Your anti-BBC bias shows in your exaggeration. You seem unaware that an orchestra's musicians are not necessarily permanently employed, often just assembling for engagements and even appearing in different orchestras. I still remember the fuss when a concert hall management found out that another concert hall very far away had the Royal Philhamonic Orchestra performing exactly the same evening as at their hall. That was the RPO really pushing their luck!

 

The same goes for choirs, paid only when they appear for engagements.

 

And the BBC is not just an entertainment service which is their least duty. Its charter states its duty to be to Inform, Educate and Entertain, Lord Reith being careful to place them in that order.

.

Definitely I am very anti-BBC. I'm not sure I'm exaggerating though as it states additional musicians on a freelance basis which would be in addition to the 400 contract musicians. It's a grossly inefficient organisation and nowadays less and less of the license fee is actually going into programme production and many of those programs are not high quality exportable programs but minority interest type programs. It's extremely unlikely such an organisation could survive in a commercial environment. I totally get the importance of UK owned media companies but the BBC is an example of how not to run a corporation. ITV is a far better example of a well run organisation.

 

The BBC is the single largest employer of musicians in the UK.

It supports 5 full time orchestras. It employs more than 400 contract musicians, and many hundreds on a freelance basis.

 

https://musiciansunion.org.uk/all-campaigns/protect-our-bbc

I'm not sure I'm exaggerating though as it states additional musicians on a freelance basis which would be in addition to the 400 contract musicians.

 

They are busy all the time since they take part in many engagements other than broadcasts. The £23 millions all the orchestras and choirs cost is peanuts, just 0.46% of their total £5 billions income from the licence fee and other earnings. If it was spent on programs throughout the year the difference would scarcely be seen.

 

many of those programs are not high quality exportable programs but minority interest type programs. It's extremely unlikely such an organisation could survive in a commercial environment.

 

Which is precisely as intended and as it should be, not just pandering to the lowest common denominator. I'd like to see them go further down that road by cutting out the trash they also produce to compete with ITV's similar rubbish.

 

but the BBC is an example of how not to run a corporation. ITV is a far better example of a well run organisation.

 

ITV is an appalling example, given the trash they output. The last thing we need to end up with is only commercial TV with such as PBS and Smithsonian being the face of public service broadcasting.

 

And it is because independent TV pays such high amounts that the BBC is forced to do similar for individuals, shows and events, or lose them.

.

Edited January 29, 20233 yr by flecc

They are busy all the time since they take part in many engagements other than broadcasts. The £23 millions all the orchestras and choirs cost is peanuts, just 0.46% of their total £5 billions income from the licence fee and other earnings. If it was spent on programs throughout the year the difference would scarcely be seen.

 

 

 

Which is precisely as intended and as it should be, not just pandering to the lowest common denominator. I'd like to see them go further down that road by cutting out the trash they also produce to compete with ITV's similar rubbish.

 

 

 

ITV is an appalling example, given the trash they output. The last thing we need to end up with is only commercial TV with such as PBS and Smithsonian being the face of public service broadcasting.

 

And it is because independent TV pays such high amounts that the BBC is forced to do similar for individuals, shows and events, or lose them.

.

 

I'm pretty sure the BBC pays more than ITV typically for similar roles and ITV controls costs much better. As for quality I can't remember the show but I saw a clip of it at my mother's house who has a TV license and the sitcom in question was unbelievable crude and unfunny and I've never seen anything as bad on ITV. Some bloke pretending to be a woman in a dire farce of a show. I don't have a TV license so only see shows by chance by visiting my mother's house mainly. I did quite enjoy Impossible the quiz show.

 

The point is you are welcome to the BBC but you should pay for it. It shouldn't be a tax on people who have zero interest in watching the BBC. Last year 2 million homes stopped paying for a tv license and that could be higher this year.

 

https://propermanchester.com/trending/two-million-people-stopped-paying-their-bbc-tv-license-last-year/

 

People just aren't interested in the BBC anymore its garbage quite frankly but more importantly its exceptionally poor value for most people. People work hard and when they come home want exciting low brow shows a lot of the time. The BBC has no idea what they are doing and are grossly inefficient and also make the wrong shows and is completely uncompetitive. It's a dinosaur corporation. It's a dead man walking. I honestly can't see the BBC adapting to the commercial world.

 

I'm exceptionally pleased that none of my money goes to fund it anymore.

Well..... one might think the BBC isn't great, and my knowledge of their inner workings is near enough nil, but for me I'm happy to pay for the many radio, tv and other programmes that are my preferred listening and watching choice.

