Beeb Redundancy Shock.

HAYSIE

Top BBC presenters including Huw Edwards, Reeta Chakrabarti, Clive Myrie and Sophie Raworth get bombshell redundancy letters as the Beeb tries to save millions






Top BBC presenters including Huw Edwards, and Sophie Raworth get redundancy letters
The cash-strapped BBC, which is trying to save costs by restructuring its news division, has written to all its senior TV and radio presenters asking them to consider voluntary redundancy. The Mail on Sunday understands that the letter from Philippa Busby, the interim managing editor of news and current affairs, has been sent to senior figures on BBC including Huw Edwards (top right), Reeta Chakrabarti (bottom left), Clive Myrie (top left), Nick Robinson (bottom right) and Sophie Raworth (centre). The decision to target some of the most senior journalists has sent shockwaves through BBC News. Furious insiders say it has caused morale among staff, which was already low, to plummet even further.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11976973/Top-BBC-presenters-including-Huw-Edwards-Sophie-Raworth-redundancy-letters.html

Essexphil

Why is this a shock?

The Government has reduced funding to the BBC. Consequently, it has to make significant cost savings.

It is perfectly normal to send these sorts of letters to all people in a group, in order to try and reduce the massive costs inherent in redundancy selection. It is nothing "targetting" anyone-the letter is sent to everyone in the group.

This sort of journalism annoys me. A newspaper can campaign for the BBC to have reduced funding. It can talk about the inevitable effect inherent within reduced funding.

But it can't do both.

spartathen

These aren’t the biggest earners though a shy and quiet guy with a twitter account is the top earner,perhaps they should get rid of him.

Tikay10

spartathen said:

These aren’t the biggest earners though a shy and quiet guy with a twitter account is the top earner,perhaps they should get rid of him.

@spartathen

If that shy & quiet guy is Mr Lineker, I don't believe he is actually employed by the BBC, he's a self-employed independent contractor I assume. So they can't make him redundant as such, but, subject to the terms of his contract, they can choose not to renew his deal.

Essexphil

spartathen said:

These aren’t the biggest earners though a shy and quiet guy with a twitter account is the top earner,perhaps they should get rid of him.

They need to save about £400 million a year within 4 years. That would save £1 million. Just the £399 million to go then.

While Lineker would have his pick of every channel offering him more, and likely take the broadcasting rights for recorded Premier League football with him.

People who object to paying £159 for a TV Licence need to appreciate that the alternative is going to cost more. Lots more.

Tikay10

"People who object to paying £159 for a TV Licence"


I happen to think that a BBC TV Licence is astonishingly good value.

It's not just the headline TV channels, there's I-Player (every bit as good as NetFlix or Prime), Radio stations galore, not forgetting the wonderful World Service, which is one of a kind & serves such a wonderful purpose globally. The Shipping Forecast alone is an institution in itself. All of it advert free too.

On Sky I pay a fortune every month - over £1 a day - and I still get assailed by adverts every few minutes. NetFlix & Prime both cost me around £0.30 per day.

The BBC licence comes to £0.44 per day. If there's better value anywhere, I've yet to find it.

Redundancies? No problem with that. Like all of us, they have to cut their cloth.

Enut

'While Lineker would have his pick of every channel offering him more, and likely take the broadcasting rights for recorded Premier League football with him.'


Does he own the rights? Amazing if he does, someone dropped the ball if that's the case (pun intended).

Essexphil

Enut said:

'While Lineker would have his pick of every channel offering him more, and likely take the broadcasting rights for recorded Premier League football with him.'


Does he own the rights? Amazing if he does, someone dropped the ball if that's the case (pun intended).

No. But the Premier League want to promote themselves at all costs.

The whole Sky subscription service relies heavily on the Premier League. And they are likely to lose it in a few years' time. And look at their main presenters for football. They are second-rate. Same for BT.

Can like Lineker for his politics. Or dislike it. But he is the best at what he does. By a long way.

VespaPX

Essexphil said:

Why is this a shock?

The Government has reduced funding to the BBC. Consequently, it has to make significant cost savings.

It is perfectly normal to send these sorts of letters to all people in a group, in order to try and reduce the massive costs inherent in redundancy selection. It is nothing "targetting" anyone-the letter is sent to everyone in the group.

This sort of journalism annoys me. A newspaper can campaign for the BBC to have reduced funding. It can talk about the inevitable effect inherent within reduced funding.

But it can't do both.

I didn't think the BBC was government funded?

VespaPX

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-licences-facts-and-figures-AB18

goldon

Toot Toot The B.B.C. Cash Cow was in the Shed that got set alight.

Essexphil

VespaPX said:

Essexphil said:

Why is this a shock?

The Government has reduced funding to the BBC. Consequently, it has to make significant cost savings.

It is perfectly normal to send these sorts of letters to all people in a group, in order to try and reduce the massive costs inherent in redundancy selection. It is nothing "targetting" anyone-the letter is sent to everyone in the group.

This sort of journalism annoys me. A newspaper can campaign for the BBC to have reduced funding. It can talk about the inevitable effect inherent within reduced funding.

But it can't do both.

