Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

blankster

Bbc Cuts - What Should They Axe?

Recommended Posts

For a long time Radio 4's programme 'Woman's Hour' has been an embarrassing and anachronistic example of positive discrimination. I'm not having a go at the presenters and some of the content is valid although there's still a lot about glass ceilings etc. But the very idea that there should be a special womens' programme is outmoded.

Now is the time for it to be axed in the name of gender equality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a long time Radio 4's programme 'Woman's Hour' has been an embarrassing and anachronistic example of positive discrimination. I'm not having a go at the presenters and some of the content is valid although there's still a lot about glass ceilings etc. But the very idea that there should be a special womens' programme is outmoded.

Now is the time for it to be axed in the name of gender equality.

Wasn't there the Locker Room. Sort of like the Association of White Police Officers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Programs like "I'm hotter than my minger daughter" or such like on BBC 3. "Two Gags and a Packet of Condoms", "Snog Marry Regret?", "Dawn gets... an interesting idea at last" and "The King is a Dud".

Lots of room for sweeping cuts there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no need to cut any program or job. All that needs cutting is the inflated salaries that have spiralled out of control under New Labour.

As per the previous director general Greg Dyke:

It doesn't have to pay its director general £800,000. "It is a good job, and Mark [Thompson] earns more than twice what I earned when I was doing it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/7348869/Greg-Dyke-BBC-director-general-Mark-Thompson-overpaid-and-out-of-touch.html

I've lost track of the number of people paid more than the PM and those on over £100k that weren't deemed worthy of being put on the list of high earners "because they didn't have enough responsibility".

It should be a simple choice for the looters - large pay cut or look for another job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My first to go would be those silly and entirely pointless graphics between each program, those swimming hippos/cyclists going round and round etc.

There must be a team of 'generic crap graphics' designers somewhere, all on a hefty salary whilst all we really need is a logo telling us it is the BBC (though even that is possibly over the top).

I would also get rid of BBC3 entirely (BBC 4 too I guess?) as there is no reason why BBC1 and 2 get loads of repeats and some stuff starts off on BBC3 or 4 only to be repeated later on 1 or 2.

I would like to see BBC4 moved to show repeats of classic BBC history and natural history programs from the archive new stuff goes straight onto BBC2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a long time Radio 4's programme 'Woman's Hour' has been an embarrassing and anachronistic example of positive discrimination. I'm not having a go at the presenters and some of the content is valid although there's still a lot about glass ceilings etc. But the very idea that there should be a special womens' programme is outmoded.

Now is the time for it to be axed in the name of gender equality.

They should axe bloody Jenni Murray for a start - has she got a job for life on WH or what? And she's utterly obsessed with breast cancer - seems that whenever I catch WH (never on purpose) they're on about it yet again - only this morning I switched JM off for this reason for the umpteenth time.

I once actually bought a novel because in the first couple of pages the main character switched off the car radio purely because it was bloody WH banging on about breast cancer again. Talk about identifiying with a character.

Novel turned out to be about a lesbian affair, though. Yuck. That'll teach me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were 382 executives who received six-figure salaries, with as many as 58 earning more than the Prime Minister's £194,250-a-year wage.

A "100k list" obtained by The Sunday Telegraph shows that the total cost of the high earners' salaries was the equivalent of the television licence fees paid by 400,000 households.

....

The highest earners were Mark Thompson, the director general on £664,000, and Mark Byford, the deputy director general on £471,000

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/7230366/BBC-has-382-staff-earning-more-than-100000.html

That £664k for Thompson doesn't include his pension top-up from the secret slush fund:

FAT CAT BBC director general Mark Thompson and his executive directors are pocketing cash from a “secret pension pot” while asking staff to accept cuts in their own retirement packages.

<P class=storycopy itxtvisited="1">A multi-million-pound “pension slush fund” allows Thompson and eight executive board members the cash but the rest of the workers are excluded

It is well known Thompson earns £831,000 but what was not known until today is that £163,000 is a pension perk listed in accounts as “other remuneration”. In addition to the executive board 30 other senior executives receive the “other remuneration”.

This looter is stopping his pension top-up.

Mark Thompson has told BBC staff today that he and other senior executives will give up their pension top-ups

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/30/mark-thompson-bbc-pension

What is happening to the top-ups he already trousered? Why is he still in the job?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree about the dreary and patronising[1] wimmins hour. But on the subject of radio, they could start by axing that entire monument to mindlessness Radio 2. And other pop stations that do no more than duplicate what the commercial sector provide.

Can't say anything about the telly - I don't have one.

[1] Or should that be matronising? Oo-er!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I'd scrap all salaries above 150k-they can't all move to other channels. There are plenty of unknowns who would apply for most of the presenting/editing/production jobs. eg. Jonathon Ross, does anyone seriously think he is so talented that he couldn't be adequately replaced with someone on about 1% of his salary?

That said, I only watch maybe an hour or two of TV a week on all channels if you exclude cricket and films. Can't remember the last decent bbc comedy series to have come out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly --presenters should be on a reasonable salary - its not as if they need any qualifications for the job

...I think they should change the presenters more often, I am fed up with looking at the same faces and knees shift around on the settee, the same voices mannerisms and grimaces...there must be plenty of talent out there that would do just a good a job, or even better for a lot less. It belongs to the people is paid for by the people, let more of the people show them how good they are ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris Moyles should be slashed (metaphorically and literally, arguably).

Recent figures show that Moyles is losing listeners (possibly to Radio 2's Chris Evans).

Radio 1's target audience is, I seem to remember, 16- to 24-year-olds. There's only so long they'll be suckered by a greying, overweight man who's waiting for middle-age to take him into anonymity,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of it's news content could be cut which would be a major blow for the labour party it favours so much, signal an end to champagne socialism and save us a fortune. After all most of it is on a par with the sun newspaper. I hate it most when these pathetic people with their fingers deepest in the pot report on inflated salaries and expenses, and I'm fed up with hearing the views of vile labour mp's everyday. They could do a lot of good for the country executing bbc news and all it's subsidiaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 144 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.