Madness, BBC TV centre

[Robches]

David Johnson wrote:

> "But my main point is that the BBC has spunked away over a
> billion pounds turning BH into a TV centre, when they already
> had a purpose built TV centre a few miles down the road. I
> doubt any commercial broadcaster would piss money away quite so
> readily, but it helps when you have a guaranteed ?3 billion a
> year income."
>
> Extreme right wingers will always oppose the BBC. The reason
> for this is simple. They hate the BBC's independence. What
> extreme right wingers want is TV on the lines of FOX News and
> other Murdoch owned TV whereby extremely wealthy right wingers
> can produce television, particularly news which reflects their
> right wing political views masquerading as impartial viewing.
> We see this in action already in the UK where 90% of the press
> is owned by extreme right wing owners and their newspapers
> reflect their owners' political views.
>
> The building that the BBC moved from was started in 1928.
> Hardly a huge number of moves one would have thought?

I wondered how long it would be before Fox News made an appearance. My point, a simple one I would have thought, is that the BBC have ?3 billion a year to spend, and they decided to close down their purpose built TV centre and spend over a billion turning BH, purpose built for radio, into a new TV centre. I am reminded of the old adage that the moment a corporation moves into brand spanking new offices is usually the time to sell the stock. It was true enough with RBS, which built itself a hubristic palace outside Edinburgh, the difference with the BBC is that it can't go bust because we are all forced by law to pay for it if we watch TV.

[David Johnson]

"My point, a simple one I would have thought"

Simplistic I would have thought. I note you didn't pick up on the point that the building they moved from was started in 1928.

I will take your views more seriously when you post here about the horrors of Sky in which they tied customers into them on the back of huge money paid for Premier League football and now have cornered the market in many, many sports as their monthly subscriptions reach eye watering levels. Compare the BBC's less than ?3 a week TV licensing fee with Sky's subscription. Great value.

Of course you don't have to pay the exorbitant monthly subs to watch Sky but if you are a sports nut, there aren't too many alternatives.

"and spend over a billion turning BH"

The BBC reckon, rightly or wrongly, they will save 740 million in the next 20 years by the rationalising of various locations around town etc etc.

"I am reminded of the old adage that the moment a corporation moves into brand spanking new offices is usually the time to sell the stock."

As adages go this strikes me as bollocks.

[Robches]

David Johnson wrote:

> "My point, a simple one I would have thought"
>
> Simplistic I would have thought. I note you didn't pick up on
> the point that the building they moved from was started in
> 1928.
>
> I will take your views more seriously when you post here about
> the horrors of Sky in which they tied customers into them on
> the back of huge money paid for Premier League football and now
> have cornered the market in many, many sports as their monthly
> subscriptions reach eye watering levels. Compare the BBC's
> less than ?3 a week TV licensing fee with Sky's subscription.
> Great value.
>
> Of course you don't have to pay the exorbitant monthly subs to
> watch Sky but if you are a sports nut, there aren't too many
> alternatives.
>
> "and spend over a billion turning BH"
>
> The BBC reckon, rightly or wrongly, they will save 740 million
> in the next 20 years by the rationalising of various locations
> around town etc etc.
>
> "I am reminded of the old adage that the moment a corporation
> moves into brand spanking new offices is usually the time to
> sell the stock."
>
> As adages go this strikes me as bollocks.

I see we have moved on from Fox News and on to Sky TV. How very relevant.

For the record, Broadcasting House was begun in 1928, Television Centre was a post war building, finished in 1960, a purpose built TV centre, now replaced by a billion pound structure tacked on to BH in the centre of London, so convenient for parking. The BBC are getting rid of one of the best TV complexes in the world, so as to "save" money in years to come. I predict these "savings" will be as nebulous as most public sector schemes. Three billion a year from the public means never having to say you are sorry.

[David Johnson]

You lads don't know good value when you see it. You have "Privatise" spectacles on.

For less than ?3 a week, I get the fantastic BBC website, the brilliant Iplayer so I can play back all the tele and radio that I missed and fancy watching, the best public service broadcasting in the world with a great mix of nature, history, politics, sport and drama. I've travelled around a lot related to work and I haven't come across anything remotely as good.

I would have paid a ?150 just for the magnificent Olympics and Paralympics live tv, never mind access to all the best bits for months and months after.

You Tea Party fanatics would privatise the BBC and I would end up having to watch South East Asian domino championships and some right wing twat on a news programme telling me that Obama is Osama Bin Laden's chief of staff.

Stroll on pal and hands off the BBC!!! You'll be wanting to privatise the NHS next...........

[jbomz3]

I'm glad to read you're enjoying the BBC . I don't watch anything on bbc tv or listen to anything on bbc radio , so would you be so kind as to pay my tv license fee ? I don't watch anything on ITV either , as I don't watch soap operas or reality shows or game shows , but I don't have to pay for not watching itv , so it doesn't annoy me in the same way as the bbc .
I choose to pay for sky because I like to watch some of the programmes on the discovery/national geographic/history channels , and the arts channels , as well as a bit of news sky/cnn/rt/enca and suchlike .
It's all about choice , wether it's ?150/yr or ?15/yr or ?15000/yr I don't watch it so would rather not pay for something i've no intention of using .
Cheers JJ . !wink!

[David Johnson]

"I'm glad to read you're enjoying the BBC . I don't watch anything on bbc tv or listen to anything on bbc radio "

Why, given that you like discovery/national geographic/history channels , and the arts channels? The BBC can match those channels with its output in terms of history, travel, nature etc.

[jbomz3]

Not in my opinion they don't . I'm not much of a nature fan , it's more technology/history/military and the "how things work" type stuff with the occasional accident investigation type programme thrown in .
I dislike all these modern "comedies" , I don't find them funny it's all ridicule and humiliation not humour .
I like to keep up to date on what's happening hence the news , but also like to see other peoples view point , that's why I watch rt/cnn/enca .

[David Johnson]

Ah well, as long as you pay your TV license fee so I can carry on watching quality public service TV.

[jbomz3]

Yes I will , because I have no choice . It's the fact I have to pay for something I don't use that annoys me .
Enjoy your viewing DJ. !wink! I will mine .

[David Johnson]

"It's the fact I have to pay for something I don't use that annoys me ."

Isn't that how society works i.e. if you pay taxes, some of those taxes are paid into the NHS?

You might not use the NHS for 50 years and you might decide why am I paying for this. Then in your retirement you get a chronic, incurable disease which means that you become a huge user of the NHS.

It's the approach that separates a civilised society from Dickensian Britain.