Sue Perkins along with Chris Evans, Graham Norton and Clare Balding are the most compelling reasons to reform the BBC and drive down this bloated, overstaffed organisation and remove its 'funded by threat of criminal prosecution' funding model.
I don't think the analysis from PwC that's been done shows it's overstaffed, that's just your perception which might be true of organisations like TfL but not the BBC. It's natural not to like all the BBC presenters and the move of Clarkson and co to Amazon suggests that the BBC gets good value from them and pays below-market salaries to them. The big rip-off in broadcasting at the moment is the cost of the Premier League where we all pay increased line rental and other costs to pay bloated transfer fees and salaries even if we don't subscribe to sports services. Whilst inflation flatlines at zero per cent, line rental increases year on year, ditto basic TV costs on the Sky and VM platforms.
Read them all before. Same old, same old. BBC trying to justify its existence unchanged.
If the BBC is so necessary then decriminalise the nonpayment of the licence fee, because if it's so essential people won't mind paying for it, will they?
Would you apply this thinking to Council Tax as well, make it optional?
I mean, if local services are so important people will simply volunteer to pay thousands a year!
I don't think the analysis from PwC that's been done shows it's overstaffed, that's just your perception which might be true of organisations like TfL but not the BBC. It's natural not to like all the BBC presenters and the move of Clarkson and co to Amazon suggests that the BBC gets good value from them and pays below-market salaries to them. The big rip-off in broadcasting at the moment is the cost of the Premier League where we all pay increased line rental and other costs to pay bloated transfer fees and salaries even if we don't subscribe to sports services. Whilst inflation flatlines at zero per cent, line rental increases year on year, ditto basic TV costs on the Sky and VM platforms.
Taking your bit in bold - we DO end up paying for the rip-off of sports rights, particularly those of the Premier League, where the BBC has once again committed even more money to screening the Premier League highlights. Yet first F1 and now the 6 Nations are ending up with emaciated coverage on the BBC as a consequence. At least with the 6 Nations ITV has stepped into the fray so it all remains on FTA channels, unlike the BBC's shameful deal over F1 rights which has consigned live coverage of all races on FTA to history - at least until 2018, when hopefully Channel 4 or ITV will step in and strip the BBC of the remnants of its coverage and take on the rest of the races.
Would you apply this thinking to Council Tax as well, make it optional?
I mean, if local services are so important people will simply volunteer to pay thousands a year!
A tax is a statutory charge - should a TV "subscription" also be accorded this status?
To answer your question, no I wouldn't make Council Tax optional, but by the same token I don't believe the Licence Fee should be mandatory for the owning and use of TV receiving equipment - instead the BBC should be subject to a subscription in the same way Sky or Virgin Media is. If people don't want to pay for the BBC, they don't receive the services.
A tax is a statutory charge - should a TV "subscription" also be accorded this status?
To answer your question, no I wouldn't make Council Tax optional, but by the same token I don't believe the Licence Fee should be mandatory for the owning and use of TV receiving equipment - instead the BBC should be subject to a subscription in the same way Sky or Virgin Media is. If people don't want to pay for the BBC, they don't receive the services.
Your argument was that if people value something then they will volunteer to pay for it.
Now you are changing your position to something else entirely because your argument has been shown to be nonsense.
Taking your bit in bold - we DO end up paying for the rip-off of sports rights, particularly those of the Premier League, where the BBC has once again committed even more money to screening the Premier League highlights. Yet first F1 and now the 6 Nations are ending up with emaciated coverage on the BBC as a consequence. At least with the 6 Nations ITV has stepped into the fray so it all remains on FTA channels, unlike the BBC's shameful deal over F1 rights which has consigned live coverage of all races on FTA to history - at least until 2018, when hopefully Channel 4 or ITV will step in and strip the BBC of the remnants of its coverage and take on the rest of the races.
I don't think you really understand what's going on. You're focus on the BBC misses the bigger picture - that F1 is hugley unlikely to even be on free to air TV AT ALL after the current deal has finished.
The BBC actually managed to EXTEND the deal with the deal it did, it delayed the inevitable for a bit longer.
