I’m on Fubarr Radio with Jon Gaunt this morning discussing this story;
The BBC will send more staff for its coverage of Glastonbury Festival than it is dispatching to the World Cup in Brazil. Corporation music chief Bob Shennan said 300 staff were being lined up for the weekend, outstripping the 272 who are to head to Brazil to work on its football programming in the coming weeks. The BBC said it was trying to keep numbers down wherever possible, but each member of staff had a “clear and accountable role” to bring hours of coverage from the Somerset festival.
From my perspective, the BBC is demonstrating a reckless disregard to obtaining value for money for the license payer but I suppose £3billion a year pays for lots of Glastonbury type indulgences? The 272 going to Rio seems excessive to me and it would be interesting to compare the resources the BBC throws at this compared to other global broadcasters.
Glasto is a bit of a right-on smugfest it must be said!
Well we can add some facts to your debate, Davey! For the Sochi Winter Olympics NBC sent over 1400 people. The BBC sent 95. I’m sure there’s the odd “head of paperclips” who doesn’t need to go to Glastonbury but most people will be working hard and efficiently. They might *gasp* enjoy themselves. But what sort of puritan insists they don’t enjoy their work?
Refs:
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/olympics/An_inside_look_at_NBC_Sports_Olympics_television_production.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550048/BBC-fire-sending-95-staff-Winter-Olympics-TWICE-number-competing-Team-GB.html
The type of puritan who has to fund it!
I have a close friend who works as an “independent” in TV. It is an industry joke that BBC will send crews triple even quadruple the size of the inde’s for an event for no better results than small production companies. Except of course those outside the beeb work hard to deliver results and within tight budgets…the BBC don’t.
…Oh and by the way it is also not uncommon for BBC employees tempted away to join independent companies scattered around the metropolis to be out of a job quite sharply and bemoaning leaving the beeb because *gasp* they have to WORK *gasp*!
And while I am on a roll… Take a look at the credits at the end of any programme shown on the beeb. Notice how the independent companies staff line up in comparison with a BBC production. If you don’t have the time to waste and many of us hard working people don’t (I suggest “head of paperclips” possibly has that time) have a look at BBC produced Mastermind and tot up the number of names on that production team. Actually not a team…more like army of names. (by the way I have yet to see a Polish or Romanian name on any BBC production. Clearly the benefits of mass immigration haven’t affected BBC recruitment. Maybe BBC editor Jasmine Lawrence should resign and offer her job to one of them.)
Do you know something, George Q, I could not care a monkey’s luck how many people NBC sent to any single thing on this Earth.
I *do* care about how many people the BBC send to *any* function on this Earth because, BY CRIMINAL LAW, I am forced to pay for them *if* I own a TV set and use it for receiving live transmissions from *ANY SOURCE*.
Now, George Q, once you have digested the *FACTS* I have just posted to you, would you care to digest them, cogitate on them, then maybe come back and give your own explanation of how numbers of staff used by NBC has any single bearing at all on BBC costs?
I await your reply with interest.
I don’t know George Q, but in fairness the OP did say: ‘it would be interesting to compare the resources the BBC throws at this compared to other global broadcasters’.
Thanks for your comment, Walliam, but as I said to George Q, I do not care two hoots what other global broadcasters might care to throw at any single thing or programme on this Earth
Can neither of you follow, nor understand, the simple premise which concerns me and possibly many other receivers of broadcasts in the UK?
WE PAY FOR THEM!
WE PAY FOR THEM OVER THE ODDS!
EVEN IF I DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE BBC BROADCASTS I MUST PAY FOR THEM!
OK, Walliam, what were you saying about resources?
BECAUSE I’M NOT REALLY INTERESTED!
I’m paying for them whether I want them or not!
Or I will appear in a Majistrate’s Court!
GEDDITT !!!!!
I wasn’t aware it was legally compulsory to own a TV? Oh. It’s not. IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO RECEIVE BBC BROADCASTS THEN DON’T BUY AN APPARATUS THAT CAN RECEIVE THEM. Problem solved.
Clown answer of the very 1st degree.
Owning a TV and needing a licence has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH RECEIVING BBC BROADCASTS.
Any TV receiver which is used to receive TV broadcasts FROM ANY SOURCE WHATSOEVER, AS THEY ARE TRANSMITTED LIVE, *MUST* have a TV Licence, issued by the BBC (under their licensing authority name). Not having a licence is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE.
Now, George Q, will you please explain to me how I can BUY AN APPARATUS THAT DOES NOT RECEIVE BBC BROADCASTS and will absolve me from buying a licence.
