Anorak Nation: Discussion: Friday, 1 August 2008

Eric Tesug <...> said:
Why Should Licence Fee Payers Pay for BBC Mistakes?

I refer the honourable gentlemen to my previous reply on another thread.

The only way to punish these people is to sack them. As a consequence of this non -sense ,as a freelance I had to waste a morning of my time , unpaid I might add, attending a bullsh*t seminar on how not to con the viewers and listeners. All of which was blindingly obvious, but i had to attend to be considered a worthy person to be employed by the Corporation !

Encrypt the Beeb, make it subscription based in this digital age ! GRRRRRRRR.......

In article <574766618294ff48a346dc89c291f1fa@jiglu-wc>, ... (plus8 plus8) wrote:

Eric Tesug <...> said:
Why Should Licence Fee Payers Pay for BBC Mistakes?
I refer the honourable gentlemen to my previous reply on another
thread.
The only way to punish these people is to sack them. As a
consequence of this non -sense ,as a freelance I had to waste a
morning of my time , unpaid I might add, attending a bullsh*t
seminar on how not to con the viewers and listeners. All of which
was blindingly obvious, but i had to attend to be considered a
worthy person to be employed by the Corporation !

These things happen in many companies, to create a level playing field training is applied to all or the alternative would be 'I didn't know Guv you didn't tell me......'.
And therefore, how can you sack someone who is employed and protected by both employment law and probably a union? In modern UK working practises it would be almost impossible.

Encrypt the Beeb, make it subscription based in this digital age !
GRRRRRRRR_....

I find it interesting that you work for a Corporation which has its roots in free access to UK subjects and yet you want to reduce access to many. Making it a subscription service would, for sure, increase costs and make watching the BBC for expensive!

Eric

Ahoy hoy Eric

Eric Tesug <...> said:
And therefore, how can you sack someone who is employed and protected by
both employment law and probably a union? In modern UK working practises
it would be almost impossible.

Betcu is toothless, but in general terms if those in charge knew and condoned these practises... heads should roll.

I find it interesting that you work for a Corporation which has its roots
in free access to UK subjects and yet you want to reduce access to many.
Making it a subscription service would, for sure, increase costs and make
watching the BBC for expensive!
Eric

I'll lay my cards out here.

I was trained by the BBC and am grateful for possibly the best background in the media anywhere. I worked in the Corporation for ten years and have been a freelance for over twenty. My beef is – the the BBC is Judge and Jury in his multi layer world. I'ts too comfortable. A guaranteed income with lip service accountability.

Far from restricting access Iam just suggesting fair choice. Yep it would make the Beeb cut it's cloth and that would not be a bad thing.

Regards.

In article <edc11379ce3cfba8f304e0a428f1a063@jiglu-wc>, ... (plus8 plus8) wrote:

And therefore, how can you sack someone who is employed and
protected by
both employment law and probably a union? In modern UK working
practises
it would be almost impossible.
Betcu is toothless, but in general terms if those in charge knew
and condoned these practises_ heads should roll.

IF is a big word.

I find it interesting that you work for a Corporation which has
its roots
in free access to UK subjects and yet you want to reduce access
to many.
Making it a subscription service would, for sure, increase costs
and make
watching the BBC for expensive!
Eric
I'll lay my cards out here.
I was trained by the BBC and am grateful for possibly the best
background in the media anywhere. I worked in the Corporation for
ten years and have been a freelance for over twenty. My beef is _
the the BBC is Judge and Jury in his multi layer world. I'ts too
comfortable. A guaranteed income with lip service accountability.
Far from restricting access Iam just suggesting fair choice. Yep it
would make the Beeb cut it's cloth and that would not be a bad
thing.

I don't think it is Judge and Jury these days – it was very interesting watching them report the Parliamentary Committee a few weeks back.
An MP posed questions about varies things to do with funding and received the reply that things like the Proms and BBC Parliament would be axed along with savage cuts at R3/R4.
What I found interesting was the MPs were constantly referring to things for old people, nothing that I recall about encouraging the younger people paying for the BBC to get something for their money.
Not once did I hear well why don't you cut back on the Proms so you can do more concerts for young people – funny that.
My point being, if the Beeb were to go where you are suggesting the people who would lose out would be the ones complaining most now. Trouble is once the BBC has gone down that route there is no return. Therefore, by all means go where you want if you effectively want to kill the BBC and then there would be Zero balance between PSB and commercial channels.