 

The alternatives are really quite dreadful. I'm talking of the commercial channels - some great programs of course but interspersed with countless twaddle about items I've no interest in buying, or come to that, have even heard of.

Well..... one might think the BBC isn't great, and my knowledge of their inner workings is near enough nil, but for me I'm happy to pay for the many radio, tv and other programmes that are my preferred listening and watching choice.

 

The alternatives are really quite dreadful. I'm talking of the commercial channels - some great programs of course but interspersed with countless twaddle about items I've no interest in buying, or come to that, have even heard of.

 

If you are happy with the service, fine I have no problem with that but forced taxation should be about essential services not an entertainment service. So those who want the BBC services should pay for them and those that don't do not. It's as simple as that. I don't have a TV license so can't watch any live tv services, even if I wanted to watch a live tv channel from outer Mongolia it is illegal for me to do so because of the TV License even though such Mongolian TV is not funded by the TV license. This is again about choice and fairness and that the BBC should be purely financed by the people who want the service which nowadays is just a minority of the population. If there aren't enough people who want to pay for the service then so be it it needs to downsize or disappear. I live my life with pretty much no use of BBC services except for occasionally seeing a few things at my mother's house and visiting the BBC website occasionally. I realise I feel better for not having the BBC as it had a high irritation factor and often the journalism often seemed poor quality and inaccurate. The political programs used to be annoying often focusing on the personalities and trivia rather than the real problems of our economy and their so called analysis was amateur at best. I just remember it as awful low grade journalism. It's a service I find unwatchable most of the time purely because it doesn't make the programs I'm interested in so obviously I'm not going to pay for a TV license given a choice but its also effects my freedom to watch other channels not funded by the TV license which is completely wrong and unfair.

I'm pretty sure the BBC pays more than ITV typically for similar roles and ITV controls costs much better. As for quality I can't remember the show but I saw a clip of it at my mother's house who has a TV license and the sitcom in question was unbelievable crude and unfunny and I've never seen anything as bad on ITV. Some bloke pretending to be a woman in a dire farce of a show. I don't have a TV license so only see shows by chance by visiting my mother's house mainly. I did quite enjoy Impossible the quiz show.

 

The point is you are welcome to the BBC but you should pay for it. It shouldn't be a tax on people who have zero interest in watching the BBC. Last year 2 million homes stopped paying for a tv license and that could be higher this year.

 

https://propermanchester.com/trending/two-million-people-stopped-paying-their-bbc-tv-license-last-year/

 

People just aren't interested in the BBC anymore its garbage quite frankly but more importantly its exceptionally poor value for most people. People work hard and when they come home want exciting low brow shows a lot of the time. The BBC has no idea what they are doing and are grossly inefficient and also make the wrong shows and is completely uncompetitive. It's a dinosaur corporation. It's a dead man walking. I honestly can't see the BBC adapting to the commercial world.

 

I'm exceptionally pleased that none of my money goes to fund it anymore.

 

To answer some of your points:

 

The BBC cannot be competitive and appeal to all sectors of the population as it is supposed to.

 

And of course that does lead to some shows which are dire for many, even most of us.

 

Accordingly it can never adapt to the commercial world while doing these.

 

You saying it only appeals to the minority is ridiculous when well over 90% of the population watch BBC to some extent and as you say, under 2% dont and even they, like you, do often enjoy a show while elsewhere having a licence.

 

Equally ridiculous is saying 365 days broadcasting on multiple TV and Radio channels is poor value. Virtually anyone can get their full value from the TV licence during a year.

 

However I do agree that being forced to pay a tax to watch TV is wrong in principle, but it's difficult to organise funding the national broadcaster any other way. That's why most European countries also pay a TV licence.

.

However I do agree that being forced to pay a tax to watch TV is wrong in principle, but it's difficult to organise funding the national broadcaster any other way. That's why most European countries also pay a TV licence.

they call it a tax*, we don't.

 

*tax for owning a TV set. You have to supply an address when you buy a TV.

they call it a tax*, we don't.

 

*tax for owning a TV set.

 

Agreed. Funding national TV is a mess almost everywhere in Europe. I understand that the French fee based on the national average wage is being scrapped in favour of a slice taken from VAT, but even that will be temporary until a better way is found.

 

It seems nobody has the answer, other than all commercial TV, which means the end of much of the quality broadcasting and the plague of advertising breaks

 

You have to supply an address when you buy a TV.

 

That system doesn't work either. I once discovered someone had given my address, which only I have ever owned and lived in, when they bought a TV. Apparently it's a common dodge, just giving any valid address.

.

