, show it at prime time" regardless as to what channel it would have been originally commissioned for. There have been several BBC3 shows that I enjoyed and several I didn't. That applies to all programmes across all channels on all platforms.
Underlined... very interesting. Define suitable? Bear in mind, BBC3 content is screened from 7pm.
I would say that BBC4 content is much more highbrow than BBC2 of old. That's the first point.
BBC3 content is commissioned for BBC3's demographic, some of which I enjoy immensely. Do you watch BBC3 much?
I will present a balanced overview of what BBC3 does, avoiding the 'cliches' often wheeled out to suite certain agendas:
Abby and Brittany: Joined For Life
Abortion: Ireland's Dirty Little Secret
Alex: A Life Fast Forward
Bad Boy Olympian Bad Education
Backchat Beaten By My Boyfriend
Bluestone 42
Britain's Gay Footballers
Britian In Bed The Call Centre
Cannibus: What's The Harm? Can We Trust The Police?
Cookoo
Deaf Teens: Hearing World
Drunk and Disorderlies
EDL Girls: Don't Call Me Racist
Excluded: Kicked Out Of School
Extreme OCD Camp Failed By The NHS
Football's Suicide Secret Free Speech
Gavin And Stacey
Glastonbury
Is Oral Sex Safe?
Is Football Racist?
Junior Doctors: Your Life In Their Hands
Junior Paramedics
Kids Behind Bars
Lee Nelson's Well Good Show Murdered By My Boyfriend
My Brother The Islamist
Otto: Love, Lust and Las Vegas
Our War
Our Crime
Porn: What's The Harm? Pramface
Prostitution: What's The Harm?
Radio 1 Teen Awards Reggie Yates: Extreme Russia
Riots: The Aftershock
Small Teen, Bigger World
Stacey Dooley Documentaries
Sun, Sex And Suspicious Parents
Sweet The Small Stuff
The Anti-Social Network
Tough Young Teachers
Two Pints Of Lager And A Packet Of Crisps
Tyger Takes On...
Uncle
Unsafe Sex In The City Woman's World Cup
Young Soldiers
Young, British And Angry
Young, British And Broke: The Truth About Pay Day Loans
Now, I define anyone to suggest that the above (documentaries, sport, music, comedy) would 'fit on BBC1' or BBC2 for that matter.
P.S. New Don't Tell The Bride won't be anything like BBC3's version. It has been BBC1'd.
Yes, I have watched BBC3. You missed out of your list Him and Her which I loved, and was repeated on BBC3.
Glastonbury also features on BBC2 and BBC1 would show BBC3 relevant gigs in the same way it showed Live 8 and pop concerts in the 80's and 90's.
The programmes in bold have all aired on BBC1. Woman's World Cup may not have been but Women's FA Cup matches and final have.
I will disagree with you about BBC4 content as often BBC2 would show very similar in style to what BBC4 shows.
i don't know if its my imagination, or just noticed because of the decision to move BBC3 online etc, but it does seem to have had a few decent looking programmes recently. Reggie Yates' documentaries were excellent - I remember not thinking much of him back in the day when he did TOTP with Fearne, but Reggie and Ade Edmundson were brilliant together when they did Comic Relief does Fame Academy years ago (chatting about life, the universe and everything on the red button coverage, not so much the singing), and think he has matured into a very good presenter, and perfect for doing that sort of documentary aimed at a younger audience.
And what really gets my goat up about BBC3 is when older people judge it on the titles of programmes that really are not aimed at them, and oblivious to the fact that numerous programmes (particularly the ones they used to do on body image) actually had a much more serious element to than the title suggested.
In short, exactly the right sorts of programmes for the audience they are aimed at - and I think its a huge shame that BBC3 has been the whipping boy in a lot of the anti BBC sentiment, especially when its harshest critics don't seem to know what they are even talking about except what has been spoon fed to them by the likes of the Mail.
I agree with this. One of the hardest hitting dramas I've seen for a very long time was "Murdered by My Boyfriend" which actually gave me nightmares. I don't want BBC3 to close, believe me I do appreciate its value, but if the BBC had tough choices to make then it obviously can't be favoured over BBC1, BBC2, KidsTV and BBC News.
Then we might be nearing a consensus - I guess a discussion about how could the BBC save money if it absolutely had to is actually an entirely different discussion to one about how the licence fee needs to be slashed because the BBC is crap and the whole world is just so unfair.
