Wow! what about this one, Michael Palin buying the BBC World Service?.
Or the CIA buying BBC monitoring ....
Or Warner bros. BBC films ....
Or the universities the BBC academy ..
And Ericsson all playout ... You tube ... The iPlayer .....
The BBC , is the BBC because if all that it does in one organisation which is funded in a way which makes it independent of government and not totally funded by public money... As it has a commercial arm which supports its public purposes,
.... What other PSB. Has to meet these requirements in all that it does ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whoweare/publicpurposes/
And the expectation of high standards ....
Seriously, Noel could bring the business foresight that was evidenced with Blobbyland in Lancashire and could probably turn this globally respected institution right around.
He wants to buy it and run it as a non profit making company run along commercial lines.
He has become David Icke
The men in white coats are coming for him, nut job.:D
BBC Worldwide is estimated at £2 billion alone, rest of the BBC I reckon at least £8 billion so I doubt he has the money or the backers then there is the pesky thing of money to run the BBC, if the BBC was privatised then the LF would stop hence no income to spend on programming ect, the fruit loop has not thought things through.
On news night Noel just owned up to not paying the TV licence. Even though he watches catch up and "not much TV"
Don't get too excited about that rather lame ambush by Paxman. The licence fee is in his wife's name.
Paxman actually came over as the daft twit during the interview by bringing Mr Blobby into what was meant to be a serious discussion. Plus calling him a man with a beard on daytime TV was a low swipe, as he's just shaved his one off and also does a quiz/game show just like Noel.
Noel clearly loves the BBC and is passionate about it. Unfortunately many just see it as a never ending gravy train and the financial waste is disgraceful.
Don't get too excited about that rather lame ambush by Paxman. The licence fee is in his wife's name.
Paxman actually came over as the daft twit during the interview by bringing Mr Blobby into what was meant to be a serious discussion. Plus calling him a man with a beard on daytime TV was a low swipe, as he's just shaved his one off and also does a quiz/game show just like Noel.
Noel clearly loves the BBC and is passionate about it. Unfortunately many just see it as a never ending gravy train and the financial waste is disgraceful.
What "financial waste"? Apart from the stuff made up by the Daily Mail what exactly do you class as "disgraceful waste"?
The £100million lost on a failed IT system is bad, but that can happen when developing new systems. No company can guarantee a system will work. On of my first jobs was for a retailer who spent a couple of years trying to develop a new IT system before a new CEO scrapped it. (Rumbelows and it was called XBMS, an off the shelf system that they tried to adapt and modify to suit their needs. No idea how much it cost but they fired a hundred staff working on it.)
Plus of course the NHS scrapped an IT system after spending £12 billion on it...
Maybe you're thinking about expenses, another area where the Daily Mail tried to claim there is a huge waste, when the expenses were finally published for the top fifty execs for the previous five years and they averaged out to £25 per week per exec.
Hardly enough to support a life of luxury as the Mail suggests. Again in retail my area manager put far more than that on his expenses ever week.
Or maybe you're referring to the claims of BBC employees evading tax by being self employed or using service companies? When in reality (a) those are perfectly valid areas, where you do lots of work for different companies, for service companies and HMRC was perfectly happy with them, (b) they still paid tax and (c) the Daily Mail itself is owned by a British Lord who is legally domiciled in France for tax reasons and owns the Mail through shell companies in Caribbean tax havens, again for tax reasons.
Or the payoffs where the NAO said they were paid "more then they were contracted" but didn't say they were paid more then they needed to, a subtle but important difference. We had this exact discussion a few years ago on this board after C4 CEO Andy Duncan got a huge payoff after he left, where some said it was not acceptable to resign but get a huge cheque. I and others said that almost always when a senior exec "resigns" and gets a payoff it means he was actually fired and the payoff is made to stop him taking them to court and winning an even bigger settlement. And surprise surprise a year ago it all came out that C4 did make a payment to settle a legal claim. (Though one poster though them saying "without admitting liability" actually meant they didn't think he had a case. :rolleyes: )
Or are you referring to the BBC taking 95 staff to the winter Olympics, which the Daily Mail suggested was excessive? Until it came out that companies like NBC sent 2500 staff, including hiring 15 Starbucks barristas just to serve their staff. Much the same with the Summer Olympics where the BBC had 600 staff but NBC had 3000. Or the Mail's "shock" at the BBC using 300 staff to cover Glastonbury. But when you consider Sky can use 120 staff to cover a single football match while Glasto is three long days of event on half a dozen stages on a hundred acre site it looks like the BBC are actually fantastically efficient and lean.
