Here’s some good news..”BBC faces hundreds of job losses”  Now it’s all very well for Jeremy Dear, leader of the NUJ, to whinge about HOW AWFUL it is but let’s face it, we’re all in this together.Thing is that a 20% reduction is not enough, it needs to closer to 100%. There is no way that the cash-stricken UK can afford the indulgence of the State Broadcaster on that multi billion annual fee it charges so alas it’s time for Auntie to visit Dignatas. I’m sure all that world-class impartial talent can find alternative employment without feeding off us.

Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to REASONS TO BE CHEERFUL….

  1. Scottie says:

    It’s all very well getting angry as you feel the coverage given by the BBC is biased against the right, but I find the glee that people will be out of work distasteful.

    The thought of people sat smiling and rubbing their hands together at the thought of livelihoods lost and people heading towards the benefit office an ugly image.


    • Martin says:

      Scottie, if the TV tax were scrapped the BBC could fun itself and employ as many drugged up rent boy raping arseholes as it liked, so long as I’m not having to forcibly fund this scum I don’t mind.

      Funny that when thousands of jobs were being lost in the private sector the BBC said nothing, was that because the jobs were lost when Gordon McMong was in charge?

      Oh dear now it’s public sector workers and evil Tories the BBC has woken up.

      I won’t take ANY lectures from the left wing about job cuts.


    • Demon1001 says:

      “as you feel the coverage given by the BBC is biased against the right”

      What do you mean “as you feel”?  There is nothing to do with feelings – it’s a fact, proven 1000s of times over on this site and elsewhere.


    • DJ says:

      They’re not ‘losing their livelihoods’. A livelihood involves producing goods or services people are actually prepared to pay for. These guys are losing the right to leech off everybody else’s cash and then call them Nazis. 


    • matthew rowe says:

      “It’s all very well getting angry”
      angry? who’s angry ? I though we were all rubbing our hand with glee? 
      “biased against the right”
      sorry but until you can post up a list of right-wing or centre thinking types employed by the BBC then the lists of  of BBC employees in the Labour party and left wing groups will just  have to do us!
      Come off it scot you find every thing on here distasteful !
      “The thought of people sat smiling and rubbing their hands together at the thought of livelihoods lost and people heading towards the benefit office an ugly image”

      Then don’t do  BEEB special and make the image up then !


    • JohnW says:

      As the broadcasting arm of the Labour party, the BBC has been partying long and hard at our expense as it rubbed our faces in the multiculturism we never asked for. They have delighted at shoving two fingers up to indigenous Brits, all the while championing their myriad left wing causes – all on our account. We never asked for any of this either.

      Permit me a smile as I now delight at these specimens now being forced to seek alternative employment. Assuming they are the”world-class” talent they claim to be, they should have no problem securing well-paid employment in the private sector should they? As an act of generosity, I’ll even drive them to the benefits office myself.


  2. Martin says:

    Agreed, it should be an easy decision, scrap the TV tax and make the beeboids fund themselves. Problem solved and we all get to save £150 a year, which in these tight times would be very welcome.


  3. Charlie says:

    Why don’t they take a pay cut like many people in the private sector have had to do.
    The great majority of people working in the BBC are overpaid. Something has to give. Utopia  is just a dream.


  4. john in cheshire says:

    The job losses could of course, be made into a reality tv show. With people competing for the chance to give their favourite (or not, lol) bbc employee their marching orders.


    • Buggy says:

      An idea of rare and bee-yoot-iful perfection ! Chapeau to you sir !

      But if I may respectfully venture an improvement to your basic “marching orders”: each group of contestants to be required to test themselves on the “Total Wipeout” course (and one of the foreign versions at that, rather than our weedy edition with the glacially-slow spinner etc).


  5. Demon1001 says:

    @Charlie, great idea.  The BBC should have a sliding scale salary which compares to elsewhere; minimum wage for those at the bottom of the scale reaching a maximum of £80,000 pa for the Director General.

    The propaganda department could take a 100% job loss as they don’t do anything positive.  This would help the economy as no-one would be downplaying any good news. 

