To think the BBC really should be shut down?

[Loeri]

After the child abuse scandals, and now this where BBC execs have been given payments far beyond anything they were required to be given, isn't it time that the BBC was just shut down? It can't really be said that it makes the best TV in the world anymore, the best TV programmes come from the US and have done for well over a decade now. I just don't see the purpose of the BBC in 2013. It is arrogant, bloated beyond belief and seems only to exist to provide cushy jobs for the Guardian set.

Blimey. Odd outcome to this thread...

I think we get incredible value from the BBC. I agree that there have been huge mistakes made at senior executive level which have wasted vast sums of money - but it's not alone in this. Look at banking, failed government IT projects, the HS2 costings cockup- taxpayers have paid out millions to bail out the errors of private companies, government initiatives, and consultants. Doesn't make the BBC's mistakes right, but at least something is being done about it. And I would be interested to see figures proving that the BBC is a net cost to the UK , if we also factor in revenue from sales of BBC programming plus indirect revenue from UK industries heavily supported by the BBC , such as music.

It would appear that there were catastrophic failings in the management of men who were child abusers- clearly this is inexcusable. Many other agencies also failed the victims- this includes the police, the commercial broadcast companies who also employed these men, the management of several hospitals, and the PM and government of the time who portrayed Savile as a hero. All of them need to be made to answer for their lack of action.

We have a state broadcaster which is independent of the government's political agenda. This is a rare thing. Do people really believe that it's better to have all news reporting from agencies owned by a corrupt president, or news channels so biased they call election results for the man they want?

There is so much more to broadcasting than bickering over which is the best drama about people getting murdered. BBC radio is all I can bear to listen to- can't be doing with shouty phone-in men and crap 80s MOR interspersed with ads for double glazing every 4 minutes. It covers popular music, classical music, alternative music, comedy, drama, documentaries, news, current affairs, science, the arts- a hugely varied output which other broadcasters don't even bother trying to match. Same again for TV- there may be US broadcasters currently producing quality science programming, but I certainly can't see any evidence for it on ITV. And then there's the huge online content, including the educational sites- if you have children, there's every chance that your children have accessed the BBC's educational programming and online content, because so much of it is high-quality and relevant.

Sneering at the BBC because you don't like opera is missing the point - the fact that the BBC produces this huge variety of programming means that there is something for everyone.

Meant to add: but I DO want the BBC to have a good long hard look at itself and its own culture, and stop wasting money and creating a toxic working culture.

I love the bbc. It's about the only channel on in our house (apart from sky sports). I could live without it........but unhappily. Not interested in the programmes the OP is talking about, wouldn't watch them anyway.

I know that's tame considering the previous 13 pages.....

Yabu. I

I thought the problem with pay per view for the BBC is that you can't get the volume of funding. HBO has the whole of the US to subscribe from. Sky charges a fortune, and had advertising. But then if so many people arent paying their TV licences and people are watching on laptops etc without paying, surely it would be a better system? The only problem would be the radio output, i suppose which cant be subscription only. I do think that the BBC is too wideranging, and doesn't really need as many radio/TV channels, but the minute they try to downsize, there is an outcry. I don't really understand why they have to compete on reality TV like the Voice or on Local radio when it is done adequately by commercial channels. They could just concentrate on quality dramas, documentaries and childrens programming, which just doesnt get made by commercial channels to nearly a high enough standard. I would definitely pay, as I really only watch/ listen to the BBC.

I am not sure sexual harrassment and abuse around the 1970s/1980s was in any way confined to the BBC or even the television industry. It seemed to be fairly rampant throughout the entire media, and music industry as well. The reason we know more about what went on at the BBC is because people are able to do Freedom of Information requests, whereas for private companies they are not.

FlicktheSwitch, I feel the same way about my taxes etc subsidising the House of Commons bar, whole body scanning in airports, and childcare for people who are not working, but we can't always pick and choose what we want our money to support and some of it has to go into the collective pot.

Good posts BoffiMum

Hear hear boffinmum

Sorry, I spelt your name wrong Boffinmum but I still agree with your points.

"I am not sure sexual harrassment and abuse around the 1970s/1980s was in any way confined to the BBC or even the television industry. "

It wasn't. But, and this is the point that's missed on the "oh, it was all a long time ago", only the BBC had meetings over canapes at awards dinner (shouldn't these sort of decisions be taken in the office, with people minuting it?), the upshot of which was the shelving of an investigative journalist's completed and already legally-cleared story, probably on the grounds that broadcasting it would compromise an already-made hagiography. ITV eventually ran the story, because the BBC was too cowardly to expose a dead paedophile.

