I generally like the BBC but feel that the fee is an outdated and regressive 'poll tax' and we should be able to watch Sky subscription television channels without having to pay for a BBC licence. I am not happy with the fact that my fee covers rubbish music stations like Radio 1 and the fact that my fee increases year on year and their aggressive expansion into the realm of film and online business becomes less and less related to my genre of interest only further annoys me. They have enough in their archives that they could sell on to the likes of DAVE and other channels to either remove the fee or at least substantially reduce it. 5 months ago via web

hi,
i am a fan of the beeb, but the last 6 months they seem to have slowed down with their productions. they cant blame "lack of advertising" like the rest..... so what is happening

jim 5 months ago via web

Hunky Mike, I could not agree with you more, as I said in my blog, the BBC is a wonderful organisation: I am a huge fan and make use of all aspects of its output. But this is not an argument for taking a totally uncritical view of its activities. As licence fee payers we are entitled to some assurance that our money is being used wisely. Statements involving monkeys and peanuts and top managers’ salaries being a miniscule proportion of the BBC budget do not elevate the argument. The proportion is certainly not miniscule and since a very large proportion of the BBC’s budget is paid in salaries, what goes on at the top will have a strong influence on the expenditure of the whole organisation.

What concerns me is the question of the level of independent review of BBC salaries is fit for purpose. If I can be reassured of that I will be very happy, because I certainly don’t grudge my annual contribution – I think that it is great value for money.

Incidentally, the BBC Trust made a statement on 29th October that it has agreed 25 per cent cut in BBC senior management pay bill over three and a half years, followed by a freeze for three further years (albeit proposed by the BBC Executive). That’s a very encouraging development, but I am not sure why that they would be doing that if they thought that they were already giving great value for money. I’m afraid that the cynic in me might be inclined to think that in the current climate this is hasty action to avoid a more penetrating investigation of BBC activities.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/october/management_pay.shtml
8 months ago via web

The BBC is the premier media organisation in the world. The consistently stunning standard is unmatched by any others. And if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. And there is no relationship between reducing these top managers salaries and reducing the licence fee, that's a red herring. Any reductions would constitute an utterly miniscule percentage of the BBC's budget. Don't whinge about trivialities, check out the website and see what an amazing amount of world class product you get for your money. A bigger bang for your buck I cannot think of. 8 months ago via web

The BBC is a wonderful organisation, its content is of consistently very high quality, and it has become part of the fabric of our existence in the UK. One only needs to take a trip across the pond to realise how fortunate we are to inhabit this green and pleasant land. BUT - 37 staff earning more than the Prime Minister? 300 managers earning more than £100,000? Are they having a larf? Are they forgetting that with the licence fee they are in a monopoly situation? Very many people in the country struggle to pay this fee, and if they are not able to pay, the licence fee police are on their doorstep ready to apply a hefty fine. And yet, a significant proportion of the fee appears to be supporting one of the longest gravy trains in the UK.

Maybe there is something in George Osborne’s plan – the only problem is, it’s not retrospective, and so the gravy train will lumber on, at least for a while, and probably long enough for a way around this draconian salary limit to be found.
8 months ago via web