So what evidence do you have to support your claim of "a never ending gravy train and the financial waste is disgraceful"?
What exactly could Noel Edmonds improve? If you look at the actual facts the BBC seems to be doing a pretty good job already. You can always make cuts, just as a football team can always manage with ten players, but you run the risk of those cuts affecting the result. Some people say that doing away with the Deputy Director Generals job allowed for the Savile/Newsnight incident to happen. Continuity at the top when a new CEO has just taken office could have meant the cockup wouldn't have happened.
You said it! £100,000,000 wasted on a failed IT project that the former DG actually said sorry for recently. Such a cavalier attitude to such a huge sum of public licence payer money you have. Isn't that enough in itself for you? It should be.
I've no time for the Daily Mail hysterics and don't need that rag to tell me how and what to think.
You said it! £100,000,000 wasted on a failed IT project that the former DG actually said sorry for recently. Such a cavalier attitude to such a huge sum of public licence payer money you have. Isn't that enough in itself for you? It should be.
I've no time for the Daily Mail hysterics and don't need that rag to tell me how and what to think.
It's not a cavalier attitude, it's an acceptance that such projects DO fail.
The BBC's history with It tends to be both far more visible than many private sector companies, but also better than most public sector organisations.
Companies have spent many many times that on failed systems, partly because in the world of IT you never know what is coming next or what other companies are doing in private.
For example you can design a system from scratch because nothing on the market does what you want and there is not even a whisper of someone working on it. Then several years down the line when you're still in development something is released that makes your efforts pointless because it does what you want in a smaller package and is ready to use now, whilst you're still in the late design stage.
Fairly simple things like the inclusion of certain functions onto cheap videocards for example rendered some expensive proprietary cards pretty much worthless*, changes in the OS and drivers mean that something that might have used to require custom software interfaces and expensive cards is now part of the standard package on a £500 PCworld machine (if you'd tried to design a system for a 6-8 monitor PC 5-6 years ago you'd have had to go with some very expensive specialist cards or motherboards and os/software, now a standard ATX motherboard with 1 or 2 mid range video cards can do 6 outputs with ease, more if you go with a better motherboard that has room for a 3rd standard videocard, or can make do with USB2/lightning connected monitors).
A great example that is reasonably current is the craze for bitcoin mining, you used to have to run fairly hefty normal PC's to do it, now you can buy dedicated mini machines using customised chips that are highly optimised for that sort of job, and get much faster results for a fraction of the cost (and space, power consumption etc).
It's also worth noting that the BBC is typically quite good with it's R&D type stuff and from what I recall actually required to do R&D for new technology, if their project had worked out it could potentially have been used by all sorts of broadcasters not just the BBC (as has happened in the past - pretty much every TV viewer in the world has benefited by one bit of BBC R&D or another, from tape recordings, to digital video recording and transmission, to stereo sound...)
The problem with the project in question is that some BBC management apparently ignored signs that it was in trouble, but that again happens in all sorts of places (both public and private), and some projects do seem to be in trouble or get into trouble then succeed anyway (an awful lot of IT that we take for granted now had very troubled pasts, often barely avoiding being cancelled for one reason or another).
*Not to long ago playing back x264 on your PC required a hefty CPU, then a dedicated chip was included on mid range (£200) video cards, then it was included as part of the basic video chip so it's on a £30 card (and now included as part of the actual CPU).
Or doing physics calculations used to require massive processing power and specialist software (so computers were designed and built to do that), then it was possible to do it on a standard PC with a dedicated card, now every Nvidia card can do it as standard and you can use an older model card to act as a dedicated physics card if you want.
Don't get too excited about that rather lame ambush by Paxman. The licence fee is in his wife's name.
Paxman actually came over as the daft twit during the interview by bringing Mr Blobby into what was meant to be a serious discussion. Plus calling him a man with a beard on daytime TV was a low swipe, as he's just shaved his one off and also does a quiz/game show just like Noel.
Noel clearly loves the BBC and is passionate about it. Unfortunately many just see it as a never ending gravy train and the financial waste is disgraceful.
I got the feeling Paxo was rather making fun of Noel and Noel was getting a little irritated. He very clearly hasn't thought this through and kept sighting reasons why he couldn't answer the questions.
Paxman actually came over as the daft twit during the interview by bringing Mr Blobby into what was meant to be a serious discussion. Plus calling him a man with a beard on daytime TV was a low swipe, as he's just shaved his one off and also does a quiz/game show just like Noel.
You're seriously comparing Unversity Challenge with DOND??