I am still awaiting an intelligent answer from you, George Q.
You disgree with the idea of a licence fee. Fine.
But that’s not the point of the OP. The suggestion is that this profligacy by the BBC. It’s therefore perfectly reasonable to compare costs/staffing levels with other broadcasters. That’s going to help come to some verdict on whether it is wasteful.
You can make your argument for any penny the BBC spends, because you don’t think it should be spending anything because it shouldn’t be recieving anything at all. That’s a different argument. NO NEED TO SHOUT!
What a pathetic comment
Come on, George Q!
I’M STILL WAITING FOR A *SENSIBLE* ANSWER!
Let us be hearing about your “awareness” of avoiding the BBC Licencing Authority, please.
How does one do it?
Come on, George Q,
GIVE US A CLUE !!!
Damn, clicked “like” by mistake on George Q’s comment. Sorry.
You do not seem to be answering any questions at all George Q, so, here’ a very, very simple one:
What has the number of staff sent by NBC to the “Sochi Winter Olympics got to do with the number of staff the BBC sent?
Simple question, George Q, for which I respectfully request a simple answer?
I’m waiting.
I’m afraid you will never get an answer to your valid question – the standard patter from a beeboid or a BBC loving lefty goes like this:
a) Do not not buy or watch a TV as you won’t have to pay. I see George Q has already ticked that one!
b) We all pay for advertising whether we like it or not therefore we should also pay for the BBC whether we like it or not.
c) If the topic veers towards a mention of “charter” or “balance” it will then be met with “Nick Robinson chaired Conservative Students” so the BBC must be pro-Tory. As backup they’ll also add that Chris Pattern ‘was’ a Tory too.
d) Evidence of left-wing bias will get met with “we get complaints from Labour so it proves we must be balanced”.
I too await with interest if George Q can answer how can one legally watch any programme transmitted on any channel without having to pay the BBC for it – for example if I wanted to watch one of the Formula 1 races that isn’t shown live on the BBC but on Sky Sports, how can I legally watch it without having to pay the BBC £145.50 a year?
Much of the funds will no doubt contribute to the wooly jumper BBC type’s dope supplies, beer money and pack lunches. We’ll have endless drug/alcohol-induced interviews with has-beens and lefty commentators and coverage of unoriginal bands dressed like the Stones playing derivative music that is poorly produced and highly superficial.
No, I’m off to watch some live jazz, tonight, in a cosy little club/restaurant that serves real ale and fine fines. I can assure you that the music will be of a higher calibre and I won’t have to cue for the toilet or to get a drink!
” fine fines”?
Schome mishtake, shurely? 😉
Amongst a ‘hideously white’ audience
George
BBC sent 765 for three week London Olympics, 300 for 3 day music festival. Quite.
Don’t you sell yogurt or something? How many people does it take to do that? One farmer to look after the cows. With machinery and automation I’m sure you could run a yogurt factory with five people? Thanks to the internet I bet you could sell yogurt online without any sort of sales force. Frankly if there are more than ten people making yogurt in Northern Ireland I for one am outraged. Did you ask John Gaunt why he needed a producer when working at the BBC because he couldn’t run a desk himself?
Yawn – another small-minded axe-grinder.
You have been asked a number of questions. Is that the best you can come up with ?
And who cares how many people NBC send, they are a commercial outfit, if they wish to spend their advertising revenue like that, then so be it.
Thank you, George Q, for so perfectly demonstrating why the BBC’s business and financial coverage is laughably poor. The very basics of how a business works are quite beyond you Beeboids, aren’t they?
Its the same with BBC Grand Prix weekends, 2 different presenters (practice/race) when one would, and at least 9 commentators/analysts split between radio and TV, and of course all the technical staff.
Radio and TV commentary could be shared as could the analysts, not sure why Suzi Perry isn’t used to present the practice sessions instaed of the (probably cheaper) and more knowledgeable Lee MacKenzie ?
What about our planet people? This MUST impact Global Warming/Climate Change. Looks like I’ll have to cancel next years planned trip to Thailand for me, my wife and son to try and do what a mere pleb can and redress the balance due to the greedy BBC
Remember the Mandelathon, where the bBBC spent our money on sending three times more of their staff than all other British broadcasters put together.
Can we discover how many staff they sent to cover the D-Day memorials? In the minds of any normal person (but that doesn’t include the bBBC editors) a celebration of British patriotism surely ought to trump the death of a foreign terrorist, or an annual drugfest, or the quadrennial failure of British teams at a football event.
