ChatterBank0 min ago
Richard Hammond / BBC Funding
I heard on the news recently that Richard Hammond is well on the way to recovery - which is good news .
However I also heard the BBC have offered him a new two million pound contract
Is he ( and others on the payroll ) really worth this amount of money ? - which leads on to my second question - is the BBC spending the licence payers money wisely - Who audits the BBC to ensure value for money ?
It appears to me that there is a lot of unnecessary posts in the organisation - you frequently hear of ' head of this ' and ' head of that ' - for example the other day a spokesman was on the radio who was supposed to be ' head of BBC News - West - does this mean that there is a head of BBC News East / North / South ? - and if so are all these posts really necessary - couldn't there be a head of BBC News .. Full stop . - isn't one post for all sufficient ?
Another example - you have different posts for reading news or making announcements on all the different radio channels for example - why ? - these are just a couple of examples , I could go on .
Also, do we really need all the different radio and tv channels from the BBC ?
All the above ultimately determines the size of the licence fee - which leads me to what really gets me angry every year - that is I have just received by television licence renewal - WHY ARE WE FORCED TO PAY THIS TAX
( IRRESPECTIVE OF HOW MUCH OF BBC OUTPUT WE WATCH OR LISTEN TO ) , IN ORDER TO WATCH OTHER STATIONS - WHY AREN'T WE GIVEN THE CHOICE - ( WHEN THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS OUT THERE ) - TO OPT AND PAY FOR WHAT WE CHOOSE ?
Does anyone else agree with me ?
However I also heard the BBC have offered him a new two million pound contract
Is he ( and others on the payroll ) really worth this amount of money ? - which leads on to my second question - is the BBC spending the licence payers money wisely - Who audits the BBC to ensure value for money ?
It appears to me that there is a lot of unnecessary posts in the organisation - you frequently hear of ' head of this ' and ' head of that ' - for example the other day a spokesman was on the radio who was supposed to be ' head of BBC News - West - does this mean that there is a head of BBC News East / North / South ? - and if so are all these posts really necessary - couldn't there be a head of BBC News .. Full stop . - isn't one post for all sufficient ?
Another example - you have different posts for reading news or making announcements on all the different radio channels for example - why ? - these are just a couple of examples , I could go on .
Also, do we really need all the different radio and tv channels from the BBC ?
All the above ultimately determines the size of the licence fee - which leads me to what really gets me angry every year - that is I have just received by television licence renewal - WHY ARE WE FORCED TO PAY THIS TAX
( IRRESPECTIVE OF HOW MUCH OF BBC OUTPUT WE WATCH OR LISTEN TO ) , IN ORDER TO WATCH OTHER STATIONS - WHY AREN'T WE GIVEN THE CHOICE - ( WHEN THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS OUT THERE ) - TO OPT AND PAY FOR WHAT WE CHOOSE ?
Does anyone else agree with me ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bazile. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I wish Richard Hammond all the best, and it looks like he'll make a full recovery. The 2 million pounds does seem to be a bit steep to me, considering he's probably on a pretty good salary anyway. I wonder if he was insured for the record attempt he was making, as these sort of things attract a prohibitive premium, but there again, the BBC would probably have paid, money being no object.
I am fed up paying for a tv licence, threatened with deportation if I don't cough up. Why is the annual increase always "above the rate of inflation"?....and why, whenever there is something going on around the world, eg the olympics, or world cup football, do just about everyone from the BBC have to attend?....I for one would like to see the licence fee abolished. Advertising on tv doesn't bother me in the least, the ITV companies seem to manage on it!
I am fed up paying for a tv licence, threatened with deportation if I don't cough up. Why is the annual increase always "above the rate of inflation"?....and why, whenever there is something going on around the world, eg the olympics, or world cup football, do just about everyone from the BBC have to attend?....I for one would like to see the licence fee abolished. Advertising on tv doesn't bother me in the least, the ITV companies seem to manage on it!
A lot of ground to cover in one post Bazile :)
1. Richard Hammond... Glad to hear of his recovery, sad to see him selling his story as an exclusive in one of the tabloids.Any contract offered is presumably subject to market forces. Personally, I think most of these presenters / actor types are grossly overpaid, but that is probably just envy.