I don't think you really understand what's going on. You're focus on the BBC misses the bigger picture - that F1 is hugley unlikely to even be on free to air TV AT ALL after the current deal has finished.
The BBC actually managed to EXTEND the deal with the deal it did, it delayed the inevitable for a bit longer.
Sorry - but you're wrong about what the BBC did.
FACT: They massively increased the costs so as to wrest the coverage back from ITV in 2009.
FACT: When the BBC found they had to start making cost savings (and wanted to keep exclusive coverage of the Olympics) it was F1 that took the hit.
FACT: The BBC COULD have walked away from the rights entirely - Channel 4 were already pulling together a bid, instead the BBC did the deal with SKY so as to ensure it retained the some coverage and didn't have terrestrial competition.
You're correct that the BBC's deal should have ended before 2018, so they did negotiate an extension as part of the SKY deal, but don't pretend for a second it was a proposal led by what would have been best for the viewer, it was a decision driven totally by the BBC's arrogant approach that it had to hold onto F1 rights somehow. It would have been much better if it had walked away completely, because the F1 teams would not have stood for any deal that gave Sky exclusive coverage as they realise how damaging that would be for the sport.
The problem with both this and the 6 Nations is the fact the BBC wouldn't sacrifice sole coverage of the Olympics, so F1 lost out and then the same for Premiership Highlights, so the 6 Nations lost out.
I don't give a stuff about the Premiership (nor do many people) and I'm fed up with the BBC pissing money up the wall to give it to Wayne Rooney and his boyfriends. Same goes for the £ ms they pay Chris Evans. So the sooner I can opt out of subscribing to this flawed, dishonest, arrogant organisation, the better.
She had the guts to approach John Whittingdale personally and give him what for! That's what I like! People who don't just talk the talk but are willing to walk the walk too!
Yes, but how many of us get the chance to discuss things with John? Maybe his constituents, under carefully controlled circumstances, but no one else.
Sue Perkins along with Chris Evans, Graham Norton and Clare Balding are the most compelling reasons to reform the BBC and drive down this bloated, overstaffed organisation and remove its 'funded by threat of criminal prosecution' funding model.
good job you slipped a token straight man in there. We wouldn't want people to think you had an anti-gay bee in your bonnet, would we?
I've told John Whittingdale personally my views about the threat to the BBC, but this was when he was on the DCMS select committee. Maybe my comments had no effect, but at least he knew, after several email exchanges, that I was a real person and not a BBC employee.
And I wasn't drunk at the time.
Are you not a real person, if you are also a BBC employee ?
I Wouldn't take any notice of anything she said. She never opens her mouth but some ridiculous comment comes out and she and her comedy sidekick, Mel somebody or other, make for cringey viewing.
Why they waste money having those two on Bake Off is byond me. They bring nothing to the programme whatsoever. They're like two giggly school kids and SP spend most of the time wandering around in her sneakers and low slung jeans like a geeky 15 year old boy. Their prog last winter was just the most awful TV ever.
Channel 4 were rejected because they couldn't commit to the 2012 season.
A new agreement needed to be in place from the start of the 2012 season.
Quite, a fact that's often forgotten as some sections of DS try to rewrite history in order to make the BBC the villains of the piece.
Sky wanted F1 badly, the BBC wanted it badly (despite the Licence fee freeze) - Channel 4 couldn't commit in time, ITV didn't want it back (having walked from the orginal contract).
There has been some noise that it could have gone from free to air altogether, so this was about the only way to keep it on FTA.
I Wouldn't take any notice of anything she said. She never opens her mouth but some ridiculous comment comes out and she and her comedy sidekick, Mel somebody or other, make for cringey viewing.
Why they waste money having those two on Bake Off is byond me. They bring nothing to the programme whatsoever. They're like two giggly school kids and SP spend most of the time wandering around in her sneakers and low slung jeans like a geeky 15 year old boy. Their prog last winter was just the most awful TV ever.
I hope she never warns you of an oncoming vehicle then.
Apart from the childish attacks on the messenger, what is your position on the message?
good job you slipped a token straight man in there. We wouldn't want people to think you had an anti-gay bee in your bonnet, would we?
