BBC: please tell the truth over cuts to Local BBC Radio
Follow @mediaukdiscussDear BBC Executive Board
Please tell the truth over cuts to Local BBC Radio
Please stop what is happening, revert to pre christmas schedule & how dare you expert local bbc presenters to do your dirty work and misinform over 7 million local listeners?
I know this is like turkeys voting for Christmas and the questions I pose are difficult, but there are many angry listeners out there who are totally perplexed at the cuts on BBC local radio services in the evening, and early morning slots. They cannot understand why this has happened, and I am part way through analysing all documents relating to BBC Local radio, the DQF, Service Reviews etc, and what found is uncomfortable reading, and I will produce a critical review of the lack of comprehension visions and approach show to BBC local radio. However, this is the detail, the true fact of the matter you are expecting your wonderful local staff to mis-inform local listeners that the cuts due to reduced funding, when the BBC Trust own document states the cuts not impacted much on financial costs to the station. As I say below travesty is not a strong enough worked to how the staff and listeners have been treated in this torrid affair. This approach if not stopped immediately and the scheduling reversed, the BBC Brand will be in shatters for the third time. If over 7 million listeners lose faith in your ability to tell the truth over this issue, they will be left wondering who they can trust in Britain.
Lord Patten should resign over this and it yet again shows his inability to be fair, open and transparent to the listeners he should be having a duty of care over. This is very serious indeed. Also the person in charge of England nations should also consider steeping as side, and allowing somebody in with a true vision of how BBC Local can and could connect the people in local areas and across the nation. Also how could BBC, Government and BBC trust expect our older population to pay broadband infrastructure investment for blue chip companies why the BBC tells them they have to cut one of the only service its is truly aiming at this age group, the over 50’s. Many of them do not have broadband and even if they wanted it could pay for it. This is immoral and causing older people ‘media poor’ with less choice at local level on the radio. It is something as a 42 year old will not keep quite about as if the likes of BT could sponsor the olympics I am sure it can invest in its own rural broadband infrastructure with out pinching it from the BBC purse, broad band is not a new and innovative technology. BT need to revise its economic model for working in rural areas and just get the job done. It is just wrong and the people responsible for making this decision should be ashamed of themselves.
I had four years working in post conflict in Kosovo mainly for the UN and had to work with multi- nationalities and all level of organisation just to get simple public/environmental issues tackled in October 1999 onwards. One of the key things that sticks in my is WHY did nobody listen to these people and WHy did they after to wait for help so long to get liberated. The DQF process, the letters I have received from Dept of Media, Sport, Culture, the BBC Trust and a complete lack of comment from the actual BBC, are a kin to what happened in Kosovo; no BBC journalists would investigate it fully as I am positive they were told they could not – I was allowed to on air late 2011 when DQF consultation was nearly finished but the local and regional bbc manager did not answer my concerns and never came back with answers; I was also let on late last year but no follow up happened. Feedback, a private company did interview me as-well, however on the last time I phoned the local manager refused to go up against my questions, and no follow up happened after the shows.
When you have a BBC which is scared to investigate itself, you get the national scandal of Jimmy Saveille and Pre Newsnight, and now this below, if the other two news items had not been uncovered I would not think you would take this seriously . I was threatened in Kosovo over two larda cars and I spoke up, made my live hell after, but I was not prepared to lose to vehicles to an international person wanting extra top up cash, he would never admit to it but I knew the truth that happened that night in pizza place what he said to me, it was horrid. But we needed the vehicles to inspect environmental health issues and no way was he having them. He also was the reason why I left as you are the one made feeling worthless, an treated like the one in the wrong.
To lose our Den early morning on Radio Stoke was one threat to much, this is is just a flavour of what he brings early morning – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEO0ETXGeA8 and was inspired by BBC 2 Day Britain in a Day. It was due to him, Paula and the many other local bbc presenters, staff and listeners who love BBC local,l I have gone to such lengths to get this exposed.
I beg you, please look after your talent, stop making them mis-inform the public, sort out local radio and stop having mean management. Its peoples lives you are affecting, we are not just a story. Please do not ignore more concerns anymore – 15 months of asking is too long especially when my concerns have been totally justified.
Kindest regards
Sarah Gayton
Local BBC Radio Listener Radio Stoke
07903 155858
Please read the next post which was attached to the email thank you.
Good Lord. One of the most disturbing things I’ve read on a forum. And that includes DigitalSpy.
Actually, what is much more disturbing, is the nasty little undermining bullying. From those who love to throw stones in the playground, because they do not have the sensitivity or understanding to comment in any other way. I have spoken to Sarah today, and she has certainly delivered on many many campaigns, she is aware that the BBC knows about her campaigns in Kosovo and her work for the United Nations. Just because you are not aware does not give you the right to try and undermine her, because of your ignorance.
She makes some very very valid points in her post and you could actually address those, rather than insult some one who desrves our respect for the work that she does in local communities both here and abroad. But your true home is Digital Spy and your toxic bullying so return there, or comment without malice.