2.BBC oversight. The BBC has to provide a charter which is subject to scrutiny from Parliament, broadly to provide high quality public service programming. Additionally, their funding is scrutinised by the National Audit Office.
3.BBC Administration. I am sure the BBC, like any organisation could benefit from an organisational efficiency audit...one does get the impression they do have an inordinate number of chiefs etc. You would have to compare and contrast with a similar organisation to get a proper idea of how efficient they are and whether they are overstaffed etc.
4.BBC output and channels. I am with you on this... It is difficult to see why they need all the recent additional channels they have brought out... mind you, people were saying the same thing when BBC2 was introduced!
5.BBC licencing fee. Whether you agree with such a licence or not depends on whether you like to have an option of advert free television or not really. For me, the licence fee is worth it just to have channels free of advertising. It is also worth remembering that if the BBC were to rely on advertising for its revenue, it would then be competing directly with ITV, SKY et al for the same pot of advertising revenue, which would inevitably lead to a reduction in money for all channels and consequent further degradation of the quality of output. So no, I wouldnt agree with you there :)
1. Richard Hammond... Glad to hear of his recovery, sad to see him selling his story as an exclusive in one of the tabloids.Any contract offered is presumably subject to market forces. Personally, I think most of these presenters / actor types are grossly overpaid, but that is probably just envy.
2.BBC oversight. The BBC has to provide a charter which is subject to scrutiny from Parliament, broadly to provide high quality public service programming. Additionally, their funding is scrutinised by the National Audit Office.
3.BBC Administration. I am sure the BBC, like any organisation could benefit from an organisational efficiency audit...one does get the impression they do have an inordinate number of chiefs etc. You would have to compare and contrast with a similar organisation to get a proper idea of how efficient they are and whether they are overstaffed etc.
4.BBC output and channels. I am with you on this... It is difficult to see why they need all the recent additional channels they have brought out... mind you, people were saying the same thing when BBC2 was introduced!
5.BBC licencing fee. Whether you agree with such a licence or not depends on whether you like to have an option of advert free television or not really. For me, the licence fee is worth it just to have channels free of advertising. It is also worth remembering that if the BBC were to rely on advertising for its revenue, it would then be competing directly with ITV, SKY et al for the same pot of advertising revenue, which would inevitably lead to a reduction in money for all channels and consequent further degradation of the quality of output. So no, I wouldnt agree with you there :)
There is no justification for the huge amounts of money paid to entertainers, sports stars and the so called financial wizz kids. Most would still follow their chosen career even with 2 or 3 noughts less on their contracts.
It is a good job the end of programme credits often roll too quickly to be read otherwise viewers would see and wonder what on earth some of the people actually do and are they all really necessary.
If the BBC licence was abolished the advertising pot would either have to increase i.e. you and I would have to pay more in the shops, or the pot would have to be spread further i.e. less money for all concerned, this would not be likely to happen. Therefore we would still be paying.
The BBC like the NHS and many other companies seem very adapt at creating totally unnecessary jobs at enormous salaries, whilst the person absolutely essential is paid peanuts.
It is a good job the end of programme credits often roll too quickly to be read otherwise viewers would see and wonder what on earth some of the people actually do and are they all really necessary.
If the BBC licence was abolished the advertising pot would either have to increase i.e. you and I would have to pay more in the shops, or the pot would have to be spread further i.e. less money for all concerned, this would not be likely to happen. Therefore we would still be paying.
The BBC like the NHS and many other companies seem very adapt at creating totally unnecessary jobs at enormous salaries, whilst the person absolutely essential is paid peanuts.
-- answer removed --
No I don't agree with you.
I cannot remember the last time I actually watched something on ITV - especially in recent years it's become the most attrocious tripe of soap opera, celebrity shows, game shows and "lifestyle" programs.
The license fee has managed to keep standards generally ( if not universally ) high for many years especially with regards to BBC2.
If you canned the license fee it'd be a total disaster.
I cannot remember the last time I actually watched something on ITV - especially in recent years it's become the most attrocious tripe of soap opera, celebrity shows, game shows and "lifestyle" programs.
