Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“Then that report was wrong, and did not consider the effect of the free TV Licences, which on its own has been estimated to cost £650 million**, 20% of the BBC's budget (and a cost which will increase with the ageing population).
The cost of supporting BBC World Service was put at £254 million*** whilst S4C costs were £76 million and local tv was £23 million totalling £607 million (closer to 18% of its income).
Have you a link to that report please?
** http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33400935
*** http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...nce-fee-money/”
“Then that report was wrong, and did not consider the effect of the free TV Licences, which on its own has been estimated to cost £650 million**, 20% of the BBC's budget (and a cost which will increase with the ageing population).
The cost of supporting BBC World Service was put at £254 million*** whilst S4C costs were £76 million and local tv was £23 million totalling £607 million (closer to 18% of its income).
Have you a link to that report please?
** http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33400935
*** http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...nce-fee-money/”
Good stuff and thanks for the references - I'll have to take time to read them before commenting.

I'll try to dig up the report I found.
Also, not trying to deviate the thread too far, so may start another thread or see if one already exists to discus this.





), so I couldn't care less what the BBC do with them. What struck me, though, as it often does, is the mealy-mouthed 'justification' for why they were changed. It's always words that only people in marketing and advertising (kill yourselves
As for 'What better way...', I wonder how long it took [someone] to craft that carefully worded bit of PR bollocks.
(even if it's the northern bit)