Don't know Borley-Cox. Remember Borley Rectory - is he from that haunted place? Didn't it burn down ?
Far too much of the bbc tax is wasted on extravagant TV show rubbish (and inflated salaries that rival those of the top dogs at Nationwide) that is better suited to commercial stations.
I don't listen to Local Radio and in the past the BBC was politically totally in awe of the big partys.
Perhaps some chickens are coming home to roost, bird flu permitting.
I do get my local news from this lot, as well as BBC EASTWEST and ITV, so it's another nail in the coffin of local democracy.
The BBC derives about 70pc of its income from the license fee and 30pc from commercial sources. Some of these commercial sources are fairly obvious, like renting out transmitter capacity to commercial stations. Others are much more opaque, such as the income from books, magazines and DVDs. Further others are a near-complete mystery, such as the income from the UKTV network, Britbox and, particularly, BBC America.
The government does have control over the license fee, but it does not tell the BBC how to spend its money and, to a large extent, the BBC doesn't tell us, the license fee payers, how it does that either. One of the biggest costs, however, is its enormous management structure. It is simply astonishing how many people are employed, particularly in inward-facing tasks that have nothing to do with either programme creation or income derivation.
The BBC is, of course, under pressure over the scale of the license fee, which many, quite rightly in my view, consider to be too high, and, again in my view, it was quite right of the Government to force a freeze in the scale of the fee. It is no surprise to BBC watchers, however, that the organisation has chosen to reflect its money shortage in cuts that have newsworthy public impact, such as local broadcasting (nobody told it to do this) rather than looking more critically at its commercial income and, of course, at the ways it administers itself and the scale of the operation that this represents. Managers do, of course, often protect themselves rather than the activities beneath them, but in this particular case, that habit seems to be taken to something of an extreme.
I would just say also that it is concerning that there are still individuals, like Martin Borley-Cox, outside the BBC but benefiting from it, who see a personal advantage in trying to defend the BBC by misleading the public in relation to the origin of these cuts. I also find it something of a shame that, in this article, he was quoted without question or criticism.
Elect a Tory government and this is a direct consequence. It's the thing Tories do best - destruction, mayhem, nastiness, "cancel culture" and vindictiveness.
Really disappointed with the closure of the localised Look East. We have only a limited association with Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex so this makes watching the TV for local news almost pointless
Good comment from Barometer.
Don't know Borley-Cox. Remember Borley Rectory - is he from that haunted place? Didn't it burn down ?
Far too much of the bbc tax is wasted on extravagant TV show rubbish (and inflated salaries that rival those of the top dogs at Nationwide) that is better suited to commercial stations.
I don't listen to Local Radio and in the past the BBC was politically totally in awe of the big partys.
Perhaps some chickens are coming home to roost, bird flu permitting.
I do get my local news from this lot, as well as BBC EASTWEST and ITV, so it's another nail in the coffin of local democracy.
The BBC derives about 70pc of its income from the license fee and 30pc from commercial sources. Some of these commercial sources are fairly obvious, like renting out transmitter capacity to commercial stations. Others are much more opaque, such as the income from books, magazines and DVDs. Further others are a near-complete mystery, such as the income from the UKTV network, Britbox and, particularly, BBC America.
The government does have control over the license fee, but it does not tell the BBC how to spend its money and, to a large extent, the BBC doesn't tell us, the license fee payers, how it does that either. One of the biggest costs, however, is its enormous management structure. It is simply astonishing how many people are employed, particularly in inward-facing tasks that have nothing to do with either programme creation or income derivation.
The BBC is, of course, under pressure over the scale of the license fee, which many, quite rightly in my view, consider to be too high, and, again in my view, it was quite right of the Government to force a freeze in the scale of the fee. It is no surprise to BBC watchers, however, that the organisation has chosen to reflect its money shortage in cuts that have newsworthy public impact, such as local broadcasting (nobody told it to do this) rather than looking more critically at its commercial income and, of course, at the ways it administers itself and the scale of the operation that this represents. Managers do, of course, often protect themselves rather than the activities beneath them, but in this particular case, that habit seems to be taken to something of an extreme.
I would just say also that it is concerning that there are still individuals, like Martin Borley-Cox, outside the BBC but benefiting from it, who see a personal advantage in trying to defend the BBC by misleading the public in relation to the origin of these cuts. I also find it something of a shame that, in this article, he was quoted without question or criticism.
Elect a Tory government and this is a direct consequence. It's the thing Tories do best - destruction, mayhem, nastiness, "cancel culture" and vindictiveness.
Really disappointed with the closure of the localised Look East. We have only a limited association with Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex so this makes watching the TV for local news almost pointless