I do wish some people would have a bit more humanity. Sarah makes an excellent point, she shares some personal experiences with which to try and draw some kind of parallels and some uncaring fools take it upon themselves to be rather dismissive and nasty. The dismissive and nasty bit is more the Digital Spy line I’d say.
A response from “Darcy Sarto” – a pseudonym of comedy-writers Galton & Simpson. They dreamed up this name as the author of a book, which featured heavily in one episode of Hancock’s Half Hour – an plot revolving around a missing page which makes the whole book un-understandable. Rather apt.
I’m only being dismissive because Sarah’s post is rambling, incoherent nonsense. If there was a sensible point to respond to in amongst illiterate ramblings such as “I knew the truth that happened that night in pizza place what he said to me”, I’d willingly do so.
But let’s take the only substantive point that she makes – one questioning the reason to help fund broadband rollout (£150m per year for two years) “rather than” fund less-listened-to programmes on BBC Local Radio. The BBC has funded television and radio transmitter operations for many years, to the tune of £208m last year (a cost which is now shared with the commercial radio industry, incidentally, since transmission is now done by a company called Arqiva). The internet is just another transmission network. If the BBC is to serve its local radio listeners, many of whom are in remote areas, what better way to work on ways to ensure that its programming reaches them? Who is Sarah to tell them that no, despite the fact it’s uneconomic for a commercial company to provide them with decent broadband, the BBC shouldn’t be helping? Just because Sarah has decent broadband, does that mean that the BBC shouldn’t be helping others less fortunate than themselves to get it? Don’t people living in rural areas without broadband feel ‘worthless’? Who is she to decide?
Now, if you can argue cogently, rather than bandy accusations of bullying around, you’d be welcome to engage me in conversation. Though, if you really believed in what you were saying, you’d have the confidence to post under your real name.
Richard, I am not sure that you have covered this well, I would again have to question your personal insults rather than engaging with the subject matter?
You show , a lesser understanding than Sarah, about the fact that the roll out of fast broadbrand, promised by G Brown, is now apparently going to be funded by the licence fee payer, excuse me for questioning why millions of public money is being given to British Telecom, without consultation ? They are gaining, but the listeners to BBC local radio have to pay the cost of fewer journalists and a networked evening show on their local stations?
That is a scandal. I have not even started on the covert licence fee settlement, conducted between Mark Thompson and Jeremy Hunt(Murdoch fan and person behind local commercial TV stations)Yet.
Sarah is passionate about local democracy and local issues, and is bothering to look properly at all the information about DQF, and all the public documentation.
It is not an easy process.
And our Forum has for a long time tried to bring this to public attention, just wish more were like Sarah.
Tamsin
http://www.bbclocalradioforum.co.uk/
I live in Scotland and I personally have no objections to the BBC funding broadband roll-out to remote parts of the UK, why should they be less deserving and why shouldn’t the national public broadcaster and information provider help to fund this?
You mention BT. You may have forgotten that BT was once a public company, who, long before privatisation, rolled out near total coverage of the UK with telephone lines, which are now entirely used by prvate companies providing telephonic and data services. Again, BT, as a public company, funded this.
The same happened with British Gas (except the near total coverage – but a considerable portion, even remote parts, of the UK has access to gas).
If the “sacrifice” for this is a schedule reshuffle (specialist and ethnic shows moved to weekends) and the abolition of a 3 hour REGIONAL (not local) night-time show that went out at a time when the vast majority of the UK public (not radio enthusiasts) are watching telly (as has always been the case since full TV coverage was rolled out – again, funded publicly and later “hijacked” for the benefit of private commercial companies), then is it really such a big deal? It’s still the same songs, often the same topics of discussion, the same mentions for people who can be bothered to phone or write and a different presenter who is actually NOT based in London (for a change).
By the way, before you get smart, being in Scotland we don’t have local BBC stations for individual cities and surrounding regions, we have just one national broadcaster, so it’s the same programs across the nation, all day.
I have no idea what your point is?
Yes BT used to be a national company, with national interests, it was sold off. It is now a private company with corporate interest, ie its executive is now more interested in bonus and profit than any sort of national responsibility.
AND you are saying that because Scotland has no local BBC stations that would be the justification for the rest of England to do the same? Sorry but I can not join you in the race to the bottom, Shame on Scotland for putting up with their democracy being under represented by the BBC on local stations. Some are braver.
Wow! What a response – and an indication as to the state-of-mind of yourself, especially because you missed the point of my post.
Use a social media account you already have to log in. More info
If you're not on social media, register for a Media UK account.
By logging in, you are consenting to a cookie that personally identifies you to us. Here's more about our cookies.
Goodness, Sarah. While your letter to Tim Davie makes a cogent point – questioning why, if there are negligible savings from the new BBC England networked show, why did they bother to introduce it – this letter is a bit more difficult to understand.
To link the removal of some mostly unlistened-to programmes from local radio to a child molester and an untrue allegation of paedophilia is simply barmy. And to equate the BBC local radio cuts to the deaths of 7,000 people during ethnic cleaning in Kosovo is, frankly, unhinged. And you’ve sent this to the entire executive board of the BBC? Goodness.