Inexcusable Quality From Bbc

[Bargepole23]

58 minutes ago, Chaddamp said:

totally agree .

Now its over to Laura Kessenburg (sorry for miss spelling) Hello Laura (name comes up under laura) end of her bit .. back to studio... thanks Laura … that was Laura Kessenburg  .Are we thick? 5 times her name memtioned.BBC GET REAL

Judging by the quality of your writing, yes.

[Magilla]

7 hours ago, crookesjoe said:

I wont give  money  to an organisation deeply involved with pedophiles

Well if you did, you might have been able to spell it correctly

 

...but since you don't, and can't, you don't really have anything to complain about.

Edited February 15, 2020 by Magilla

[Chaddamp]

26 minutes ago, Magilla said:

Well if you did, you might have been able to spell it correctly

 

...but since you don't, and can't, you don't really have anything to complain about.

That's nasty...who cares about how a word is correctly spelt ,are you sure what that post really meant????

[nikki-red]

The bickering can end now.

[Chaddamp]

30 minutes ago, Magilla said:

Well if you did, you might have been able to spell it correctly

 

...but since you don't, and can't, you don't really have anything to complain about.

 

3 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

Like LBC???   - you seriously trying to compare a single radio station which is already owned by global media corporation to the vast multi-platform multi-channel and multi jurisdiction operations under the remit of the BBC.

 

What the hell are you talking about. It's nothing like the same comparison.

 

Unless you have a copy of Steve Wright's contract obligations you have no idea what parts of his own program he directly has influence upon.   Even if he doesn't choose his own music - so what?   The money earned by him is derived  from how much people are prepared to pay for his talent.

 

Brad Pitt and George Clooney don't write and produce the movie that they get paid to star in do they?    Doesn't stop the paying public from wanting to see THEM not some behind the scenes staff does it.  

 

As for the rest of your guff about duplication - you completely fail to appreciate it us viewers and listeners that want that.   You can't have regional programs and regional radio stations presented by a single person in a single location.   Commercial stations are already tying that "networked" way of delivery and received much criticism for it from us very public.  As a perfect example our own Hallam FM which only appears to have 1 to 2 shows a week which are actually broadcast from their Sheffield studio.  The rest of the schedule is streamed in from Manchester or London  or anywhere else where they feel convenient.   Hardly great local content is it?  

 

Look at the fuss created over Look North and the supposed bias between the amount of Leeds stories vs Sheffield ones.   Are you really trying to say that we would prefer an even more centralised approach to save money?  

 

Of course there are multiple presenters for news and weather across the network there has to be - how else do you think it's possible to get forecasts and bulletins delivered across numerous channels at different times and sometimes even in in different languages.   

 

It's all about the service that us public expect.   We can't have it both ways.   Yes of course there can be cuts to be made and I'm sure that this government will put pressure on the BBC to do so.   However we have to face facts about whether we want a truly complete public broadcaster as we seem to demand or we lose it and are left with no option but the wholly commercialised and dumbed down ITV network.  Let's see how many local radio stations they would be prepared to set up and run, how many religious services and educational programs would they  broadcast, how many specialist interest programs do you think they will put on air, how many independent current affairs and consumer programmes do you think they will be prepared to put on air (particularly ones that are freely able to raise criticism of their potential advertisers)....

 

All too easy to criticise until it's too late.

am thinking you're a member of the public sector employ??

[taxman]

49 minutes ago, Chaddamp said:

 

am thinking you're a member of the public sector employ??

And? Is that supposed to be some sort of insult? Remember when private industry fails it's the public sector that has to bail them out (banks, railways etc)

[Chaddamp]

32 minutes ago, taxman said:

And? Is that supposed to be some sort of insult? Remember when private industry fails it's the public sector that has to bail them out (banks, railways etc)

no ….its the tax taken from the private sector business  that always has to pay ,and those monies comes from business that make money to pay their employees so HMRC can pay for the infra structure along with all the other combined taxes which now is just so high.No insult meant here, just stating a fact to you.

[ECCOnoob]

2 hours ago, Chaddamp said:

 

am thinking you're a member of the public sector employ??

You might be thinking it but you will be completely inaccurate with your assumption.

[taxman]

1 hour ago, Chaddamp said:

no ….its the tax taken from the private sector business  that always has to pay ,and those monies comes from business that make money to pay their employees so HMRC can pay for the infra structure along with all the other combined taxes which now is just so high.No insult meant here, just stating a fact to you.

If the public sector didn't have to keep on bailing out the failing private sector we might have more money to spend. 

[Jim Hardie]

2 hours ago, taxman said:

If the public sector didn't have to keep on bailing out the failing private sector we might have more money to spend. 

The public sector is an essential part of the economy but it wouldn't and couldn't exist without the private sector. The idea that it could bail out the private sector is laughable. It might be unkind to say so, but stripped down to the basics, one is a fountain and the other is a drain.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Jim Hardie