I didn't think the BBC was government funded?

All depends how you count it.

The Government sets out the rules as to how we, the taxpayers, fund it. And this Government, or more accurately the last one, decided to reduce the level of that funding, together with an avowed intention to scrap the licence fee in 2027. To be replaced by an unknown, untried, funding vehicle.

lucy4

I watch M.O.T.D purely to see the matches of the day (the clue is in the title) why does someone who sits in a chair asking pundits questions get paid so much? I'm not anti Lineker (though personally I don't like him) but to me he seems enormously over paid.

goldon

B.B.C. not the only one to wield the Axe.....

Orient Express axes UK leg of iconic train journey because of Brexit

goldon

Twice as many French companies will go bust as British ones, forecasts reveal.

Doubleme

Some say the BBC are good value some say it isnt I think the conversation is redundant.
The issue is as I always point out The BBC receive payments for other peoples work.

It would be like saying Company X cannot employ me or anyone else without paying my wages again to John Smith, say they had to pay £20,000 a year to John Smith to have anyone work there otherwise they could be criminally prosecuted and fined millions. assuming in this example the company get John Smith working for them.

Or if I had to buy a bread Licence say for £50 a year to Kingsmill otherwise if I had any bread ever in my house or was ever caught buying bread from another brand and had not paid the bread licence to Kingsmill large fine and criminal charges. Again assuming you get one loath of Kingsmill bread a week.

Then arguably the company are getting insane good value for employing John Smith because they are not just employing John Smith they are buying the right to be allowed to employ anyone full stop. John Smith does not need to be a good worker here In fact John Smith could loudly scream Hitler Was right every day of work **** all over the bosses desk every day and threaten customers that he would do them in if he ever saw them set foot on the premises ever again and he would still be insane good value because the business cannot exist or employ anyone in this situation.

Kingsmill would be insane good value under this model because its not just Kingsmill its the right to ever eat bread. Kingsmill could literally just have their employers defecate in the bags and ship that out instead and they would still be insane good value under this model.

Its why it annoys me when people say BBC is good value that is only because they have a government effectively backing some mafia like shakedown system.

If I have a limited budget and can only have one or two subscriptions and the BBC licence fee is only for BBC programmes I can watch whatever I like outside of that without having to have the Licence fee I would not buy the Licence fee/pay that subscription simply put because I enjoy other content more.

Under the current model all BBC programming could be replaced by a skinny chav injecting himself with heroine burning random **** in some unsafe pile just for kicks and ranting on about why he is convinced the earth is flat and the moon is really a reptilian spaceship in disguise and it would still be insane good value.

There are many content producing companies who I would value the content of more then I would the content of BBC. Others would have different opinions and I think that is just it it comes down to opinion.

What I resent is That I have to pay for a TV licence if I want to watch non BBC content. Would you guys buy the Licence fee if you did not need it for watching none BBC content? If it was just pay the fee for BBC content and that was it? I assume yes and I assume many other people would say yes too and that is fair enough. I also assume many would say no but are currently been forced to pay that even though like me they almost never watch BBC content and that is what I take issue with.

Bean81

Agree that the licence fee represents fantastic value.

Also not surprising to see that rag (Daily Mail) run a deliberately misleading cover page, with the facts quite different to the initial assumptions the reader would make.

HAYSIE

Doubleme said:

Some say the BBC are good value some say it isnt I think the conversation is redundant.
The issue is as I always point out The BBC receive payments for other peoples work.

It would be like saying Company X cannot employ me or anyone else without paying my wages again to John Smith, say they had to pay £20,000 a year to John Smith to have anyone work there otherwise they could be criminally prosecuted and fined millions. assuming in this example the company get John Smith working for them.

Or if I had to buy a bread Licence say for £50 a year to Kingsmill otherwise if I had any bread ever in my house or was ever caught buying bread from another brand and had not paid the bread licence to Kingsmill large fine and criminal charges. Again assuming you get one loath of Kingsmill bread a week.

Then arguably the company are getting insane good value for employing John Smith because they are not just employing John Smith they are buying the right to be allowed to employ anyone full stop. John Smith does not need to be a good worker here In fact John Smith could loudly scream Hitler Was right every day of work **** all over the bosses desk every day and threaten customers that he would do them in if he ever saw them set foot on the premises ever again and he would still be insane good value because the business cannot exist or employ anyone in this situation.

Kingsmill would be insane good value under this model because its not just Kingsmill its the right to ever eat bread. Kingsmill could literally just have their employers defecate in the bags and ship that out instead and they would still be insane good value under this model.

Its why it annoys me when people say BBC is good value that is only because they have a government effectively backing some mafia like shakedown system.

If I have a limited budget and can only have one or two subscriptions and the BBC licence fee is only for BBC programmes I can watch whatever I like outside of that without having to have the Licence fee I would not buy the Licence fee/pay that subscription simply put because I enjoy other content more.

Under the current model all BBC programming could be replaced by a skinny chav injecting himself with heroine burning random **** in some unsafe pile just for kicks and ranting on about why he is convinced the earth is flat and the moon is really a reptilian spaceship in disguise and it would still be insane good value.

