So the BBC can do what they want with our money

[Adrian W]

And there's nothing we can do!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8081083.s...

[siscar]

Not exactly - the BBC won't give access to information that may be confidential to a body that refuses to sign a non disclosure agreement. I can't say I blame them.

If the Government want the NAO to see the figures they should give them the statutory authority to do so. But the current system is one where they have no authority to see them, which leaves the BBC in a difficult position. Do they reveal confidential information that they are not obliged to reveal or do they refuse? Asking for a non disclosure seems a reasonable compromise to me.

[Adrian W]

siscar said:

Not exactly - the BBC won't give access to information that may be confidential to a body that refuses to sign a non disclosure agreement. I can't say I blame them.

If the Government want the NAO to see the figures they should give them the statutory authority to do so. But the current system is one where they have no authority to see them, which leaves the BBC in a difficult position. Do they reveal confidential information that they are not obliged to reveal or do they refuse? Asking for a non disclosure seems a reasonable compromise to me.

I'm sorry but surely anything that involves spending public money should be in the public domain, as our MP's seem to be finding out!

[tubbystu]

Adrian W said:

I'm sorry but surely anything that involves spending public money should be in the public domain, as our MP's seem to be finding out!

Not when it is commercially sensitive to the ongoing operation of the corporation / company.

It needs to be audited.

[Adrian W]

tubbystu said:

Adrian W said:

I'm sorry but surely anything that involves spending public money should be in the public domain, as our MP's seem to be finding out!

Not when it is commercially sensitive to the ongoing operation of the corporation / company.

It needs to be audited.

How can it really be commercially sensitive, they are funded by licence fees, and are therefore not subject to the same pressures as their competitors, I would say I have an absolute right to know what they are doing with my money.

In reality we all know it’s a nice cushy club, whose funding isn’t sustainable and sooner or later will be brought into reality and the private sector.

BBC worldwide will be first.

[ExChrispy Porker]

Not my money!
I don't pay anything to listen to the radio.

[tubbystu]

Adrian W said:

tubbystu said:

Adrian W said:

I'm sorry but surely anything that involves spending public money should be in the public domain, as our MP's seem to be finding out!

Not when it is commercially sensitive to the ongoing operation of the corporation / company.

It needs to be audited.

How can it really be commercially sensitive.......

Its commercially sensitive when it would release details of contracts, salaries, rates paid to buy in produced product, joint ventures, revenue streams, technology in development etc that would be of commercial interest to other broadcasters.

[CommanderJameson]

Adrian W said:

tubbystu said:

Adrian W said:

I'm sorry but surely anything that involves spending public money should be in the public domain, as our MP's seem to be finding out!

Not when it is commercially sensitive to the ongoing operation of the corporation / company.

It needs to be audited.

How can it really be commercially sensitive, they are funded by licence fees, and are therefore not subject to the same pressures as their competitors, I would say I have an absolute right to know what they are doing with my money.

In reality we all know it’s a nice cushy club, whose funding isn’t sustainable and sooner or later will be brought into reality and the private sector.

BBC worldwide will be first.

"Real World" in "Considerably More Complex Than It First Appears" Shocker.

[Adrian W]

tubbystu said:

Adrian W said:

tubbystu said:

Adrian W said:

I'm sorry but surely anything that involves spending public money should be in the public domain, as our MP's seem to be finding out!

Not when it is commercially sensitive to the ongoing operation of the corporation / company.

It needs to be audited.

How can it really be commercially sensitive.......

Its commercially sensitive when it would release details of contracts, salaries, rates paid to buy in produced product, joint ventures, revenue streams, technology in development etc that would be of commercial interest to other broadcasters.

Bit out of context! But most companies have a fair idea of what their competitors are doing, if nothing else just from the migration of staff and commercial intelligence.

Actually thinking about it your right, the only people who don’t know what’s going on in the real world are the BBC

[johnfm]

Adrian W said:

tubbystu said:

Adrian W said:

I'm sorry but surely anything that involves spending public money should be in the public domain, as our MP's seem to be finding out!

Not when it is commercially sensitive to the ongoing operation of the corporation / company.

It needs to be audited.

How can it really be commercially sensitive, they are funded by licence fees, and are therefore not subject to the same pressures as their competitors, I would say I have an absolute right to know what they are doing with my money.

In reality we all know it’s a nice cushy club, whose funding isn’t sustainable and sooner or later will be brought into reality and the private sector.

BBC worldwide will be first.

IIRC, BBC Worldwide are quite profitable. They exploit the distribution (eg. selling a UK show to an o/seas broadcaster for broadcast) and change format rights (eg. making a US version of a UK show).

[loltolhurst]

3 billion fffing pounds that is just beyond reason ffs even if it does produce top gear

[unrepentant]

Adrian W said:

siscar said:

Not exactly - the BBC won't give access to information that may be confidential to a body that refuses to sign a non disclosure agreement. I can't say I blame them.

If the Government want the NAO to see the figures they should give them the statutory authority to do so. But the current system is one where they have no authority to see them, which leaves the BBC in a difficult position. Do they reveal confidential information that they are not obliged to reveal or do they refuse? Asking for a non disclosure seems a reasonable compromise to me.

I'm sorry but surely anything that involves spending public money should be in the public domain, as our MP's seem to be finding out!

All BBC salaries should be published, just as they are for MP's and for directors of public companies. This is our money.

