4 ms·

I worked at BBC between 2000-2006 I never saw a biscuit in a meeting, let alone ate one - although I'm sure thats because I was at the most junior level of the

by dotBen 15y ago

I worked at BBC between 2000-2006 I never saw a biscuit in a meeting, let alone ate one - although I'm sure thats because I was at the most junior level of the organization at the time (year 2000). But let's just calm down a little over this £200,000 figure - 27,000 people worked for BBC in 2001. So that's £7.41 a year per employee on biscuits and snacks to be consumed in meetings. Doesn't sound all that crazy to me, personally. I wonder how much BBC paid per year per employee on toilet bowl cleaner or light bulbs? In more recent times the BBC has had a massive reduction in it's budget and so the amount of cost cutting going on there totally eclipses the biscuit debacle. Finally, it's not a tax. Taxes are paid to governments. BBC is not part of the government (thank god). And while you may resent paying £2.80/week for the BBC the British media landscape would be a lot poorer without it - even if you were to never watch a BBC channel or look at a BBC website. If you don't believe me, try living in the US for 6 years and examine the horrible state of media in this country.

DanBC 15y ago
I upvoted you but . . . You say that you worked there, and had meetings, but never saw a biscuit? Thus, the figure isn't £200,000 / 27,000; but is £200,000 / however many people went to meetings where biscuits were served. Also, £7.41 a year per person for meeting biscuits is a lot of biscuits when you have economies of scale like the BBC. Finally: It might not be a tax but don't forget it's a special licence fee, protected with its own bit of legislation, where non-payment results in fines and non-payment of those fines was a significant cause of imprisonment of women. There aren't many other products with that kind of fee-structure. I agree the BBC is brilliant. I do think it's weird that Bob (who never ever watches BBC, or uses the website, or listens to BBC radio) but who has a telly has to pay the licence while Ann (who does listen to BBC radio all day, while noodling about on BBC websites, ) doesn't.
- brador 15y ago
  For even more perspective, the BBC takes in $5.7 BILLION from this "tax" each year. That's $5,700,000,000. Source: http://nerdr.com/uk-bbc-tv-license-fee-us-perspective/ http://nerdr.com/uk-bbc-tv-license-fee-us-perspective/ For a TV channel. Surely there are better uses for that tax money than paying off some silver spoon TV Execs?
  - dotBen 15y ago
    You clearly have no freaking idea what the BBC does if you think it is 'a TV channel'.
    - brador 15y ago
      TV, net, radio. Those are the core areas. But can't the free market channels and services work just as well? How about a donation system for the BBC like the US has? If it is as valuable as people claim, surely they will be willing to donate to the cause? The comments on that article go to show there exist conflicting views on the BBC's usefulness, in which case, it is unethical to force the tax on practically everyone who lives there.
      - 3am 15y ago
        The BBC is an enormous and success means for the UK to exert soft power globally via their native language affiliates around the world. edit: It seems gaius is correct below - the World Service funding doesn't come from the BBC TV surcharge.
        gaius 15y ago
        That's the World Service, which is funded by the Foreign Office from general taxation.
        jbooth 15y ago
        You can't have both?
        dotBen 15y ago
        actually....... that just changed very recently. The World Service is now funded from the license fee combined with commercial revenues (eg selling World Service news to NPR). In some ways it is a good thing that the government is not funding BBC World Service as that removes an argument for bias (not that I ever saw any when I was seconded to work on World Service Russian and Spanish language sites).
- dotBen 15y ago
  There aren't many other products with that kind of fee-structure. (In the UK) if Bob drives a car and doesn't pay for insurance he will get fined or go to prison. Yet Ann can ride her bike, crash into a pedestrian cross the street while uninsured. There's an example of another "special fee" with its own legislation which also has loopholes/inconsistances. There are many others.
  - Symmetry 15y ago
    But I can choose which insurance company gets my money. If I start the SBC and try to get money from people the same way the BBC does, or even that people be allowed to give me money instead of the BBC, I won't have any success.
  - DanBC 15y ago
    There is a free market of competing insurance companies who will take Bob's money. People who have a tv "installed or used" must buy a licence, and can only buy it from one company, whether they use that company's product or not. Indeed, they need to pay the fee even if they intend to only ever use the product of the BBC's competitors. Non-payment of car insurance is handled by the police. Non-payment of tv licence is handled by a private company. The TVL database is the largest civilian database in the UK, with details of 30million addresses. Cost of enforcement has been used as a reason to scrap the licence fee, by a previous BBC director general (Greg Dyke.) While it's possible to kill people and cause a lot of damage on a push-bike it is considerably harder to do so than whilst driving a car. And the analogy breaks down further - I can listen to BBC radio all day; I can use the BBC website all day; I can even watch BBC tv programmes on the BBC video on demand service BBC iPlayer (so long as they are time-shifted and not live-streaming) without having to buy a licence. But as soon as I want to watch, for example, Sky, I need to pay the licence to BBC and pay a subscription to Sky. For your analogy: As soon as Ann passes her driving test and buys a Ford she needs to pay money to Chrysler to allow her to drive. (But all of my analogies suck!)
gaius 15y ago
Of course it's a tax! What other organization can throw you in prison if you don't pay it, whether you use its services or not? Say what you like about Murdoch, but he doesn't get a penny from me, and there's sweet FA he can do about that. As for the horrible state of media, just compare for a second the production values and quality of Dr Who vs Battlestar Galactica... Or any other of a hundred US import shows.
- rmc 15y ago
  any other of a hundred US import shows Ah but that's not a fair comparison. For a show to be imported to the UK (with a much smaller population) it will have to be quite well ranked US TV show. They aren't going to be importing the bottom quality 25%. As a result, you're probably seeing the best USA TV there is.