...but the important point here is that the Tories didn't need to force this freeze/cuts on the BBC at all. It was a choice taken by the Tores. The BBC is not a government dept. and it certainly doesn't belong to the Tories either. The BBC belongs to us all. The Tories need to rememeber this fact.
We also need to remember that the BBC only funds 22% of UK television...22%. That is tiny. We also need to remember that the BBC commissions more original/first-run UK content than any other broadcaster. As more viewers watch the BBC than any other broadcaster...cost per viewer is much cheaper than the alternatives too. The BBC already produces much content incredibly cheaply. It is incredible value for money.
Underlined... very interesting. Define suitable? Bear in mind, BBC3 content is screened from 7pm.
All programmes in primetime are aired based on their suitability for the time broadcast. Pramface for example is perfectly acceptable for a 9.30pm airing. Documentaries about prostitution and pornography probably wouldn't be. Being Human would be fine for 9pm. Murdered by My Boyfriend probably not.
...but the important point here is that the Tories didn't need to force this freeze/cuts on the BBC at all. It was a choice taken by the Tores. The BBC is not a government dept. and it certainly doesn't belong to the Tories either. The BBC belongs to us all. The Tories need to rememeber this fact.
We also need to remember that the BBC only funds 22% of UK television...22%. That is tiny. We also need to remember that the BBC commissions more original/first-run UK content than any other broadcaster. As more viewers watch the BBC than any other broadcaster...cost per viewer is much cheaper than the alternatives too. The BBC already produces much content incredibly cheaply. It is incredible value for money.
The thing people need to realise the Government couldn't care what you think or it needs. Tories hate public service. If they could get away with it, everything would be canned.
...but the important point here is that the Tories didn't need to force this freeze/cuts on the BBC at all. It was a choice taken by the Tores. The BBC is not a government dept. and it certainly doesn't belong to the Tories either. The BBC belongs to us all. The Tories need to rememeber this fact.
We also need to remember that the BBC only funds 22% of UK television...22%. That is tiny. We also need to remember that the BBC commissions more original/first-run UK content than any other broadcaster. As more viewers watch the BBC than any other broadcaster...cost per viewer is much cheaper than the alternatives too. The BBC already produces much content incredibly cheaply. It is incredible value for money.
It is irrelevant as to whether you think The Tories should be freezing the LF. They are a political party, elected in a democracy to be the Government of the people. Freezing the LF was in their manifesto. How would they be perceived by train companies if their fares have been frozen to aid the public and taxes in general have been frozen but the Licence Fee gets an increase? That is not right. If the BBC was in crisis and was on its knees and unable to show anything then of course your point would be wholly relevant. But it isn't. But you are letting your hatred of the Tories prejudice your viewpoint. The whole purpose of this thread is to discuss ways the BBC can make savings based on the imminent freezing of the fee. We all know your opinion, your status, but Ash, how you see the BBC and what you want really isn't the issue.
All political parties have different ideologies. It just so happens currently we are governed by a party with ideologies you don't like. In 2020 we may well have a party in power with ideologies I don't agree with.
Yes, I have watched BBC3. You missed out of your list Him and Her which I loved, and was repeated on BBC3.
Glastonbury also features on BBC2 and BBC1 would show BBC3 relevant gigs in the same way it showed Live 8 and pop concerts in the 80's and 90's.
The programmes in bold have all aired on BBC1. Woman's World Cup may not have been but Women's FA Cup matches and final have.
I will disagree with you about BBC4 content as often BBC2 would show very similar in style to what BBC4 shows.
The list of BBC3 content provided above was just a snap shot, but hopefully representative of the channel. I couldn't include everything because the list is comprehensive and I wouldn't want to be accused of spamming.
Glastonbury could be shown on BBC1, but is it very BBC1 given BBC1's demo? It would also replace current BBC1 programming enjoyed by others.
BAFTA winning Him and Her began life / was first broadcast on BBC3 in 2010. Little Britain and Gavin And Stacey also began life on BBC3.
BBC3 invests in the creativity of the young whilst at the same time, giving a voice to the young. In my opinion, that mustn't be watered down/lost. It would be a huge negative for the country. The young don't feel as though they are valued / listened to now. I'm not sure how losing BBC3 would help to solve this issue.
The thing people need to realise the Government couldn't care what you think or it needs. Tories hate public service. If they could get away with it, everything would be canned.