[ExChrispy Porker]

Adrian W said:

tubbystu said:

Adrian W said:

I'm sorry but surely anything that involves spending public money should be in the public domain, as our MP's seem to be finding out!

Not when it is commercially sensitive to the ongoing operation of the corporation / company.

It needs to be audited.

How can it really be commercially sensitive, they are funded by licence fees, and are therefore not subject to the same pressures as their competitors, I would say I have an absolute right to know what they are doing with my money.

In reality we all know it’s a nice cushy club, whose funding isn’t sustainable and sooner or later will be brought into reality and the private sector.

BBC worldwide will be first.

I don't get it. No-one forces you to pay a licence fee. It's your choice because you choose to watch TV.
If you go to the cinema do you demand to know what the owners are going to do with your money?

[Adrian W]

ExChrispy Porker said:

I don't get it. No-one forces you to pay a licence fee. It's your choice because you choose to watch TV.
If you go to the cinema do you demand to know what the owners are going to do with your money?

That's a bit weak, it would be a true choice if I could choose to watch other channels and not the beeb but at the moment you pay if you own a TV tuner, I wonder if streaming will change the legeslation.

[loltolhurst]

ExChrispy Porker said:

Adrian W said:

tubbystu said:

Adrian W said:

I'm sorry but surely anything that involves spending public money should be in the public domain, as our MP's seem to be finding out!

Not when it is commercially sensitive to the ongoing operation of the corporation / company.

It needs to be audited.

How can it really be commercially sensitive, they are funded by licence fees, and are therefore not subject to the same pressures as their competitors, I would say I have an absolute right to know what they are doing with my money.

In reality we all know it’s a nice cushy club, whose funding isn’t sustainable and sooner or later will be brought into reality and the private sector.

BBC worldwide will be first.

I don't get it. No-one forces you to pay a licence fee. It's your choice because you choose to watch TV.
If you go to the cinema do you demand to know what the owners are going to do with your money?

rubbish its like walt disney saying you have to pay them a fixed fee to watch all the films at a cinema or none at all whether you watch walt disney ones or not.

[ExChrispy Porker]

Adrian W said:

ExChrispy Porker said:

I don't get it. No-one forces you to pay a licence fee. It's your choice because you choose to watch TV.
If you go to the cinema do you demand to know what the owners are going to do with your money?

That's a bit weak, it would be a true choice if I could choose to watch other channels and not the beeb but at the moment you pay if you own a TV tuner, I wonder if streaming will change the legeslation.

Is it not your choice to own a TV though?

[johnfm]

unrepentant said:

Adrian W said:

siscar said:

Not exactly - the BBC won't give access to information that may be confidential to a body that refuses to sign a non disclosure agreement. I can't say I blame them.

If the Government want the NAO to see the figures they should give them the statutory authority to do so. But the current system is one where they have no authority to see them, which leaves the BBC in a difficult position. Do they reveal confidential information that they are not obliged to reveal or do they refuse? Asking for a non disclosure seems a reasonable compromise to me.

I'm sorry but surely anything that involves spending public money should be in the public domain, as our MP's seem to be finding out!

All BBC salaries should be published, just as they are for MP's and for directors of public companies. This is our money.

I think all SALARIES can be found by a FOI request.

However, most presenters are not BBC staff. THe BBC or the independent production company will have a budget for a programme (radio or tv). THat budget will include costs which more often than not go to freelance, contract workers. I expect most of the presenters are freelancers.

[Don]

ExChrispy Porker said:

Adrian W said:

tubbystu said:

Adrian W said:

I'm sorry but surely anything that involves spending public money should be in the public domain, as our MP's seem to be finding out!

Not when it is commercially sensitive to the ongoing operation of the corporation / company.

It needs to be audited.

How can it really be commercially sensitive, they are funded by licence fees, and are therefore not subject to the same pressures as their competitors, I would say I have an absolute right to know what they are doing with my money.

In reality we all know it’s a nice cushy club, whose funding isn’t sustainable and sooner or later will be brought into reality and the private sector.

BBC worldwide will be first.

I don't get it. No-one forces you to pay a licence fee. It's your choice because you choose to watch TV.
If you go to the cinema do you demand to know what the owners are going to do with your money?

Actually I could very adequately watch only those channels that are not provided by the BBC.

This, however, is not the technical criterion used to determine whether or not I have to pay for a TV licence.

I own a TV capable of receiving therefore I must pay.

Interestingly enough if the BBC were no longer given "the licence fee" and were forced to enter a subscription model I would consider buying BBC HD off them. Wouldn't bother with 1,2,3 and 4 though. If it was all a package I'd probably not get that, either.

[LoveMachine]

Read and apply.

http://uk-tvlicensing-resistance.co.nr/

Personally, I don't have a TV, but if I did, I would apply this and not pay.

I would pay assuming they gave a balanced view and didn't waste money on st.

I've gladly chuck 'em a tenner for Radio 4 but the rotbox cost is disgusting.

[The Black Flash]

ExChrispy Porker said:

Adrian W said:

ExChrispy Porker said:

I don't get it. No-one forces you to pay a licence fee. It's your choice because you choose to watch TV.
If you go to the cinema do you demand to know what the owners are going to do with your money?

That's a bit weak, it would be a true choice if I could choose to watch other channels and not the beeb but at the moment you pay if you own a TV tuner, I wonder if streaming will change the legeslation.

Is it not your choice to own a TV though?

Copper in "everything the state does is just and fair" shocka.

So you'll be happy to pay a PC licence, on the basis that you can watch BBC content online?