FFS - I don't really care about their 'gender orientation' - clearly you do, so to humour you I'll also add Jeremy Vine, Vanessa Feltz, James Naughtie and David Dimbleby to the list - happy now?
Quite, a fact that's often forgotten as some sections of DS try to rewrite history in order to make the BBC the villains of the piece.
Sky wanted F1 badly, the BBC wanted it badly (despite the Licence fee freeze) - Channel 4 couldn't commit in time, ITV didn't want it back (having walked from the orginal contract).
There has been some noise that it could have gone from free to air altogether, so this was about the only way to keep it on FTA.
The BBC had the rights until the end of 2013
"our existing contract, which gave us exclusive rights in the UK, was due to expire in 2013"
The whole fiasco, which ended up with the SKY / BBC joint deal was entirely caused by the BBC
1 - massively overbidding for the rights for the period 2009-2013
2 - effectively holding a gun to the FIA by announcing they were going to have to walk away from the deal for the 2012 season, forcing the FIA to have to look at who held the rights.
3 - The price offered by the BBC / SKY joint bid effectively killed the Ch 4 bid http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/formula-one-could-have-stayed-on-terrestrial-147213
"FORMULA 1 bosses could have kept Grand Prix racing on terrestrial TV but they *apparently turned down a £45million-a-year bid by Channel 4.
Leaked documents show the broadcaster was desperate for the motor racing to remain free to viewers and matched a proposal *by BSkyB."
So - before you post any more ill informed comments about the BBC's innocence about F1 rights have currently been let, I suggest you go away and do some research - I've posted links supporting every statement I've made - something you cannot do.
The BBC were completely the villain in this - they should take full responsibility for this. And from my perspective, it is another reason why the end of the licence fee and the BBC's largesse in general really can't come soon enough.
""The BBC came to us. We didn’t go to the BBC and we didn’t go to Formula One," Pocket-lint was told by Martin Turner, executive producer of F1 HD, in a briefing at the Sky Studios complex in Isleworth."
""The BBC came to us. We didn’t go to the BBC and we didn’t go to Formula One," Pocket-lint was told by Martin Turner, executive producer of F1 HD, in a briefing at the Sky Studios complex in Isleworth."
Yes, we know the BBC approached Sky with the idea of a joint venture, but nowhere does it say the BBC announced they were going to walk away from the deal for the 2012 season.
The closest thing I could find is the quote below from the Sky representative - but it's simply a hypothesis based on Sky's fears, it's not a statement of fact:
"The BBC was under a lot of pressure with budgets, and they felt that this was a way they could keep Formula One on the BBC in some form or another. The contract could have gone a different way. They could have asked to be relieved of the contract and they [Formula One] could’ve put it out to terrestrial bidders and not involved us."
The whole fiasco, which ended up with the SKY / BBC joint deal was entirely caused by the BBC
1 - massively overbidding for the rights for the period 2009-2013
2 - effectively holding a gun to the FIA by announcing they were going to have to walk away from the deal for the 2012 season, forcing the FIA to have to look at who held the rights.
3 - The price offered by the BBC / SKY joint bid effectively killed the Ch 4 bid http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/formula-one-could-have-stayed-on-terrestrial-147213
"FORMULA 1 bosses could have kept Grand Prix racing on terrestrial TV but they *apparently turned down a £45million-a-year bid by Channel 4.
Leaked documents show the broadcaster was desperate for the motor racing to remain free to viewers and matched a proposal *by BSkyB."
So - before you post any more ill informed comments about the BBC's innocence about F1 rights have currently been let, I suggest you go away and do some research - I've posted links supporting every statement I've made - something you cannot do.
The BBC were completely the villain in this - they should take full responsibility for this. And from my perspective, it is another reason why the end of the licence fee and the BBC's largesse in general really can't come soon enough.
No, it wasn't "entirely caused by the BBC" at all.
The licence fee freeze, coupled with heavy lobbying from pay TV providers, more than contributed to the current situation. Money talks the loudest in the end, and those with the most will always get what they want.
I freelance for Sky Sports and I'd like to take this opportunity to warn you against trawling the Internet to back up a hatred against the licence fee in forming a "truth". For a start, the real truth is seldom found on the Internet, it goes on in secret and behind closed doors, the " official " version is often not the truth.
