All posts by Charles Stuart
Below are all of Charles Stuart's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
I watch the News Channel regularly and enjoy it. I also watch Sky News from time to time. I like current affairs programming and it features heavily in the programmes I watch. I think that rolling news channels are worthwhile for the really big stories and are worth having even if these big stories only occur at the rate of one or two per year. I actually miss Ceefax because the Red Button service isn't as easy to use, even if the picture quality is 1000 times better. I miss the "newsflash" feature on page 150 and bringing that back would be a big improvement to the Red Button.
| link to this comment |
I have a very simple and easy solution to the problem of how to pay the over 75s' licence fees: a windfall tax on all the sports that have benefited massively from the inflated prices broadcasters will now pay for TV rights. You might even raise significantly more money than is strictly needed and this could be used in the short-term to plug the gap created by licence fee avoidance (as opposed to evasion).
| link to this comment |
I really don't think the government's plans are unreasonable. What everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten is that the iPlayer loophole will be closed before the BBC has to start funding the over 75s. This should bring in a significant amount of additional revenue. My attempt at a calculation suggests between £150,000,000 and £200,000,000 per annum. OK, you might term that "recovery of lost revenue" but it's still something. The BBC is massively bureaucratic and I'm sure that many savings could be made by cutting support staff without too much effect on the front line. When the government has pledged to make significant cuts in spending, I do not think it's unreasonable for some of those cuts to affect the BBC.
The BBC does seem to have become oversized and complacent over the years. The licence fee is a "least bad" funding system that does give a different aspect to British broadcasting compared to that of many other countries. I do think that BBC radio has far too many stations and that they should look at closing some or selling them off as commercial enterprises. Maybe the government should allow the BBC to enter into joint ventures where minority interest, specialist and high risk programming is provided by the BBC to radio stations that have a commercial core. Although I'm too young to remember it, I can't help thinking that maybe BBC radio was at its best when it was the Home, Light and Third Programmes. Perhaps it should return to that model, plus local stations and perhaps 5 Live.
| link to this comment |
I wouldn't go as far as Richard E in saying that all BBC journalists are left-wing but I do think that a disproportionately large number are. I think that the BBC does often give an appearance of being left-of-centre, though I actually think that it usually just about achieves political neutrality. In my opinion, it is a seriously flawed organization that needs some reconstruction.
While I can't remember the pre-'67 radio set-up, I can quite clearly remember the early '70s. It seems to me that every time BBC radio expands it gets a little worse. I really don't like BBC radio now, except for the midnight news programme on Radio 4 and programmes on the World Service. However, I still see BBC radio as better than most commercial radio. In my opinion, the only truly good commercial station is Planet Rock, though I tend to listen to Sam FM because it usually doesn't have DJs.
I think that the summary of my view is that the BBC needs to shrink. I don't know anyone who wishes to pay more for the licence and I think most people would be quite happy with BBC1, BBC2, News Channel, the five analogue national radio stations (also in good quality on DAB), local radio and World Service. I can see a case for BBC6 Music but don't think it's essential and though I like BBC4 (TV), I think that it could be absorbed by BBC2. I would get rid of children's TV channels and go beck to children's TV on BBC1 and BBC2 at the times it used to occupy. The BBC could then raise extra money by selling spare capacity on its multiplex, though I don't suppose that would be a huge income.
The licence as a source of funding cannot last forever. With zillions of channels, there's an increasing number of people who never watch or listen to BBC services. I think that eventually we'll have to have some kind of compulsory public service broadcasting levy that everybody pays, regardless of whether or not they ever watch TV or listen to the radio. I don't support the idea of the BBC being funded by subscription.
| link to this comment |
MikeB, I emphasize that what I say is my opinion built mainly on anecdotal evidence because I see this site as providing for that type of discussion. However, with regard to children's TV, I offer this newspaper evidence: Ban under-threes from watching television, says study | Society | The Guardian . And while it only deals with the under threes, I do feel that too much TV can't be good for older children either. I think that Richard E has every right to express his feelings without being pushed to provide evidence. In a way, the more people who say something, the more evidence there is, at least about people's views on the subject. I accept, that it will remain anecdotal until such time as one of the polling companies does some market research on the subject. I set out to have a conversation on this site, not an academic discussion.
| link to this comment |
GeordieLad said, "...but I doubt if I'd miss the BBC at all if it disappeared entirely. "
I would miss the BBC if it disappeared completely but I agree with much of your criticism. I think that there is too much entertainment in the mix and not enough education and information. I disagree with those who say it should be protected from cuts at all costs. Like it or not, the government has decided that stringent spending cuts are required across all areas of government. While the BBC is technically totally independent of government, its funding is a decision of government and the licence fee is effectively a tax on television viewing. I think it's quite reasonable for the BBC to accept that it too has to make cuts and I don't think that amount asked is out of proportion.
