Far too much Schubloke

[Bax-of-Delights]

Just to emphasise just how much undiscovered stuff there is out there:

http://www.youtube.com/user/JCHBONNET#g/u

Just this one contributor has no less than 520 pieces of rare compositions.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

amazing stuff B-o-D!!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Why on earth would I want to suffer the bletherings of "DJs" and the loop of 100 favourite tunes when I can EXPAND my musical knowledge elsewhere?

Sadly, BoD, this is a question I've increasingly been asking myself - since at least the time of Babbitt's death 14 months ago when the BBC commemorated the event with a passing mention on Night Waves. YouTube enabled me to mourn his passing not merely with performances (many with scores) but also a whole hour long documentary. From an embarrassment of riches, R3 has simply become a national embarrassment, and in my cynical moments (which, for some reason, have become more frequent in the past week or so) I wonder if this is all just a means of creating the excuse to shut the station down completely.

[Norfolk Born]

i claim the £5 i have not listened to R3 for over seven days and will not resume doing so for a little while yet ...there is no more marked demonstration of the lack of intelligence and judgement in the present management of R3 than these conceited marathons and the accompanying puffery and preening

As has been pointed out elsewhere, there is no separate radio licence, so it wouldn't have cost you anything to listen to Radio 3 had there been no Schubertathon, so you can't really claim for expenditure that you haven't incurred.

[Don Petter]

Don't those of us who are tax payers pay for the BBC's public radio by that route? We have an interest in what we get for our money just as we do with, say, public libraries or nationally funded museums.

[french frank]

Don't those of us who are tax payers pay for the BBC's public radio by that route? We have an interest in what we get for our money just as we do with, say, public libraries or nationally funded museums.

Not out of general taxation. It's out of the £3.5bn (and counting) that the BBC gets from the TV licence that pays for all the BBC radio services, even though you don't need a radio licence to listen.

Television licence fee payers therefore are paying for BBC radio - and get no reduction if they never listen to it (10% of the population don't).

[amateur51]

Just to emphasise just how much undiscovered stuff there is out there:

http://www.youtube.com/user/JCHBONNET#g/u

Just this one contributor has no less than 520 pieces of rare compositions.

Wow! Many thanks BoD

[Don Petter]

Not out of general taxation. It's out of the £3.5bn (and counting) that the BBC gets from the TV licence that pays for all the BBC radio services, even though you don't need a radio licence to listen.

Television licence fee payers therefore are paying for BBC radio - and get no reduction if they never listen to it (10% of the population don't).

OK. But then those who say we don't pay anything for it so we can't complain at what thin gruel we get (as, I think, back up thread) are forgetting that the vast majority do pay for it through their TV Licence.

[french frank]

OK. But then those who say we don't pay anything for it so we can't complain at what thin gruel we get (as, I think, back up thread) are forgetting that the vast majority do pay for it through their TV Licence.

Absolutely they do! And 'carry' the small minority who simply don't want television (like me; but then, I hardly listen to radio these days either ).

[Carmen]

The BBC went to the High Court to overturn a decision by the Information Commissioner that viewing (and listening) figures were not covered by the BBC's FOI exemption. (In other words, they established their claim that the figures were exempt and they weren't legally obliged to disclose them.) They disclose figures which are BBC 'good news' stories, of course ...

To put it mildly, I feel somewhat exercised by this revelation, FF. No doubt, the court's skewed argument for denying the public this right would make for very interesting reading.

[BBMmk2]

The BBC then, has it's own 'Police State'?

[french frank]

To put it mildly, I feel somewhat exercised by this revelation, FF. No doubt, the court's skewed argument for denying the public this right would make for very interesting reading.

The BBC lawyers are there to jump to the instructions of management. This is not the only occasion where totally spurious legal defences have been constructed to prevent the publication of details which the BBC wishes to keep secret.

[Forget the Balen Report - if you know what that is. I think that legitimately comes under 'journalism' even though I believe a publicly funded BBC should routinely disclose what the public asks it to disclose.]

But it is quite wrong for the BBC to interpret its special 'derogation' (or limited exemption from the FOIA) as meaning: We aren't legally obliged to tell you so we're not going to. See you in court!

[Serial_Apologist]

The BBC lawyers are there to jump to the instructions of management. This is not the only occasion where totally spurious legal defences have been constructed to prevent the publication of details which the BBC wishes to keep secret.

[Forget the Balen Report - if you know what that is. I think that legitimately comes under 'journalism' even though I believe a publicly funded BBC should routinely disclose what the public asks it to disclose.]

But it is quite wrong for the BBC to interpret its special 'derogation' (or limited exemption from the FOIA) as meaning: We aren't legally obliged to tell you so we're not going to. See you in court!

Surely the BBC could be legally challenged on this? After all, it can't surely be a question of "commercial secrecy"?

Or is it too late now?

[amateur51]

Surely the BBC could be legally challenged on this? After all, it can't surely be a question of "commercial secrecy"?

Or is it too late now?

It's never too late to raise a challenge on a matter of principle such as this, surely.

This seems to me to fall into the same category as the Dept of Health's refusal to publish the risk register about the NHS plans. We pay for it; it's our NHS as much as it is the Government's.

i spoke to a retired relatively senior civil servant ex-Dept SS about this the other day & he said that the Dept was quite right to defend what its civil servants write in confidence. That's the Civil Service speaking - surely it's poppycock? It's no wonder that journalists encourage Civil Servants to leak, in my opinion and thank goodness they do

[french frank]

Surely the BBC could be legally challenged on this? After all, it can't surely be a question of "commercial secrecy"?

Or is it too late now?

It has been tried ...

As far as the Balen report is concerned, Stephen Sugar died before the final verdict was given against him - after years of battling.

I spent two years appealing against the BBC's refusal to disclose specific listening figures - which the BBC themselves said they had, in principle, a 'working practice' of disclosing. They themselves recognised that there was a public interest in disclosing the figures 'where appropriate'. But argued in our case it was inappropriate and there was a greater public interest in withholding them. I ask you! we're talking about the listening figures for Radio 3's evening concert and for the live Choral Evensong! Giving us these figures, their lawyers said, was a threat to the existence of RAJAR, and therefore against the public interest!

The Information Commissioner's Office mediated and extracted an agreement from the BBC that they would disclose the figures (albeit 'unofficially', not under the FOI - which in fact is exactly what we had originally asked for). After three months waiting for the figures to arrive we were told the BBC had 'changed its mind' and there were 'editorial concerns' about disclosing figures which were by then 3-4 years out of date, with the RAJAR figures being regularly superseding them each quarter.

End of battle. The BBC wins. And each time another query comes up, you know this is how it will end.

Every single submission to the BBC Trust relating to the review of Radio 3 was published online. Except that of the BBC Executive which they refused to publish. Surprise, surprise! the BBC Trust accepted the arguments of the BBC Executive and ignored the views of the objectors. And we can't object to the arguments of the BBC/Radio 3 because we don't know what they are.