The winners of UC have to display a degree of intelligence whereas DOND is all about luck pure and simple
EastEnders fans were left in shock last night at the latest addition to the cast of EastEnders. For the last 4 months Whitney Dean has been embarking on a mysterious affair, which clues had left viewers to believe was with local lad Arthur Fatboy Chubbs. However, in the final scene of last nights episode, Carol, Bianca and David Wicks walked into Whitney's bedroom to find her in bed with none other than Mr Blobby!
BBC owner Sir Noel Edmonds thinks that introducing a Blobby family will take the show in an interesting new direction. "Later this year Kat gives birth to little Blobby babies which have a lepord skin pattern" Mrs Blobby will soon move to the square and attempt to woo back Mr blobby by buying local business Mcklunky's"
This news comes after Noel turned the news into the news house party with Jackie Bird regularly having random celebs pop in, and having Open University, Pointless and Weakest Link introduce gunge falling over the losers.
Comments
Today's St Patrick's Day, not April Fool's Day.
Or the CIA buying BBC monitoring ....
Or Warner bros. BBC films ....
Or the universities the BBC academy ..
And Ericsson all playout ... You tube ... The iPlayer .....
The BBC , is the BBC because if all that it does in one organisation which is funded in a way which makes it independent of government and not totally funded by public money... As it has a commercial arm which supports its public purposes,
.... What other PSB. Has to meet these requirements in all that it does ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whoweare/publicpurposes/
And the expectation of high standards ....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7623684.stm
He has become David Icke
The men in white coats are coming for him, nut job.:D
BBC Worldwide is estimated at £2 billion alone, rest of the BBC I reckon at least £8 billion so I doubt he has the money or the backers then there is the pesky thing of money to run the BBC, if the BBC was privatised then the LF would stop hence no income to spend on programming ect, the fruit loop has not thought things through.
Paxman actually came over as the daft twit during the interview by bringing Mr Blobby into what was meant to be a serious discussion. Plus calling him a man with a beard on daytime TV was a low swipe, as he's just shaved his one off and also does a quiz/game show just like Noel.
Noel clearly loves the BBC and is passionate about it. Unfortunately many just see it as a never ending gravy train and the financial waste is disgraceful.
What "financial waste"? Apart from the stuff made up by the Daily Mail what exactly do you class as "disgraceful waste"?
The £100million lost on a failed IT system is bad, but that can happen when developing new systems. No company can guarantee a system will work. On of my first jobs was for a retailer who spent a couple of years trying to develop a new IT system before a new CEO scrapped it. (Rumbelows and it was called XBMS, an off the shelf system that they tried to adapt and modify to suit their needs. No idea how much it cost but they fired a hundred staff working on it.)
Plus of course the NHS scrapped an IT system after spending £12 billion on it...
Maybe you're thinking about expenses, another area where the Daily Mail tried to claim there is a huge waste, when the expenses were finally published for the top fifty execs for the previous five years and they averaged out to £25 per week per exec.
Hardly enough to support a life of luxury as the Mail suggests. Again in retail my area manager put far more than that on his expenses ever week.
Or maybe you're referring to the claims of BBC employees evading tax by being self employed or using service companies? When in reality (a) those are perfectly valid areas, where you do lots of work for different companies, for service companies and HMRC was perfectly happy with them, (b) they still paid tax and (c) the Daily Mail itself is owned by a British Lord who is legally domiciled in France for tax reasons and owns the Mail through shell companies in Caribbean tax havens, again for tax reasons.
Or the payoffs where the NAO said they were paid "more then they were contracted" but didn't say they were paid more then they needed to, a subtle but important difference. We had this exact discussion a few years ago on this board after C4 CEO Andy Duncan got a huge payoff after he left, where some said it was not acceptable to resign but get a huge cheque. I and others said that almost always when a senior exec "resigns" and gets a payoff it means he was actually fired and the payoff is made to stop him taking them to court and winning an even bigger settlement. And surprise surprise a year ago it all came out that C4 did make a payment to settle a legal claim. (Though one poster though them saying "without admitting liability" actually meant they didn't think he had a case. :rolleyes: )
Or are you referring to the BBC taking 95 staff to the winter Olympics, which the Daily Mail suggested was excessive? Until it came out that companies like NBC sent 2500 staff, including hiring 15 Starbucks barristas just to serve their staff. Much the same with the Summer Olympics where the BBC had 600 staff but NBC had 3000. Or the Mail's "shock" at the BBC using 300 staff to cover Glastonbury. But when you consider Sky can use 120 staff to cover a single football match while Glasto is three long days of event on half a dozen stages on a hundred acre site it looks like the BBC are actually fantastically efficient and lean.
