The BBC turns down a 'Times' FOI request

 

More BBC-related Freedom of Information (FoI) news tonight, courtesy of Matthew Moore of The Times...

The Times has had an FoI request rejected by the BBC - personally, by the outgoing BBC chairman no less: 

Sir David Clementi has blocked the release of the BBC’s licence fee collection strategy in one of his final acts as chairman. 

The document, understood to set out plans for maximising revenues from the compulsory levy, was approved by the BBC board last year. In response to a freedom of information request from The Times, the broadcaster confirmed that it held the paper. However, it declined to disclose it on the ground that publication would “prejudice the conduct of public affairs” and “inhibit the free and frank exchange of views”.

The BBC, despite being "free and frank", turns down an awful lot of FoI requests.

A mass revolt against the BBC licence fee?

It was always going to be interesting to see how many over-75s would willingly pay for the BBC licence fee after the corporation welched on its deal with the Government to maintain the universal exception, and it turns out that more than a million people aged over 75 still haven't done so, “indicating a mass revolt against the compulsory charge" according to Matthew Moore of The Times. 

Though 2.7 million licences have been bought, on top of the 'more than a million people' who haven't take it up a further 750,000 on lower incomes have applied to continue receiving it free. 

Though the BBC must have breathed a sigh of relief this week at the Government's sharp pulling-back over decriminalising the licence fee, people are clearly taking matters into their own hands, and it's still not looking good for the BBC. 

...and statistics

I read a piece by Matthew Moore in The Times yesterday noting those ex-BBC folk at Ofcom's findings that the BBC is starting to lose support among its most loyal viewers and listeners - older viewers. 

For the purposes of this blog though, it was the following which stood out for me:

Only 54 per cent of adults believe that the BBC provides impartial news and around 20 per cent rate the corporation badly for impartiality.

I must admit that I was surprised at those figures. Matthew thought they reflected badly on the BBC, but I found them unbelievably high (with the emphasis on 'unbelievably'). 

Even that dubious 54% wasn't high enough for the BBC evidently. I smiled on reading their own write-up. It didn't mention the impartiality findings at all, and just stuck to the identity stuff (as ever).

Today I read an interesting new angle on the Ofcom findings from Broadcast. Its headline reads Impartiality: BBC News slips below C5. It adds that the BBC is also now behind ITV and Sky News and Channel 4 too as far as public perceptions of impartiality go. 

Crikey! Goodness knows how to unravel those findings!

Another bad day at the office

February is continuing where January left off with another bad day for the BBC.  The Times has obtained internal figures from the BBC via a FOI request. It turns out that 493 staff - many of them senior  - are paid above the maximum allowed in their salary bands - "a situation that is meant to be permitted only under exceptional circumstances". The paper's Matthew Moore adds that this revelation "will increase tensions at the BBC, where 450 news staff are soon due to lose their jobs in a drive to save £80 million". Oh dear.