Want to know how much the BBC spend in England, Scotland, Wales and NI per home?
Lovely Scotland. Photograph: pixabay.com
Just in case you missed it today, BBC Scotland would like to have their own Six O'Clock news on BBC One at an extra cost of £65m a year - BBC Scotland bosses lobby for 'Scottish Six' news programme | Media | The Guardian.- at a time when the budget is being cut by £50m this year and £650m by 2020.
Perhaps if they cut BBC ALBA (£9m/year) BBC Radio Scotland ( £31.4m a year), BBC Radio nan Gaidheal (£6.0m) that might get half way toward paying for it? Not sure how a 30 minute news remix show would cost almost the same as a 24-hour news channel either.
But here are the figures from Broadcast...
There are 2.4 people per TV Licence (from BBC Full Financial Statements 2014/15).
England £126.70, Scotland £175.72, Northern Ireland £202.98 and Wales £203.47 - from A new deal for the nations.
Workings out...
| Per Capita | millions of poeple | |
| England | £ 52.10 | 53.01 |
| Scotland | £ 72.20 | 5.295 |
| Northern Ireland | £ 83.40 | 1.811 |
| Wales | £ 83.60 | 3.064 |
Friday, 13 November 2015
The Broadcast article is here A new deal for the nations | In-depth | Broadcast SPEND ON CONTENT & RELATED SPEND: PER CAPITA£52.10 England
£72.20 Scotland
£83.40 Northern Ireland
£83.60 Wales
| link to this comment |
Saturday, 14 November 2015
T
Tony Nicholson11:46 AM
I can understand certain rugged areas needing more repeat transmitters but I also remember a holiday in Dorset a notoriously difficult place to get a good tv signal where in some villages the people have given up terrestrial and switched to sky or freesat, Bridport only had 5 channels despite complaining to the beeb for years about the poor service.
The biggest problem facing the licence payer is the inappropriate use of the money for political ends and the burden of increasingly large numbers of 'non-job managers', who have mostly vague and meaningless job titles, this was the legacy of John Birt who pretty much single handedly destroyed the beeb as a maker of quality programming, split the talent base in to private companies and then added a layer of idiots to discuss what sort of programmes to buy in.
The sale of the london BBC site was a con, the move to Salford was a political shift to gain street cred up't north and this was all without any oversight from the public or government of any real meaning.
| link to this comment |
Tony Nicholson: I don't think that this money covers actual transmission costs, this is "CONTENT & RELATED", rather than transmission. The money for TV transmission is spent via Arqiva who own the transmitter network. The money listed is for everything up to the point of transmission, as far as I understand it.
| link to this comment |
M
MikeB7:42 PM
Briantist: Of course the amounts the BBC spends per head in NI, Scotland and Wales, plus the special language services is also a weapon.
NI and Welsh politicans know that any savage cutting of the BBC's budget due to charter renewal will hit them hard. So they are unlikely to support it. The Scots are more torn, considering that the SNP was most unhappy about the Independence Vote coverage, and that they would like their own Scottish Broadcasting Corporation. On the other hand, they also know that the BBC is a) Popular, b) Any Tory government trying to be really horrible to the BBC will have problems, and c) if the BBC goes (or massively cut), nobody else is going to pay for this stuff. They certainly don't.
Nicola Sturgeon is very clever, and isn't going to vote for the dismembering of the BBC, when they can get more for keeping it as it is, at least for now. Since the Labour Party isn't about to allow the BBC to be destroyed either (certainly not under Jeremy Corbyn), the Tories are left by themselves. They have a majority of 12, many of which are looking nervously at their majorities already, and the Lords have shown that they are not afraid to think about voting down government legislation. Its going to be interesting what Whittingdale is going to come with next, since that 'deal' seems to be no more than a possible bluff.
Tony Nicolson: Can you please explain 'The biggest problem facing the licence payer is the inappropriate use of the money for political ends and the burden of increasingly large numbers of 'non-job managers',. Tony hall is slimming down the number of managers (although the BBC does more on more platforms than it 20-30 years ago), and I have no idea what 'political ends' means. The biggest problem with BBC finance is simple - the BBC has been starved with funds over the last 5 year, given extra costs and responsibilities, had to pay for things it has nothing to do with, and constantly hassled by government.
| link to this comment |
Sunday, 15 November 2015
Mrk A
1:10 PM
1:10 PM
I have just worked out how they can do this and it will only cost them the price of a video recorder and video cassette.
1; Record the BBC national news at 6pm to 6:30pm
2; Move the Reporting Scotland news program from 6:30pm to 6pm
3; At the end of Reporting Scotland (Now at 6:30pm), play the recording of the BBC National news.
More people will be back from work at 6:30pm, to watch the MAIN news.
| link to this comment |
G
George Buchanan5:47 PM
Fort William
And an image of what looks like a remote part of the Isle of Skye is included for what reason? To reinforce the author's view of sparsley populated areas getting too much of the cake? Or am I missing something in the strange inclusion of an image that is hardly representative of the 'BBC nations'.
| link to this comment |
George's: mapG's Freeview map terrainG's terrain plot wavesG's frequency data G's Freeview Detailed Coverage
N
Nick5:59 PM
I see MikeB is back. The BEEB's only fan, or he works for them.
You claim a) Popular. Not in our household or any body else I talk to. I also see large numbers slamming the BEEB in various forums. This is probably why they have admitted to 1000 licences not being renewed PER DAY.
