Morning:
13°c
An awesome and ridiculous film that leaves you thrilled beyond the point of your natural endurance
London faces a wave of bus and Tube strikes that could cause chaos for millions of passengers as unions walkout over pay and conditions
More...
BBC inflicts MORE repeats on viewers as 1,800 jobs go and programme-making is slashed by 10 per cent
Last updated at 09:22am on 18.10.07
The £18m man: But critics wonder if Jonathan Ross is worth it
Financial cutbacks mean 10 per cent fewer programmes will be made and BBC Television Centre will be sold off by 2012.
Unions fear BBC staff could stage wildcat strikes when they are officially told about the cuts today.
The tension was heightened after union officials claimed letters asking for volunteers for redundancy had already been printed.
Sources said 3,000 letters dated this Friday had been prepared.
Furious union chiefs said this proved the BBC had no intention to enter into meaningful negotiations about the job losses.
As well as possible unofficial walkouts, unions are threatening waves of strikes in the run-up to Christmas, which could see programmes such as Newsnight and the Today programme taken off the air.
BBC Director General Mark Thompson has given the green light to the controversial proposals
The cuts were agreed at a crunch meeting yesterday between director-general Mark Thompson, who drew up the plans, and the BBC Trust, the corporation's governing body.
In total, 2,500 posts will be closed but 700 staff will be redeployed, leaving 1,800 redundant.
Chairman Sir Michael Lyons said the BBC Trust totally supported the plans, which also include selling off Television Centre in West London for up to £300million.
The BBC has been forced into the cuts after receiving a lower than expected licence fee settlement, leaving it with a £2billion budget shortfall.
It said it was cutting 10 per cent of new programmes by 2012 to ensure that its 'programme core is of high quality and is distinctive'.
The move could save £100million but it will force the BBC to show more repeats.
The extra repeats are expected to be broadcast on BBC2 and the digital channels BBC3 and BBC4, but not BBC1.
BBC bosses have previously defended showing more repeats by claiming the public appreciate the 'second opportunity' to see a show.
Recent figures show in the year to March there had already been an increase in repeats to 25,532, up from from 25,272 during the previous year.
Last week, the corporation repeated 143 programmes on BBC 1 and BBC 2.
Most of the repeated shows were broadcast early in the morning and late at night.
Scroll down for more...
Workers on strike outside the BBC. Management seek to cut the workforce by 12 per cent (File picture)
Seventy-five of these were on BBC 2, with up to 14 programmes repeated in a day.
BBC1, meanwhile, showed an average of nine repeated shows a day. In contrast, the 'youth channel' BBC3 has more original pro-It spends almost £180,000 an hour on its programmes, double what BBC1 spends.
Zara Phillips: 2006 Sports Personality of the Year - but will there be a show next year?
But its viewing figures are only a tenth of BBC1's.
This has led to senior BBC broadcasters, including John Humphrys, calling for rarely-watched channels such as BBC3 and BBC4 to be axed.
Critics have also said the savings could be made by cutting the pay of presenters such as Jonathan Ross, who was given an £18million deal.
Instead, the BBC's news operation is facing drastic cuts, with 370 journalists being made redundant.
The loss of 600 jobs in the corporation's factual department - 50 per cent of its workforce - could also threaten programmes such as Timewatch, Arena and Storyville, although Horizon, Imagine and Natural World are thought to be safe.
Along with the sale of Television Centre, Trust members have also asked BBC management for a more detailed strategy for its property portfolio, suggesting further selloffs could be on the way.
In total, the measures mean the BBC will make efficiency gains of 3 per cent each year.
Sir Michael said the plans were 'definitely' in the best interests of the BBC and that the Trust had approved them 'unanimously'. He added: "All of us at the BBC have constantly to remind ourselves that the guaranteed and privileged fundingat our disposal is coming from people who have no choice but to pay it."
But Jeremy Dear, the general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, accused the BBC of failing to value its core services.
He said: "If the Trust really believe quality news and current affairs is at the heart of what the BBC does and viewers say such programmes are what they value most about the BBC, it makes no sense to sack hundreds of staff in these core services.
"It is an abdication of the Trust's responsibility to rubberstampplans which undermined quality and lead to the sacking of front-line staff."
Mr Dear was furious the BBC has apparently already prepared letters seeking volunteers for redundancy.
He said: "This is clearly a provocative act and a sign that the BBC has no intention of entering meaningful negotiations because they have already made up their mind."
It is thought the NUJ and the broadcasting union Bectu will not accept any compulsory redundancies. They will also demand a risk assessment to make sure staff left at the BBC after the cuts can cope with any extra workload.
Reader views (39)
In the past we could always count on the BBC to bring us real comedy and dignified viewing, plus wonderful mysteries. Now you bring us pure trash and bathroom humor comedy. We cannot count on you any more for the wonderful TV of not so long ago. No wonder you are going under. Bring back the dignified BBC with the best of comedy.
- Peggy Marrs, Fort Worth, Texas, USA
The BBC like any organisation will make cost cuts.