    They should reduce to 1 reporter and small camera team to cover the whole of South America – they can easily take economy flights around the continent if they really need to move. 

    Sack all the staff in the USA as they can get jobs with CNN and other left-wing TV channels if they are good enough (doubt it).  All information can be sent to the BBC studios in England so nobody is required to be present in the USA.

    I could go on, but in principle nobody worthwhile would need to be lost – there would then be few enough staff that the Guardian and Labour Party could pay their salaries between them.  After all, that’s who the BBC represents. 


  6. George R says:

    Will Director General M. Thompson actually carry out such ‘cuts’?

    In 2010 he said this:

    “BBC 6 Music and Asian Network face axe in shake-up”

    But what is happening to his promised closure of the apartheid ‘Asian Network’ which panders to a species of ‘Asian British’, and all their self-serving propaganda, paid for by British licencepayers?

    Reneging Thompson.

    Another easy and necessary cut: CLOSE DOWN ‘WORLD SERVICE’, before the cost is shifted on to British licencepayers in a couple of years, and this especially includes closing down INBBC’s propagandist ‘Arabic service’, including its HQ at East Wing (Mecca-facing) of Broadcasting House, London.



  7. RGH says:

    The Beeboid surely considers himself/herself/itself very marketable. He/she/it should have no problems ‘jumping before they are pushed’.

    At least that is what they tell the world when they strike for more licence fee cash.

    Now might be their moment to demonstrate how attractive they are.

    i’m sure they will be snapped up.

    Gaza TV needs an infusion of Beebery, I’m told. And Laos wants to float a new privitised Channel. Local wage rates apply, natch!

    /sarc off.


  8. Martin says:

    Why should I have sympathy for the BBC when they’ve been cheerleading for the EU for years, the EU has cost hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs in the UK thanks to the so called open market.

    When the one eyed mong stated “British jobs for British workers” something also said by the BNP the BBC gave him a virtual free pass, even though what he said was a blatant lie.

    Then he called a woman a bigot for simply saying what many ordinary people felt about immigration ad the effect it was having on housing and jobs.

    Where was the indignation then? The twats at the BBC tried to spin it as sympathy for the one eyed mong, even attacking Sky News for releasing the recording in the first place (we know the BBC wouldn’t have unless it had been a Tory)

    I hope all the twats at the BBC lose their jobs, I hate them all. Screw them.


    • david hanson says:

      Couldn’t agree more Martin. How many private sector jobs did they put in jeopardy with their relentless attacks on the banking sector and BP for instance? How many people have lost their jobs to the cheap labour migrants that they seem to love so much? (Don’t see many “hardworking” East European TV presenters do you?). Sod ’em – let the find out what the true market rate for their “talents” really is.


      • david hanson says:

        Sorry, that should read “let them find out”


      • Buggy says:

        (Don’t see many “hardworking” East European TV presenters do you?).

        Fair’s fair: we do have “The Cheeky Girls” after all. And one of them did date Lembit Opik for a while, thus saving the indigenous female population from his attentions rather in the manner of a badly-dyed firewall.


    • Charlie says:

      I have no sympathy for the BBC employers loosing their jobs, its called life. They have been on this gravy train for to long. You loose your job you get another like the rest of us. Welcome to the real world.


      • Grant says:

        Beeboids could always go self-employed, start a business, employ people , create wealth, pay taxes.  Except that would involve hard work and taking a risk.


  9. RGH says:

    7462 jobs in broadcasting worldwide…..vacancies……


  10. Phil says:

    These job losses are good news.

    I can understand why I need to give money to the government so it can run schools, hospitals etc.

    But why should I pay a tax which is used to mass manufacture unnecessary trash like Eastenders and Casualty? And don’t forget that most of the people involved in the manufacture of this rubbish are paid much more from our tax cash than people employed in essential services like education and health! How absurd and irresponsible.


    • London Calling says:

      Now there’s a thought – perhaps as the credits roll at the end of Casualty each actors salary should be alongside their name, so people who do those jobs for real in the NHS can compare the rewards of fiction with fact.  

