Poll: BBC strike threat

[Talshere]

I have always been a supporter of the BBC. While I feel that BBC 1 and 2 don't show the out there unique programs they used to, I feel BBC 3 and 4 are very good, and I like having an impartial news team.

But there recent strike threat from technicians and journalists to walk out at all, never mind during a key political speech, cause me to believe that should they go through with it, the BBC loses its right to the licence fee we pay them, and should be dissolved. This due to the fact they can no longer function within the parameters and the mandate originally set out on their creation.

For the international reader, the BBC is paid for by the taxpayer. Everyone who runs a TV in the UK MUST pay a TV licence at the cost of £145.50. This money is given to the BBC, with the idea that they are free from political prejudice and the whims of advertising firms. As well as to fund unusual and risky programs such as Pride and Prejudice and Monty python (yes they were originally BBC) that otherwise would never get the a chance to be shown.

What is the escapists opinion on this?


Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11281410

Irony for you.


EDIT: I should clarify. My objection to the strike is that they are striking deliberately to prevent one specific political party giving its argument. If they were blanketing ALL political party speeches I wouldnt mind so much.

 

[Axolotl]

The BBC are going on strike?

Have they looked at their salaries?

 

[The Rockerfly]

I don't think they should be allowed, they are in a very well paid public sector and workers there know fully that they are going to be helping broadcast opinions and information they agree with. It's part of their contract and I feel they are obliged to work to their contracts

 

[Zoomy]

For me, the right to strike is one that everyone has, regardless of workplace.

 

[Talshere]

For me, the right to strike is one that everyone has, regardless of workplace.

Yeah. Ok. But should they be allowed to do it deliberately during a key political statement to prevent one side of the argument, the one they disagree with, ever being voice given the reason for the funding they get and their mandate. They wont be blanketing ALL party political speeches. Only the one they dislike.

 

[FamoFunk]

Everyone has the right to strike, just because we pay their wages doesn't mean it's taken away from them.

 

[Zoomy]

For me, the right to strike is one that everyone has, regardless of workplace.

Yeah. Ok. But should they be allowed to do it deliberately during a key political statement to prevent one side of the argument, the one they disagree with, ever being voice given the reason for the funding they get and their mandate. They wont be blanketing ALL party political speeches. Only the one they dislike.

Strikes have been choosing deliberately dodgy times for years. It's why airlines strike at summer.

 

[Danzaivar]

If they strike they're becoming political, which is against their mandate.

For me, the right to strike is one that everyone has, regardless of workplace.

My mums a nurse in the NHS. She isn't allowed to strike and can be taken to court if she tries.

---

OT: If they strike they're becoming political, which is against the BBC's charter. I think it's wrong of them and I would even go so far as to say stupid of them to strike. But whether they have the right to? I ain't sure.

Will be watching to see how this developes however.

 

[Talshere]

For me, the right to strike is one that everyone has, regardless of workplace.

Yeah. Ok. But should they be allowed to do it deliberately during a key political statement to prevent one side of the argument, the one they disagree with, ever being voice given the reason for the funding they get and their mandate. They wont be blanketing ALL party political speeches. Only the one they dislike.

Strikes have been choosing deliberately dodgy times for years. It's why airlines strike at summer.

But the BBC is paid for by US, the taxpayer. So we can receive unbiased information. Part of the reason we pay them is so that they are unaffected by political implication. They give the new as is because if they give a story that is true but shows a party in a bad light, say the BNP, then it doesn't matter because even if the BNP still get into power the BBC still gets its due on royal mandate.

If they are DELIBERATELY blanketing news because they disagree with what it means for them, how can we continue to justify their existence? Its not like the pension cuts are only being levelled at them. David Cameron has publicly stated he will not be claiming his 150 odd grand when leaving office which is his due, just like my mum as a local authority employee has had a pay freeze and is looking at hit to her pension.

 

[Zoomy]

If they are DELIBERATELY blanketing news because they disagree with what it means for them, how can we continue to justify their existence? Its not like the pension cuts are only being levelled at them. David Cameron has publicly stated he will not be claiming his 150 odd grand when leaving office which is his due, just like my mum as a local authority employee has had a pay freeze and is looking at hit to her pension.

Thing is though, this is not the BBC deliberately censoring news; it's a few people who work for the BBC refusing to work until they get what they want.

Would you call for the entire police force to be disbanded if one officer was found selling smack?

 

[Talshere]

If they are DELIBERATELY blanketing news because they disagree with what it means for them, how can we continue to justify their existence? Its not like the pension cuts are only being levelled at them. David Cameron has publicly stated he will not be claiming his 150 odd grand when leaving office which is his due, just like my mum as a local authority employee has had a pay freeze and is looking at hit to her pension.

Thing is though, this is not the BBC deliberately censoring news; it's a few people who work for the BBC refusing to work until they get what they want.

Would you call for the entire police force to be disbanded if one officer was found selling smack?

They should not be allowed to censor only 1/3 of a political argument. They either strike and censer it all, or they censer none of it. As someone point out up ^ there are government departments like the NHS where it is an OFFENCE to strike. It should be illegal for them to walk out to prevent an argument being given by a political party. Such censoring is reminiscent of dictatorships and communists.

I ask you, if the BBC had planed a strike during the union demonstrations, and refused to give it any press time. Would you still hold the same beliefs? Because it is effectively the same thing. Yet in this case Im almost certain it would end up in a court inside of 2 weeks.

 

[tomtom94]

The BBC executives need to all be fired and replaced. Some of them earn over a million pounds by doing several overlapping jobs. For tax purposes, naturally.

Other than that, please say you don't want to privatise the BBC. Please god no.

