This was posted in the Andrew Marr on Strictly thread, but as today is the deadline for public consultation, I thought it worth reposting with a clearer thread title


I completed the easy version. Before submitting you have to agree to receive future campaign information, but you can opt out of those when they start sending them

This needs to be spread far and wide.

38 degrees mailed it out to their supporters a little while ago and asked us to publicise it, but since I'm not on Twitter or Facebook, I just got my OH to fill it in too.
****ing politicians, messing with our Beeb!

On the "red button news" the BBC are "making a case" for the "saving" of shows like "Strictly" and "Sherlock." A good choice as they represent a fairly broad spectrum of the viewing public.

I'm not quite sure, but where did the government actually say that they won't be able to present their best received show for decades? That's just scaremongering propaganda.
No government in their right mind would pick on those particular programmes.

I'm sure the BBC will survive, but in a leaner and more efficient form, as have many different companies in the private sector in these times of restraints on spending.
There will be no going back to the bad old days, when money seemed to be no object.

I think, in fairness, that that probably is scaremongering. As a home grown money making format it is on the government's 'approved' list (while The Voice is not), but if it makes people ask themselves what they want from the BBC and recognise what they value about it and tell the government then that can only be a good thing. Of course it's easy to say SCD is a money maker now. I don't think I'd have bet on it when it was first announced and the BBC needs the freedom to take those chances.

But then.....I suppose it depends how much you trust the government.

If they argue against programming which could be covered by commercial broadcasters or which they don't consider 'distinctive' enough, whilst saying 'of course we want the BBC to be entertaining,' you have to ask whether they are just using weasel words. If everything the BBC puts out has to be completely original, totally distinctive, of the highest quality, not viable for a commercial broadcaster etc etc, then you're setting them up for failure, because all of that requires it to make programming which only operates at the expensive end of the spectrum. Down the line they would be hauled over the coals for spending more per hour of telly than the commercial broadcasters and that used as 'proof' the BBC is not good value for money.

Less than 1 hour folks,

Just sign this , it still counts.

https://www.change.org/p/save-bbc-tv...line-from-cuts