Exactly. And what some people need to remember is that we have just had an election and a party that doesn't support public service but encourages private enterprise got elected. And, guess what, most people know that fact when voting for them.
However, despite that: SHOCK HORROR! The Tories DO NOT want to privatise the BBC and have already said subscription services to the BBC is not the right way forward!
The list of BBC3 content provided above was just a snap shot, but hopefully representative of the channel. I couldn't include everything because the list is comprehensive and I wouldn't want to be accused of spamming.
Glastonbury could be shown on BBC1, but is it very BBC1 given BBC1's demo? It would also replace current BBC1 programming enjoyed by others.
BAFTA winning Him and Her began life / was first broadcast on BBC3 in 2010. Little Britain and Gavin And Stacey also began life on BBC3.
BBC3 invests in the creativity of the young whilst at the same time, giving a voice to the young. In my opinion, that mustn't be watered down/lost. It would be a huge negative for the country. The young don't feel as though they are valued / listened to now. I'm not sure how losing BBC3 would help to solve this issue.
You are nit-picking. BBC1 programmes are often displaced by events. Why would Glastonbury be any different. Sporting events take over BBC1 schedules, Live National Events displace BBC1 programming. Special concerts displace BBC1 programming. Last Night of the Proms displaces BBC1 programming. Having Glastonbury in the BBC1 schedules for one weekend of the year is hardly going to annoy people is it? Having non-stop tennis on all day annoys me, but I appreciate that millions enjoy it.
I don't know if its my imagination, or just noticed because of the decision to move BBC3 online etc, but it does seem to have had a few decent looking programmes recently. Reggie Yates' documentaries were excellent - I remember not thinking much of him back in the day when he did TOTP with Fearne, but Reggie and Ade Edmundson were brilliant together when they did Comic Relief does Fame Academy years ago (chatting about life, the universe and everything on the red button coverage, not so much the singing), and think he has matured into a very good presenter, and perfect for doing that sort of documentary aimed at a younger audience.
And what really gets my goat up about BBC3 is when older people judge it on the titles of programmes that really are not aimed at them, and oblivious to the fact that numerous programmes (particularly the ones they used to do on body image) actually had a much more serious element to than the title suggested.
In short, exactly the right sorts of programmes for the audience they are aimed at - and I think its a huge shame that BBC3 has been the whipping boy in a lot of the anti BBC sentiment, especially when its harshest critics don't seem to know what they are even talking about except what has been spoon fed to them by the likes of the Mail.
I absolutely agree with you 100%. The documentaries on BBC3 deal with current issues facing young people in a very mature and sensible way. I always say re: the BBC... judge the content, not the presentation. The presentation engages the audience with subject matter often very difficult to face up to, but nevertheless, very important to engage with.
Recent BBC3 shows I have valued include Where Am I Sleeping Tonight? / Reggie Yates In Russia and Stacey Dooley Investigates. In terms of drama, one of the best I have seen on the BBC recently has to be Murdered By My Boyfriend. Very powerful, very hard hitting but brilliantly acted, directed, scripted and produced.
I have been very active in Save BBC3 campaign because I recognise it's importance. I recognise the public service it provides.
All programmes in primetime are aired based on their suitability for the time broadcast. Pramface for example is perfectly acceptable for a 9.30pm airing. Documentaries about prostitution and pornography probably wouldn't be. Being Human would be fine for 9pm. Murdered by My Boyfriend probably not.
All that you mention above have gone out between 7 and 10. They could go out at the same time on BBC1, in their current form?
I wonder how much the BBC could save by shutting down BBC1 between 1am and 6:30pm (when the local news comes on). There's rarely a single programme of any value at all between those times and the national news is available on its own channel.
The thing people need to realise the Government couldn't care what you think or it needs. Tories hate public service. If they could get away with it, everything would be canned.
I know and realise this. This is why we all need to be as vocal as possible in defence of the BBC.
All that you mention above have gone out between 7 and 10. They could go out at the same time on BBC1, in their current form?
No. They would no longer be BBC3 shows. They would be BBC1 shows. And therefore scheduled in accordance with a BBC1 audience. BBC1 show documentaries about hard hitting subjects all the time, but many after 10.35pm on Tuesdays. Why would it matter if a programme about prostitution aimed at the young aired at 10.35pm instead of 9pm?