So, how is massive amounts of lobbying and money from the pay TV providers, and the effective, sudden cut, of the BBC's income (at the same time) "entirely the fault of the BBC?
Channel 4 couldn't commit, and even If they could, all It would have done is led to a higher counter bid anyway
The BBC's five-year contract for 2009-2013 had a break clause after the 2011 season.
If they had pulled out altogether, as they would have been entitled to, the whole shebang would have ended up on Sky Sports for at least 2012 and 2013 because C4 couldn't commit to 2012 for financial and scheduling reasons, and the broadcaster(s) showing the 2012 season had a contractual obligation to also show the 2013 season.
ITV had used their own break clause to exit their contract a few years earlier, and the BBC stepped in to keep F1 on FTA.
No amount of swivel-eyed paranoia will change any of this.
Comments
Would you apply this thinking to Council Tax as well, make it optional?
I mean, if local services are so important people will simply volunteer to pay thousands a year!
Taking your bit in bold - we DO end up paying for the rip-off of sports rights, particularly those of the Premier League, where the BBC has once again committed even more money to screening the Premier League highlights. Yet first F1 and now the 6 Nations are ending up with emaciated coverage on the BBC as a consequence. At least with the 6 Nations ITV has stepped into the fray so it all remains on FTA channels, unlike the BBC's shameful deal over F1 rights which has consigned live coverage of all races on FTA to history - at least until 2018, when hopefully Channel 4 or ITV will step in and strip the BBC of the remnants of its coverage and take on the rest of the races.
A tax is a statutory charge - should a TV "subscription" also be accorded this status?
To answer your question, no I wouldn't make Council Tax optional, but by the same token I don't believe the Licence Fee should be mandatory for the owning and use of TV receiving equipment - instead the BBC should be subject to a subscription in the same way Sky or Virgin Media is. If people don't want to pay for the BBC, they don't receive the services.
Your argument was that if people value something then they will volunteer to pay for it.
Now you are changing your position to something else entirely because your argument has been shown to be nonsense.
I don't think you really understand what's going on. You're focus on the BBC misses the bigger picture - that F1 is hugley unlikely to even be on free to air TV AT ALL after the current deal has finished.
The BBC actually managed to EXTEND the deal with the deal it did, it delayed the inevitable for a bit longer.
Sorry - but you're wrong about what the BBC did.
FACT: They massively increased the costs so as to wrest the coverage back from ITV in 2009.
FACT: When the BBC found they had to start making cost savings (and wanted to keep exclusive coverage of the Olympics) it was F1 that took the hit.
FACT: The BBC COULD have walked away from the rights entirely - Channel 4 were already pulling together a bid, instead the BBC did the deal with SKY so as to ensure it retained the some coverage and didn't have terrestrial competition.
You're correct that the BBC's deal should have ended before 2018, so they did negotiate an extension as part of the SKY deal, but don't pretend for a second it was a proposal led by what would have been best for the viewer, it was a decision driven totally by the BBC's arrogant approach that it had to hold onto F1 rights somehow. It would have been much better if it had walked away completely, because the F1 teams would not have stood for any deal that gave Sky exclusive coverage as they realise how damaging that would be for the sport.
The problem with both this and the 6 Nations is the fact the BBC wouldn't sacrifice sole coverage of the Olympics, so F1 lost out and then the same for Premiership Highlights, so the 6 Nations lost out.
I don't give a stuff about the Premiership (nor do many people) and I'm fed up with the BBC pissing money up the wall to give it to Wayne Rooney and his boyfriends. Same goes for the £ ms they pay Chris Evans. So the sooner I can opt out of subscribing to this flawed, dishonest, arrogant organisation, the better.
Evidence of the Ch4 bid - if the BBC hadn't entered a deal with Sky then Sky wouldn't have been successful on its own.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/formula-one-could-have-stayed-on-terrestrial-147213
A new agreement needed to be in place from the start of the 2012 season.
good job you slipped a token straight man in there. We wouldn't want people to think you had an anti-gay bee in your bonnet, would we?
Isn't Evans ginger?