There are many content producing companies who I would value the content of more then I would the content of BBC. Others would have different opinions and I think that is just it it comes down to opinion.

What I resent is That I have to pay for a TV licence if I want to watch non BBC content. Would you guys buy the Licence fee if you did not need it for watching none BBC content? If it was just pay the fee for BBC content and that was it? I assume yes and I assume many other people would say yes too and that is fair enough. I also assume many would say no but are currently been forced to pay that even though like me they almost never watch BBC content and that is what I take issue with.

Despite a number of previous discussions on this topic, you seem unable to stop yourself posting this stuff.
Why do you think it is called a TV licence?
You could have an equally irrelevant moan about how much cheaper a night out might be if there was no duty on alcohol.
Or how much cheaper it would be to run a car if there was no road tax, or any duty to pay on petrol or diesel.

How can I legally avoid paying a TV licence fee?
The basic rule is that you must have a TV licence if you watch, record or otherwise consume live television. It doesn’t matter which television stations you watch, or how you watch them. You still have to buy a licence if you only watch live streams from Mongolia’s Eagle TV channel.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2019/feb/21/how-can-i-avoid-paying-a-tv-licence-fee

HAYSIE

A TV licence is required if you:

watch or record live TV programmes on any channel
download or watch any BBC programmes on iPlayer - live, catch up or on demand
This applies to any provider you use and any device, including a TV, desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, games console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder.

https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/licencefee

Doubleme

HAYSIE said:

Doubleme said:

Some say the BBC are good value some say it isnt I think the conversation is redundant.
The issue is as I always point out The BBC receive payments for other peoples work.

It would be like saying Company X cannot employ me or anyone else without paying my wages again to John Smith, say they had to pay £20,000 a year to John Smith to have anyone work there otherwise they could be criminally prosecuted and fined millions. assuming in this example the company get John Smith working for them.

Or if I had to buy a bread Licence say for £50 a year to Kingsmill otherwise if I had any bread ever in my house or was ever caught buying bread from another brand and had not paid the bread licence to Kingsmill large fine and criminal charges. Again assuming you get one loath of Kingsmill bread a week.

Then arguably the company are getting insane good value for employing John Smith because they are not just employing John Smith they are buying the right to be allowed to employ anyone full stop. John Smith does not need to be a good worker here In fact John Smith could loudly scream Hitler Was right every day of work **** all over the bosses desk every day and threaten customers that he would do them in if he ever saw them set foot on the premises ever again and he would still be insane good value because the business cannot exist or employ anyone in this situation.

Kingsmill would be insane good value under this model because its not just Kingsmill its the right to ever eat bread. Kingsmill could literally just have their employers defecate in the bags and ship that out instead and they would still be insane good value under this model.

Its why it annoys me when people say BBC is good value that is only because they have a government effectively backing some mafia like shakedown system.

If I have a limited budget and can only have one or two subscriptions and the BBC licence fee is only for BBC programmes I can watch whatever I like outside of that without having to have the Licence fee I would not buy the Licence fee/pay that subscription simply put because I enjoy other content more.

Under the current model all BBC programming could be replaced by a skinny chav injecting himself with heroine burning random **** in some unsafe pile just for kicks and ranting on about why he is convinced the earth is flat and the moon is really a reptilian spaceship in disguise and it would still be insane good value.

There are many content producing companies who I would value the content of more then I would the content of BBC. Others would have different opinions and I think that is just it it comes down to opinion.

What I resent is That I have to pay for a TV licence if I want to watch non BBC content. Would you guys buy the Licence fee if you did not need it for watching none BBC content? If it was just pay the fee for BBC content and that was it? I assume yes and I assume many other people would say yes too and that is fair enough. I also assume many would say no but are currently been forced to pay that even though like me they almost never watch BBC content and that is what I take issue with.

Despite a number of previous discussions on this topic, you seem unable to stop yourself posting this stuff.
Why do you think it is called a TV licence?
You could have an equally irrelevant moan about how much cheaper a night out might be if there was no duty on alcohol.
Or how much cheaper it would be to run a car if there was no road tax, or any duty to pay on petrol or diesel.

How can I legally avoid paying a TV licence fee?
The basic rule is that you must have a TV licence if you watch, record or otherwise consume live television. It doesn’t matter which television stations you watch, or how you watch them. You still have to buy a licence if you only watch live streams from Mongolia’s Eagle TV channel.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2019/feb/21/how-can-i-avoid-paying-a-tv-licence-fee

Yes you have pointed this out before but the vast majority of the licence fee goes to the BBC so it is for the BBC. I mean by that logic in my other examples we could say its an employer licence even though 97% goes to John Smith and its a bread licence even though the vast majority goes to Kingsmill.

Your assessing the tv licence as great value on the basis of getting BBC content for it and then its not a BBC fee its a TV licence when I point out I should not have to pay this licence as I do not watch BBC content. its like you want to have it both ways.

Whichever way you try to spin it we are forced to pay large fees to the BBC in order to be able to enjoy mostly non BBC content.

goldon

I would no pay fee to ( not ) watch Mongolian TV Swampy would. ?