I'm pretty sure the BBC pays more than ITV typically for similar roles and ITV controls costs much better. As for quality I can't remember the show but I saw a clip of it at my mother's house who has a TV license and the sitcom in question was unbelievable crude and unfunny and I've never seen anything as bad on ITV. Some bloke pretending to be a woman in a dire farce of a show. I don't have a TV license so only see shows by chance by visiting my mother's house mainly. I did quite enjoy Impossible the quiz show.

 

The point is you are welcome to the BBC but you should pay for it. It shouldn't be a tax on people who have zero interest in watching the BBC. Last year 2 million homes stopped paying for a tv license and that could be higher this year.

 

https://propermanchester.com/trending/two-million-people-stopped-paying-their-bbc-tv-license-last-year/

 

People just aren't interested in the BBC anymore its garbage quite frankly but more importantly its exceptionally poor value for most people. People work hard and when they come home want exciting low brow shows a lot of the time. The BBC has no idea what they are doing and are grossly inefficient and also make the wrong shows and is completely uncompetitive. It's a dinosaur corporation. It's a dead man walking. I honestly can't see the BBC adapting to the commercial world.

 

I'm exceptionally pleased that none of my money goes to fund it anymore.

Ok, by your reasoning, why am I m paying for infrastructure dahn sahf that I will never use, why if one only rides a bike must we contribute to motorways, etc etc.

Perhaps if the Tory cabinet all paid their dues... Did you put them in power btw?

Ok, by your reasoning, why am I m paying for infrastructure dahn sahf that I will never use, why if one only rides a bike must we contribute to motorways, etc etc.

Perhaps if the Tory cabinet all paid their dues... Did you put them in power btw?

That's infrastructure for a country hardly comparable to an entertainment service. Of course we all have to pay for such infrastructure and while not directly linked to tax on motorists its clear motorists do pay a huge amount of tax where as someone who only cycles does not.

 

It's an entertainment service and in my opinion not a very good one but I'm not here to say destroy the BBC I'm saying those who want it pay for it and those that don't want it don't pay for it. If its hugely popular and people want the service then clearly it will be funded. I don't personally think that is the reality of the situation but I'd be happy to see the BBC funded by people who like and enjoy the service do well. It's all about being fair and not expecting others to subsidise what you want when others won't use the service and are forced to pay for it.

 

I mean 2 million homes stopping their TV license last year is huge and many still believe they need a TV license and don't understand how they can switch to streaming only and avoid paying the TV license. If it was clearly stated with the TV license renewal they don't have to renew if they don't use iplayer or watch live broadcasts that would be one thing but typically they actually make threatening statements about not paying for your TV license which to me is completely unacceptable, criminal behaviour I feel.

A Public Service Broadcaster - of which the BBC is one - play an important role in preserving and protecting our democracy, a role which cannot simply be dismissed or trivialised because it happens to 'entertainment' in carrying out its wider roles as a PSB.

 

Many parts of our western society are funded on taxation and the licence fee is one such example that helps pay for the BBC in its PSB role.

 

And long may it continue to do so - heaven forbid we end up with broadcasters funded by the likes of Trump or Musk.

A Public Service Broadcaster - of which the BBC is one - play an important role in preserving and protecting our democracy, a role which cannot simply be dismissed or trivialised because it happens to 'entertainment' in carrying out its wider roles as a PSB.

 

Many parts of our western society are funded on taxation and the licence fee is one such example that helps pay for the BBC in its PSB role.

 

And long may it continue to do so - heaven forbid we end up with broadcasters funded by the likes of Trump or Musk.

 

I don't see anything less biased about the BBC news service compared to others but even if I did you could separate the news service from general entertainment and just fund that from taxation which would be a small fraction of the current license fee. The BBC certainly doesn't protect our democracy at all. When it comes to investigative journalism and monitoring the behaviour of politicians I feel many newspapers do a much better job. We now have a broad spectrum of news channels and each raises their own points I certainly don't see the BBC as better than average I'd actually see their news service as fairly poor overall often with poorly researched articles. They often focus on trivia and personalities in politics rather than the huge economic issues of this country and their analysis of debt and world trade is minimal and often completely inaccurate. Compared to what the BBC was like in the 70s when their analysis from memory seemed really good and that was when data was much harder to acquire. Now its just a blur of nonsense political news most of the time.

 

However I have to admit I don't perhaps have a full idea of the BBC or other news services for that matter because I don't have a TV license so I only see live news away from home and get most of my news from websites. I did see a lot of BBC news over Christmas though.

 

It's not going to surprise me if even more than 2 million homes cancel their TV license this year and we get to a point where BBC funding has been severely reduced, perhaps we will end up with just a few BBC channels including a news channel.

