Madness, BBC TV centre

[David Johnson]

"You do seem to get rather snippy at anyone who does not agree with you 100%,"

Erm it was you that stated that if I thought public sector organisations are dedicated to providing value i.e. disagree with your view, then "I pity you". Pot, kettle methinks.

"I really don't want to debate the licence fee, which is a seperate issue."

I can understand that because it does not fit into your argument i.e. poor value. As I have already mentioned less than ?3 a week is fantastic value.

And after all, it was YOU who introduced the criticism of lack of value "time after time" not just in the TV Centre move.....

"Value for money? I don't think so, but in public sector organisations, which do not have the discipline of a profit and loss account, it's the sort of thing which happens time after time"

"My point is why the BBC chose to dispose of a fantastic asset, which they will never be able to reproduce, for a mere ?200 million? They then spent over a billion revamping BH, but that will never be more than a shadow of TV Centre. "

Well the reasoning behind that has already been explained to you. Whether you accept it or not is your prerogative. Here... "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"

Here is some more info for you to help you understand the why. It is in the reply to the first question Why is the BBC selling the Television Centre?



For Joe Public it is not so interesting to go on and on about the financials. It makes a better news snippet to bang on about the programmes made there. But the main reason is pretty clear. There is a 6 year licence freeze so the BBC have to look at rationalising their property portfolio.

"but that will never be more than a shadow of TV Centre. "

I will leave you to carry on looking at your crystal ball. Obviously you haven't a clue whether it will end up being better, more loved or whatever than the old TV Centre.

No more to be said, I think. Otherwise I will just end up repeating what I have already stated earlier which you have chosen to completely ignore.

[Cuntybollocks]

Hard to believe it has only been a week since i posted this, a simple comment about one of my fav two tone bands Madness. Now it's a slanging match.

Fuck off elsewhere David Johnson and your ilk!!!

[Robches]

I'm afraid that's what you get from David if you dare to suggest that any public sector bureaucracy might not be entirely staffed by saints. How dare we question just why the BBC is closing down TV Centre! It's not as if we paid for it or anything.

[David Johnson]

An Easter egg for Robches's rather pathetic, silly, complete misrepresentation of my views. I note you cannot answer any of my points so you are reduced to abject stupidity.

Of course if you can find any post on here where I have stated anything like

"I'm afraid that's what you get from David if you dare to suggest that any public sector bureaucracy might not be entirely staffed by saints."

I will apologise.

[David Johnson]

I will pass your comments on to Robches. How dare he hijack your thread.

I only replied to his daft extreme right wing comment in case some of the more gullible on this forum actually took him seriously.

Given up hassling Noddy for Easter, have we, Cuntybollocks?

[Cuntybollocks]

"Given up hassling Noddy for Easter, have we, Cuntybollocks"

His silence speaks volumes as far as i'm concerned DJ. Another lazy pimple on the backside of mankind.

[Robches]

David Johnson wrote:

> I will pass your comments on to Robches. How dare he hijack
> your thread.
>
> I only replied to his daft extreme right wing comment in case
> some of the more gullible on this forum actually took him
> seriously.
>
> Given up hassling Noddy for Easter, have we, Cuntybollocks?

Interesting to see that any question about how public money is spent or mis-spent qualifies as "daft extreme right wing comment." I think I can guess which planet you are on. Clearly, it is one in which no public sector bureaucracy could possibly engage in empire building at the public's expense.

[David Johnson]

"Interesting to see that any question about how public money is spent or mis-spent qualifies as "daft extreme right wing comment." I think I can guess which planet you are on. Clearly, it is one in which no public sector bureaucracy could possibly engage in empire building at the public's expense."

A very childish remark from you yet again. The extreme right wing comments that you make are like the one below in this thread where you make adolescent generalisations whilst totally and utterly failing to answer my comments about the excellent value the licence fee represents and the horrific incompetence that many private sector companies show.

"Value for money? I don't think so, but in public sector organisations, which do not have the discipline of a profit and loss account, it's the sort of thing which happens time after time."

I will leave you to wallow around in circles.

You could always chat to Sam about how wonderful US gun laws are?

[Robches]

David,

I am afraid that your faith in the essential goodness of public sector managers is rather naive, to say the least. Private sector managers are free to empire build and waste the company's money, because if they go out of business that is their problem. That does not apply in the public sector, of which the BBC is a part.

To sum up, the BBC have shut down TV Centre, and sold it off for ?200 million, and spent a billion on Broadcasting House. As part of the move to Salford, they also closed down New Broadcasting House in Manchester, a superb purpose built radio and TV centre, only built in the 1970s. Meanwhile they are spending a fortune transporting their talent to and from Salford, as none of them want to leave London.

The whole purpose of the move to Salford was political, a way to secure the BBC's Royal Charter by making it appear less London-centric. It has nothing to do with getting value for money for the licence fee payers, and everything to do with securing the existence of the BBC. You ought to realise that the prime purpose of any bureaucracy is to ensure its continued existence at all costs.

[welkram]

Your totally right, but do you think that some producer at the BBC hired Madness in an attempt to show his/her flustration at the closure, "its just madness".