Are you not a real person, if you are also a BBC employee ?
Why they waste money having those two on Bake Off is byond me. They bring nothing to the programme whatsoever. They're like two giggly school kids and SP spend most of the time wandering around in her sneakers and low slung jeans like a geeky 15 year old boy. Their prog last winter was just the most awful TV ever.
Quite, a fact that's often forgotten as some sections of DS try to rewrite history in order to make the BBC the villains of the piece.
Sky wanted F1 badly, the BBC wanted it badly (despite the Licence fee freeze) - Channel 4 couldn't commit in time, ITV didn't want it back (having walked from the orginal contract).
There has been some noise that it could have gone from free to air altogether, so this was about the only way to keep it on FTA.
It made sense in my head....
I hope she never warns you of an oncoming vehicle then.
Apart from the childish attacks on the messenger, what is your position on the message?
FFS - I don't really care about their 'gender orientation' - clearly you do, so to humour you I'll also add Jeremy Vine, Vanessa Feltz, James Naughtie and David Dimbleby to the list - happy now?
The BBC had the rights until the end of 2013
"our existing contract, which gave us exclusive rights in the UK, was due to expire in 2013"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/sporteditors/2011/07/f1_coverage_to_be_shared_betwe.html
The whole fiasco, which ended up with the SKY / BBC joint deal was entirely caused by the BBC
1 - massively overbidding for the rights for the period 2009-2013
2 - effectively holding a gun to the FIA by announcing they were going to have to walk away from the deal for the 2012 season, forcing the FIA to have to look at who held the rights.
3 - The price offered by the BBC / SKY joint bid effectively killed the Ch 4 bid http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/formula-one-could-have-stayed-on-terrestrial-147213
"FORMULA 1 bosses could have kept Grand Prix racing on terrestrial TV but they *apparently turned down a £45million-a-year bid by Channel 4.
Leaked documents show the broadcaster was desperate for the motor racing to remain free to viewers and matched a proposal *by BSkyB."
So - before you post any more ill informed comments about the BBC's innocence about F1 rights have currently been let, I suggest you go away and do some research - I've posted links supporting every statement I've made - something you cannot do.
The BBC were completely the villain in this - they should take full responsibility for this. And from my perspective, it is another reason why the end of the licence fee and the BBC's largesse in general really can't come soon enough.
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/114355-sky-f1-hd-bbc-asked-us
""The BBC came to us. We didn’t go to the BBC and we didn’t go to Formula One," Pocket-lint was told by Martin Turner, executive producer of F1 HD, in a briefing at the Sky Studios complex in Isleworth."
The closest thing I could find is the quote below from the Sky representative - but it's simply a hypothesis based on Sky's fears, it's not a statement of fact:
"The BBC was under a lot of pressure with budgets, and they felt that this was a way they could keep Formula One on the BBC in some form or another. The contract could have gone a different way. They could have asked to be relieved of the contract and they [Formula One] could’ve put it out to terrestrial bidders and not involved us."
No, it wasn't "entirely caused by the BBC" at all.
The licence fee freeze, coupled with heavy lobbying from pay TV providers, more than contributed to the current situation. Money talks the loudest in the end, and those with the most will always get what they want.
I freelance for Sky Sports and I'd like to take this opportunity to warn you against trawling the Internet to back up a hatred against the licence fee in forming a "truth". For a start, the real truth is seldom found on the Internet, it goes on in secret and behind closed doors, the " official " version is often not the truth.
So, how is massive amounts of lobbying and money from the pay TV providers, and the effective, sudden cut, of the BBC's income (at the same time) "entirely the fault of the BBC?
Channel 4 couldn't commit, and even If they could, all It would have done is led to a higher counter bid anyway
If they had pulled out altogether, as they would have been entitled to, the whole shebang would have ended up on Sky Sports for at least 2012 and 2013 because C4 couldn't commit to 2012 for financial and scheduling reasons, and the broadcaster(s) showing the 2012 season had a contractual obligation to also show the 2013 season.
ITV had used their own break clause to exit their contract a few years earlier, and the BBC stepped in to keep F1 on FTA.
No amount of swivel-eyed paranoia will change any of this.