What a result! BBC World Service to lose 600 jobs. As Margaret Thatcher once said, Rejoice. As has been expressed to me today;
The BBC World Service is nothing but the propaganda arm of the left wing anti-British, anti-American, anti-business and Anti Christian pro Islam, Unionised BBC.The BBC World Service deliberately sabotages the interests of working people in the UK in almost every broadcast. It should be shut down immediately, not merely curtailed.
You missed out “perverted”.
As in “perverts the facts”.
As the old joke used to go “What do you call 600 drowned beeboids?”
A good start
Hey, at least it’ll give all those swimming polar bears something to snack on.
Thompson is doing this to incite public anger against the nasty Tories forcing him to make these cuts and to evoke sympathy for the BBC. I bet I could spend an hour looking over the books and find better, less obvious cuts to make.
This is a publicity stunt, politically motivated, plain and simple. Thompson and the BBC are sacrificing people unnecessarily to score points.
The World Service is a waste of money anyway, we no longer have an Empire and people can access news in many other ways.
You’re right, Martin. To be serious for a moment, while I do think there are a couple of less biased moments on certain World Service programmes than on the usual flagship offerings, the whole concept is really redundant these days.
The the idea of the World Service is from a time when there was no internet, no satellite TV, no mobile phones. The only people who will lose out on access to the BBC’s wonderful reporting would be those who still listen on the short-wave or similar. And is that even really necessary? Do they benefit from it over other available alternatives? Furthermore, could the BBC have muscled out better local alternatives and scrapping all those services could actually improve local lives?
They were whingeing about this on Today. It seems that because the BBC are now having to fund it themselves (ie via our license fee/taxes) they are cutting posts and ‘vital’ services.
Can I be the only one who wonders: if it’s that important why don’t they cut their executive salaries and the exorbitant wages they pay to ‘edgy’ comedians instead?
notice the beeboid mp Mcshane trying to do the beebs dirty work in the commons….moaned about some world service countries having being cut,only to find out they were cut by the last liebore bods….bend the facts to fit the beebs remit it what we do….
Just heard Misha Glenny on radio Five calling this cut cultural barbarism of the worst kind.
Hang on isnt the BBC now responsible for the world service.
So the BBC is comitting this barbasism rather than impose a pay cut across the board in order to save the £60 million needed for the world service…
With an income in excess of £4,000,000,000 there must be a way.
Like I said, it’s a targeted stunt.
The BBC World Service is nothing but the propaganda arm of the left wing anti-British, anti-American, anti-business and Anti Christian pro Islam,
Been saying so for years. The only thing that is missing is the BBC is institutionally anti-Israel – its in their DNA.
Hague is an idiot. Blaming the cuts on bloated BBC pensions is exactly the wrong tactic. The Beeboids are practically in tears while reporting. Funny.
Independent reporting in foreign countries? Yeah, right. Like in China? Imposing “cultural influence” on other countries? Isn’t that Imperialism? Oh, dear.
Now here’s Dennis McShane to tell us how awful it is. A “very serious reduction in Britains’ voice around the world.” Hague is the worst person in the world today, to listen to this guy.
Thompson’s stunt worked a treat, I think. Have to give the man credit. This is a great wedge issue for the BBC to attack the Tories.
Sorry David – can you elaborate? I may be being thick but I don’t understand your post!
Sorry, I was criticizing Hague and the Beeboids at the same time, and probably muddled it up. I think attacking the pensions of a few BBC mandarins is not the way to go. Especially considering Andrew Neil’s recent special on Tory toffs running the country and oppressing the masses. The BBC owns the class war argument and it’s foolish to take them on with it.
Having said that, the BBC’s defense (as spelled out in the news report to which I was reacting) that the world needs the independent voice of the BBC is a joke. Just because they get banned from Zimbabwe and Iran? Please. They feed their own agenda to their audiences, not the “voice of Britain” or some such BS. So I laugh when they try to play the World Service as being a great cultural influence on shepherds in the backwaters of Pakistan. When someoen else says that’s what they’re doing, the Beeboids are the first to cry “Imperialist”.
Mark Thompson could have found another way to fund whatever he’s cutting. There’s plenty of waste in administration and a useless domestic channel or two. Hell, the profits of Worldwide could pay for the whole thing and then some. And I saw the unshaven emperor himself tell Andrew Marr only a few week sago that in fact BBC revenues were ever increasing. Crying poverty at the BBC is total lie.
He chose this because it’s an easy, obvious way to make a political statement against nasty Tory cuts. A story about 1000 unemployed middle managers, compliance monkeys, and vision directors just isn’t as sexy.