by dotBen 15y ago

DanBC 15y ago

I upvoted you but . . . You say that you worked there, and had meetings, but never saw a biscuit? Thus, the figure isn't £200,000 / 27,000; but is £200,000 / however many people went to meetings where biscuits were served. Also, £7.41 a year per person for meeting biscuits is a lot of biscuits when you have economies of scale like the BBC. Finally: It might not be a tax but don't forget it's a special licence fee, protected with its own bit of legislation, where non-payment results in fines and non-payment of those fines was a significant cause of imprisonment of women. There aren't many other products with that kind of fee-structure. I agree the BBC is brilliant. I do think it's weird that Bob (who never ever watches BBC, or uses the website, or listens to BBC radio) but who has a telly has to pay the licence while Ann (who does listen to BBC radio all day, while noodling about on BBC websites, ) doesn't.

brador 15y ago
For even more perspective, the BBC takes in $5.7 BILLION from this "tax" each year. That's $5,700,000,000. Source: http://nerdr.com/uk-bbc-tv-license-fee-us-perspective/ http://nerdr.com/uk-bbc-tv-license-fee-us-perspective/ For a TV channel. Surely there are better uses for that tax money than paying off some silver spoon TV Execs?
- dotBen 15y ago
  You clearly have no freaking idea what the BBC does if you think it is 'a TV channel'.
  - brador 15y ago
    TV, net, radio. Those are the core areas. But can't the free market channels and services work just as well? How about a donation system for the BBC like the US has? If it is as valuable as people claim, surely they will be willing to donate to the cause? The comments on that article go to show there exist conflicting views on the BBC's usefulness, in which case, it is unethical to force the tax on practically everyone who lives there.
    - 3am 15y ago
      The BBC is an enormous and success means for the UK to exert soft power globally via their native language affiliates around the world. edit: It seems gaius is correct below - the World Service funding doesn't come from the BBC TV surcharge.
      - gaius 15y ago
        That's the World Service, which is funded by the Foreign Office from general taxation.
        jbooth 15y ago
        You can't have both?
        dotBen 15y ago
        actually....... that just changed very recently. The World Service is now funded from the license fee combined with commercial revenues (eg selling World Service news to NPR). In some ways it is a good thing that the government is not funding BBC World Service as that removes an argument for bias (not that I ever saw any when I was seconded to work on World Service Russian and Spanish language sites).
dotBen 15y ago
There aren't many other products with that kind of fee-structure. (In the UK) if Bob drives a car and doesn't pay for insurance he will get fined or go to prison. Yet Ann can ride her bike, crash into a pedestrian cross the street while uninsured. There's an example of another "special fee" with its own legislation which also has loopholes/inconsistances. There are many others.
- Symmetry 15y ago
  But I can choose which insurance company gets my money. If I start the SBC and try to get money from people the same way the BBC does, or even that people be allowed to give me money instead of the BBC, I won't have any success.
- DanBC 15y ago
  There is a free market of competing insurance companies who will take Bob's money. People who have a tv "installed or used" must buy a licence, and can only buy it from one company, whether they use that company's product or not. Indeed, they need to pay the fee even if they intend to only ever use the product of the BBC's competitors. Non-payment of car insurance is handled by the police. Non-payment of tv licence is handled by a private company. The TVL database is the largest civilian database in the UK, with details of 30million addresses. Cost of enforcement has been used as a reason to scrap the licence fee, by a previous BBC director general (Greg Dyke.) While it's possible to kill people and cause a lot of damage on a push-bike it is considerably harder to do so than whilst driving a car. And the analogy breaks down further - I can listen to BBC radio all day; I can use the BBC website all day; I can even watch BBC tv programmes on the BBC video on demand service BBC iPlayer (so long as they are time-shifted and not live-streaming) without having to buy a licence. But as soon as I want to watch, for example, Sky, I need to pay the licence to BBC and pay a subscription to Sky. For your analogy: As soon as Ann passes her driving test and buys a Ford she needs to pay money to Chrysler to allow her to drive. (But all of my analogies suck!)

gaius 15y ago

Of course it's a tax! What other organization can throw you in prison if you don't pay it, whether you use its services or not? Say what you like about Murdoch, but he doesn't get a penny from me, and there's sweet FA he can do about that. As for the horrible state of media, just compare for a second the production values and quality of Dr Who vs Battlestar Galactica... Or any other of a hundred US import shows.

rmc 15y ago
any other of a hundred US import shows Ah but that's not a fair comparison. For a show to be imported to the UK (with a much smaller population) it will have to be quite well ranked US TV show. They aren't going to be importing the bottom quality 25%. As a result, you're probably seeing the best USA TV there is.