      Same with News broadcasters and presenters, and Dumbleby on Question Time. People can judge for themselves what they are worth – after all, they are having to pay for it. It was an eyeopener when last year some lightweight  girlie presenter blurted out she was on £90k. Would love to see Marr’s price ticket.


      • Buggy says:

        Better still, following on from john in cheshire’s ideas further up the thread, each actor/participant’s name in the credits could be followed by a freefone number so that the GBP could vote their least favourite off each week.

        If the BBC wants more people watching their programmes that’s the way to go !

        And it would stop the endlessly proliferating episodes, repeats, and omnibus editions stone dead, wouldn’t it, if each superfluous additional broadcast meant an extra chance to vote off some jobbing deadweight !

        Thus, sample dialogue (The Archers):

        Nigel (falling off the roof): “Aaaaargggghhhhh !!” (Splatttt !)

        >>Tum-tee-tumm-tee-tum-te-tum etc etc<<

        Lizzie: “Sob ! Sob ! Sob !”

        Nigel: “Hullo, Lizzie ! Whay are you crying?”

        Lizzie: “Nigel ! But I thought you’d fallen to your death from the roof of Lower Loxley !”

        Nigel: “Not at all ! Thanks to the listeners, it’s been decided that Usha was trying to take down the banner, when Slip! Whee! Splat! Ever-so-dead instead.”

        I’m almost as hot for this idea as I am for my chunky lady-love, now restored in avatar form.


  11. Dr A says:

    OMG!!! Without he usual contingent of 3837349 Beeboids how on earth will we know how utterly,amazingly, incredibly, astoundingly awesome Glastonbury is?


  12. RGH says:

    Thought for the day.

    Top 382 Beeboid are paid by the equivalent of 400,000 licence fees.

    Ergo: Each Ober-Beeboid is compulsorily (if you have a TV in UK) supported by a shade over 1000 licence fee payers.

    That is akin to Medieval Serfdom.


  13. NRG says:


    But beware, it is standard parasite practice to talk up job losses (especially amongst the so called front line) to stir up anger and sympathy amongst the gulible in order to build a support base to demnad more of other people’s money.

    If these people are as highly skilled and deserving of above market rate salaries they will have no problem getting new jobs.


  14. DAVID SHEPHERD says:

    In my working life I have been made redundant 3 times. I volunteered for redundancy twice- thinking a change would freshen up my working life. As my skills are transferable, I have found similar or better paid work within days. If the BBC employees are any good they will be able to find work easily. 


  15. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Is Mitch Benn going to do another song now?


  16. David Preiser (USA) says:

    If the BBC hadn’t gotten so bloated in admin and compliance managers and part-time TV channels at £100 million per, there would be very little need to shed jobs now.


  17. AndyUk06 says:

    I am in complete agreement with DV over this. The BBC’s market-distorting activites are costing many potential jobs in the private sector. Until the wretched organization actually goes, this sad situation will continue. Why should taxpayer be forced to fund the monopolization of travel guides (Lonely Planet) for example?  Until the thing is actually sold off, many potentially fruitful embryonic businesses (and hence jobs) will be thwarted. Ditto news websites, motoring programmes, sport and popular music.

    Why should the BBC have a commercial arm and yet still receive a licence fee?  Why should they enjoy the best of both worlds while commercial channels struggle?  Why should the British public be forced to fund the political views of Guardian readers? 


  18. John Horne Tooke says:

    How many hospitals and schools could be built from the money that is given to the BBC. How many nurses or doctors could be employed?  Isn’t that how the argument goes when talking about bankers.


  19. TrueToo says:

    They might cut 500 World Service jobs? Made my day. However, I had a sobering thought: They’ll retain their favourite blue-eyed boys and girls – i.e. the more devoted and uncompromising lefties, who never deviate a fraction from their PC idiocy, will be in no danger of losing their jobs. They will never fire someone like Alan Johnston, for example, despite the fact that he sounds drugged out of his mind these days as he “presents” the awful From our own Correspondent.


  20. Demon1001 says:

    I heard North Korean Television have some vacancies, but they turned down applications from some BBC employees because they were too left wing.