'Political ends'. The commentator is intelligent enough to spot that the BBC has become a rancid bunch of lefty/ Marxists. They are a propaganda machine. The News is not news, it is also telling us what we should be thinking. It's interesting, for example, when reporting on this mass migration from the third world, that they were all refugees from Syria originally. Now they report they are all coming here for 'a better life'. Ah, bless. Also the voice tone becomes solemn. It's all done to feed an attitude, and not just the facts. Maybe they would like to give up on Global Warming as well. I see the ice pack in the Antarctic has been increasing by an average of about 100 billion tons a year for the last 20 years, but you won't see that reported on the biased BBC.
Give it up Mike. The BBC are destroying themselves.
| link to this comment |
G
Gary Blackledge7:51 PM
This has always been a problem were you have areas of small population; this usual comes hand in hand with geographical difficulties such as mountain and the like which dictate many extra small transmitters. The commercial operator just don't support or want these so we are left with services such as Freeview lite and also National DAB with the ability of receiving Asian Radio (representing a very small percentage of local population) but not our local BBC Radio Wales because they use commercial transponders. Despite a reduced service this still cost more than other areas. I suppose the question is do we deny modern broadcasting services to areas just because there are not in the populist. I think with local news etc., the internet is starting to come into it's own and able to cater for local news and event far better than the BBC local news service. We now have several FYI channels which provide very local news fairly instantly.
| link to this comment |
M
MikeB8:45 PM
George Buchanan: Brianist explained some time ago that having a picture (any picture) improves how Google ranks the webpage. I have no idea why Brianist chose that particular photo, but its nicer than many stock pics.
Nick: And once again your with the bizarre over the top rhetoric, and endless derp culled from the more fevered parts of the intertubes.
Once again, I don't work for the BBC, and have often had a go at it. And I doubt I'm its only fan...
Popular? Lets see. The most popular single channel by audience in the UK is ....BBC1. A channel watched at least once a week by 93% of households.
Most popular single radio station in the UK? BBC Radio 2.
Most popular websites in the UK? According to Alexa, Google (UK) and Google.com are 1 & 2. Followed by Facebook, Youtube, Amazon and Ebay. At no.7 is the BBC. Worryingly, a webiste called 'theladbible' (never heard of it) is at 12, and the next media website is the Daily Mail, at 14. The Guardian is at 16.
Most trusted News provider? TV is put ahead of papers, then radio and then the internet BBC Poll: Trust in Media - Countries when people are polled in the UK. Most trusted single source (32%) - the BBC. ITV news gets 8%. Actually, the BBC website gets 3%, and the World Service and BBC Radio generally each get 2%, by themselves. Thats 39% for the BBC in total. The next gets 8%, Sky News gets 7% and the DM (the highest scoring paper), gets 3%.
Its also the most trusted news brand - The UK's national news brands rated in order of trust: from the BBC down to the Daily Star | Press Gazette
It also breaks stories from more international locations and its reporting is retweeted more often than any other broadcaster - BBC - BBC World News best for global breaking news - Media Centre
The most trusted news outles by people of all political hues in the US - the BBC and the Economist - Here Are The Most- And Least-Trusted News Outlets In America - Business Insider
So the evidence (and thats actual evidence, not made up derp) would suggest that, yeah, its popular! And can I point out that that research took me 5 minutes on Google - I'm not typing this from a secret 'rapid response' bunker underneath Broadcasting House, using a special database. Just basic typing skills and the ability to vaguely spell. Its turns out, as Stephen Colbert said, that facts have a liberal bias.
OK, so we get that you dont like the BBC much. But your household and the people you happen to chat to about the BBC are not exactly a large sample (have you ever heard of comfirmation bias?). Actual polling says your wrong.
The 1000 licences cancelled a day story is totally bogus, as you well know, since I replied to your previous attempt to push this nonsense with this link. - http://www.theguardian.co…mail . Since I've mentioned this before (16th August), we are back to derp. And the total figure not only rose from 2013-14, but its seems likely that it will be larger still for 2015 - Number of TV licences rises despite more households giving up sets | Media | The Guardian . Facts are so awful, aren't they?
' The commentator is intelligent enough to spot that the BBC has become a rancid bunch of lefty/ Marxists.' ROFLMAOYSST is all I can say to that. Thats tin foil hat territory.
Again, you've mentioned before that you refuse to believe in basic physics and vast amounts of peer reviewed research, and thus reject AGM as a reality. The BBC is actually pretty feeble on climate change - they generally do their best not to cover it, and seem to think that good reporting is to reflect 'two sides', even though one side is talking nonsense. I pointed this out on the 23rd August, along with a whole host of highly regarded websites which explain scientific reality in very simple ways.
However, if you dont think the BBC is telling the trust about climate change, how about Exxon? Its turns out they knew that burning fossil fuels would lead to climate change as early as 1977 RSS They just didn't want to tell anyone about it, because that would make less money http://graphics.latimes.c…rch/
As Huxley put it - Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
| link to this comment |
Monday, 16 November 2015
T
trevorjharris12:12 AM
@Mikeb
You raise the question of climate change. Firstly to show I am not a crank I have a Physics Degree and an MSc in Solid Sate Physics. I also have passed the CAA Meteorological exam for private pilots.
I certainly do not believe there is sufficient evidence to prove that human activity has a significent effect on global weather. The weather systems are extremely compicated and cannot be predicted even by using the most powerfull super computers.
In the 60's "scientists" were predicting another ice age.
| link to this comment |
Select more comments
Your comment please