Bbc To Close Half Its Website, Close Two Radio Stations, Play Less American Shows. Etc...

[Frank Hovis]

Don't want to pay the licence fee.

Simple. Don't watch telly BBC channels then.

Fixed.

[winkie]

The BBC London 94.9 radio is a largely speech-based radio station. It's nearest competitor is LBC 97.3. The latter, despite having commercial breaks, has twice the audience. So what are we paying for this station for?

Talksport is good for insomniacs.

[ZeroSumGame]

Why? Labour ain't going to shut it down.

Didn't say anyone would shut it down. Especially not HM Opposition.

But I do wonder why an American-australian media mogul find it necessary to personally comment on the British political situation.

Oh, and yes he does own a large part of British media already.

And, IIRC even Michael Heseltine thinks that that is somewhat of an unhealthy situation.

Maybe you should take a swatch at FAUX news channel to get a glimpse of your future 'choices'.

Give me Pravda anyday.

And,no I've never worked in the Public Sector nor voted Zanu PF !

[Guest absolutezero]

Didn't say anyone would shut it down. Especially not HM Opposition.

But I do wonder why an American-australian media mogul find it necessary to personally comment on the British political situation.

Oh, and yes he does own a large part of British media already.

And, IIRC even Michael Heseltine thinks that that is somewhat of an unhealthy situation.

Maybe you should take a swatch at FAUX news channel to get a glimpse of your future 'choices'.

Give me Pravda anyday.

And,no I've never worked in the Public Sector nor voted Zanu PF !

I doubt Labour will be HM opposition. We shall see.

[Johnny Storm]

Don't want to pay the licence fee.

Simple. Don't watch telly then.

I dont pay the license fee, or watch broadcast telly. Simple. I still want to see the BBC and license fee abolished though.

Its like you being against slavery and me saying. Simple dont own one.

[Northwest Smith]

Seeing as it is Margaret Thatcher Day the latest declassified documents

The BBC worked hard to block or at least modify the cuts, and one cannot question the corporation's tactical skill and effectiveness. In fact the newly-released Foreign Office file on the topic provides abudant evidence that the corporation successfully administered a beating to the government. In July 1979 Ministers finalised their plans, requiring a reduction of 8.5 per cent for the coming financial year, 1980/81, some £4m. Although the sum was not immediately announced the BBC "have chosen to act as if the figure ... were public knowledge and have orchestrated a campaign in both Houses of Parliament, in the media, and by means of letters from the public", an official wrote. Political pressure was intense. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary were soon offering private clarification and reassurance, pointing out that services to Western Europe were the focus of the exercise.

....

But British opinion was not the only target of the BBC's campaign. Papers at the Carter Library in Atlanta record on 4 October that the "BBC has approached our Embassy in London for help resisting the cuts, and Ambassador Brewster agrees that we should help". Apparently Brewster had already informally lobbied the FCO, but the suggestion now was of a direct approach at head of government level ("the cut is primarily a political decision and cannot be blunted by the FCO without the Prime Minister's approval"). The Americans were told that "the 10 per cent cut" [sic] would require a 25 per cent cut in services, an assertion some in the White House questioned ("why does the BBC not make the needed cuts in other areas?") Nevertheless a draft presidential letter was sent from the State Department to Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's National Security Adviser. "Although I certainly do not want to interfere ..." it began, "I would like, as a long-term friend and ally of Great Britain, to express to you privately and informally my personal concern about the foreign policy implications ... of the prospects of severe cuts in the BBC's foreign language service ... one of the oldest and one of the most essential instruments to get all the truth to those who need it and cannot get it so well elsewhere".

.............

Brzezinski thought better of it: "His reaction was not to involve the President but let Vance [uS Secretary of State] take up the issue with Lord Carrington". This was wise perhaps: such a letter would not have gone down well in Downing Street, particularly if the recipient had received any hint that the BBC had solicited it.

..........

Some six weeks later a middle-ranking Foreign Office official went to lunch with the BBC's Controller of Overseas Services at Bush House for a post mortem. After a "no-holds-barred discussion" the two foresaw that the search for cuts would probably resume at some stage. "We were able to agree in the end", the Foreign Office man recorded, "that it was vital for the BBC and the FCO to fight as far as possible on the same side next time round". They looked forward to a higher level meeting, for which the BBC promised it "would lay on a suitable claret".

MT was almost as suspicious of the FCO as she was of the BBC, so chumminess of this kind between the two would simultaneously have confirmed her instincts and appalled her. In fact some FCO officials were inclined to doubt the BBC's arguments (and the audience figures quoted in support). And the files certainly do not suggest the FCO had any inkling of the BBC's transatlantic initiative, or that they would have endorsed it if they had. But such subtleties would have been lost in the explosion if MT had found out even half the story. Her file on the subject has yet to be released, probably because it contains material from 1980 due for declassification only at the end of this year, so we cannot yet say how much she knew.