 

The important thing is to strongly link those who want the service to pay for the service and not burden others financially with their choices for the general entertainment services even if you exclude the news service as a special case.

Compared to what the BBC was like in the 70s when their analysis from memory seemed really good and that was when data was much harder to acquire.

 

Although I strongly disagree with you about the continuing value of the BBC, I very much agree that it was a far better, stronger and more valuable organisation in the 1970s.

 

It was Margaret Thatcher who damaged it so badly with her appointment of Marmaduke Hussey as Chairman, his job being to effect her desire to turn it into a commercial money making organisation. Trying to do that that got rid of some of the BBCs most important departments, generally corrupting what had been an efficient and very effective organisation into one confused about what it is trying to be, a dilemma still present today.

 

My opinion of Thatcher aligns with that of the late Tony Banks MP, when he described her as the only truly evil person he had ever met.

.

Although I strongly disagree with you about the continuing value of the BBC, I very much agree that it was a far better, stronger and more valuable organisation in the 1970s.

 

It was Margaret Thatcher who damaged it so badly with her appointment of Marmaduke Hussey as Chairman, his job being to effect her desire to turn it into a commercial money making organisation. Trying to do that that got rid of some of the BBCs most important departments, generally corrupting what had been an efficient and very effective organisation into one confused about what it is trying to be, a dilemma still present today.

 

My opinion of Thatcher aligns with that of the late Tony Banks MP, when he described her as the only truly evil person he had ever met.

.

I'm not sure I'd agree that Margaret Thatcher was evil but she was completely incompetent and hugely damaging to our country. She sold off assets cheaply and destroyed much of our industry. So at least we can both agree she was terrible even if its for different reasons.

 

When you look at the history of Britain the time when Britain was well run and was building the economy very successfully was the early 50s to mid 60s and that was Winston Churchill and Harold Macmillion both brilliant Conservative leaders to be proud of. Despite Winston Churchill being viewed as a wartime leader only, you can link strong economic recovery to him in the early 50s and Harold Macmillan was also very good. Yet Thatcher somehow is seen positively who is linked to strong decline in our economy. Completely different approaches, Thatcher was hand's off and let the economy sort itself out but Churchill and Macmillion were hands on, interacting with the economy and trying to maximise industrial success in the UK. We are too small a country to have a hands off policy.

[mention=24131]Bonzo Banana[/mention] I agree with your assessment of the current crop of BBC "journalists". They wouldn't know how to handle a real news story if they walked straight into a bank robbery. Their journalism is definitely not even handed and impartial any more.

I do take issue with your assertion that none of the BBC's operations represent good value for the taxpayers pounds. The foreign broadcast service does not cost a great deal compared with the kudos we receive as a nation and the value placed upon it by millions of overseas listeners.

I also agree with [mention=4]flecc[/mention], I for one am happy to pay my licence fee for the BBC in support of a national broadcaster without inane advertising (apart from their own self-promotions which are equally annoying).

The BBC has lost it's way but it is not unrecoverable and I hope in years to come proper investagative journalism without presenters just interminably parroting the government's sound bites in response to the opposing side's representative's point of view will eventually result in better, less biased presenters on the BBC.

Incidentally, totally agree with your remarks on Thatcher, she was evil incarnate.

Tony

Edited February 2, 20233 yr by vidtek

[mention=24131]Bonzo Banana[/mention] I agree with your assessment of the current crop of BBC "journalists". They wouldn't know how to handle a real news story if they walked straight into a bank robbery. Their journalism is definitely not even handed and impartial any more.

I do take issue with your assertion that none of the BBC's operations represent good value for the taxpayers pounds. The foreign broadcast service does not cost a great deal compared with the kudos we receive as a nation and the value placed upon it by millions of overseas listeners.

I also agree with [mention=4]flecc[/mention], I for one am happy to pay my licence fee for the BBC in support of a national broadcaster without inane advertising (apart from their own self-promotions which are equally annoying).

The BBC has lost it's way but it is not unrecoverable and I hope in years to come proper investagative journalism without presenters just interminably parroting the government's sound bites in response to the opposing side's representative's point of view will eventually result in better, less biased presenters on the BBC.

Incidentally, totally agree with your remarks on Thatcher, she was evil incarnate.

Tony

 

I don't disagree with your point about the world service but have no idea what it costs or how it should be funded. If someone can make the case that it has a very positive effect on the UK's reputation and it is worth that cost then so be it. My main point about the BBC is that it should be funded by those that use the service. Most of the BBC's output is general entertainment and people should have a choice whether to pay that and if they don't pay that it shouldn't mean they are restricted in how they use their own TV equipment when accessing other services like itv or ch4 not funded by the tv license. It's about being fair because general TV entertainment should not be a compulsory tax.