Nothing in the media is perfect, but often better the devil you know......

B.R.
Eric

Ahoy Hoy

In article <77aba00fdad0fac48295e0254d56f214@jiglu-wc>, ... (plus8 plus8) wrote:

I'll admit it _ I am an old grumpy git.

Join the club

But let's go back to the original thread.

Yes

Question: _ ' Why Should Licence Fee Payers Pay for BBC Mistakes?'
Answer:- Definitley not.

There I agree, so let's look at the options. Had this happened before there would have been screams of cover-up, at certain times, and then as we moved mid-90s there was more of an open attitude.
Enter Ofcom as the BBC's regulator, which I still don't get.
The real people, who make programmes, now have so many tiers of monitoring it becomes a bit silly.
Yes the Executive should be separate from the Trustees – agreed. But then why is the Trust needed if there is Ofcom, or why have Ofcom regulating the BBC over and above the Trust. Don't get it.

The problem then gets magnified as Ofcom has to regulate as it has been told to do – so the BBC gets a fine, hmmmmm.
It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Now how you get out of this mess I don't know, but I can't see why so many are over the programme makers.
Yes if the people screwing up are making regular mistakes they should taken out at dawn etc etc.
However, if they haven't been trained you can't always blame them.
New folks here go through as much time training in the studio as they do with me going through the rights and wrongs of radio.

Nothing in the media is perfect,
How true!!!
but often better the devil you> know_...
Is the BBC a national treasure worth preserving at any cost ?

Maybe. When I joined I firmly believed in it's integrity and
values. The Mi Amigo was still afloat and beer was 30p a pint! Now,
age has made me more cinical _ the world is totally different, as I
write and do my VAT return , I'm listening to a web radio station(
not the BBC!)

No I don't believe the BBC is worth saving at any cost – nor do I think giving millions to that stupid on-air theatre in London to stage plays from dead people was a good idea – that money should have gone to a hospital and if people wanted a dead poets theatre they could have raised the money themselves.
And may I add we all seem to have very positive views about that which we do when we are younger :-) , the secret is keeping hold of the positive attitude when we get older.

The BBC is a great institution and I am proud of the work I have
done for it, but it has to change and grow up like all the rest of
us.

Oh yes. I've got into hot water for saying that before. That said the output has changed and the platform deliveries have worked well. The abject failure of ITV-D, compared to Freeview shows the BBC can project manage some things really well.
I'm not so convinced about there online-player. However, there they suffered at the hands of the EU as well, who insisted on all sorts of anoraky things – should have stuck to WMP or RA and said that's it.

The growing up bit is a tough call as old, in mind, people stay alive longer and the BBC have to make stuff for them as well as the younger folks.
The change in the 60's/70's made the focus considerably easier. You had young or old and programming was simpler. Today the age range is higher, the old folks winge (not you we're jousting) and shout about the BBC not playing anything for them. They do but it's not R1/R2. If you are an old person listen to BBC local – they play that material.

So as much as the BBC has to grow up, I'm suggestion the audience needs to get its head around the digital age – kind of like that Ofcom project which seems to have died a death. The training people for digital.

Yes the BBC still has some work to do, but more recently it has done a lot of very good things and is starting to look like it's name suggests, the BBC – not some half backed broadcaster which it was at some times.

Nice jousting with you_.

Indeed – a good debate, thanks

Eric

hello

just want to announce it is now possible to go on the redsands for and look around courtesy of the project.

there are regular trips out to project redsands

a great opportunity to visit the home of radio 390!

for more information

call 078 9467 119

ask for mandy

www.project-redsand.com

thanks

Hallo everyone. The 1395 kHz-transmitter of BigL is off air now. Who of you knows when this transmitter will be on air again? Greetings of Nico from Gouda, the Netherlands.

Q_1_2_3_4_5_6 <...> said:
Hallo everyone. The 1395 kHz-transmitter of BigL is off air now. Who of
you knows when this transmitter will be on air again? Greetings of Nico
from Gouda, the Netherlands.

You can read the reason on http://www.iradio.be/news/article.php?id=161252&group=nl.media.radio

So far as I can conclude now is this transmitter switched out due to financial problems. Who of you will search in English news-fora to find the exact reason?

Greetings of Nico from Gouda, the Netherlands.

