Vocal Voices

I watched a bit of this on the news this afternoon, when BBC high ups past and present were being quizzed about how some of their ex-colleagues were walking off with ££££££££££'s in their back pockets.
I say "a bit" advisedly; because that's all I could stand to watch.
Honestly, what a shower!
"I didn't know, it was him, it was them, it wasn't our committee, it was their committee...."
Never in all my born days have I heard such a load of obfuscation, word mangling and all round B.S.
And the buzzwords! Were meetings held, was information passed?
"I believe there was some triangulation...."

I would abolish the whole bloody thing tomorrow and make them get a proper job.

How much would we have saved on the annual licence fee if all these pay-offs had been stopped?

we should refuse to buy a liscence
mine is due as well in october
what a load of waffle made me cringe to watch them should all be sacked without pay offs

How easy it is to spend other people's money when there is no oversight.
And how easy it is to pull the wool over over the eyes of MPs?
Well, it would be wouldn't it? They are looking for a well paid job after living a life of Riley with all their expenses and so on.
The whole thing was a waste of time charade.

I think I have mentioned the nasty harassment and threats of an visit from the Bailiffs unless I paid my licence fee, this went on for months, I requested that the Bailiffs come to my door, did not happen. It took a full account being published in a newspaper along with me looking outraged waving their threatening letters before the idiots apologised and sent me a bunch of flowers, as I stated many aged and infirm would have been confused and distressed not able to fight the crooks.
The quality of the BBC has little to recommend it. I remember Patten in Singapore pompous individual.

I was pursued too, Kate for a licence for the flat I had for my son in London, where there was no television. Sent the last notice back torn up with stop pestering me on it. That seemed to quieten them. Why ever you need a licence to do anything as harmless as watch television I cannot understand, not that I pay it anyway. Driving a vehicle or owning a gun of course has to be licenced, maybe a dog too, but I always say you can do no harm with your eyes. Perhaps the BBC should be privatised as they are so keen on raising the wind.

The BBC outsourced license collection. So they set loose a company who's single goal is to get as much money as possible from every single homeowner. Of course the easiest way to do that is to "assume" that everyone watches TV and has one. Putting the onus on those who do not, to prove that they do not.

In this society of TV addicts, it is easy for them to convince themselves that nobody would possibly want to live without the puerile pap that is delivered as "entertainment" today.

I clearly recall the jokes about US TV back in the 1970's. "99 channels and nothing on". Of course what the British people failed to recognise was that it was not about viewer satisfaction, it was all about Money. Now that we are there, perhaps we can appreciate what the Americans have been living with for nearly 4 decades...

In France the situation is different. If you have the equipment to receive a broadcast then you pay a license. I'm sure they all thought about demanding a license for Internet use, but , in the end, decided that it was better that people used it. I'm sure they are now regretting this fact even though they save more money through online systems than they would ever have collected, net, in license fees.

overstaffed and overpaid

I don't quite get what the BBC is about any more.

It runs 57 radio stations, so there must be some duplication of management functions and content. It has four TV channels and their regional variants with more duplication. It is involved in all sorts of R&D e.g. Digital and HD transmissions, which benefit other commercial stations; and it produces very little in-house except for news.

The last part I find confusing. The work outsourced to other production companies must cost more. They have to make profits for their shareholders and to pay staff and studio costs, yet they still use the same pool of actors, writers and extras as would be used by the BBC.