Outraged at BBC Party and Drunk Celebs

[mrsgogo]

Who is paying for this party at the BBC - the licence payer????

And do we really want to see interviews with drunk celebs?

..and I was delighted she got in.

I think they should have had one sleb, as a token, to represent all the famous people:
'So tell me Maureen, as a famous person, what does this election mean to you?'
'Well Andrew, I and all the other famous people think.....'

It wasn't 'engineered' to be broadcast - it WAS broadcast! There's no evidence of the Beeb trying to hide this fact - it was on the telly for all to see or am I missing something?!

I've already made clear my stance that the bbc did not need to have celebs but I do think they , on the whole, got the editorial policy right. Make no mistake, they will have been absolutely aware that every single minute AND penny will be open to scutiny and I truely believe all expenditure stand such examination. All channels have to abide by very strict guidelines during an election.

If you really want to know where every single penny was spent, write to them and request the info under the Freedom of Information Act - there is (I think) a statute of limitations on it but they do have to reply to you within a timeframe. That's the beauty of a publically funded broadcaster! Wouldn't get that info out of Cowell!!

just knowing were the money was spent does not make the spending right.

Hmmm, Jools Holland - the New Year shindig they do on BBC2 every year, I wonder if they have to pay for their own drinks there

Furious - not but it might allow you (anyone) to make a completely informed arguement.

Withour - expect you are right - they probably do get a couple of free drinks. That's a 'couple' - you would want the audience to be hammered as a) difficult to produce and b) health and safety issues. But it is NYE, so I don't begrudge a couple of shandies!

Oh ffs, it cost 30,000 and tried to make the election coverage a bit lighter. It's VERY hard to make a programme of any quality for that amount.

GiveTheBeebAFreakingBreakTiggaxx

A voice of reason!

High Fives Tigga

oh well only 30,000 thats ok then!!

Well, without 'outing' myself, I do have a fair bit of knowledge on this and I have to tell you that 30k is very tight. It's just not possible to make television for nothing! FWIW, each episode of the X Factor costs in the region of £1 million (including presenter fees).

I know you'll say 'but that's not paid for by the licence fee' and no, it's not. But we do have a public broadcaster in this country. Yes, we could do away with it but then we'd end up with telly that was completely driven by advertisers and making telly that provided them with the audience they wanted and not telly for the audience. If you want to see what this would look like, then try and have a look at some of the European country's output. I for one do not want a landscape of wall to wall gameshows.

There is a reason British TV production is considered the best in the world. And the BBC has a huge amount to do with that.

Gosh what to know who r are now!

Ok I can see what you mean 30,000 might not be too bad. Also I have lived in Australia - in the days before Sky so I know how bad TV can be.

Don't worry - I'm a complete nobody! [wink)

or !

Probably joan Collins- thats why so upset at criticism of 'broadcast'.

I'll have you know I have MUCH better syrups!