I know and realise this. This is why we all need to be as vocal as possible in defence of the BBC.
But, in reality, the public are not as OTT towards the BBC as you are. It isn't going to disappear off our screens and radio so why do you think people will be up in arms? They won't be.
It is irrelevant as to whether you think The Tories should be freezing the LF. They are a political party, elected in a democracy to be the Government of the people. Freezing the LF was in their manifesto. How would they be perceived by train companies if their fares have been frozen to aid the public and taxes in general have been frozen but the Licence Fee gets an increase? That is not right. If the BBC was in crisis and was on its knees and unable to show anything then of course your point would be wholly relevant. But it isn't. But you are letting your hatred of the Tories prejudice your viewpoint. The whole purpose of this thread is to discuss ways the BBC can make savings based on the imminent freezing of the fee. We all know your opinion, your status, but Ash, how you see the BBC and what you want really isn't the issue.
All political parties have different ideologies. It just so happens currently we are governed by a party with ideologies you don't like. In 2020 we may well have a party in power with ideologies I don't agree with.
...at the risk of repeating myself, the tories were only elected by 37% of those who bothered to vote...25% of those eligible to vote. Now, that in my book means they have very little mandate (if any) to do anything which would affect our public services in a negative way which this country values hugely. By the way, as a licence fee payee...what I think matters hugely!
Train fares are hugely expensive. I know, I use them. Freezing train fares is justifiable. Freezing the licence fee (at only 40p a day per household) is not justifiable. The negative affects will far out way any perceived benefits. As the old saying goes, the Tories know the cost of everything but the value of nothing...sadly.
...at the risk of repeating myself, the tories were only elected by 37% of those who bothered to vote...25% of those eligible to vote. Now, that in my book means they have very little mandate (if any) to do anything which would affect our public services in a negative way which this country values hugely. By the way, as a licence fee payee...what I think matters hugely!
Train fares are hugely expensive. I know, I use them. Freezing train fares is justifiable. Freezing the licence fee (at only 40p a day per household) is not justifiable. The negative affects will far out way any perceived benefits. As the old saying goes, the Tories know the cost of everything but the value of nothing...sadly.
Yes, you repeat yourself more than a BBC3 show. And, at the risk of getting your goat (actually I don't care if I do), the Tories got more votes than any other political party and in our voting system that is how it works. A mandate is the reward of winning and like it or not, the Tories won. I would be saying exactly the same if Labour had won with 37% of the vote even if I didn't like the fact that they had won. Why do you feel your "book" is more special and important than anyone elses and that your way of thinking has to be the only way of thinking and that's that?
That saying by the way, was not about the Tories. Socialists have just adapted it to the Tories ideology to suit their agenda. It is abvout a male character in Oscar Wilde's Lady Windermere's Fan. It has nothing to do with the Tories.
Comments
Firstly, I am pleased you are opposed to privatisation.
Secondly - before I go any further - I am opposed to any cuts at all. Licence fee increases should be pegged to inflation. Taking money out of the system benefits no-one. Did you read the comprehensive article attached above entitled 'What If There Was No BBC'?
Now to the meat... we all use and benefit from different BBC services. Our viewing behaviours and tastes are therefore going to influence our opinions re: the BBC.
For arguments sake, I am going to define 'peak time' as the hours from 7-10pm (3 hours a night). I accept that outside those hours, most (not all) content will be repeats for obvious reasons. Imagine we only had BBC1 and 2. Does the BBC only produce 42 hours of original peak-time content a week? If it produces more than that, where is the content going to go? All demographics (bar children) should have their programming during peak times.
BBC Parliament Moving To The Red Button - I'm opposed to this (the politicians will be too I suspect) completely. The Red Button is currently used as like a BBC Xtra service whereby viewers can get Xtra content following a programme just viewed. I'm thinking Glastonbury, Chelsea Flower Show, Eurovision and Wimbledon, to name but a few. That content needs to be maintained. Maintain the Red Button, Parliament and News as is. Simulcasting with World News from 1 - 6 am is probably sensible.
BBC2 starting at 11? Why? Don't like that at all. BBC2 schedule needs stability. Drama from the Commons can continue uninterrupted on Parliament with the News Channel drawing viewers attention to any significant events.
Staffing - we've got to get away from this 'more for less' / 'more with less' obsession. High standards and high quality expected of the BBC (and rightly so) are not achieved with not enough staff (and funds).