From the same page

Alongside and underlying the internal debate about MT's first interview was a gathering storm arising from Conservative perceptions of left-wing bias on the part of the BBC. MT's feelings in this matter were of long standing.

Trouble began in July when the BBC's Tonight programme broadcast an interview with a representative of the Irish terrorist group that had murdered her close colleague, Airey Neave, three months earlier. MT saw a transcript and told the Commons on 12 July: "I am appalled that it was ever transmitted. I believe that it reflects gravely upon the judgment of the BBC and those responsible for the decision". (BBC senior management later accepted it had been a mistake to show it.) In early August MT's Political Secretary at No.10, Richard Ryder, wrote to Conservative Central Office to determine BBC complaints procedures, anticipating an avalanche of them from party and public. And on 19 September Ian Gow, MT's powerful PPS, wrote a note enclosing a transcript of a BBC Panorama programme two days earlier, examining reactions in Cheshire to spending cuts introduced by the Conservative-controlled county council. "Much of it reads like the text of a Labour Party Political Broadcast", he wrote. "Would you contact Lord Thorneycroft" [Party Chairman], she replied. "I really think we should protest officially". Annotations on the transcript show that the Prime Minister read all fifteen pages, taking particularly offence at a striking and odd feature of the programme, that brief texts from the scriptures were voiced-over in running commentary on Cheshire County Council policy: "Ask and it shall be given to you ..." (Matthew 7:7), "If your son asked you for bread, should he be given a stone?" (Luke 11:11).

But Panorama irked her much more deeply in early November. Reports appeared in the press that a crew from the programme had filmed IRA men in balaclavas staging a road-block in South Armagh. At PM's Questions in the Commons on 8 November the Leader of the Opposition, Jim Callaghan, condemned the BBC for manufacturing rather than reporting the news

Edited February 27, 2010 by Northwest Smith

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

News Corporation (and ITV) are not choices.

BBC most certainly is.

nonsense.

according to the BBC's 2008–2009 Annual Report, the BBC received £294.6 million from government grants.

that's money taken from me by force.

No such thing as a free lunch remember...

just so long as I'm not forced to pay for someone else's lunch.

[Guest sillybear2]

Unless they use the savings to cut the licence fee, what's the point? We'll still be paying the same (or more) but for less in return, their guaranteed income has to be spent somehow so if these savings end up back in the pot it's bonus galore.

[wizzstick]

nonsense.

according to the BBC's 2008–2009 Annual Report, the BBC received £294.6 million from government grants.

that's money taken from me by force.

just so long as I'm not forced to pay for someone else's lunch.

Grief - this is so simple a child could grasp it. So here is a simple analogy:

Little old lady stops paying for her TV Licence as she no longer watches TV.

However she continues to pay for ITV and Sky. How? Advertising budgets! Advertising does not come for free. And businesses don't have advertisement budgets from thin air.

These budgets are built into the price of goods that she pays when she goes to Tesco's etc. So a % of her bill goes to ITV and Sky and other advertisers, regardless of whether she has a TV.

So she can opt out of BBC but can't of ITV or Sky. Great eh?

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone, somewhere, sometime, somehow pays...

[Guest sillybear2]

nonsense.

according to the BBC's 2008–2009 Annual Report, the BBC received £294.6 million from government grants.

that's money taken from me by force.

To be fair that's to fund the BBC World Service, basically the overseas propaganda arm of the FCO.

Domestic indoctrination is paid for by the licence fee, 6Music costs £6m per year out of a total budget of £3,600m, so we're talking about vast savings here... 20p of your licence fee.

Edited February 27, 2010 by sillybear2

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

However she continues to pay for ITV and Sky. How? Advertising budgets! Advertising does not come for free. And businesses don't have advertisement budgets from thin air.

if an old lady swaps her money for a tin of Heinz beans, then the money now belongs to Heinz and they can spend it on advertising or whatever else they want.

the old lady chose to buy the beans.

she did not choose to have the money forcibly taken from her that went towards the ~£300 in BBC government grants.

[Oliver Sutton]

if an old lady swaps her money for a tin of Heinz beans, then the money now belongs to Heinz and they can spend it on advertising or whatever else they want.

the old lady chose to buy the beans.

she did not choose to have the money forcibly taken from her that went towards the ~£300 in BBC government grants.

So you'd take her pension away as well.

Because it's been forcibly taken from you.

[wizzstick]

if an old lady swaps her money for a tin of Heinz beans, then the money now belongs to Heinz and they can spend it on advertising or whatever else they want.

the old lady chose to buy the beans.

she did not choose to have the money forcibly taken from her that went towards the ~£300 in BBC government grants.

Choose to eat food? Dear lord - that takes some reasoning!

You can choose not have a TV and therefore not pay for a TV licence.

You can't opt out of eating, or indeed buying goods to live. So you're somewhat tied into paying for the ITV network via advertising costs

.

Tres simple....

[Executive Sadman]

The BBC London 94.9 radio is a largely speech-based radio station. It's nearest competitor is LBC 97.3. The latter, despite having commercial breaks, has twice the audience. So what are we paying for this station for?