As for the licence fee, I think it's reasonable but that technological changes mean that it has use by date coming plainly into view. I really don't know with what it could be replaced. I definitely am against advertising and subscription and I'm beginning to think that it should simply be funded from general taxation, perhaps with a percentage tie to GDP to try and prevent a government from simply starving it of money or, even worse, promising it money in exchange for promoting the government.
| link to this comment |
I think that part of the problem with the check boxes above is that it's way too broad. I would not cut any one channel, except perhaps the radio station 1Xtra, but I would cut certain types of programming and I would try to cut the salaries of many BBC staff. I do not think that the BBC needs to compete in popular programming the way it does with commercial channels. Its primary focus should be on educational and informative programming but some entertainment must be retained. I don't like soaps but I accept that they're very popular, so I'd keep Eastenders, Doctors and Casualty. However, I think that talent shows really are an expense too far, so I'd cut The Voice, Strictly Come Dancing and most other shows in that area. I would look for savings by cutting the pay of executives, programme presenters and actors. I'd try to protect the pay of the less well paid support staff. I would look to try and enhance the BBC's earnings from commercial ventures, such as books, magazines, sales overseas of original programming and overseas joint ventures in broadcasting. This would be to try and reduce the £613M saving required. I don't know if I could cover every needed saving through my ideas but I'd definitely seek to continue BBC1, BBC2, BBC4, Radio 4, Radio 3, Five Live, 6 Music and Radio 2. If really pressed, I think the BBC should consider selling Radio 1 as a going concern to a commercial provider, who would take on a PSB remit.
Things I'd like to know in order to make more informed choices are:
1. What are the typical salaries of programme presenters, whether local or national?
2. What are the typical salaries of actors?
3. Does the BBC have retained actors who are paid a full-time salary and expected to be exclusively available to the BBC? If not, could such a pool of actors save the BBC money?
4. What do BBC corporate managers and other support staff get in the way of pay?
5. How much do programmes like The Voice cost? They look expensive but are they?
6. Has the BBC ever carried out any type of audit on how much they spend on sending documentary makers around the world for programmes that could just as easily be made wholly in the UK or by using input from foreign journalists reporting from their home countries?
There are one or two areas where I would like to see the BBC expand, despite big cuts elsewhere. I would like to see more high quality science and more high quality history on BBC channels. Most of it seems to be on BBC4 and Radio 4 but I think there should be more on BBC1 and BBC2.
| link to this comment |
@M J Levett-Scrivener - I used to live in Trowbridge and was able to get good reception from Mendip on all multiplexes using an indoor aerial both before and after digital switchover. Therefore, I would be inclined to guess that there's something wrong with your aerial or its connection to your TV/set-top box. Things to check would be alignment, aerial group, cable condition and the condition of your TV aerial socket. If the aerial is old, it may be group CD. This will give problems receiving Com7 and Com8. You really need group W, particularly if the government is going to impose yet more frequency changes upon us. If the alignment is out, you will receive fewer multiplexes with worse reception. Likewise if the cable is degraded.
One other thing that is possible is that your system is OK but that you live in a location where the path of transmissions is blocked. When I lived in Trowbridge, I lived just off Frome Road and had a west-facing window for my aerial. Mendip is more or less west of Trowbridge.
| link to this comment |
@ Dr J Harvey, I would suggest checking that your aerial hasn't been moved out of alignment with the signal during stormy weather. Then check that the cable is OK. If both are fine, I would suggest that maybe you need a higher gain aerial or just possibly attenuation of the signal. The best thing to do is seek the services of an aerial installer. There is no reason why your system shouldn't work on channels 48 and 49. Unlike analogue, digital signals on adjacent channels do not interfere with each other.
| link to this comment |
Friday 26 June 2015 6:45PM
I hope your leg/foot gets better soon. I think that my pain problem pales into insignificance compared to yours. I have something called thoracic outlet syndrome on the right side, caused by a cervical rib. It's all very weird and a bit painful and I'm grateful that I'm left-handed!
I suspect that your operation is rather less horrific than you think. You will be given all the painkillers you need. I think that it's quite common surgery and I'm sure you'll recover. I do hope that everything goes well for you.