A fine example of overmanning at the BBC is the presence of two people to read the 6pm news every evening.
On Monday, May 23, the day of the strike, one person was sufficient to provide exactly the same service.
Why not every day? Vic Davies, Hengoed

The BBC simply does not have the right to exist. We should have the right to access television and radio channels of our choice, without interference or penalties from a government department. The BBC are denying us our human rights and freedom of choice by penalizing us even if we only watch the commercial or subscription channels that use the same platform as the BBC. With today's encryption technology, the simple solution for the BBC is to scramble its signals and charge a subscription fee to those who choose to listen to, and view its services. Mark Anthony, Portsmouth

What a delight to see the behemoth imploding. The BBC is an institutional dictatorship. It habitually practices and propagates racist and sexist discrimination, internally and externally, hiding behind the liberalist lie of "positive discrimination" all the while. The BBC could and should be transformed into an institutional democracy, with its Governors and Chairman being elected by licence payers. There should not be a continution of licence fee taxation without democratic representation. It's time to democratise the BBC dictatorship. Now. Terry Daly, London

The BBC should never scrap the licence fee. Believe me, after living in Australia for a year I have come to realise that the BBC is the best broadcaster in the world. I would gladly pay money here to the broadcasters to get rid of the adverts and put some decent programmes on. The only programmes worth watching here are BBC productions. Gavin Hall, Melbourne

Having started the cull of excess BBC staff, might one hope that the job will now be properly addressed by having the bloated board of mainly ex-government toadies who constitute the BBC governors shipped out to grass to be replaced by a publicly-elected and genuinely representative group of viewing (and licence-paying) public? Joseph White, Shepshed

My Monday began with Radio 2 and news read by a delightful lady who normally just gives us traffic information. Proof - no newsreader required. Indeed, is there a requirement for any newsreader when the radio presenters can do the work? Why should the licence fee pay salaries for unnecessary jobs? As for BBC 1 and 2, was there any interruption to the schedules? I never watch current affairs or news style programmes since I wish to hear factual reporting on actual news. I do not require supposition, advanced notice of politicians' speeches or subjective analysis. I am quite able to form my own opinions without being "guided" by radio and television presenters. Rid our screens of these and even more money can be saved, money that should go towards programming. Besides, there are now so many radio and television channels available, surely those trained at the BBC will find useful employment elsewhere? Failing this, the BBC will have to lose the licence fee and take advertising which will prove disastrous for broadcasting. I, for one, would not appreciate yet another channel spending its money solely on soaps, quiz and reality television simply to satisfy the demands of advertisers. T Stephen, Newport

I think the strike is the most honest act by BBC news staff in decades. The BBC has become a self-serving, bloated organisation in need of major surgery. Micheal Grade managed to kill off First leisure and the Dome - here's hoping for number three. George Black, Crowthorne

The lack of biased reporting has been a delight , and now that the BBC's news staff have incontrovertibly confirmed its political orientation by striking isn't it time the Beeb's management put in place a transparent sytem of measurement to demonstrate that its news output can be balanced - or is the re-education of staff in the art of balanced reporting already lost? Martin Coultas, Harrogate

People should be wary of any change in the BBC. This is a world-renowned and respected institution. Just watch some of the American news channels. Jonathan McEnery, St Albans

I understand that there is an excess of staff working for the BBC. The organisation does seem to spend rather a lot of money for the results that are achieved. Perhaps a reduction in staff will not only save money, but improve their creational abilities by knowing they will get the "chop" if they don't improve. Name and address withheld

The BBC management say that they want to sack people so that they can make more quality programmes. May I suggest the culling of EastEnders and the annual Eurovision fiasco? The money saved could promote more original writing talent in Play for Today style, and away from formulaic series. Brian O'Connell, Liverpool

I fail to understand how anyone can sympathize with the striking workers at the BBC when what they are actually demanding is that we, the licence fee payers, be forced to pay for their salaries and generous pensions even if we don't actually watch or listen to the BBC. D S A Murray, London

I will not miss the Blair Broadcasting Corporation one iota. I will not miss their biased reporting or the claptrap from their pro-Europe toting correspondents. And I will not miss paying for this bunch of precious people who believe that unlike anyone of us in the private sector - be it a company director or a miner - they have the right to a job for life. The BBC loves to mention human rights. What about my human right not to have to pay for something which I have long ceased to use, or face fine and possibly prison? Joanne McCormick, Hereford