Vote! Why Bother?

So the discussions rumble on about the EU bailout and who said what to whom and who agreed with whom.  Well one thing we do know is that the former Chancellor didn't agree with the Financial Stability package.  Astonishingly even though he didn't agree with it he voted for it.  It seems that because of the way it was voted for among the EU countries he couldn't block it.  Fine, you can't block it but why on earth would you then vote for it?

When, in years to come people look back at the historical voting record it won't say that the UK voted for it but really didn't agree with it.  I would much rather that every time that our political representatives are against a piece of legislation they register our dissent.  If they lose the vote then at least there is a marker down registering that fact.  Now during any discussion the proponents of further bail outs can point at the vote and say "but look the vote to implement this was unanimous", too late now to try to back out of your agreed responsibilities.

Attention Seekers Anonymous

As I embark upon this push for notoriety, fame, fortune and worldwide adulation I have an announcement to make.  Sadly I don't have a publicist or an agent yet, I'm sure they will come along in due course.  My public profile is a bit lower than I would like so I feel the need to let you all know that I have <insert attention grabbing disorder here>

I don't know about anyone else but were I to have <attention grabbing disorder> I would wonder why on earth it would be of interest to anyone else outside of the immediate circle of my family and friends.  Then again I don't work in such rarefied areas where one week I will be posing for photos, attending the "must be seen at" party and then the following week be taking people to court for a gross invasion of privacy when I left a party a bit worse for wear.

I really cannot see any good reason for it. <Attention grabbing disorder> seems to be one of the most virulent and widespread diseases in showbiz today.  Perhaps we had better consider inoculation of the wider public to stop it spreading amongst the rest of population.  What could be worse than talentless nobodies screeching on TV, making fools of themselves for the amusement of oth.....

I'll stop there. That was like a televisual dead end!

Are the BBC World Service Cuts Really Necessary?

I listen to Radio 4 quite a lot.  A startling admission there right from the off I admit, but I also listen to the programming overnight that is linked in from the World Service.  A great deal of it is very good and offers an insight into wider world issues that get very little mainstream coverage elsewhere.  For the last few weeks building up to the closing down of the foreign language services and the re-arrangment of various programming there have been constant reminders, hair-pulling and hand wringing bemoaning the coming "government enforced" cuts and changes.

I have been wondering for a while now if there are indeed other ways that the BBC could make savings that would allow them to protect their "crown jewels".  Well I think I have identified one cut that the BBC could make that would no doubt free up a great deal of money.  It could be done immediately and would remove an average of less than 2 hours non-repeat broadcasts per 24 hours of transmission.  I'm of course talking about scrapping BBC3.

If you look at the schedules for the coming week there is a total of 7 hours and 40 minutes of programming that  is not a repeat.  I'll just state that again. In 168 hours of transmission time approximately 7 hours and 40 minutes are not repeats.  Now my count across the schedule was a quick one taking into account programmes labelled as repeats, one program was not labelled as a repeat even though it was shown the day before.

What the hell is BBC 3 for?  In no way can it be considered a vital and valuable service.  A 24 hour rolling repeats service should not be something the BBC should be involved with, leave that to SKY or ITV.  The Beeb has the IPlayer if someone wants to catch up, although to be fair the constant stream of much repeated series like Family Guy and Total Wipeout doesn't appear there.

I would love someone to explain what exactly BBC3 costs and why retaining it is more valuable a public service than the World Service.

Update:

A swift rummage around shows that BBC3 costs somewhere around £115 million anually, the projected savings from the World Service cuts is around £46 million a year at the end of 2014.  So not only could they have prevented any cuts in the World Service they could have expanded output.  So now the only question remaining is why do the BBC consider a TV channel used almost entirely for repeats more valuable than their "priceless" World Service?