Hmmm I see no problem with the present organisation, after all, it represents what might happen in a large PLC. You would have the Directors whose job it is to set policy and the Management whose job it is to carry out that policy. For Directors read Trustees in the case of the BBC. As for the regulators, you get those in quite a few lines of business, for example, in my life as a financial adviser you had FIMBRA whose job it was to ensure the statutory regulations were upheald -0 they were there as the consumers' policeman. The only problem was that FIMBRA was full of box tickers who had never done the job and they were probably targetted to find as many things wrong as they could - so sometimes it became petty (and potty!).

As for how you impose sanctions on a PBS which is funded from public money, I see the problem but don't have an answer.

I do think the BBC is a treasure, something I wouldn't have said 40 years back. It is able to cater for minority issues without being shackled by audience figures. BBC4 TV is a glowing example of quality programming that's just superb.

Having said all this, I know where you're coming from about layers of management and supervision. The example I think of as management and leadership at its best in broadcasting is David Attenborough when he was Controller for BBC2. He surrounded himself with visionary. creative programme makers and let them have their head - his was a light touch on the tiller and under his tenure, that channel had some great achievements. But those were different times.

As for educating the public, a wholehearted "yes" - that's what I try to do in my small way. I enjoy my job but I have to say that the public at large (especially those over 40/50) are generally just bewildered by the technological developments.

On the subject of BBC iPlayer, I wouldn't know about what was insisted by the EU. I think it does the job started by BBC Radio's "audio on demand" very well and is another shot in the arm for consumer choice. I've been waiting for this for ages, am delighted the facility is there and spend time preaching the message of that and ITV Catchup to my public whenever it is appropriate.

The subject of BBC and catering to audiences is one we've visited before. What I have said before still stands. Radio 2 is pandering to an audience in its 30s and 40s and ignoring the baby boomers of my age and older - not sure of the exact figures but I'm pretty sure that the over 50s are the largest group in the country - if not yet then soon. Local radio may well cater for some of the content I would love to hear but it is largely talk-based and that is NOT what I want, thank you very much. Personally I think there is a market for a Pirate BBC Essex format, but extended to include the Rock'n'roll years. I know what you think of that music, but to be honest, I speak for those like me who believe the world didn't start with Sgt Pepper in 1967. Anyway, I've long since given up wishing the BBC to cater for that need. I get my kicks by downloading appropriate material from the net, putting that on my memory stick or iPod and playing it in my car when I'm on my travels or at home through my system. My listening to BBC radio is generally restricted to the specialist programmes broadcast in the evenings, Mark Lamarr, Suzi Quatro and various special features which are always interesting whether they're Dylan's Radio Theme Hour or features on particular atists. The last time I listened to live radio in any quantity was Pirate BBC Essex last year! To summarise, technology has been a big part of my life, both professionally and personally and I applaud developments as they happen - any organisation has to take change into account to stay relevant and alive. Certainly one of the biggest changes in my lifetime is that consumer expectations have grown and that is no bad thing as long as one doesn't pander to the lowest common denominator. As I said earlier, beacons of excellence exist (such as BBC4 TV) even if they are

surrounded by the crass and mindless.

Alan

--------------
Alan Milewczyk aka The Pole with Soul
Soul pix on the net at http://www.soulman1949.com

----- Original Message -----
From: tesug
To: ...
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Anorak Nation] Why Should Licence Fee Payers Pay for BBC Mistakes?

