BBC News Journalists to stage 2 48 Hour Strikes

I don't think she's a bad presenter I just think weekend breakfast is not something she is suited to , I think if we were to see her on a weekday edition were she's prepared it's a bit more relaxed back studio with a mix and with maybe not with Charlie she would do better than she did yesterday and I do take into account she has not been on National Television for 10 years and these things need time to gel but out of all the presenters who presented during the strike she was the weakest. I also don't think she will present breakfast again unless something like a strike happens again.

Well with the next strike being the 15th and 16th of this month, she might pop up then, but I suppose it also depends on who is available in each of the regions to present. I get the feeling the BBC are unable to manouver very much more on this issue, especially as the other unions have agreed the deal, but that remains to be seen.

I also thought there was a large number of normal anchors for the regional programmes, with Justin in Spotlight, Lucy in Wales, Christa in Look North Yorkshire, Peter in Look North York and Linc, normal Channel Islands presenter and the normal Oxford news, I am not sure with the Look East West, as I am not familiar with that opt. I was also very impressed that all of the sub opts made it to air on Friday, and indeed the only region not to was Look North Cumbria.

As a result of that I think the BBC now have a better idea to who is going to be around in each of the regions on strike days, and can therefore plan to spread there resources better.

I thought doing away with regional news at all yesterday was a bit of an easy option. I'm sure some regions would have been able to provide something.

Not sure unable is quite the word. Unwilling is probably a better one.

It is VERY interesting that the Head of News (Helen Boaden) who is also a Pension Trustee, has (in private, but that private e-mail has now been made public) appeared to acknowledge that she doesn't agree with the current BBC line on the Pension Scheme (I.e. making radical changes before the actual size of the deficit is known)

The BBC originally said "up to £2bn" was the size of the hole, and that it was caused by both poorly performing financial markets AND pensioners living longer. However the BBC are now saying "£1.64bn" as the figure, whilst many are now hearing a figure closer to "£1bn". There's a major difference between the two - and the BBC (without any discussion with the Pension Trustees) have decided to make a major change to the scheme BEFORE knowing the real number...

However the BBC are being disingenuous in including market conditions in this discussion. The BBC pension scheme had a surplus for a number of years, and the BBC took a (14 year I believe) pension holiday - where they stopped contributing to the scheme, whilst employees continued to pay in. The amount the BBC apparently stopped paying in during the pension holiday period - well that reduced the Pension Scheme's assets by approx £1bn apparently...

Oh - and the BBC and the government seem to lump the BBC pension scheme into the same boat as other 'public sector' pensions. Except that they are very different. The BBC scheme is funded (i.e. the BBC and staff have paid into a scheme and that money has been invested and managed so that it can pay the pensions of its members).

Many other public sector schemes are NOT operated like that - and instead the government pays the pensions out of direct taxation (and hasn't invested money in the same way). They are completely different ways of funding pensions. But why let the truth get in the way of a good story.

The report on the Thursday Ten - which described the existing BBC staff members as being lucky enough to be able to stay in their current scheme with just some rule changes was a travesty. Rule changes that can see your pension drop by a third or more?

Murky eh?

What's even worse is that when the BBC Moneybox team (a very well regarded group of financial journalism experts) offered to make an independent programme to explain the issue to staff, the BBC Management wanted to be able to preview it and potentially change it prior to it being released. The BBC would never allow this for any of its normal productions - and the Moneybox team rightly refused to continue.

Should this level of poor management surprise anyone though? The current BBC management don't seem to be able to put a foot right.

Interesting rumours that this might be the last straw for Mark Thompson's leadership though - and that Helen Boaden distancing herself from him on a crucial aspect of his leadership AND her deputy publicly criticising his approach to the News Internation / BSkyB issue - are both highly significant precursors to a degree of regime change...

Really interesting point about Moneybox … but I’m not sure I fully understand your distinction between BBC pensions and public sector pensions?

I have a lot of sympathy for BBC staff, but also feel that the industrial action staged by NUJ members over the last 48 hours shows they share the same public sector mentality as tube drivers, fire-fighters & health care professionals, and have a lot less in common with staff working in other media organistaions. Thousands of firms in the private sector - including high profile media companies like ITN and Pearson (where many staff are also represented by the NUJ) - have faced similar problems with their pensions schemes over the last couple of years, but appear to have dealt with them or be dealing with them, without staff feeling the need to resort to strike action. Just my opinion …

Any Video from Anybody about effects of Stike, e.g.

news clips?
apology announcements?

I'd pity the NUJ if the licence fee payers decided to strike paying their TV licences!

Depends on whether staff are prepared to do different duties. They could be like Naga Munchetty and Simon McCoy and only agree to do their contracted duties

There is a huge difference.

The BBC pension scheme has contributions made by staff and by employers that are invested in real investments. It is 'fully funded' - i.e. it stands alone and generates the required amount of money to pay its pensioners (or not depending on the level of deficit). There is no requirement for the government to top it up, or pay anything towards it.

A very large number of public sector pensions work totally differently. Rather than the employee and the employer both making payments into a standalone investment scheme that is managed by trustees and generates an income for pensioners, instead the govt promises to pay a pension to the employee on retirement, but doesn't actually do anything to generate this pension - instead expecting to pay it out of general taxation income when it needs to be paid out. In other words the public sector employer (effectively the government) doesn't actually invest anything into a standalone pension fund, and AIUI the employee just accepts a reduced salary (in lieu of pension contributions), but there are no pension contributions actually invested from either side, but instead there IS a promise of a pension (paid from central funds) on retirement. Effectively the pension is entirely virtual, no investments are made, instead just a promise of a future pension.

As you can see they are VERY different.

The public sector pensions are NOT fully funded - and are a huge ticking time bomb for us all.

The BBC pension scheme is NOT funded by central taxation, is not 'virtual', is fully funded, and if the BBC hadn't decided to take a 14 year pension contribution holiday when the scheme was in surplus, we'd not have issues of deficit now. That's not to say there won't be a pension issue for the BBC longer term - as pensioners get older - however the BBC is having its cake and eating it at the moment.

It has saved 14 years worth of pension contributions - and is now discovering that that may not have been a great decision...

Of course this means nothing to the audience - however it demonstrates the appallingly poor management at some levels in the corporation.

Didn't ITV take a decent decision on their pension deficit? ISTR that they have transferred their Freeview mux holdings so that they are effectively funding the pension scheme?

Normal presenter Janine Machin presented Look East Cambridge.

Not sure about ITV, but the pension problems at ITN and Pearson have been fairly widely reported in the press.