Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The soon to be released digital Britain report will effectively draw the lines around what is good for government and state. The BBC will be handed even more power, effectively already heavily indebted to the government, it's online news service will become even 'softer' if that's possible, there will also be a stern warning about expenses - just for the headlines !

To counter this they will claim that freedom of speech and democracy, not to mention slightly rebellious broadcasting, is being saved as they throw a lifeline to Channel4. They will omit to mention that Channel4 has long been pushed into the bosom of the BBC, having been overrun by ex BBC staff and government pressure in the run up to the funding issue. ITN the a thorn in the side of government SPIN will be given a sink or swim option and ITV will just get decimated. So Murdoch on one side and the spectre of Whitehall on the other....... meanwhile we will all continue to sleep.

AllforNun, the Digital Britain final report is due to be published 16 June. The consultation period - during which members of the public were free to contribute - is over. In the meantime, it seems a little fruitless the speculate about what things might be said in something that hasn't yet been published.

AllforNun Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No speculation spank monkey and do me a favour -

>

> "the consultation period - during which members of

> the public were free to contribute - is over"

>

> What the hell are you ? i am intrigued ....animal,

> vegetable or mineral !


Some days are animal. And some I'm vegetable. B)

Today, being surrounded by chard seedlings and wind-up devices, I'm mainly on the vegetable-mineral axis.


But it is true that there was a first report, and then a consultation period, and now the final report will be published (unfortunately while I am parked in a tent on a farm - so very vegetable - and so far removed from all that is digital). I do believe it's more productive to turn over the living - paper, vegetable - entrails of reports, and indeed to protest vehemently as is often required, rather than to speculate about what some future report might possibly say.

"unfortunately while I am parked in a tent on a farm - "


How strange i am also in a Tipi at an obscure but cool acoustic festival, the joy of technology. Anyway as for digestion, i have already told you so start digesting, the time for speculation has passed.


Hows the weather where you are ? i think there is a storm brewing here, my fairy lanterns are going to get buggered.

Oops there it is !


Ben Bradshaw, a former BBC journalist, has been appointed the new culture, media and sport secretary. Bradshaw's appointment at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport means ministerial responsibility for the BBC will be held by one of its former employees.



Bilderberg Bilderberg Bilderberg Bilderberg Bilderberg Bilderberg Bilderberg Bilderberg Bilderberg Bilderberg Bilderberg

I notice today that the BBC have made a very public dressing down of it's 'suddenly' overpaid presenters ? maybe this report has already got out in the open as has been suggested ? Interesting that the managerial teams are only getting a pay freeze while they expect others to take a pay cut ! That's very MP esque of them.

Surpise ! not.


so the beeb are being asked to give up, if my calculations are right 3.6% of there annual budget of 3.6billion ! and none of that money was programming money it was extra money that was donated by the government to pay for the cost of switching to digital. Christ the state sponsored mouthpiece remains virtually untouched.

so there you go - BBC gets to keep it's 3.6 and rising Billion and everyone else gets fucked or fudged and we get charged 50p and month for 2meg broadband, ive got 8meg now so so what !


And why because the government think that the 27% of the population who regard the BBC as truly the british Empire ( do not give a shit about the the 73% who would not really notice if the beeb only got 2.6 billion a year and 1billion went else where !


lets take to the streets alah iran !

no just the beeb ! and the focus my friend is nothing more sinister than the fact they get 3.6billion a year they are a law unto themselves the head of SUBTITLING gets 547.000 pounds a year and they bleat on about market rates that they them selves set. Wait till you see there expenses, which you won't as a controlled media is second only to a nuclear device !


much love


AFN

oh sorry how silly of me because of course you cannot as....


The corporation is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act where information related to its "journalism, art or literature" is concerned.


yes that's how well hidden they are ! this includes all info by the way

Just to set the record straight, the BBC has only 744 senior managers. Of these, just 13 have salaries over ?250,000 a year; only 83 earn over ?160,000; a bare 172 have salaries above ?130,000; and 343 of them are scraping along on pittances of not much more than ?100,000.


As for the director-general Mark Thompson, no reasonable person could grudge him his ?816,000 salary


LAST JULY yes LAST JULY (who new about the financial crisis ) - the BBC awarded modest pay rises of up to ?107,000!!!!! each to executive directors. there are 10 of them so that is a cool million ! they are so executive they missed the fact that we were nose diving into a recession but WTF do they care, because the licence fee does not change and in fact during a recession is worth way more !!!

....round 2....the crushing ego of the BBC II


British broadcasting is sliding towards monochromic mediocrity. Counterintuitive as it may sound, the best way to rescue it would be to cut funding for the BBC and share out the proceeds of the licence fee.


Someone, sometime, however, will have to admit that the old model of public service broadcasting is broken. As long as it continues to be held hostage to a BBC monopoly, there is nothing to be done.


The ferocity with which it defends its ground is something to behold. Thus a recent Tory proposal to freeze the licence fee for a year in view of the straitened economic times elicited the hysterical response that the BBC's political independence was under threat.


read on at http:/www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e255a868-5a0e-11de-b687-00144feabdc0.html


So here is ferocity coming back at you .......politicians AFN says.......... " start carving them barstards UP ! "

I've got the BBC's annual report, and there's no executive role for a 'Head of Subtitling' or 'Head of Access', and no salary assigned.


Is it possible you've been getting your info third hand, and you can't differentiate between fact and fiction?


The Board roles are 'Head of Vision' (TV) etc.


The salaries are predominantly in the 300k range, and whilst high, they do reflect well aganist the salaries of individuals running equivalent businesses in the private sector.


For example Peter Chernin of News Corp last year received US$27.4m in annual salary for being the COO (not the owner, mind, just another board member).

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...