BBC1+1 - when I responded to the BBC Trust's consultation on BBC3/BBC1+1 I said that I was against it. I maintain the same position. The catch-up channels are understandable and justafiable for the ad-channels, but not for the BBC. Ironically, the 'repeats schedule' currently employed across BBC1-4 kinda does the 'catch-up' bit already, useful if you miss the first screening, have poor broadband and/or don't have a PVR. As technology advances, broadband improves and more people have PVRs, the 'repeats' will be harder to justify. Something to bear in mind for the future.
One of the most valuable things about the BBC is it's independence. Any proposed change to the BBC's regulation must safeguard it's independence. Future funding should also be decided by an independent body and taken out of the hands of politicians.
If this is based on the fact that the BBC faces cutbacks, and so has to do something, then I wouldn't necessarily disagree with a lot of that.
But I would disagree with the premise that there was any significant upside to the BBC having to face those cutbacks in the first place.
A lot is made about how the BBC has become too big, and the licence fee too expensive - but the fact is that in real terms the licence fee is about the same as it always has been. The TV landscape grew massively from 3/4/5 channels to dozens then hundreds of channels. As that was largely down to technical limitations being lifted, I don't think the BBC has grown excessively - it has just had a bit more room to allow it to spread stuff out a bit, and not have to shoehorn everything into just BBC1 and BBC2.
That is has done that without the licence fee really increasing in real terms is actually pretty remarkable.
If the licence fee had increased in correlation with the increase in number of channels and services, I would absolutely agree that licence fee increases were completely ridiculous and should be brought back under control.
But that clearly is not what has happened, and I just don't really see the issue with the licence fee remaining broadly the same in real terms - cut it, in real terms, and the loss of services to everyone IMO far outweighs the financial gain, which is just going to be a few quid per year per household.
Regarding your scheduling suggestions - can I ask why you would put the BBC3/4 content on at 11pm on weeknights and weekend afternoons, rather than put that content on at the same time on BBC1/2 as it currently is and shift the primetime content on BBC1/BBC2 to the graveyard slots?
Whilst it may not be your intent, that seems to be you saying "I don't watch that stuff, so stick it on out of the way" and never mind that those programmes are now on at a far more inconvenient time than their audience might like.
There is also a bit of an assumption that the cuts the BBC faces don't really matter because they can, by and large, be solved by sticking stuff from BBC3/4 onto BBC1/2. It would be a more compelling argument if you had figures for the real terms cuts compared to the actual savings those measures would make.
I would, in an ideal world, like the BBC to continue receiving funding in the way it does, and for increases to accrue annually at the rate of inflation, as Ash suggested. Since however, we are currently just coming out of deflation and inflation is very low, AND, considering train fares have now been frozen for five years too, it is inevitable to expect the BBC's funding to follow suit.
My proposals are indeed a result of the inevitable freeze and that money has to come from somewhere. I agree 100% that the BBC has been absolutely incredible to be able to provide what it does on the restricted income it has received. Most of the world's biggest companies could learn a lot from the BBC.
I have no problem with BBC1 showing previous BBC3 content during peak hours. But it would of course depend on suitability. My suggestion for post 10.35pm was merely to allow new and additional programming beyond 11pm, but of course this could also be BBC1 shows like Traffic Cops and similar.
The principle of the BBC should be "if the programme is worthy of prime time, show it at prime time" regardless as to what channel it would have been originally commissioned for. There have been several BBC3 shows that I enjoyed and several I didn't. That applies to all programmes across all channels on all platforms.
I would say that BBC4 content is much more highbrow than BBC2 of old. That's the first point.
BBC3 content is commissioned for BBC3's demographic, some of which I enjoy immensely. Do you watch BBC3 much?
I will present a balanced overview of what BBC3 does, avoiding the 'cliches' often wheeled out to suite certain agendas:
Abby and Brittany: Joined For Life
Abortion: Ireland's Dirty Little Secret
Alex: A Life Fast Forward
Bad Boy Olympian
Bad Education
Backchat
Beaten By My Boyfriend
Bluestone 42
Britain's Gay Footballers
Britian In Bed
The Call Centre
Cannibus: What's The Harm?
Can We Trust The Police?
Cookoo
Deaf Teens: Hearing World
Drunk and Disorderlies
EDL Girls: Don't Call Me Racist
Excluded: Kicked Out Of School
Extreme OCD Camp
Failed By The NHS
Football's Suicide Secret
Free Speech
Gavin And Stacey
Glastonbury
Is Oral Sex Safe?