 

A quick look online has this;

 

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/what-does-your-licence-fee-pay-for-top13

 

£1.13 a month or about 10% of the license fee goes on the world service. If the BBC is getting about £4 billion in funding then about £400 million is being spent on the world service per year. That seems excessive to me especially as its a service funded by those who pay a license fee but would not use that service I wouldn't of thought mostly. When I googled how the tv license fee is spent you are bombarded by propeganda by the TV licensing authority but in the past there was information that a small but significant portion of the tv license was being used to pay for the pension shortfall at the BBC. That information is not easy to find by googling.

 

Everytime I look into the BBC I can't help hating the organisation from its excessive pay and inefficiencies to its propeganda regarding its services. I honestly can't see the BBC surviving in a commercial environment without a radical overhaul on costs and management.

Everytime I look into the BBC I can't help hating the organisation from its excessive pay and inefficiencies to its propeganda regarding its services. I honestly can't see the BBC surviving in a commercial environment without a radical overhaul on costs and management.

 

They dont pay excessively but do have to compete. Independent TV pays far more, that's how they always steal every good program idea the Beeb have. Bake off was the latest one, a copy show with the two main presenters, Paul Hollywood and Mary Berry, bribed away for far more money from both pay and advertising.

 

The BBC will never have to survive in a commercial environment since it is not and never will be a commercial channel. Fortunately for the 95% of us who support the BBC by being willing to pay for it.

.

BBC Studios, the commercial arm of Britain's public broadcaster, has marked record growth for 2021/22 with profits up 50% year-on-year to £226 million ($267 million) and sales up 30% to £1.63 billion. The past financial year marks the first time the business has topped £200 million in profits.12 Jul 2022

BBC Studios, the commercial arm of Britain's public broadcaster, has marked record growth for 2021/22 with profits up 50% year-on-year to £226 million ($267 million) and sales up 30% to £1.63 billion. The past financial year marks the first time the business has topped £200 million in profits.12 Jul 2022

 

£226 million of profit is under 5% of what the BBC currently needs to run.

 

I repeat, they have no hope of ever being a commercial broadcaster, without abandoning what they are suppose to do under their charter.

.

bbc studios is a private company for profit.

bbc studios is a private company for profit.

 

BBC Studios is a commercial subsidiary of the BBC Group. helping to pay for the BBC's main functions.

.

no they make programmes and sell them to the bbc and pay the big bucks to there presenters so they dont have to tell you how much they get paid as you cant foi bbc studios.

 

As set out in section 6(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, our subsidiaries (including BBC Studioworks Limited,

UKTV, BBC Global News Ltd and BBC Studios Ltd), as well as the charities BBC Media Action

and BBC Children in Need, are not subject to the Act. Therefore information regarding their

activities is also not subject to the Act.

 

In addition to this, BBC America is part of BBC Studios Ltd. For more information on BBC

America please follow this link to their website:

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bbc_studio_ltd

I'm the original poster of this thread, so has anyone bought batteries from cell supply then?

 

Someone way up thread (before the thread hijack) mentioned that it'd be necessary to balance reclaimed batteries but I'd have thought you'd do this even for new ones.

 

Anyway I've now got the balancer mentioned, so I'm near to making a purchase decision.

no they make programmes and sell them to the bbc and pay the big bucks to there presenters so they dont have to tell you how much they get paid as you cant foi bbc studios.

 

As set out in section 6(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, our subsidiaries (including BBC Studioworks Limited,

UKTV, BBC Global News Ltd and BBC Studios Ltd), as well as the charities BBC Media Action

and BBC Children in Need, are not subject to the Act. Therefore information regarding their

activities is also not subject to the Act.

 

In addition to this, BBC America is part of BBC Studios Ltd. For more information on BBC

America please follow this link to their website:

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bbc_studio_ltd

 

Around a quarter of the BBC's revenue comes from its commercial subsidiary BBC Studios (formerly BBC Worldwide), which sells BBC programmes and services internationally and also distributes the BBC's international 24-hour English-language news services BBC World News, and from BBC.com, provided by BBC Global News Ltd. In 2009, the company was awarded the Queen's Award for Enterprise in recognition of its international achievements.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC

 

The Beeb fetches in some £5 billions with under £4 billions from the licence fee. The rest comes in from the profits of the above organisations.

.

problem is ppl are stopping paying it as ppl my age dont even watch any of it as i can stream everything for free online when the bloody links works.

 

it is only a matter of time now there finished as ppl just wont pay it.