Are you #proudoftheBBC?

I can't believe how much of a difference 38 Degrees is making! It inspired me to write a blog post about saving the Beeb…

http://speechmarks.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/pro…

This is the response from the MP that I didn't vote for and who has a nice little earner with his sideline as a QC. It is only to be expected that he wants to trim the salaries in the BBC, but he turns a blind eye to the megalomaniac Murdoch clan taking over the world's media like a fascist flu epidemic and obscenely grasping megabucks in the process.

“The public finances are in a state of unprecedented crisis; we now have a £156 billion fiscal deficit. To put this into context, Gordon Brown borrowed more than £34,000 on behalf of the average family. This money needs to be repaid, and we will soon be in a situation where 10p in every pound you pay in tax will have to go on interest payments for this debt.

In this context, I think it is fair that we ask whether the BBC gets the best possible value for money out of the License Fee. A £3.3 billion guaranteed cheque every year should come attached with huge responsibilities to the tax payer. Is it really a good use of public money to offer Christine Bleakley almost half a million pounds to stay at the BBC for example, or for the organisation to refuse to publish the salaries of top-paid staff?

Like you, I do not want to see cuts imposed on the BBC. Because the BBC's charter only comes up for renewal in 2012, the Government's room for manoeuvre is limited up to this point, and this gives the BBC ample time to look at what it does, work out how it could provide the same service for less money, and make some economies.

This is what is happening elsewhere in the public sector, and the BBC should be no exception to the rule.

If the BBC refuses to do this, or drags its feet however, I think it is entirely proper for the Government to step in. The average taxpayer gives the BBC £145.50 a year; the least we can expect is that this is spent efficiently.

Thank you again for getting in touch.

Yours Sincerely,

Geoffrey Cox QC MP”

I cannot bring myself to lend any support for the BBC.

They are wasteful organisation that pay far to many executives, managers and 'talent' far too much money. They would do far better supporting British films, plays, musicals etc and British sport especially Cricket and Rugby Union which are evidently very popular judging by the rate Sky charges subscribers wanting to see them.

Furthermore the BBC and the BBC trust(another waste of money) do not reply to questions about their lack of support for popular British preforming arts or sport. They deserve all they've got coming to them.

The BBC should be tackling Murdoch head on by broadcasting the very popular British films and sports that Sky charge so much for. By so doing much needed cash could be put the way of british theatres and film studios.

Reply from new MP Jack Lopresti (Bradley Stoke & Filton, Bristol) :

I believe the BBC is a valuable commodity and does a wonderful job. I myself am a frequent user of its services, on television, radio and online, and frequently tuned in to BBC World Service during my time spent serving in Afghanistan.

However, during this time of financial austerity, all publicly funded projects are being asked to justify their budget, and the BBC should be no different. No decisions will be made until after the spending review, but I firmly believe that the BBC could do just as good a job at a lower cost to the licence fee payer, just as many other public services will be doing whilst we fight to get the deficit under control and the economy back on its feet.

The BBC is a propaganda organisation, and any semblance of impartiality vanished with the Gilligan affair. This sabre rattling by the very people who are, at the very top, in cohoots, be they of whatever political hue, will make not a blind bit of difference.

Dear David Babbs, Hannah, Johnny and the 38 Degrees Team

Thank you for your email. I would like to understand though why you think the BBC should be exempt from streamlining just like all private companies have done so in the last 3 yrs and now various govt departments. Why should the BBC not be subject to scrutiny on how tax payers money is spent? What guarantees are there that the BBC is an impartial news corporation that does not dip its toes in opinion forming like the majority of the medias out there? Why support for the BBC and not ITV who don’t benefit from the license fee? I think it’s quite obvious the BBC cannot make a loss. It’s not a profit making organization. I think this campaign to support the BBC is mislead unless you can provide answers to the questions I’ve raised.
Thanking you in advance for your time

Kind regards
Mr. Shyam Lobind

30 yrs ago, i would have fought tooth and nail to defend the bbc but my experience of the political bias of that organisation, from their coverage of the miners' strike to the treatment of the death of ian tomlison on question time has led me to the conclusion that this organisation is no better than any of the commercial companies.

Football, rugby and cricket used to be on the BBC until the governing bodies of these sports found that Murdoch would pay them far more. It's the greed of these people (especially the football clubs) that's the problem, not the BBC. Did you not see that recent plans to air Test cricket on terrestial TV have been abandoned because the cricket authorities want more money than the BBC, ITV, or C4 can offer?
Sky has got a private monopoly on showing these sports, so it can charge what it likes; far more, incidentally, than the BBC licence fee.

The ECB claim that the BBC did not put in a bid to televise any cricket and the RFU seem to think that they have a 'good spread' of coverage, some games being show on BBC and others on Sky. Both attitudes show that neither organisation has any idea how to attract wider interest in their sports, Oh….. and their greed!

The BBC need to stump up the cash for these sports. This will not only do the sports immeasurable good it will also pull the rug from under Murdoch. How many Sky subscribers do not have Sky Movies or Sky Sports? Sky are totally reliant on these forms of entertainment for generating subscription income. If the BBC provided popular sports and films (including British made ones) Sky would loose their most profitable programmes.

If the BBC cut their waste, they could afford these forms of entertainment, do the country some good and reduce Sky's value and hence Murdoch's interest in it!

I think we could have a very enjoyable argument about this but it would go way off the thread.

The ECB claim that the BBC did not put in a bid to televise any cricket and the RFU seem to think that they have a 'good spread' of coverage, some games being show on BBC and others on Sky. Both attitudes show that neither organisation has any idea how to attract wider interest in their sports, Oh….. and their greed!

The BBC need to stump up the cash for these sports. This will not only do the sports immeasurable good it will also pull the rug from under Murdoch. How many Sky subscribers do not have Sky Movies or Sky Sports? Sky are totally reliant on these forms of entertainment for generating subscription income. If the BBC provided popular sports and films (including British made ones) Sky would loose their most profitable programmes.

If the BBC cut their waste, they could afford these forms of entertainment, do the country some good and reduce Sky's value and hence Murdoch's interest in it!

I think we could have a very enjoyable argument about this but it would go way off the thread.