But it is wrong for them to sacrifice quality over quantity.
I do think that the BBC does duplicate - by sending multiple news teams to the same news story.
They will have a regional TV and Radio regional news team, a national TV and a national Radio news team - that is 4 news teams for one story. Resources should be shared more, so only one BBC News Team covers the story for all of the BBC.
I think that this is what the BBC DG Mark Thompson is talking about.
But I do think, as most people in the world think - the BBC is the organisation we all look to in a crisis.
So keep the quality and do not spread it out on channels most people do not watch.
Time to get rid of BBC3 and BBC4 - these programmes can be accommodated some where else. Late Night BBC2 or even late night BBC1.
It would be good too keep these channels - but it we are sacrificing quality jobs in order to keep BBC3 and BBC4 - then I do think that Mark Thompsom has made the wrong decision.
DG Mark Thompsom - please listen to the public. The BBC is the quality broadcaster of the world - you are in danger of losing this status.
If cuts need to be made - make them in BBC3 and BBC4.
It is better to have quality rather than quantity.
- Peter Callaghan, Redhill, England
Amazing how the Beeb has changed since I lived in London the 80s. Then it was a force for good and I certainly did not mind paying the license fee especially to escape interminable advertisments.
But things change: on a recent trip back home I could not believe my eyes - advertising (for BBC and so on), dabbling in commerce (they have bought Lonely Planet - a distinctly commercial company) and the amazing bias and one sided view of all things political and environmental. Actually in the main I am on the same side of the argument as the BBC (now British Bias Corp), but it seemed to me that the older impartial feeling of the organization had gone. It was now a proselytizer of the Beeb official viewpoint.
How I long for the old Horizon programs - low key, calm and deeply informative. The best there was in TV - good old Jeremy Isaacs. Now it is like I am watching an American channel. It is even slightly tawdry.
Not sure I'd be keen on supporting the 'new' Beeb with my license fee.
- Ellenoday, Toronto, Canada
No more New Labour Television license tax!
- Jacqueline, Hampstead, London
Ask them how much over budget they are with the building program, the amount is a true disgrace. The people in charge should be ousted not the likes of Mr Ross who brings pleasure to millions.
- Douglas Hood, London
As long as they don't cut Dr. Who. I'll be very upset if that happens.
- Matt, Rochester, NY USA
Let's all bid farewell to this stuffy, far left dinosaur.
- Gordon Dunlop, California,USA
Why do they need to pay Jonathon Ross £18 million? Isn't the BBC a monopoly? Does Ross have to compete against any other presenters to attract viewers (and garner higher advertising rates)?
- Lawrence, Los Angeles, CA USA
Of course, I don't understand the domestic issues in the UK.
However, it strikes me that the BBC has many loyal listeners and viewers around the world, who may see this move as part of an encroaching cultural desert. Perhaps they would be willing to sign up to support the BBC's generally high standards in international news coverage as well as dramatic productions.
- Robert Mann, Oneida, New York
It's about time that the BBC got their act together and stopped charging money for rubbish programmes which they repeat over and over. It's disgraceful that having a TV is such a burden because we have to pay a licence.
I would like to be able to opt out of watching the BBC please!
- Carmen Martin, London
Running a company by taxing people is passe. Pushing the Beeb's socialist agenda is also not where it's at. Private enterprise is the only way. Just look at the health (Hahahaha) debacle in the UK.
- Ron, USA
Does this mean that Gordon Brown is going to get us back the TV licence tax ?
- Stephen W, London
All liberal leaning media sources are failing. There is a message which these organizations are ignoring.."just report absent political bias and the readers/viewers will draw their own conclusions." Many of us do not need the interpretation of reporters and editors with a political agenda. I haven't taken the BBC seriously in 20 years.
- Joseph Cascarelli, Westcliffe, Colorado, USA
This just highlights that relic that is the licence fee needs to be abolished. I would gladly not be connected to the BBC and save this tax.
- Marc Korn, London
I binned my TV 3 years ago because I was not prepared to pay for a license to watch wall to wall soaps, reality make over drivel, and TV news reporters on expensive outside broadcasts when a studio report was adequate. I have no regrets.
- Bj, London, England
1. Stop the absolutely ludicrous fees paid to people like Jonathan Ross and Graham Norton, whose programmes are, at best, drivel and, on occasions, offensive. 2. Just because the BBC has to provide for a number of television and radio channels, it doesn't follow that it needs to send a dozen reporters to cover the same story. What about economies of scale?
- John E, Richmond
It would definitely be worth arguing that viewers should be refunded at least part of their license fee as so much of the output already is repeats ....
- Marianne, SW France
Get rid of Jonathan Ross and instead the BBC can probably produce a couple of decent programmes instead.
- Jk, London
The BBC should be broken up and made to operate in the commerical world. The TV Licence (Viewing Tax) should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
- Marc, Harrow, UK
and so begins the slow and painful death of the BBC!
- Stuart, UK
The BBC should get rid of the bbc3 and bbc4 as these only seem to be on to attract youngsters and trying to make the bbc look cool and hip, but what is the point if no one is watching.