Considering tomorrow's line-up, I am amazed that they get any listeners at all:

They probably dont. And therein lies the problem, it doesnt matter if no one listens to it, they get funding regardless. Sure some hatchet job report gets done saying it serves some rather debatable, subjective social good and therefore should continue to broadcast. But we all know its just providing jobs for the boys at the license payers expense.

RIght/left pro/anti govt issues aside, the fact is if the BBC was as good as its supporters say it is, more than enough people would be happy enough to pay for it for that very reason.

The fact they dont want it funded that way tells me all i need to know. They know the majority of people dont think the BBC is worth paying for through peoples own free will.

[wizzstick]

RIght/left pro/anti govt issues aside, the fact is if the BBC was as good as its supporters say it is, more than enough people would be happy enough to pay for it for that very reason.

Given the impact that piracy has had on the music industry, I wouldn't be so sure.

[DeepLurker]

Given the impact that piracy has had on the music industry, I wouldn't be so sure.

From what I hear, there's never been so many live gigs as right now...

Oh, of course, for the music industry (as opposed to the artists) things are rather difficult right now...

[Guest DoubleDigitCrackPipe]

To be fair that's to fund the BBC World Service, basically the overseas propaganda arm of the FCO.

Domestic indoctrination is paid for by the licence fee, 6Music costs £6m Jonathan Ross's salary, per year out of a total budget of £3,600m, so we're talking about vast savings here... 20p of your licence fee.

Fixed

[Guest DoubleDigitCrackPipe]

Can we axe individual shows as well as stations?

Don't answer the Question Time

The Martin Roberts Property Ramp Romp

Feel free to add yours.

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

BBC is one of the few good thing left in the UK.

If it goes then the Uk will become even more of a craphole.

Righties hate the BBC because its produces a product which is cheap and very good.

In their warped minds this cannot be true because only a private company can do this.

lol that's nailed it.

BBC is very very cheap for what it is. It could do with cutting down tho. And the news content is a bit biased, but so what? ITN or Sky isn't? At least it provides a little balance.

[Northwest Smith]

lol that's nailed it.

BBC is very very cheap for what it is. It could do with cutting down tho. And the news content is a bit biased, but so what? ITN or Sky isn't? At least it provides a little balance.

You can't compare the BBC to Sky, Sky spend near a Billion on marketing and Subscriber management.

[Qetesuesi]

Why has nobody picked up on this yet:

The Conservative party, tipped to win the next general election and traditionally more hostile towards the BBC than the current Labour administration, is expected to freeze the licence fee.

That really falls into the "ocean's near the shore" category of statements.

What political party wouldn't be "more hostile" to the Beeb than the party it slavishly gives a relatively easy ride to?

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

if an old lady swaps her money for a tin of Heinz beans, then the money now belongs to Heinz and they can spend it on advertising or whatever else they want.

the old lady chose to buy the beans.

she did not choose to have the money forcibly taken from her that went towards the ~£300 in BBC government grants.

Choose to eat food? Dear lord - that takes some reasoning!

...

I clearly wrote Heinz beans, not food in general. learn to read.

...

You can choose not have a TV and therefore not pay for a TV licence.

..

so what. given that the gov't gives the beeb hundreds of millions of pounds a year of tax-payers' money, you'd still be paying for it.

anyway, I should be able to choose to have a TV and simultaneously choose not to pay for a TV license.

...

You can't opt out of eating, or indeed buying goods to live. So you're somewhat tied into paying for the ITV network via advertising costs

nobody forces you to buy food, but you are forced to pay for the government grants towards the BBC.

force is the difference.

force is always evil; advertising isn't.

[wizzstick]

anyway, I should be able to choose to have a TV and simultaneously choose not to pay for a TV license.

You can!

You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch programmes on your computer after they have been shown on TV.

nobody forces you to buy food

Well if you don't buy food, you err...die. So you are forced really, aren't you? Keep up.

force is always evil; advertising isn't.

Force?

You must hate being forced to pay your taxes for the upkeep of the roads etc.

When you are sick, do you whine about being forced to pay for the NHS?

Learn to construct intelligent arguments please.

[Spoony]

As much as I would like to see the BBC trimming its web presence and closing down the Asian Network (another PC pandering to Labour open door immigration policy) and BBC 6 Music - a station with very low audience figures.......... to save 600Million£. I don't think its going to happen. Its some kind of PR planned leak to sprew, "save 6 music" campaigns and outcry to justify its existance and role.They won't make the chop, claiming public support

[Saberu]

Not as much as News Corporation, with Murdoch wanting to charge people who look at his websites and content, and then ranting that Google is a "vampire".

If Murdoch had it his way, the internet would be owned by big media and there would be no organic search...everyone would have to pay to be included on some kind of directory.

No matter what bad things anyone can say about Google...and I know better than anyone of how the corruption of organic search works as I'm somewhat of an expert, it could be a lot worse