A wonderful article, and sadly true of all large organisatons. The evidence of the BBC's terminal stupidity was brought home to me a couple of weeks ago, when I turned over to BBC4 to watch Flight of the Conchords. I was wearily prepared for the usual half a dozen adverts (often the BBC show significantly more adverts - ie. trailers for their shows - than ITV) but a little disturbed that one of these adverts was a trailer for... Flight of the Conchords. By now it was 9.32, and I was being forced to wait for the programme I wanted to see, because of a trailer for that very programme!! Does anyone seriously think this kind of saturation advertising will attract more viewers? I'm reaching the point where I will boycott certain shows in protest at the incessent trailers for them.

J Harris, Brighton, UK

The BBC seems to have been established as the precursor for the present NHS. Get as much as possible. Claim exorbitant saleries for the innumerable number of management officials, and achive the least level of poor service.

A. Winsor, Sotton, Hants

The BBC is passive agressive. When they are told they have to make cuts:- instead of getting rid of their army of overpaid pseudo-celebrities like J. Ross or J. Paxman, they cut all the programs which people like to watch. It's a bit like a spoilt child saying "If you cut my pocket money, I won't be able to buy pens to do my Home-work..."
What the BBC needs is an external auditor to scruinise their operations and cut out the superfluous staffing and overpaid presenters (How many presenters are there on News 24. I don't think I've ever seen the same face twice!!)

John O'Reilly, London,

in what way, precisely, do news stories about children stuck in traffic cones rot your brain faster than Dr Who or Spooks?

The three are self-evidently served up for the delight of exactly the same fraction of the viewing public, so I'm not altogether sure what your point is.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

Very witty. The licence fee would be more acceptable If we had a choice as to which station it should be allocated.

Abdul Majeed, Bradford, United Kingdom

The BBC like any big body operates on the 80/20 rule: eighty percent of the work is performed by 20 percent of the people. You could cull half the staff, the admistrators, clip board holders, diversity namby pambies etc. without impacting the output. Indeed, the quality of the remaining output would probably rise. Will it happen? Heck no. Like all public bodies the BBC is about building well-padded empires for the insiders and the customers be damned.

oldasiahand, Guildford, UK

yeah, I think the BBC's behaviour is really odd here... Fair enough they've got to cut back but surely they should be cutting back on programs which aren't at the 'heart' of the BBC? And whats the point in doing these cutbacks to go over to digital so you can have more programs, whilst at the same time cutting back on programs? Every few years the BBC remembers what it is and focuses on its strengths, and then later, well, they don't.

bod, torpoint, cornwall

Very amusing piece. Thank you. But public bodies always cut the bits which impact the public most. You expect the council to shut libraries and cut free bus passes for the elderly. You expect health boards to cut beds. You would expect Aunty to stop making successful programs.

Thats the problem with their business model. Its not commercially driven. The US also produces some good stuff using a subscription model. HBO is making stuff that doesn't have 3 minute cliff hangers. Perhaps the option that we are missing is that of subscription based television. I object to paying a license for what I mostly regard as junk. But how much would I subscribe for Radio 4? A lot more than its output actually costs as a percentage of the license.

BBC does too much, is a nest ( again like the council ) of old fashioned lefties, and is divorced from commercial reality. It really aught to be butchered.

David B, Larkhall, UK

The its going to cost us a lot in paddles and canoes, as the BBC send a correspondant rom each part of the service look at those dull party conferences; news 24, newsnight, daily politics, radio 4 all just to ask the same politicians the same questions and get the same non-answers. Also how often is news broken by the correspondants : they are generally in a much nicer neighbouring country.

Kevin Atkinson, London,

The increased enjoyableness of watching television without adverts does not make the license fee any less unfair.
It does not justify taking other people's money that their money enables you to have a nice time that wouldn't otherwise be economically viable. Do you need an example? Just because it would be nice if all one person's favourite shops offered free massages and taxis does not mean all the shoppers at other shops should be legally obliged to pay the first shops £100 a year. All manifestations of socialism are unfair, but the BBC is one which can't be so easily countered with emotional appeals to think of the poor, or think of the sick, or think of the children. In the BBC's case it has to be "think of the uncultured" and that's too blatantly snobbish an idea to sell to the public, since it relies on agreement that the BBC is a better source of culture than any other.

_Felix, Nottingham,