So what evidence do you have to support your claim of "a never ending gravy train and the financial waste is disgraceful"?
What exactly could Noel Edmonds improve? If you look at the actual facts the BBC seems to be doing a pretty good job already. You can always make cuts, just as a football team can always manage with ten players, but you run the risk of those cuts affecting the result. Some people say that doing away with the Deputy Director Generals job allowed for the Savile/Newsnight incident to happen. Continuity at the top when a new CEO has just taken office could have meant the cockup wouldn't have happened.
I've no time for the Daily Mail hysterics and don't need that rag to tell me how and what to think.
It's not a cavalier attitude, it's an acceptance that such projects DO fail.
The BBC's history with It tends to be both far more visible than many private sector companies, but also better than most public sector organisations.
Companies have spent many many times that on failed systems, partly because in the world of IT you never know what is coming next or what other companies are doing in private.
For example you can design a system from scratch because nothing on the market does what you want and there is not even a whisper of someone working on it. Then several years down the line when you're still in development something is released that makes your efforts pointless because it does what you want in a smaller package and is ready to use now, whilst you're still in the late design stage.
Fairly simple things like the inclusion of certain functions onto cheap videocards for example rendered some expensive proprietary cards pretty much worthless*, changes in the OS and drivers mean that something that might have used to require custom software interfaces and expensive cards is now part of the standard package on a £500 PCworld machine (if you'd tried to design a system for a 6-8 monitor PC 5-6 years ago you'd have had to go with some very expensive specialist cards or motherboards and os/software, now a standard ATX motherboard with 1 or 2 mid range video cards can do 6 outputs with ease, more if you go with a better motherboard that has room for a 3rd standard videocard, or can make do with USB2/lightning connected monitors).
A great example that is reasonably current is the craze for bitcoin mining, you used to have to run fairly hefty normal PC's to do it, now you can buy dedicated mini machines using customised chips that are highly optimised for that sort of job, and get much faster results for a fraction of the cost (and space, power consumption etc).
It's also worth noting that the BBC is typically quite good with it's R&D type stuff and from what I recall actually required to do R&D for new technology, if their project had worked out it could potentially have been used by all sorts of broadcasters not just the BBC (as has happened in the past - pretty much every TV viewer in the world has benefited by one bit of BBC R&D or another, from tape recordings, to digital video recording and transmission, to stereo sound...)
The problem with the project in question is that some BBC management apparently ignored signs that it was in trouble, but that again happens in all sorts of places (both public and private), and some projects do seem to be in trouble or get into trouble then succeed anyway (an awful lot of IT that we take for granted now had very troubled pasts, often barely avoiding being cancelled for one reason or another).
*Not to long ago playing back x264 on your PC required a hefty CPU, then a dedicated chip was included on mid range (£200) video cards, then it was included as part of the basic video chip so it's on a £30 card (and now included as part of the actual CPU).
Or doing physics calculations used to require massive processing power and specialist software (so computers were designed and built to do that), then it was possible to do it on a standard PC with a dedicated card, now every Nvidia card can do it as standard and you can use an older model card to act as a dedicated physics card if you want.
I got the feeling Paxo was rather making fun of Noel and Noel was getting a little irritated. He very clearly hasn't thought this through and kept sighting reasons why he couldn't answer the questions.
You're seriously comparing Unversity Challenge with DOND??
The winners of UC have to display a degree of intelligence whereas DOND is all about luck pure and simple
The crackpot with the inexplicably dark beard rivals William Roache when it comes to mumbo jumbo.
Shock EastEnders Story
EastEnders fans were left in shock last night at the latest addition to the cast of EastEnders. For the last 4 months Whitney Dean has been embarking on a mysterious affair, which clues had left viewers to believe was with local lad Arthur Fatboy Chubbs. However, in the final scene of last nights episode, Carol, Bianca and David Wicks walked into Whitney's bedroom to find her in bed with none other than Mr Blobby!
BBC owner Sir Noel Edmonds thinks that introducing a Blobby family will take the show in an interesting new direction. "Later this year Kat gives birth to little Blobby babies which have a lepord skin pattern" Mrs Blobby will soon move to the square and attempt to woo back Mr blobby by buying local business Mcklunky's"
This news comes after Noel turned the news into the news house party with Jackie Bird regularly having random celebs pop in, and having Open University, Pointless and Weakest Link introduce gunge falling over the losers.
Get stuffed Edmonds.
When the British people want a well funded version of ITV2 then maybe we'll give you a call.
P.S. You were crap on Newsnight, and Deal or No Deal is horse manure.