It seems the BBC would rather save pennies than pounds, as of October Radio 2 will no longer be live overnight, preferring to air repeats of Sounds of the 60’s/70’s/80’s rather than the long serving overnight DJ Alex Lester.
It could be argued that BBC Radio 2 is offering a valuable service to insomniacs and overnight workers and a another case their priorities being all wrong. Instead of axing a valuable service, why not do away with some of the big names and stand ins like Feltz, Kielty, Madeley, O’Leary, O’Grady and Norton, how much are they still paying Wogan for just two hours on a Sunday with half the year off?
The cynic in me thinks that this is another case like the announcement of the closure of 6Music and the Asian Network where public pressure from facebook campaigns and such like caused the closures to be cancelled, why else wait until October? Radio 2 will always be popular regardless of who is presenting just by transmitter coverage.
This is just going through the motions, if the BBC really wanted to save money on radio they could close R1xtra, 6Music, The Asian Network (unless we can have an Anglo Network) , 5Live (bar for sport) and network local radio with Radio 2 having just local Breakfast and evening shows and hourly local news.
http://radiotoday.co.uk/2014/06/alex-lester-moved-to-weekends-at-radio-2/
Thanks for this article.
The likes of Alex Lester and Richard Allinson are good `uns, and deserve better.
Huey Morgan is excellent too, and the likes of Brian Matthew and Johnnie Walker are turning out to be our generations versions of Sam Costa and Alan Keith, David Jacobs and Desmond Carrington.
In other words, the few people who earn the trust of the license fee payer by actually caring about the likes of us who listen to them…and we return the compliment.
Compare and contrast with the self-serving ninnies and ignoramuses of Radio 4…and the Godwawful current affairs and news lots like “Toady”…turns out to be 1968 Groundhog Days Wailing Wall of useless rebellion and agitprop…
These Radio 2 stalwarts earn their money-Radio 4 needs a bullet to the back of the brain re “news and analysis”
Last year, the story was not only about numbersbut also how many hotels were booked, and at what cost:
But the BBC has booked hundreds of rooms in the finest hotels nearby because it seems only the best will do for its large army of staff covering the event.
Once ensconced, they will be able to enjoy Jacuzzis and sumptuous furniture at vast expense, funded by licence fee-payers.
An investigation by The Mail on Sunday has found that the BBC has secured more than 200 rooms within a 14-mile radius of the Somerset festival for its employees.
The reservations include block-booking more than 14 separate hotels and guest houses.
Among the rooms are a luxury suite with gilded furniture which normally costs from £300 to £500 a night, Scandinavian log cabins which are normally £500 a week and a nine-room ‘Mediterranean-style’ hotel with heated swimming pool.
As a result, ordinary festival-goers who prefer a warm room to a tent are finding accommodation increasingly hard to come by. Many are now having to stay in rooms as far away as Bath, which is more than 20 miles from the festival site.
Here’s how they responded to criticism at the time:-
Last night a BBC spokesman said: ‘It is a legal requirement to provide for employees working away from home.
‘Hotels were booked through an internal system to ensure best value for money.’
The BBC said it sent 274 staff to Glastonbury in 2010 and hoped to send fewer this year.
It refused to comment on cost, claiming the information was commercially sensitive.
Well clearly they’re not trying to send fewer this year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/7047653.stm
And of course, where there is a Lefty Charity, , there is the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/somerset/content/articles/2006/11/22/michael_eavis_wateraid_feature
And refusing an FOI should be made illegal
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bbc_glastonbury_festival_costs
Maybe you should understand FOI before commenting?
[….In practical terms, the BBC has interpreted this to mean that we are not required to supply information held for the purposes of creating the BBC’s output or information that supports or is closely associated with these activities. This extends to programme finance information, such as production and talent costs, as considered by the High Court in BBC v Information Commissioner [2009] EWHC 2348 (Admin).] It should not be for the BBC to determine, but that of an independent source. What a stitch up! Democracy at work good fellows of BBBC!
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomphillips/no-the-bbc-didnt-put-up-its-staff-in-a-279-a-night-hotel-for
All pointless. Just get rid of the BBC. Then we could all stop arguing about who send who to what.
Private companies can do what they like as long as the money does not run out.
The BBC is a lousy business model. We all know it . Even the Beeboids must know it.
Always easy to spend other peoples money especially if you are taxpayer funded.
A disgrace but it won’t ever change
And Glasto is a middle class party. Couldn’t stand to be anywhere near the Tarquins and Tabithas that go there and the BBC leftie journalists are cut from the same cloth as them