Thanks David. I agree in general but not with your first paragraph: I believe one of the problems the Tories have is that they are too worried about how their actions will be portrayed by the ‘opposition’. This is a hangover from the Blair era. A key part of Cameron’s work was to focus on presentation to undo this stigmatization; but this is problematic because if one takes such an approach, in effect, one concedes that the opposition dictates the terms of the debate – net result: defensiveness and a tacit acceptance that you are not in the authoritative position, and this is very bad long-term strategy. Success depends on who sets the terms of the debate; Thatcher did. Islam seeks to do so now.
I do think that there is mileage in making the point that the World Service funding is now a zero-sum game within the wider BBC budget, and the man in the street would be unhappy about the sums of their money that the BBC pays execs and ‘stars’, their pensions, or, as you rightly say, just wastes on the usual state-funded bureaucracy.
The problem is, in this specific case, that people in the UK (the licence payers) don’t give a toss about the World Service, go into snooze mode, and miss the point.
I noted some Tories condemning the cuts. Amazing.
Thomspon knows what he’s doing, and is getting results.
BBC World Service should be TOTALLY closed down NOW.
As pointed out on here:
1.) it is an unnecessary cost to the British taxpayer of about £300 million a year;
2.) it includes much cultural and political propaganda to serve Arab and Islamic interests;
3.)its Middle East output is political pernicious, and is a pro-Islam, anti-Israel front, aping Islamic Al Jazeera’s output; BBC-NUJ supports the Turkish flootilla invasion against Israel;
4.) BBC World Service is due to be totally paid for by licencepayers in 2 years, as part of a generous deal with this government. This must be stopped before it starts;
5.) Broadcasting House, East Wing, London (newly extended and refurbished, with prayer room) must be taken back off the BBC Arabic Service.
“Strike Action by NUJ Members at BBC Arabic Service”
http://www.demotix.com/photo/560053/strike-action-nuj-members-bbc-arabic-service
“BBC blunder as bosses forget to build prayer room for new Arabic TV channel”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-511159/BBC-blunder-bosses-forget-build-prayer-room-new-Arabic-TV-channel.html#ixzz1CAf4JrEe
6.) Everytime the BBC-NUJ branch report this story, it is full of its own trade union branch’s political propaganda. Virtually every reporter at the BBC is an NUJ member, and it is NUJ policy to maintain public funding of its NUJ member’s Arabic Service and all! The BBC’s output on this is explicitly publicly subsidised self-serving propaganda for NUJ membership at the BBC.
7.) The immediate and total closure of BBC World is needed to indicate that the British people are not here to subsidise the broadcasting interests of the rest of the world, nor the political and cultural interests of BBC-NUJ members.
Ah but I do hope that you heard Sir John Tusa-formerly of the BBC World Service “family”-moaning that the damned DFID got their money ring fenced whereas the Beeb would have to cut its mighty World Service.
In effect this old fool had the nerve to question the cash splash for Mugabe, Somali pirates and the like-yet the BBC have ,until now, been hammering the nasty Tories for possibly threatening the International Development budget.
Turns out now that (of course) it should all have been ring fenced- except for the bit that Bono, Geldof and Oxfam should not be getting now that the BBC wants the dough to send to Mardell ,Harrabin and the like as our cultural attaches unhampered by “the cuts maan!”
Should we tell Tusas friends back at the Guardian and Christian Aid about his heresy, boys and girls. How can you possibly remain enlightened and liberal when you now question the God that is International Development and its right to our taxes? Maybe Tusa could dip into his pension and help out eh?
I really am gutted at the news of 600 job losses
gutted that it’s only 600 and gutted that’s it’s only the world servive
but a good start nevertheless
CLOSE DOWN ALL BBC WORLD SERVICE NOW.
BBC-NUJ now exposes its special political pleading over World Service.
British taxpayers should not have to fund BBC World Service, which cost about £300 million a year.
British taxpayers should not fund, as now, the broadcasting interests of people outside Britain.
And British taxpayers should not fund, as now, the global political propaganda
of BBC-NUJ members, as blatantly practiced in e.g. the Middle East arena (pro-Hamas, anti-Israel).
No transfer of BBC World Service to licencepayers in 2014.
Just as BBC-NUJ cannot report fairly on News Corp and Sky because the BBC has a vested political interest in all that, so too BBC-NUJ cannot report on BBC World Service fairly because of BBC-NUJ branch policy (and vested interest) on the World Service.
Acknowledging the distinction between who actually funds it, and a cut vs. the BBC not picking up the tab, this thread & comments are interesting…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/01/painful_day.html#P105668054
Folk seem to be realising that, again, the BBC and it’s high end numptie executive branch has resorted to “The Editors” to make claims that don’t stand scrutiny.
It really is a gold mine of market rate foot pedal targetting.