The Enemy is at the Gate! Bring out the Bolly!

BBC splashed out £81,000 of licence fee cash on lavish Wimbledon hospitality event

My first thought was to wonder just how many were there to watch the tennis and how many to simply suck up and schmooze. Until recently that may have been fine, if sickening, for an independent bank. Not so much the BBC, though. IMHO.

And if they are 'doing business', are they buying or selling? If it is not a staff jolly, where I come from you only blow such money to make it.

Don't people come to the BBC to try and make a score of the £3.5B, 60M audience and worldwide access? They should be the ones throwing the party!.If it is the other way (and I know there is, and maybe even has to be, and aspect of that), is this not a sorry further sign of the creeping, one-way commercial intrusions Aunty is making. What next? No one attends a legitimate business launch because the public have pony'd up for an event they a) would be booted out of and b) may be to help promote something directly competitive?

Since when did I authorise such use of funds via my licence fee?

Between the antics of the Labour Party, their camp followers and cheerleaders in chief, this getting to be like a mix of the Last Days of the Raj and the bunker behaviour of the Fall of Berlin.

ps: Nice picture of No 11 stocking up

Mutually assured gravy

The BBC has one law for the rich, one for the poor

Hard to comprehend.

Whilst undoubtedly talented (mostly), there are plenty more where they came from, and no one is, or should be, indispensable.

The BBC is unique, and that works in a variety of ways. One is giving all sorts of folk the opportunity to get in front of a national audience, which can launch big-money careers opening fetes, providing VOs, signing books, etc. Less profile... less moolah.

Hence a slot on the BBC should be seen for the opportunity and privilege it is.

Along with the lazy, useless, senior management on equally rewarding packages, who defend their atrocious negotiating abilities with their mates on such spurious grounds.

If they were not part of yet another option-free, voter-unaccountable (telling that one who might see fit to intervene, our PM, is protected from paying the licence fee... by us) drain on the taxpayer, along with most other index-salaried, golden pensioned public bodies such as HMG's civil service and countless quangos, one suspects they'd soon find out what their true value in the open market was.

Guardian - BBC talent report: are the stars worth it?

Guardian - Woss it all cost?

As there are no advertisers, the only purpose I can see for ratings to register at the Beeb is as a measure of how the top guys are doing to help with their salaries. Not, surely, what the licence fee is/was intended for.

Whilst undoubtedly talented (mostly), there are plenty more 'stars' where the current crop came from, and no one is, or should be, indispensable.

The BBC is unique, and that works in a variety of ways. One is giving all sorts of folk the opportunity to get in front of a national audience, which can launch big-money careers opening fetes, providing VOs, signing books, etc. Less profile... less moolah.

Hence a slot on the BBC should be seen for the opportunity and privilege it is.

Not a means for an unaccountable cultural elite to enrich themselves at the public trough.

Telegraph - The BBC can never admit it's wrong

Careless

As in, 'couldn't'

And an interesting reaction from an equally interesting quarter:

Commenting on the BBC Trust’s review of bbc.co.uk which highlights a £35 million increase in the website’s intended budget, Liberal Democrat Shadow Culture, Media and Sport Secretary, Don Foster said:

“This report is a damning indictment of the management of bbc.co.uk.

“A cocktail of overspending and budget mismanagement has led to this huge increase.

“Future investment will only take place if accountability is increased. Not only has the BBC lost track of a phenomenal sum of money, but this mismanagement will now directly impact on the future development of this popular service.”

Lib Dem Press Release

Guardian - BBC website £36m over budget: Trust raps management - What does a 'rap' actually involve

Brand Republic - BBC's online services to face greater scrutiny

'It said most of this increase was not overspend, but the misallocation of £24.9m in overheads and costs to other budgets within the BBC, representing poor financial accountability.'

That's what 'it' said. OK. But is there a translation from someone who can explain numbers in a way this licence fee payer can understand?

Telegraph - The BBC is having its cake and eating it

Telegraph - BBC website faces budget cut for stifling rivals

Daily Mail - BBC rivals amazed at internet 'whitewash' as governing body insists £110m website doesn't stifle competition

The Register - BBC website suits slapped for cash splurge

Gaurdian - Beeb's budget blunder: Where does the buck stop? - Comments already closed, so I guess we await the answer.

Daily Mail - Do these BBC trustees deserve our trust? - A small point, but I have asked before if the only way to be 'in' with the BBC is to be married to another of its officers. Mind you, I wouldn't want my missus adjudicating on my actions.