The Rippon Report is an account of a complete car-crash of governance, with George Entwhistle and Helen Boaden seemingly conducting their entire business over canapes and drinks parties, and (as with the payments to senior staff) no-one keeping minutes, everyone denying reading their email, etc, etc. Paragraphs 59 to 78 of Part Two are a disgrace, and everyone involved should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. And stuff later in the report like "Mr Mitchell said (as was a common feature of his evidence) that he could remember virtually nothing of this meeting.81 I found the frequency with which Mr Mitchell?s memory failed him surprising." and "Ms Boaden agreed that the decision to take the Savile story off the MRPL did not make any sense.92 She said she could not account for the decision, which she said ?[didn?t] add up?.93 Lord Patten described the decision as ?extraordinary?.94" is hardly reassuring, is it?

People get so cross about such weird stuff. Who cares, really, about being obliged to pay a hundred and something quid to watch telly?

If you don't like it, buy a big monitor, a fat download pipe from your favourite cable company, a tablet or PC, and away you go... you could even get away with watching BBC programmes on iPlayer, although it wouldn't really be in the right spirit of things.

i do think it's pretty weird that people can be sent to prision for not paying the tv licence and think some sort of opt out should be available. don't really know why everyone has to pay when there are so many other tv and radio stations. seems antiquated to me.

i do watch bbc four occasionally and listen to bbc london radio but apart from that the same old dross on the bbc (eastenders, strictly come dancing etc) really doesn't appeal to me and would like to opt out like i can with other channels.

see boffin i quite enjoy pbs, they have quite alot of educational programmes (albeit US based ie, the mafia, the blues, the brooklyn bridge etc) but that appeal far more to me than songs of praise or countryfile and that bleeding midwives programme

I love the BBC! I'd pay them more no problem. David Attenbrough is worth the license fee alone.

see there are possibly enough people willing to pay to subsidise those who don't. i don't really see the problem with them being made to compete with other stations who have to rely on advertising. at least they have the option of being subsidised by the viewer who wants it.

would be nice to pick and choose what you pay for rather than all or nothing.

catham, why do you think it's weird? You have to pay for all sorts of services that you don't necessarily need via taxes etc. What's the big deal? It's just a social contract. Others are available in other countries...

I love the BBC, I'm very happy to pay my licence fee for R6, R4, CBeebies, Only Connect, HIGNFY, the Olympics coverage was fantastic (US friends were very critical of US coverage of this).
US telly in the US is mainly adverts, really annoying. When C4 covered the Paralympics they got lots of criticism for adverts. C4 is also excellent and also tax funded, albeit in part.

Lots of BBC shows have been exported to the US, Top Gear, Strictly and GBBO all have US versions.

Oh dear. It is really going to be a riot with the select committee on Monday. Mark Thompson's submission to the PAC has been published and it's as full of fun as a fun-filled thing. Mark Thompson appears to have learnt a lot while in New York, particularly how to have people whacked by the mob. His submission appears to be an iron fist in an iron glove. If you enjoy watching ferrets fighting in a sack, tune into to BBC Parliament (I presume) on Monday: double your pleasure, double their viewing figures.

i think it's weird to be sent to prision for not paying the licence - the big deal is that it's separated out from other taxes as a standalone charge.

For me the licence fee is up there with road tax - if you take your car off the drive one day a year you pay the same as someone who drives tens of thousands of miles a year, for example. Seems to be the same with telly (although people who only listen to the radio get it for free, for some reason).

friday16 I was impressed you had read and analysed the Entwistle/Boaden/Adams documentation.

"although people who only listen to the radio get it for free, for some reason"

There was a separate Wireless License until February 1971. You needed a separate one for your cars. You could purchase either a Wireless Licence or a combined TV and Wireless License. As the number of people with TVs rose, the number of people buying the Wireless-only one dropped precipitantly, and it was abandoned as a separate thing on the grounds that so few were being issued. It cost a pound for most of the post-war period, rising to £1 5s (£1.25) in 1965.

Unhelpful aside....Just to say, it's not Road tax, but Vehicle Excise Duty. Would post a link but it is from the BBC website....