Is Football Racist?
Junior Doctors: Your Life In Their Hands
Junior Paramedics
Kids Behind Bars
Lee Nelson's Well Good Show
Murdered By My Boyfriend
My Brother The Islamist
Otto: Love, Lust and Las Vegas
Our War
Our Crime
Porn: What's The Harm?
Pramface
Prostitution: What's The Harm?
Radio 1 Teen Awards
Reggie Yates: Extreme Russia
Riots: The Aftershock
Small Teen, Bigger World
Stacey Dooley Documentaries
Sun, Sex And Suspicious Parents
Sweet The Small Stuff
The Anti-Social Network
Tough Young Teachers
Two Pints Of Lager And A Packet Of Crisps
Tyger Takes On...
Uncle
Unsafe Sex In The City
Woman's World Cup
Young Soldiers
Young, British And Angry
Young, British And Broke: The Truth About Pay Day Loans
Now, I define anyone to suggest that the above (documentaries, sport, music, comedy) would 'fit on BBC1' or BBC2 for that matter.
P.S. New Don't Tell The Bride won't be anything like BBC3's version. It has been BBC1'd.
Then we might be nearing a consensus - I guess a discussion about how could the BBC save money if it absolutely had to is actually an entirely different discussion to one about how the licence fee needs to be slashed because the BBC is crap and the whole world is just so unfair.
And what really gets my goat up about BBC3 is when older people judge it on the titles of programmes that really are not aimed at them, and oblivious to the fact that numerous programmes (particularly the ones they used to do on body image) actually had a much more serious element to than the title suggested.
In short, exactly the right sorts of programmes for the audience they are aimed at - and I think its a huge shame that BBC3 has been the whipping boy in a lot of the anti BBC sentiment, especially when its harshest critics don't seem to know what they are even talking about except what has been spoon fed to them by the likes of the Mail.
Underlined... very interesting. Define suitable? Bear in mind, BBC3 content is screened from 7pm.
Yes, I have watched BBC3. You missed out of your list Him and Her which I loved, and was repeated on BBC3.
Glastonbury also features on BBC2 and BBC1 would show BBC3 relevant gigs in the same way it showed Live 8 and pop concerts in the 80's and 90's.
The programmes in bold have all aired on BBC1. Woman's World Cup may not have been but Women's FA Cup matches and final have.
I will disagree with you about BBC4 content as often BBC2 would show very similar in style to what BBC4 shows.
I agree with this. One of the hardest hitting dramas I've seen for a very long time was "Murdered by My Boyfriend" which actually gave me nightmares. I don't want BBC3 to close, believe me I do appreciate its value, but if the BBC had tough choices to make then it obviously can't be favoured over BBC1, BBC2, KidsTV and BBC News.
...but the important point here is that the Tories didn't need to force this freeze/cuts on the BBC at all. It was a choice taken by the Tores. The BBC is not a government dept. and it certainly doesn't belong to the Tories either. The BBC belongs to us all. The Tories need to rememeber this fact.
We also need to remember that the BBC only funds 22% of UK television...22%. That is tiny. We also need to remember that the BBC commissions more original/first-run UK content than any other broadcaster. As more viewers watch the BBC than any other broadcaster...cost per viewer is much cheaper than the alternatives too. The BBC already produces much content incredibly cheaply. It is incredible value for money.
All programmes in primetime are aired based on their suitability for the time broadcast. Pramface for example is perfectly acceptable for a 9.30pm airing. Documentaries about prostitution and pornography probably wouldn't be. Being Human would be fine for 9pm. Murdered by My Boyfriend probably not.
The thing people need to realise the Government couldn't care what you think or it needs. Tories hate public service. If they could get away with it, everything would be canned.
It is irrelevant as to whether you think The Tories should be freezing the LF. They are a political party, elected in a democracy to be the Government of the people. Freezing the LF was in their manifesto. How would they be perceived by train companies if their fares have been frozen to aid the public and taxes in general have been frozen but the Licence Fee gets an increase? That is not right. If the BBC was in crisis and was on its knees and unable to show anything then of course your point would be wholly relevant. But it isn't. But you are letting your hatred of the Tories prejudice your viewpoint. The whole purpose of this thread is to discuss ways the BBC can make savings based on the imminent freezing of the fee. We all know your opinion, your status, but Ash, how you see the BBC and what you want really isn't the issue.
