Paid Members Carbomb Posted July 20, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted July 20, 2017 The frustrating thing with the BBC is they show very little vision sometimes. For example, Alexandra Palace, even with everything that goes on, is mostly empty/unused/derelict. The BBC is probably the most famous broadcasting corporation in the world, as well as the first and oldest, and Alexandra Palace occupies a unique place in modern history in that it was the place from which TV as we know it was first broadcast. Given the BBC's popularity globally, as well as that of its franchises like Doctor Who and Downton Abbey, it could easily have purchased and converted a big chunk of Ally Pally and turned it into the BBC Museum. I'm fairly certain such a museum would pull in a shit-ton of cash, with all the domestic and international tourists flocking to the birthplace of television and the TV programmes they love, and take some pressure off the BBC regarding the licence fee, not to mention it could even help the BBC fund even more ambitious programming. As it is, it's being left to some private company trying to fund it through Kickstarter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members gmoney Posted July 20, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted July 20, 2017 Downton Abbey is ITV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted July 20, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted July 20, 2017 3 minutes ago, gmoney said: Downton Abbey is ITV. Sorry, had a complete brain-fart. Meant Poldark. God knows why I confused those two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members PunkStep Posted July 20, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted July 20, 2017 21 minutes ago, Carbomb said: Sorry, had a complete brain-fart. Meant Poldark. God knows why I confused those two. Because they're both fucking tripe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted July 20, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted July 20, 2017 3 minutes ago, PunkStep said: Because they're both fucking tripe? I haven't been watching them, I just know they're both period dramas with big fan followings. Although I do know they're set during different periods, so I still don't know why I confused them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 Mumsnet and Loose Women could be classed as period dramas as well, amirite lads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members chokeout Posted July 20, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted July 20, 2017 There's been a few people in the office parroting the Sun breakdown of the pay gap. As with all businesses there are going to be gender gap issues (and there shouldn't be, it's crazy that that still happens) but the payment figures they are complaining about don't really highlight that. If you're comparing like for like then the two presenters for something like the One Show are on similar wages (The fella seems to earn about 50k, you could argue it's because he's a man, or because he hosts at least one other show (Country File). We'll never know because there isn't a full breakdown of why people are paid what. As far as viewing figures, they absolutely should come into it. If Graham Norton can get x amount of views for his show on a Friday on the BBC then he could, in theory, get the same on another channel and they need to pay him a wage that is competitive and will keep him there. Comparing Chris Evans who has one of the most popular radio shows in the world to Vanessa Feltz (who is shit and was a genuine 'they pay her HOW MUCH!' moment, see also Nick Grimshaw) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BomberPat Posted July 20, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted July 20, 2017 Vanessa Feltz was the biggest shocker on the list for me. How the fuck do they justify that? What does she even do? Fill in for Jeremy Vine when he's on holiday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Gus Mears Posted July 20, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted July 20, 2017 (edited) It's that weird voyeuristic and puritanical aspect from yesterday that I feel somewhat bad about enjoying. I was pretty much in the same boat of thinking 'well, yeah most of them are probably worth that in market cont....NICK KNOWLES IS ON WHAT!?'. As I think I alluded to earlier, it's a bit of tightrope between ratings and stuff that's just public good. It can't all be just driven by one or other. It's an incredibly tough situation to get right and the BBC do a pretty decent job of it by and large in my view. Edited July 20, 2017 by Gus Mears Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 6 minutes ago, chokeout said: As far as viewing figures, they absolutely should come into it. If Graham Norton can get x amount of views for his show on a Friday on the BBC then he could, in theory, get the same on another channel and they need to pay him a wage that is competitive and will keep him there. Comparing Chris Evans who has one of the most popular radio shows in the world to Vanessa Feltz (who is shit and was a genuine 'they pay her HOW MUCH!' moment, see also Nick Grimshaw) Agreed. It reminds me of arguments about the charitable sector. I've heard people say they won't give to charity because they pay people x amount and that's money that could be spent on the charity. Of course, the people earning that amount may have increased revenue and donations by ten times their wages but still, they shouldn't be earning money working for a charity etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members chokeout Posted July 20, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted July 20, 2017 (edited) Exactly. Full time staff are essential to some charities. A charity we were working with recently has a full time person who's job is specifically to apply for grants and funding and its a demanding and essential job. Can you imagine if that job was done by a volunteer in their spare time? Again, like the BBC there's arguments for both ends of the spectrum. The charity we support at the moment is a local cancer hospice that does fantastic work locally and has the staff mentioned above. it works out that 70p from every £1 donated ends up going to the charity after their costs (admin staff etc). Compare that to one of the larger charities like Macmillian where 30p from every £1 ends up going to the charity after their (much larger) costs. (That figure has increased in the last few years though to nearer other charities though) Edited July 20, 2017 by chokeout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 Yep, going off topic here but even things like spending for better computers will help in the long run, the time saving and ease of performance increases productivity. Of course, some people won't give to charities because the money goes overseas whilst doing fuck all for charities at home, but it's their money to do with as they choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BomberPat Posted July 20, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted July 20, 2017 1 minute ago, Keith Houchen said: Yep, going off topic here but even things like spending for better computers will help in the long run, the time saving and ease of performance increases productivity. Of course, some people won't give to charities because the money goes overseas whilst doing fuck all for charities at home, but it's their money to do with as they choose. Infrastructure is one of the hardest things in the world for a charity to appeal to people for, too. I used to work for a zoo/conservation charity, and we'd always be up against the same thing - you can rally people and get them to donate for an initiative to save a species, you can get a bank or a major corporation to cough up the money to pay for a new Gorilla enclosure, but you try going to them and saying, "we need £5000 to upgrade our accounting software", and you're leaving empty-handed, because it doesn't sound like the sort of thing people want to pay for, but it's a necessity. People seem to think that a charity can run on goodwill alone, and that there's something inherently corrupt in taking a wage from it, but things cost money, and it's a full-time job. Hell, even going around to those banks and corporations and asking for money, or figuring out ways to convince people to give you money, is a full-time job in its own right. And, again, you need to be competitive - everyone working for a charity does so in the knowledge that they could earn more in the private sector, but you still need to pay them enough for them to live comfortably, especially at an upper management level, where private businesses could be offering them considerably more for a similar role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Tommy! Posted July 22, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted July 22, 2017 A tramp just asked for a smoke so I gave him the end of a montecristo and he told me it wasn't good enough. I guess beggers can be choosers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wordsfromlee Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 Turing 30 wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts