The BBC  permalink

BBC Profligacy

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 50 of 50
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Quizzimodo (U551071) on Wednesday, 26th December 2012

    It seems when the BBC spiked the Savile Newsnight item, it opened a far bigger can of warms than anyone could have imagined:

    www.independent.co.u...

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Wednesday, 26th December 2012

    The BBC employment contract offers a months salary for every year of service up to 24 years. So as the BBC downsizes is it really that surprising that they make just under a hundred people a year who earn more than £50k and have more than 24 years is service - thus are to receive " six figure sum"....
    The BBC are set to reduce it to 12 years ....

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Quizzimodo (U551071) on Wednesday, 26th December 2012

    I'm guessing the fact that the BBC have asked the NAO to check is that they think some more Entwistle style ludicrous rewards for failure are lurking underneath the surface

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by stevefb (U14977970) on Wednesday, 26th December 2012

    I think the National Audit Office investigation was beginning to look inevitable after the scrutiny of the Entwistle, Thompson and Byford payoffs. Once the BBC had admitted the Entwistle payoff was double the amount to which he was entitled, the freedom of information requests were bound to start flying.

    The Public Accounts Committee has already described the BBC's attitude as "cavalier" and "out of line with public expectations", and Patten and Boaden's dismissive arrogance hasn't helped.

    The final nail was Patten's blocking of a request by the National Audit Office to conduct a rapid audit of the Entwistle decision.

    The chickens are coming home to roost, and part-time Patten looks like little more than a lame duck.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Valdimar the Unending (U15551013) on Thursday, 27th December 2012

    Nothing was blocked:

    www.bbc.co.uk/news/u...

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Thursday, 27th December 2012

    Once again the BBC cannot win. It is criticised for having too many executives and then when it pays some of them off it is criticised again.
    Some are already assuming that the eventual NAO report will be negative. Let's wait and see shall we.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by stevefb (U14977970) on Thursday, 27th December 2012

    Nothing was blocked  Thanks for the link, but that wasn't what I was referring to.

    Back in mid-November Patten blocked an investigation by the National Audit Office into the decision to award Entwistle his now infamous payoff.

    At that time the National Audit Office said it would like to review the pay-off immediately, but was unable to do so because of its limited powers of scrutiny with regard to the BBC.

    However, Amyas Morse, the Auditor General, wrote to Patten asking for his permission to launch a rapid National Audit Office review of the Entwistle payoff. Patten replied to the Auditor-General and refused this request.

    That decision was the block I was referring to .

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Essential Rabbit (U3613943) on Thursday, 27th December 2012

    It seems when the BBC spiked the Savile Newsnight item, it opened a far bigger can of warms than anyone could have imagined:

    www.independent.co.u...

     
    "Figures obtained by The Daily Telegraph under Freedom of Information laws show that between 2010 and 2011 the cost of redundancy payments at the corporation more than doubled to £58m."

    That's more than the total annual budget for BBC4!

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Valdimar the Unending (U15551013) on Thursday, 27th December 2012

    That is dealt with in the article:

    It asked the BBC if it could specifically examine Mr Entwistle's pay-off and report to MPs.

    But the BBC responded that a broader look of severance packages was more appropriate as the NAO cannot carry out "incident" studies. 


    But, the BBC suggested that they do something more wide-reaching, that was within its remit, and that could cover the Entwistle payment. Nothing was blocked.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by oldmanriver (U14455170) on Thursday, 27th December 2012

    As far as we know. What about those who went from BBC Worldwide or all the companies that they actually own shares in.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by stevefb (U14977970) on Thursday, 27th December 2012

    That is dealt with in the article: It asked the BBC if it could specifically examine Mr Entwistle's pay-off and report to MPs. But the BBC responded that a broader look of severance packages was more appropriate as the NAO cannot carry out "incident" studies.  But, the BBC suggested that they do something more wide-reaching, that was within its remit, and that could cover the Entwistle payment. Nothing was blocked.  Oh, I see! Nothing was blocked except a specific examination of the Entwistle payoff. Well I'm glad we cleared that up smiley - biggrin

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Friday, 28th December 2012

    The Entwistle payoff will no doubt be dealt with in the context of the wider ranging review. An examination of it has not been blocked.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Valdimar the Unending (U15551013) on Friday, 28th December 2012

    smiley - doh But, in this investigation it is possible to look at the payoff to George Entwistle. Again, I say, the investigation of George Entwistle's payoff has not been blocked, it is just that the BBC have suggested, and the NAO have accepted that an investigation be made into ALL payoffs.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by oldmanriver (U14455170) on Sunday, 30th December 2012

    "and the NAO have accepted that an investigation be made into ALL payoffs"

    Wonder if that will include "all payoffs" to people employed by BBC Worldwide - that is an extremely interesting area since there is less transparency there, over many things, than the rest of the BBC.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by Lee (U1149673) on Sunday, 30th December 2012

    Wonder if that will include "all payoffs" to people employed by BBC Worldwide - that is an extremely interesting area since there is less transparency there, over many things, than the rest of the BBC.  
    The BBC aims to be as transparent as possible because it's a public service organisation. BBC Wordwide isn't funded by the licence fee, it's a commercial company.

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Radioactiveoldduffer (U4768882) on Sunday, 30th December 2012

    Wonder if that will include "all payoffs" to people employed by BBC Worldwide - that is an extremely interesting area since there is less transparency there, over many things, than the rest of the BBC.  
    The BBC aims to be as transparent as possible because it's a public service organisation. BBC Wordwide isn't funded by the licence fee, it's a commercial company. 
    It's not what many would call a commercial company when it was founded with BBC finance money (i.e. ours) and until recently figured BBC senior management as board members.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by oldmanriver (U14455170) on Sunday, 30th December 2012

    Many of the "big hits" of the BBC are now made and sold in the name of BBC Worldwide - hence the relationship between the two is interwoven. In the same way the relationship between BBC Worldwide and other so called "independent production companies" is interwoven as it is with the other big names in the commercial sector. It is hard to justify any public service remit once the BBC has verntured into the commercial world of owning shares in a whole range of organisations.

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by Lee (U1149673) on Sunday, 30th December 2012

    Which independent production companies does the BBC own shares in?

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Sunday, 30th December 2012

    See if you can find them www.whatdotheyknow.c...
    all Publically declared in the Accounts ... and about 16 of them ...

    And juts in case you need them the BBC's list www.whatdotheyknow.c... of which PARBUL is the only programme maker not owned by the BBC.

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by oldmanriver (U14455170) on Sunday, 30th December 2012

    Left Bank Pictures
    Baby Cow Productions - owns 25% of this
    Clerkenwell Films
    Sprout Pictures
    Big Talk Productions
    Slim Film

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Lee (U1149673) on Sunday, 30th December 2012

    Your criticism of the BBC - (you said "it is hard to justify any public service remit once the BBC has ventured into the commercial world of owning shares in a whole range of organisations") - seems to be based on the workings of BBC Worldwide, not the licence fee funded BBC.

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Sunday, 30th December 2012

    ctor. It is hard to justify any public service remit once the BBC has ventured into the commercial world of owning shares in a whole range of organisations. 

    Besides that fact that the BBC was a commercial company -
    but looking at a few years after its Royal Charter was first issued - it got 10% of its income from Non LF activities.... (and that is 95 years ago)
    and the BBC W annual report states " Our total return to the BBC this year amounted to a record £215.7m, equivalent to over one pound in 10 spent by BBC Vision." page 6 of www.bbcworldwide.com...
    ...... and on the same page BBC W announce that " on 31 October 2011" the BBC has divested itself of what made its non LF money in 1928 .

    The BBC has always worked with a commercial eye - but whilst sharing the same values this has been kept separate from LF (and until it runs out) Grant in Aid funding ...
    But it is interesting in the use of Commercial money to produce World News that was refused for GiA funding!!!!

    That is part of the Whole rich mix of the BBC - the largest UK employer of musicians- and note that BBC Films - the largest UK maker of theatric release films is part of the PSB output
    ( the other Publicly owned PSB is also strong in film..)
    And of course BBC S+PP makes its Studios Restoration and Post services available to the wider market ....
    ...... and with Pearson BBC Active ...(Schools Material)

    But the BBC Trust vets all business ventures
    - like them stopping BBC Jam ... (though how this was much different from other activities I do not know!!!!!)
    and the OFT stopped Project Kangaroo- a UK Broadcasters JV
    - but BBC W is doing the BBC store..... (AKA Barcelona)

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by oldmanriver (U14455170) on Sunday, 30th December 2012

    As to the total return to the BBC being a huge sum - you have to look more closely at what is being done.

    Take, for example, one of the production companies - "Left Bank Pictures". The BBC bought a 25% equity stake when it was set up. That "independent" company then went on to produce, for example, Wallander and Zen.

    The same company (BBC 25% equity) produced STrike Back and Mad Dogs for Sky.
    The same company produced (BBC 25% equity) Married Single and other, and DCI Banks for ITV. It has also produced programmes for Channel 4.

    In other words the BBC bought in programmes from a Company which they partially owned through BBC Worldwide. At the same time they were able to "sell" programmes made by a Company they partially owned to the other non licence fee funded channels despite the fact that the rules say that they cannot produce programmes for their rival channels.

    This year the Left Bank Pictures was sold onto Sony and the BBC dropped its shareownership to 12.5%.

    You might argue that none of this really matters as long as the money is ploughed back into the BBC, but the fact is that BBC Worldwide (and its forerunner) is a wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC. So the money to set up BBC Worldwide came from the BBC.(the licence payers). The money transferred to BBC Worldwide was then used to buy into an "independent" company . As to quoting profits do those "profits" include the sums originally invested? How much would those "profits" actually be if the public knew what individuals running that Company were taking as pay etc as we do know about the BBC.

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by stevefb (U14977970) on Sunday, 30th December 2012

    smiley - doh But, in this investigation it is possible to look at the payoff to George Entwistle. Again, I say, the investigation of George Entwistle's payoff has not been blocked, it is just that the BBC have suggested, and the NAO have accepted that an investigation be made into ALL payoffs.   Which is why I think Patten's blocking maneuver was rather shrewd. By preventing the 'short sharp shock' rapid audit that Morse requested, Patten not only subsumed the Entwistle payoff into a much broader investigation, he also successfully kicked the whole thing down the road for a couple of months, by which time the news agenda might well have moved on and the atmosphere surrounding the Entwistle saga would certainly be less febrile.

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by Lee (U1149673) on Sunday, 30th December 2012

    the fact is that BBC Worldwide (and its forerunner) is a wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC. So the money to set up BBC Worldwide came from the BBC.(the licence payers). The money transferred to BBC Worldwide was then used to buy into an "independent" company.  
    It's my understanding that BBC Worldwide, like many commercial companies, operates by obtaining loans at normal business rates from investment banks. No licence fee money is transferred to BBC Worldwide.

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by oldmanriver (U14455170) on Sunday, 30th December 2012

    Go back one step further - before BBC Worldwide existed there were a number of commercial branches of the BBC, for example, one which sold off books, audios etc. What they were selling was content paid for by the licence fee and government grants. All of these braches became subsumed into BBC Worldwide which since 2008 has embarked on a policy of buying into "independents. These "independents" are often owned by people who appear frequently on the BBC.

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Sunday, 30th December 2012

    BBC worldwide has never used LF money ....and in many ways limited in what it can do by some if its borrowings being within the BBC limit of 200 million pounds so BBC W tends to fund itself from current earnings not borrowings. .. So it trades at a commercial disadvantage.

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by oldmanriver (U14455170) on Monday, 31st December 2012

    I have found a basic breakdown of BBC Worldwide accounts. It is clear that it makes a significant amount of money giving licences to other organisations to show BBC output.What is not clear is how much they pay the BBC for the product that they then "sell" or "licence" on because, as a commercial organisation, it would have to "buy" the product from the BBC because, as you point out, they are seperate organisations - despite the fact that BBC Worldwide is a 100% subsidiary of the BBC.

    What I can also not find is how much the people at the top of BBC Worldwide are paid, what packages they have in terms of health and insurance etc to see if these are comparable in terms ands conditions as those of the BBC. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction?

    I hope that the NAO will investigate BBC Worldwide as well as the BBC because they are interdependent organisations and the latter is at an advantage, not disadvantage, in the commercial world becaue of all the benefits that the BBC receive which are not available to commercial organisations. Also, it is clear that the BBC Worldwide are using their part ownership of other "independent" production companies to circumvent the rules regarding making programmes for their competitors.

    As to profligacy at the BBC - very apt today when an FOI revealed the cost of relocation packages to individuals to move to Salford. I really wonder whether comparable packages would be available to so many within the private sector.

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by Radioactiveoldduffer (U4768882) on Monday, 31st December 2012

    The senior directors of Worldwide are in fact paid more than the current DG position. Like many I'm not convinced that the BBC could not get the same income or more by using a truly independent sales agency. There is of course the BBC brand under which Worldwide operates and therefore cannot be truly independent of the BBC. Lets not forget that BBC Worldwide bought out a travel guide company which was folly in the extreme - will they be selling double glazing next?

    When the Audit office is given unfettered access to the BBC accounts we may have more transparency as to what the BBC deem as being independent.

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Monday, 31st December 2012

    I have found a basic breakdown of BBC Worldwide accounts. It is clear that it makes a significant amount of money giving licences to other organisations to show BBC output.What is not clear is how much they pay the BBC for the product that they then "sell" or "licence" on because, as a commercial organisation, it would have to "buy" the product from the BBC because, as you point out, they are seperate organisations - despite the fact that BBC Worldwide is a 100% subsidiary of the BBC.

    What I can also not find is how much the people at the top of BBC Worldwide are paid, what packages they have in terms of health and insurance etc to see if these are comparable in terms ands conditions as those of the BBC. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction?

    I hope that the NAO will investigate BBC Worldwide as well as the BBC because they are interdependent organisations and the latter is at an advantage, not disadvantage, in the commercial world becaue of all the benefits that the BBC receive which are not available to commercial organisations. Also, it is clear that the BBC Worldwide are using their part ownership of other "independent" production companies to circumvent the rules regarding making programmes for their competitors.

    As to profligacy at the BBC - very apt today when an FOI revealed the cost of relocation packages to individuals to move to Salford. I really wonder whether comparable packages would be available to so many within the private sector.

     
    Oldman river
    I hope that you find these comments helpful - I am not a BBC employee but need to know most of these things so I can point you in some directions.

    The way that the BBC trades (in all areas) is set by the Fair trading Policy downloads.bbc.co.uk/...

    Issues of transfer pricing are set out in Section 3.12
    and
    3.13 The BBC aims to maximise the value of licence fee payer’s assets. The key principle of ‘fair transfer pricing’ is that charges for goods and services supplied by the BBC’s Public Service Groups, whether sold to the BBC’s Commercial Subsidiaries or to third parties, should be set in line with prevailing market practice.  

    If the BBC Public service discounted the price of its IPR to BBC W - then every distributor would be appealing it .... they do not!

    The payment to the directors of BBCW are at page 70 of www.bbcworldwide.com...
    note that the Chief executive waived £52k of his
    entitlement .... and the means by which things are bench-marked is also detailed.

    Gross employment costs (salary NI pension etc ) - is about £74k for a BBC W employee and £60k for PSB - which is expected as there are not many lower graded staff in BBC W.... from page F31 of downloads.bbc.co.uk/...

    What benefits does the BBC have????
    - It has an overdraft limit of £200M and its borrowings are part of PSBR .....
    Almost all its changes in its activities are subject to the BBC Trust , OFCOM and OFT/CC scrutiny ....
    it has 70% of its income from the LF - a nice income known a few years in advance - which is a benefit - But against an cost base and other factors like top slicing which it has little control over - so it is not all plain sailing.... the remaining 30% is from other activities - which are subject to all sorts of vagaries....

    As ITV can and does make programs for the BBC - yet it is very difficult for the BBC to make Programs for ITV/CH4 etc is not this something where the BBC is at a disadvantage.
    But having Indies which have BBC W investment in them making more programs = more income = more dividend = more money for the BBC seem a long chain to circumvent BBC staff making Programs for others.and there an no BBC staff in Indies!
    .... the shareholders are commercial dealings - just like Carnival Films -maker of "Downton" is 100% owned by NBC..

    As far as the cost of the move to Salford - i refer you to www.bbc.co.uk/mediac...
    which outlines what BBC staff are entitled to.. in simple terms what HMRC allows!
    Which is not as generous as the company I worked for had on moving .....






    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by Radioactiveoldduffer (U4768882) on Monday, 31st December 2012

    From your Salford link Lee,

    "The BBC is paid for by the whole of the UK and needs to better reflect the breadth and depth of our culture and be representative of all those who fund it. BBC North will help meet the commitment to our audiences to get as close to them as possible".



    By moving to Salford you are even further away from where I reside than London.
    That's why there are so many complaints about the Breakfast slot where lack of well known guests have had an adverse effect on audiences. Still while you are writing the news you can spin it anyway you like but it certainly wasn't the reason for the move. Suggest you look at the last licence renewal talks and the Labour Government wish to decentralise London head offices and you have your answer.

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by oldmanriver (U14455170) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    Thanks for the long reply technologist. I assumed that you worked for the BBC because you are so knowledgeable about technical matters. Will read it in detail later and get back (have to go to relatives today).

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by oldmanriver (U14455170) on Monday, 7th January 2013

    I have only just got down to reading the first document you kindly referred me to Technologists, but I am struck by the fact that the opening statement refers to the fact that "BBC Worldwide exists to support the BBC's public service remit". It then goes onto itemise under headings how BBC Worldwide makes money and most of the categroies given are about growth in America, Latin America and the Far East, and also that the biggest growth area is the sale of digital sevices worldwide.

    I had always assumed that the public services remit was a uk public services remit and not one to provide the world with commercial products - in their own words, "BBC Worldwide is in the business of commercialising TV properties in all kinds of ways".

    Anyway I haven't read the rest yet, because my attention was caught by an article on Guido Fawkes today. - that the BBC's new HQ went £100 million over budget with the "finishing touches" in the last sixth months of the rebuild coming in at nearly £6 million, with the BBC refusing to reveal how much it spent on individual furniture items - no doubt there will be another FOI request by someone.
    It does seem to me that the BBC has a great deal to answer over financing - including how it operates BBC Worldwide.

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Monday, 7th January 2013


    Are you suggesting that BBC Worldwide should refuse point blank to sell any BBC products outside of the UK?

    In what way does that seem like a sensible idea to you?

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Monday, 7th January 2013

    Perhaps you might like to read some of the NAO reports . www.nao.org.uk/publi...
    And particularly what has been reported to date on the Three main Property Projects .. www.nao.org.uk/publi...
    - Also what is a project cost - look at the (N)BH project on the 2006 rebase - "Whilst this created £54m of additional costs, it also generated additional savings of £172m due to the release of other buildings."

    The BBC public service has been around the world for the past 80 years - and from April this year it comes within the LF .. which saves a lot of accountancy and other administrative inefficiency.

    BBC Worldwide is bound by all the BBC public values - which could be a bit of a hindrance in a cut throat international commercial world ... (and do not apply to the equivalents in the publicly owned Ch4 or commercial ITV, Fremantle etc) and has the borrowing limit so it can only invest out of earnings - which is not the way most businesses work... and it brings in money which offsets the LF and also promotes the BBC around the world.

    I have pointed out all the Check and balances which the BBC has and the use of OFT/CC and OFCOM that the BBC trust has to ensure that all is above board ... and there are enough competitors who can make references .. but when they do it is very rare that there is any wrong doing .

    The BBC has audited accounts for its assorted public businesses as well as all its commercial ventures .... and scrutiny by DCMS and Parliament ...

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 35.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by oldmanriver (U14455170) on Monday, 7th January 2013

    Thanks for the links again but as to the following:


    "Also what is a project cost - look at the (N)BH project on the 2006 rebase - "Whilst this created £54m of additional costs, it also generated additional savings of £172m due to the release of other buildings."

    The fact that it can generate savings by freeing up other buildings does not, in any way, justify spending excessive sums on any new build.

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Monday, 7th January 2013

    i agree re "excessive" - but is spending say £50M saves over £100M net seems like a good move...... but of course the Project costs more....
    Enjoy the Scottish OB unit story!!!!

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by Lee (U1149673) on Tuesday, 8th January 2013

    "Also what is a project cost - look at the (N)BH project on the 2006 rebase - "Whilst this created £54m of additional costs, it also generated additional savings of £172m due to the release of other buildings."

    The fact that it can generate savings by freeing up other buildings does not, in any way, justify spending excessive sums on any new build.  

    By adding £54m of additional costs to the original 2003-2006 proposal (a lot can change in 10 years), the BBC was able to move more teams into NBH than originally expected. By selling off many of our other buildings we've been able to bring a lot more under one roof which makes huge savings on things like security, building management, shared resources etc.

    I simply don't understand your argument. Surely £54M in extra costs weighed against £172m of savings has to be a good thing. How can you say that isn't justified?