All political parties have different ideologies. It just so happens currently we are governed by a party with ideologies you don't like. In 2020 we may well have a party in power with ideologies I don't agree with.
The list of BBC3 content provided above was just a snap shot, but hopefully representative of the channel. I couldn't include everything because the list is comprehensive and I wouldn't want to be accused of spamming.
Glastonbury could be shown on BBC1, but is it very BBC1 given BBC1's demo? It would also replace current BBC1 programming enjoyed by others.
BAFTA winning Him and Her began life / was first broadcast on BBC3 in 2010. Little Britain and Gavin And Stacey also began life on BBC3.
BBC3 invests in the creativity of the young whilst at the same time, giving a voice to the young. In my opinion, that mustn't be watered down/lost. It would be a huge negative for the country. The young don't feel as though they are valued / listened to now. I'm not sure how losing BBC3 would help to solve this issue.
Exactly. And what some people need to remember is that we have just had an election and a party that doesn't support public service but encourages private enterprise got elected. And, guess what, most people know that fact when voting for them.
However, despite that: SHOCK HORROR! The Tories DO NOT want to privatise the BBC and have already said subscription services to the BBC is not the right way forward!
You are nit-picking. BBC1 programmes are often displaced by events. Why would Glastonbury be any different. Sporting events take over BBC1 schedules, Live National Events displace BBC1 programming. Special concerts displace BBC1 programming. Last Night of the Proms displaces BBC1 programming. Having Glastonbury in the BBC1 schedules for one weekend of the year is hardly going to annoy people is it? Having non-stop tennis on all day annoys me, but I appreciate that millions enjoy it.
I absolutely agree with you 100%. The documentaries on BBC3 deal with current issues facing young people in a very mature and sensible way. I always say re: the BBC... judge the content, not the presentation. The presentation engages the audience with subject matter often very difficult to face up to, but nevertheless, very important to engage with.
Recent BBC3 shows I have valued include Where Am I Sleeping Tonight? / Reggie Yates In Russia and Stacey Dooley Investigates. In terms of drama, one of the best I have seen on the BBC recently has to be Murdered By My Boyfriend. Very powerful, very hard hitting but brilliantly acted, directed, scripted and produced.
I have been very active in Save BBC3 campaign because I recognise it's importance. I recognise the public service it provides.
All that you mention above have gone out between 7 and 10. They could go out at the same time on BBC1, in their current form?
I know and realise this. This is why we all need to be as vocal as possible in defence of the BBC.
No. They would no longer be BBC3 shows. They would be BBC1 shows. And therefore scheduled in accordance with a BBC1 audience. BBC1 show documentaries about hard hitting subjects all the time, but many after 10.35pm on Tuesdays. Why would it matter if a programme about prostitution aimed at the young aired at 10.35pm instead of 9pm?
But, in reality, the public are not as OTT towards the BBC as you are. It isn't going to disappear off our screens and radio so why do you think people will be up in arms? They won't be.
...at the risk of repeating myself, the tories were only elected by 37% of those who bothered to vote...25% of those eligible to vote. Now, that in my book means they have very little mandate (if any) to do anything which would affect our public services in a negative way which this country values hugely. By the way, as a licence fee payee...what I think matters hugely!
Train fares are hugely expensive. I know, I use them. Freezing train fares is justifiable. Freezing the licence fee (at only 40p a day per household) is not justifiable. The negative affects will far out way any perceived benefits. As the old saying goes, the Tories know the cost of everything but the value of nothing...sadly.
Yes, you repeat yourself more than a BBC3 show. And, at the risk of getting your goat (actually I don't care if I do), the Tories got more votes than any other political party and in our voting system that is how it works. A mandate is the reward of winning and like it or not, the Tories won. I would be saying exactly the same if Labour had won with 37% of the vote even if I didn't like the fact that they had won. Why do you feel your "book" is more special and important than anyone elses and that your way of thinking has to be the only way of thinking and that's that?
That saying by the way, was not about the Tories. Socialists have just adapted it to the Tories ideology to suit their agenda. It is abvout a male character in Oscar Wilde's Lady Windermere's Fan. It has nothing to do with the Tories.
https://paulbernal.wordpress.com/2014/04/13/the-price-of-everything-and-the-value-of-nothing/