There I agree, so let's look at the options. Had this happened before there would have been screams of cover-up, at certain times, and then as we moved mid-90s there was more of an open attitude.
Enter Ofcom as the BBC's regulator, which I still don't get.
The real people, who make programmes, now have so many tiers of monitoring it becomes a bit silly.
Yes the Executive should be separate from the Trustees – agreed. But then why is the Trust needed if there is Ofcom, or why have Ofcom regulating the BBC over and above the Trust. Don't get it.
The problem then gets magnified as Ofcom has to regulate as it has been told to do – so the BBC gets a fine, hmmmmm.
It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Now how you get out of this mess I don't know, but I can't see why so many are over the programme makers.
Yes if the people screwing up are making regular mistakes they should taken out at dawn etc etc.
However, if they haven't been trained you can't always blame them.
New folks here go through as much time training in the studio as they do with me going through the rights and wrongs of radio.
Nothing in the media is perfect,
How true!!!
but often better the devil you> know_…
Is the BBC a national treasure worth preserving at any cost ?
Maybe. When I joined I firmly believed in it's integrity and
values. The Mi Amigo was still afloat and beer was 30p a pint! Now,
age has made me more cinical _ the world is totally different, as I
write and do my VAT return , I'm listening to a web radio station(
not the BBC!)
No I don't believe the BBC is worth saving at any cost – nor do I think giving millions to that stupid on-air theatre in London to stage plays from dead people was a good idea – that money should have gone to a hospital and if people wanted a dead poets theatre they could have raised the money themselves.
And may I add we all seem to have very positive views about that which we do when we are younger :-) , the secret is keeping hold of the positive attitude when we get older.
The BBC is a great institution and I am proud of the work I have
done for it, but it has to change and grow up like all the rest of
us.
Oh yes. I've got into hot water for saying that before. That said the output has changed and the platform deliveries have worked well. The abject failure of ITV-D, compared to Freeview shows the BBC can project manage some things really well.
I'm not so convinced about there online-player. However, there they suffered at the hands of the EU as well, who insisted on all sorts of anoraky things – should have stuck to WMP or RA and said that's it.
The growing up bit is a tough call as old, in mind, people stay alive longer and the BBC have to make stuff for them as well as the younger folks.
The change in the 60's/70's made the focus considerably easier. You had young or old and programming was simpler. Today the age range is higher, the old folks winge (not you we're jousting) and shout about the BBC not playing anything for them. They do but it's not R1/R2. If you are an old person listen to BBC local – they play that material.
So as much as the BBC has to grow up, I'm suggestion the audience needs to get its head around the digital age – kind of like that Ofcom project which seems to have died a death. The training people for digital.
Yes the BBC still has some work to do, but more recently it has done a lot of very good things and is starting to look like it's name suggests, the BBC – not some half backed broadcaster which it was at some times.
Nice jousting with you_.
Indeed – a good debate, thanks
Eric
Free thought + Free speech + Free radio = Anorak Nation
www.jigluhood.com – communities that think for themselves
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.7/1580 - Release Date: 29/07/2008 17:26

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.7/1580 - Release Date: 29/07/2008 17:26

Hi Nico

So far as I can conclude now is this transmitter switched out due
to financial problems. Who of you will search in English news-fora
to find the exact reason?

Sorry Nico, nothing in the main-stream press about this, is it really off then?

Regards
Eric

Hi, Eric. I read on a Dutch newsgroup that BigL is NO longer able to pay the expensive high price (35% raised in a year) of the oil which is needed for its 1395 kHz-transmitter. Equal as the former offshore radiostations this transmitter uses NO landbased electricity but generator-oil for transmitting. Greetings of Nico from Gouda, the Netherlands.

In article <06893c1f9d4d6d35ac87ce540707a260@jiglu-wc>, ... (Q_1_2_3_4_5_6) wrote:

Hi, Eric. I read on a Dutch newsgroup that BigL is NO longer able
to pay the expensive high price (35% raised in a year) of the oil
which is needed for its 1395 kHz-transmitter. Equal as the former
offshore radiostations this transmitter uses NO landbased
electricity but generator-oil for transmitting. Greetings of Nico
from Gouda, the Netherlands.

Hi Nico, I saw some comments on a Dutch group with something to do with environmental issues. I guess you could always try to get an answer from the station? Sorry I can't be more help.

Regards
Eric

Hi, Eric. Read now the messages about this on http://www.friendsofbigl.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3233 Nico.

Friday, 1 August 2008

Re: Why Should Licence Fee Payers Pay for BBC Mistakes?

Re: Why Should Licence Fee Payers Pay for BBC Mistakes?

Re: Why Should Licence Fee Payers Pay for BBC Mistakes?

Re: Why Should Licence Fee Payers Pay for BBC Mistakes?

Re: Why Should Licence Fee Payers Pay for BBC Mistakes?

Re: Why Should Licence Fee Payers Pay for BBC Mistakes?

project redsand

The 1395 kHz-transmitter of BigL is off air now.

Re: The 1395 kHz-transmitter of BigL is off air now.

Re: Why Should Licence Fee Payers Pay for BBC Mistakes?

Re: The 1395 kHz-transmitter of BigL is off air now.

Re: The 1395 kHz-transmitter of BigL is off air from now.

Re: The 1395 kHz-transmitter of BigL is off air from now.

Re: The 1395 kHz-transmitter of BigL is off air from now.

Tags

Topics

People

Links

Friday, 1 August 2008

Related

Other occurrences

Tags

Topics

People

Links