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by oldmanriver (U14455170) on Tuesday, 8th January 2013

    I would love to answer Lee but the moderation policy seems to have forbidden sensible discussion of this issue - believe me I have tried.

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Tuesday, 8th January 2013


    Are you suggesting that BBC Worldwide should refuse point blank to sell any BBC products outside of the UK?

    In what way does that seem like a sensible idea to you?

     

    You aren't allowed to post libellous comments on the message board oldmanriver.

    It's perfectly possible to discuss *any* BBC related issue here, without breaking the house rules.

    Anyway in the meantime, perhaps you can respond to my response to you about another issue you raised, see above.

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by oldmanriver (U14455170) on Tuesday, 8th January 2013

    The point is not whether BBC products should be made available outside the uk, but whether, and why, a separate corporate vehicle is needed to do it.

    Here, as elsewhere, Ocam's Razor is the best starting point.

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Tuesday, 8th January 2013

    or the BBC Charter

    Which at Article 3 (3) reads "" In addition, the BBC may maintain, establish or acquire subsidiaries through which commercial activities may be undertaken to any extent permitted by a Framework Agreement.(The BBC’s general powers enable it to maintain, establish or acquired subsidiaries for purposes sufficiently connected with its Public Purposes – see article47(3) and (4)).""

    just as a lemma these Article 47 read

    (3)The BBC shall have the capacity to sue and be sued and do anything appertaining to a body corporate. In addition, the BBC shall have all the capacity of a natural person.

    (4)However, the BBC may use these general powers only for the purposes set out in articles3 to 5. The use of any of these powers for other purposes would amount to a breach of this Charter, with all the consequences that could follow from that (see in particular article 52). Subject to any overriding rules of law, such a use of powers shall,nevertheless, be valid: for example, contracts entered into by the BBC would be valid and enforceable against the BBC for so long as the BBC continues to exist, to any extent permitted by law."""

    but back to Commercial Subsidiaries ... so look at the Agreement

    at Article 68 which is entitled " Commercial services to be organisationally separate from the “core” BBC "

    and continues
    "" (1) The BBC as a corporation shall not directly provide any commercial services, but it may carry out other trading activities.

    (2) Any commercial services must be provided through one or more commercial subsidiaries. """

    All these documents available at www.bbc.co.uk/bbctru...

    Does this answer your question....????

    it is all very easy when you know where to look!!!




    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Tuesday, 8th January 2013

    The point is not whether BBC products should be made available outside the uk, but whether, and why, a separate corporate vehicle is needed to do it.

    Here, as elsewhere, Ocam's Razor is the best starting point. 

    Occam's razor version.

    The BBC charter by the UK government says so.

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by oldmanriver (U14455170) on Tuesday, 8th January 2013

    So you are telling me that the Charter allows them to establish subsidiaries to carry out commerical activities. That is not surprising since the Charter allows for possible scenarios. It does not explain why, in 1979 BBC Worldwide was established, why BBC Worldwide investments was created in 1992, BBC Worldwide Music in 1990, BBC Worldwide Productions in November of last year. As any historian knows the timing of what is done is just as important for explanations. Because something is possible does not explain why it is done.

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by Lee (U1149673) on Tuesday, 8th January 2013

    So you are telling me that the Charter allows them to establish subsidiaries to carry out commerical activities. That is not surprising since the Charter allows for possible scenarios. It does not explain why, in 1979 BBC Worldwide was established, why BBC Worldwide investments was created in 1992, BBC Worldwide Music in 1990, BBC Worldwide Productions in November of last year. As any historian knows the timing of what is done is just as important for explanations. Because something is possible does not explain why it is done.  For the benefit of those of us who have absolutely no idea what you're hinting at, why don't you just get to the point and tell us what your theory is.

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by Valdimar the Unending (U15551013) on Tuesday, 8th January 2013

    If you are going to be picky, BBC Worldwide was NOT created in 1979, it was founded in 1995. Read the history section here to see the timeline:

    en.wikipedia.org/wik...

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Tuesday, 8th January 2013

    BBC Worldwide Productions in November of last year. .  looks to me that minute 38.4 of the BBC trust March meeting refers to the outline reason .

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 49.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Wednesday, 9th January 2013


    Thanks technologist.

    I'm closing this discussion now, because it has drifted way off topic.

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.


Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.