 

[Zoomy]

It should be illegal for them to walk out to prevent an argument being given by a political party. Such censoring is reminiscent of dictatorships and communists.

Really? Because the way I see it, banning strike action seems more fascist-esque. Also, do remember that in said dictatorships, it's the government censoring the dissidents. Not the dissidents censoring the government, which is what's happening here.

If you can even call it censorship, given that there'll be a metric arseton of media there from other outlets.

I ask you, if the BBC had planed a strike during the union demonstrations, and refused to give it any press time. Would you still hold the same beliefs? Because it is effectively the same thing. Yet in this case Im almost certain it would end up in a court inside of 2 weeks.

Again I should say this; THE BBC DID NOT PLAN ANYTHING! The BBC do not want strike action to go ahead.

 

[Rylingo]

The BBC executives need to all be fired and replaced. Some of them earn over a million pounds by doing several overlapping jobs. For tax purposes, naturally.

First create a law permitting them to be fired with no redundancy pay. Those at the top can survive on their millions. Actually id do the same on the banks who had to be bailed out.

 

[Mr Shrike]

The BBC should be allowed to strike because the dispute is over pensions.

I'll be damned if the management will take away my loved one's pensions without asking them and paying (mostly) talentless presenters millions of pounds a year.

Also, be aware that the managers aren't affected by the pension cuts, so the people who are doing the work actually are the ones who suffer here.

The strike vote was something like 95% for a strike, so I think this one may happen if the management don't back down.

Before anyone says that it's censorship etc etc, ask yourself; would you go on strike tomorrow if you suddenly found out you weren't gonna get a pension whilst the bureaucrats who made these changes keep shovelling their money?

 

[Talshere]

It should be illegal for them to walk out to prevent an argument being given by a political party. Such censoring is reminiscent of dictatorships and communists.

Really? Because the way I see it, banning strike action seems more fascist-esque. Also, do remember that in said dictatorships, it's the government censoring the dissidents. Not the dissidents censoring the government, which is what's happening here.

If you can even call it censorship, given that there'll be a metric arseton of media there from other outlets.

I ask you, if the BBC had planed a strike during the union demonstrations, and refused to give it any press time. Would you still hold the same beliefs? Because it is effectively the same thing. Yet in this case Im almost certain it would end up in a court inside of 2 weeks.

Again I should say this; THE BBC DID NOT PLAN ANYTHING! The BBC do not want strike action to go ahead.

I cannot see any serious difference. They are attempting to censer a government that was elected in for better or for worse. Your applying one rule for one and a different for another. If the government cannot silence the people, the people should not be able to silence the government, it works both ways. Just because a few dissidence want to make trouble, they will prevent the masses from hearing the argument. They should NOT be allowed to do this. If they want to strike, fair enough, they can do it AFTER Cameron has given his speech.

The BBC executives need to all be fired and replaced. Some of them earn over a million pounds by doing several overlapping jobs. For tax purposes, naturally.

Other than that, please say you don't want to privatise the BBC. Please god no.

IF they can no longer preform their intended function they they do not deserve public money. The journalists and technicians can feel much better in themselves that they stood up for what they wanted and destroyed a national and indeed international institution, because BBC new 24 is globally relied upon for information, and lost their jobs, all because they wanted to be petty striking during a political speech

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

So if the BBC go on strike we'll just get tons of repeats?

HOLD ON....

 

[tomtom94]

The BBC executives need to all be fired and replaced. Some of them earn over a million pounds by doing several overlapping jobs. For tax purposes, naturally.

First create a law permitting them to be fired with no redundancy pay. Those at the top can survive on their millions. Actually id do the same on the banks who had to be bailed out.

Ah, but where do you draw the financial line at which someone can be fired without redundancy pay? If you're not careful, then you leave a loophole for all other public sector jobs to be dumped without pay.

But while I can't remember the specifics the "Head of Journalism" at the BBC (salary 200k+) is also "Head of All News" (salary 200k+) and "Head of Newsrooms" (salary 100k+) should probably be alright even without the government-prepared £million pension pot.

(slightly off-topic, but) Do you want to know the worst thing about the banks? Part of the new coalition agreement was a law separating the investment banking (what got us in this mess) and capital banking sectors of banks, to hopefully prevent such happening again.
After the Treasury re-shuffle, that plan's been scrapped because the government got some new advisors...from the investment banking sector.

 

[C95J]

I guess they have their own rights to go on a strike, whatever the occasion, but I don't really see why they want to go on strike in the first place.

 

[tomtom94]

The BBC executives need to all be fired and replaced. Some of them earn over a million pounds by doing several overlapping jobs. For tax purposes, naturally.

Other than that, please say you don't want to privatise the BBC. Please god no.

IF they can no longer preform their intended function they they do not deserve public money. The journalists and technicians can feel much better in themselves that they stood up for what they wanted and destroyed a national and indeed international institution, because BBC new 24 is globally relied upon for information, and lost their jobs, all because they wanted to be petty striking during a political speech

The strike has been chosen to cause maximum disruption, because the BBC executives want to cut other peoples' pensions to save their own. All strikes are chosen to cause disruption to a company in order to prove how vital the workers are. See also BA and the Tube strikes.

I'm very sorry, but I fail to grasp how this (long-term) stops the BBC performing their intended function, which is value-for-money, public-minded television. A strike would only temporarily prevent this, and will hopefully ensure this in the future through a committed workforce and an end to the executives.

If the BBC loses public money, it has to fund itself with advertising. This would impact on the amount of programming it could show. It would also impact on its impartiality (Have I Got News For You and Top Gear would probably have to be cancelled, for instance).

So no, I think cutting public money is a very bad idea, however their bureaucracy must end.