As for all these repeats isn't it obvious to everyone now that multichannel all day long tv is rubbish, their is just not enough quality programmes able to fill it. I am probably as guilty as everyone else of looking at the past with rose tinted glasses, but surely tv was better with more innovative shows when we only had 3 or 4 channels and these didn't start till mid afternoon and then finished about midnight. They didn't have to fill the schedules with so much rubbish such as Jeremy Kyle and make over shows. If you look at some of the 100s channels broadcast through sky they don't have enough programmes and they all seem to share the same programmes on a rota system.
- Paul Urban, London, UK
I would be more than happy for the BBC to show more repeats of classic programmes, instead of drossy dancing programmes and remakes.
- Nobby Clark, London
How about a new program called "Stars on Thin Ice" where the BBC Star has to tell the audience why he or she should be retained by the BBC. A panel of viewers will vote and the losers are made to walk across a pond of thin ice ... where they will fall through and are then sacked. If however the Star somehow makes it across the ice safely they retain their job.
- Tony, London
The BBC is quite frankly an outmoded institution run like the civil service, too many people doing to few jobs, add to that overpaid "celebrities" and you have a recipe for disaster, it's about time they stood on their own two feet and started showing adverts rather than relying on funding by the great British public (mugs that we are).
- Trevor Roll, London
Why don't the BBC open themselves up to advertisers? I know it's one of the BBC's attractions to NOT have them, but if it is a choice between having a few adverts and losing such wonderful programmes as Planet Earth etc, then surely it's a no-brainer?
Come on BBC bods - use your imagination a little!
- Liz, London
The sooner the state-funded BBC is abolished the better.
If someone suggested a 'TV Licence' backed up by criminal sanctions for owning a TV these days, you would think they were mad!
- George, London
I'd much rather watch repeats of some of the old BBC output than much of the drivel that infects the screen at the moment.
- Paul, London
How can Jonathon Ross be worth 18 million quid? Total waste of money.
- Mary Schmeier, London, UK
Can I have my £140 TX tax money back?
- Jacqueline, Hampstead, London
I can think of several ways the BBC could save money without firing hard working backroom staff who get no recognition, yet keep the show on the road. Jonathan Ross is an overpaid character who serves no purpose. Top management could be sent home without severance pay and us poor licence payers should have a say in what the media offers us.
- Anne Wotana Kaye (Mrs), London England
I've got a great idea for a reality TV show.
'How to re-apply for your job'.
I should be working here because...
- B Wood, Surbiton
The financial problem at the BBC is perhaps because of the vastly inflated money I beleive is paid to so called celebrities and experts that seem to be on each and every programme. To tackle this, together with some streamlining of obvious duplication would be beneficial to actual programme or contents cuts.
- Bernard Lockett, Folkestone, Kent
All the time the BBC continues to be funded by the taxpayer (aka the tv licence fee), strikes should either be legally banned OR licence fee payers are given a refund. The current turmoil and mismanagement by the BBC just underlines the fact that the licence fee is an irrelevance in the 21st century and should be abolished.
- Josh, London
This is going to be great to watch.
- Frank, England
The BBC is run by empire builders. It started with the launch of BBC2 as a 'high brow' channel. The real reason was to go down market with BBC1 and challenge ITV for the ratings. Then came ITV proposing breakfast tv. So the BBC says "we'll do that". Then 24 hour tv - BBC " we'll do that". 24 hour news - "we'll do that". And of course more digital channels - yes you've guessed - "we'll do that". The BBC has lost its original remit of public service broadcasting being run by people who should go to the independent sector and wage war there. They should stop trying to stretch the licence fee and go back to doing less but better.
- Chris Barker, Pateley Bridge, North Yorkshire
Can the BBC please start by sacking the person whose job it is to inject 'noise' over TV news stories, presumably for dramatic effect. This is totally unhelpful and an insult to the reporter one is struggling to listen to.
- Tonyb, Twickenham
The BBC has a guaranteed income and has the right to be selective over how it carefully spends the public's money.
There is waste and duplication in several if not many BBC areas thus some moderate cost slicing and resource chopping is to be expected. To think otherwise is unrealistic in the modern world of so much media availability and the lashings of market competition.
- William Grierson, Kimpton, UK
Can I suggest that the 2,800 to go are the highest paid, gobby ones like Paxman, Humphrys etc? It's time the BBC was dragged into the new century.
- Nobby Clark, London
Go on strike! Will we see any difference? The whole of the BBC is a disgrace, we pay far too much for not a lot. No doubt rose tinted specs will come out and oh Planet Earth was fantastic.
But 2007 the BBC is poor, it should be shelved and re branded as a pay per view channel, no licence fee, another tax, again no doubt it will be. It only costs you 60p a day or whatever it may be...it's too much at 1 pence a day for the drivel that is on.
I rarely watch BBC, but look at the daily programme guide which confirms my thoughts, 98% dross.
Go on strike, please, and put the BBC out of it's misery.
- Andrew, London