The license fee has managed to keep standards generally ( if not universally ) high for many years especially with regards to BBC2.
If you canned the license fee it'd be a total disaster.
I agree with Ward~Minter and jake-the-peg.
Most of the BBC's revenue comes from commercial activities, DVD/Magazine sales, the sale of programs overseas etc. The license fee is a small part of it.
However the license fee binds the BBC to a charter which commits them to making high quality output. Sorry to quote the adverts but "It's the uniwue way in which the BBC is funded" which allows it to take risks on things which might otherwise never be made, how many shows on the BBC have risen out of a poor first run to go on to later great success? On commercial channels this simply wouldn't happen.
Personally I would like to see it change from a compulsory fee but I'm sure the philistines would leave in their droves leaving us in a cultural decline.
Most of the BBC's revenue comes from commercial activities, DVD/Magazine sales, the sale of programs overseas etc. The license fee is a small part of it.
However the license fee binds the BBC to a charter which commits them to making high quality output. Sorry to quote the adverts but "It's the uniwue way in which the BBC is funded" which allows it to take risks on things which might otherwise never be made, how many shows on the BBC have risen out of a poor first run to go on to later great success? On commercial channels this simply wouldn't happen.
Personally I would like to see it change from a compulsory fee but I'm sure the philistines would leave in their droves leaving us in a cultural decline.
I'm in a weird minority of people who LOVE the BBC. Yep - I love it.
This channel has given me Ab Fab, Nighty Night, Extras, Top Of The Pops, The Office, Pride & Prejudice, Morecombe & Wise, Open All Hours, Porridge, Are You Being Served, Elizabeth I, Little Britain, The Two Ronnies, The Old Grey Whistle Test, Three Non Blondes, Our Friends In The North, Doctor Who...you see where I'm going.
...and that's just the telly - don't get me started on the excellent output from Radio 3 and 4...and BBCi
It's one of those things that makes me proud to be British. Whenever I've seen telly abroad, I realise how lucky we are to have a channel which is publicly funded and doesn't rely on commercial funds for a living.
God help us if we ever lost the licence fee and telly became a free for all.
When was the last time any of us saw anything on Sky One that didn't make us want to pluck our eyeballs out and use them like marbles in a playground?
Yup...
This channel has given me Ab Fab, Nighty Night, Extras, Top Of The Pops, The Office, Pride & Prejudice, Morecombe & Wise, Open All Hours, Porridge, Are You Being Served, Elizabeth I, Little Britain, The Two Ronnies, The Old Grey Whistle Test, Three Non Blondes, Our Friends In The North, Doctor Who...you see where I'm going.
...and that's just the telly - don't get me started on the excellent output from Radio 3 and 4...and BBCi
It's one of those things that makes me proud to be British. Whenever I've seen telly abroad, I realise how lucky we are to have a channel which is publicly funded and doesn't rely on commercial funds for a living.
God help us if we ever lost the licence fee and telly became a free for all.
When was the last time any of us saw anything on Sky One that didn't make us want to pluck our eyeballs out and use them like marbles in a playground?
Yup...
Well , at the risk of upsetting all you die hard BBC supporters - being forced to have this service is not very democratic is it ?
Why should I be prevented from making a choice as to what service I choose to have - In this age of technology , it shouldn't be difficult to have a device on your television set which prevents you from accesing the BBC channels - if you want the choice as to whether you wish to pay for the service or not .
Oh .. and I am not saying that I dont like the BBC - I just dont like to be denied the choice .
Why should I be prevented from making a choice as to what service I choose to have - In this age of technology , it shouldn't be difficult to have a device on your television set which prevents you from accesing the BBC channels - if you want the choice as to whether you wish to pay for the service or not .
Oh .. and I am not saying that I dont like the BBC - I just dont like to be denied the choice .
The BBC do make a lot of top-notch programmes. But the line up on BBC1 and 2 seems to get increasingly poor. Of course it is not fair that we should have to pay this company for thier services if we wish to watch tv. I told a guy in the US we have to pay a tv licence fee and he couldn't beleive it.
Channel 4 is the best these days, however you must remember that is is funded by commercials and ultimately commercials would not be shown unless it meant more sales. So maybe you or others end up paying by buying things you otherwise wouldn't've bought!
Channel 4 is the best these days, however you must remember that is is funded by commercials and ultimately commercials would not be shown unless it meant more sales. So maybe you or others end up paying by buying things you otherwise wouldn't've bought!
China Doll - ahh...but Sky One didn't actually make The Simpsons...they just broadcast it.
I believe it's made by Fox in the US.
But I concur - The Simpsons is one of the greatest comedies (animated or not) ever.
Bazile - I understand your point, and it could be argued that in a commercial environment, why should the BBC have an advantage?
However, they also have the disadvantage that they have to justify their existance every time their charter comes up.
Also, there are other areas in life where we pay for the collective good...I mean - I don't have kids and have private medical insurance, but I have no problem with part of my taxes going to schools and the NHS.
...you know...that is probably the most RUBBISH argument I've ever put forward.
I retract.
I believe it's made by Fox in the US.
But I concur - The Simpsons is one of the greatest comedies (animated or not) ever.
Bazile - I understand your point, and it could be argued that in a commercial environment, why should the BBC have an advantage?
However, they also have the disadvantage that they have to justify their existance every time their charter comes up.
Also, there are other areas in life where we pay for the collective good...I mean - I don't have kids and have private medical insurance, but I have no problem with part of my taxes going to schools and the NHS.
...you know...that is probably the most RUBBISH argument I've ever put forward.
I retract.
pagey
I hear what you're saying, and yes - CH4 does have some excellent output - but the mandate that channel has is to produce and support 'left field' programming. If all British television was supported by commercials, BBC1, as a popular channel would have to dumb down considerably to play ITV1 at it's own game.
Yes, CH4 is great, but not nearly as great as More4 (The Sopranos) and BBC3 (Little Britain, Nighty Night, Smoking Room).
BBC4 is also quite good, but only if you're the kind of person who really wants to watch a four hour documentary on the Lithuanian steel industry...on a Saturday night...with subtitles.
I hear what you're saying, and yes - CH4 does have some excellent output - but the mandate that channel has is to produce and support 'left field' programming. If all British television was supported by commercials, BBC1, as a popular channel would have to dumb down considerably to play ITV1 at it's own game.
Yes, CH4 is great, but not nearly as great as More4 (The Sopranos) and BBC3 (Little Britain, Nighty Night, Smoking Room).
BBC4 is also quite good, but only if you're the kind of person who really wants to watch a four hour documentary on the Lithuanian steel industry...on a Saturday night...with subtitles.
Pagey don't forget that most american tv has advert breaks before the titles have even finished rolling.....
Ok the tv licence is forced upon us but is only 13 quid a month which is hardly the end of the world, and lets not forget that ITV as an example of advertised tv is seemingly churning our endless pay to enter quiz channels now to fill it coffers.
Ok the tv licence is forced upon us but is only 13 quid a month which is hardly the end of the world, and lets not forget that ITV as an example of advertised tv is seemingly churning our endless pay to enter quiz channels now to fill it coffers.
thing is, the BBC needs to keep it's star players, and the only way to do that is money...otherwise they'd lose a lot of people over to ITV and the likes.
i do understand the argument to abolish the BBC. But personally i think it offers incredible value for money...with all the TV channels, radio stations and it's website is fantastic.
i do understand the argument to abolish the BBC. But personally i think it offers incredible value for money...with all the TV channels, radio stations and it's website is fantastic.
You only have to watch some American channels eg ABC1 on cable/satellite to see how blimmin annoying advert breaks are...and they are more frequent than the breaks we endure on UK terrestrial channels.
To be honest the only time I begrudge the licence fee is when a sporting event is on ~ Wimbledon, snooker,cricket etc..and the Olympics. Not only do I loathe sport, I hate the fact that it seems to be on 24/7 during these times..and on both BBC channels at the same time!
To be honest the only time I begrudge the licence fee is when a sporting event is on ~ Wimbledon, snooker,cricket etc..and the Olympics. Not only do I loathe sport, I hate the fact that it seems to be on 24/7 during these times..and on both BBC channels at the same time!
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.