BBC coughs up B7m for film crew's Phuket stay

[webfact]

BBC coughs up B7m for film crew's Phuket stay

The Kalima Resort, party central for the BBC crew.

PHUKET: -- The state-funded British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is footing the £150,000-pound (B7.2 million) bill of a film crew who spent 10 days in Phuket “partying on the beach and drinking”.

The partying was based at the Kalima Resort and Spa in Patong, headquarters for the team during their Thailand stay.

The BBC is financed by British taxpayers, including through a special tax on every TV set and radio sold.

According to a report in The Telegraph of London, the 15-person crew was in Thailand on a sensationalist story about teenagers on their first holiday abroad.

But the crew decided that the planned Sun, Sex and Suspicious Parents show wasn’t worth doing after all.

The premise of the show was that British parents allowed teenaged sons and daughters to fly to Thailand, thinking they were going on their first holiday alone.

But in fact, the parents and BBC crew flew to Phuket as well, with the express purpose of spying on the young people.

“With 10 days left before filming for the next documentary started, the crew decided to spend their time partying, spending their time on a yacht and in bars,” the newspaper reported.

The Telegraph said BBC executives defended the B7.2-million stay.

“BBC bosses insisted the group had not broken BBC guidelines and they had continued to work on other material,” the newspaper continued.

The crew used social media to document their own partying. At one point, producer-director Blake McGrow posted a message that says, “Not much to film at the mo, so spending time relaxing down the beach! So yeah, it’s going well.”

The Sun newspaper said the show was scrapped when one of the teenagers discovered the plot. A BBC spokesman quoted by The Telegraph denied that filming had halted.

“There was a break in filming but the team continued to work on other material,” a BBC spokesman told the newspaper.

The resort’s web page says the cheapest room at the resort this week is B3,600 a night.


-- Phuket News 2013-08-13

[theblether]

To be honest with you I'm surprised they only spent 7 million baht. The BBC knows how to blow licence payers money, they're good at that.

[chrisbacke]

"According to a report in The Telegraph of London, the 15-person crew was in Thailand on a sensationalist story about teenagers on their first holiday abroad.

But the crew decided that the planned Sun, Sex and Suspicious Parents show wasn’t worth doing after all."

Maybe I completely misunderstand the responsibility of the crew here, but is that really your decision? Even if the teens did discover the plot, maybe the producers decide to change the angle - teenagers and the parents that party with them...?

[Popscene]

"The BBC is financed by British taxpayers" NO it's not, It financed by a TV licence fee the reporter should get their facts right.

[Totster]

"The BBC is financed by British taxpayers" NO it's not, It financed by a TV licence fee the reporter should get their facts right.

Jasus, talk about splitting hairs...

Anyway, I shall file this topic under "don't give a shit"

totster

[wolf5370]

"The BBC is financed by British taxpayers" NO it's not, It financed by a TV licence fee the reporter should get their facts right.

...and cars are not taxed, the owner just have to buy a Road Fund License (yes that's the proper name for car tax - and it doesn't even go to the roads anymore ). Get real - its a tax, always was. Besides, who do you think buys the "TV Licenses"? Could that be the British Tax Payers perchance?

BBC is also funded by: selling content and technology (including patent royalties); advertising on non-UK based channels (like BBC America); and government grants and subsidies. 7m baht would not scratch the surface of the Gbp4.5 Bn revenue raised each year.

[jbrain]

“There was a break in filming but the team continued to work on other material,” a BBC spokesman told the newspaper.

So what was the " other material " they kept working on.

Maybe another lady boy documentary, or the umpteenth report about the sex slaves working against their will in the bars and go-go's on the island?

[GirlDrinkDrunk]

i think the crew should be rewarded for sparing us the same old story AGAIN.

[BwindiBoy]

Maybe they decided to film for "Embarrassing Bodies" instead - I'm sure there are plenty of ex-pats in Phuket that fit the criteria for that show. :-)

[lee b]

They should have put them in Karon mermaid hotel for 500 B per night !!

[krisb]

It's a tough job, but someone's gotta do it. Wonder if they bar fined and put that on the tab at tax payers expense?

[oldgent]

my Tv license ended on 31st July. on 1st August I get a phone call telling me I have no license and im breaking the law .now I have got a letter

not the usual one threatening to fine me £1000 and put me in jail. but a more understanding one still carrying the penaltys but saying maybe you are on holiday

and they the BBC can waste that sort of money. shame on them

[Skint]

my Tv license ended on 31st July. on 1st August I get a phone call telling me I have no license and im breaking the law .now I have got a letter

not the usual one threatening to fine me £1000 and put me in jail. but a more understanding one still carrying the penaltys but saying maybe you are on holiday

and they the BBC can waste that sort of money. shame on them

Given they didn't jail saville and 80% of BBC for savilling and glittering i doubt you'd go to jail for being late with a license fee.

[4evermaat]

Where does one sign up or qualify to be on such a trip for the bbc? Staff, guest, extra....doesnt matter to me

"...the 2nd best time to plant a tree is today." Sent from ThaiVisa app (Galaxy Note 2).

[webfact]

BBC crew spend £150, 000 of licence payers' money partying in Thailand
BBC bosses allowed a film crew to stay in Thailand partying after a show was axed, costing licence fee payers £150,000.
By Claire Carter1

LONDON: -- The 15-strong team working on Sun, Sex and Suspicious Parents spent a ten day gap between filming partying on the beach and drinking, as well as relaxing in a five star hotel.

They had been filming the BBC3 series, which follows teenagers on their first holiday abroad without their parents, who can secretly watch them.

But filming was reportedly scrapped when the three boys they were focusing on realised what was happening.

With ten days left before filming for the next documentary started, the crew decided to spend their time partying, spending their time on a yacht and in bars.

BBC bosses insisted the group had not broken BBC guidelines and they had continued to work on other material.

Full story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10239133/BBC-crew-spend-150-000-of-licence-payers-money-partying-in-Thailand.html

-- The Telegraph 2013-08-13

[chooka]

"The BBC is financed by British taxpayers" NO it's not, It financed by a TV licence fee the reporter should get their facts right.

Do you need a licence to operated a remote control and television in the UK? Is the exam hard? Your tugging our chains right, satire? you got me.

[nontabury]

£150,000 between 15 personnel = £10,000 the cost for each individual, even if they flew business class, as we cannot expect them to fly economy or super economy and then Minus Group discount, plus cost of equipment,this I am guessing would make the travel cost

approximately £2,000 per person, leaving £8,000 per person to live on, minus hotel room, £90 per night per person, as again we cannot expect BBC personnel to shares rooms, thus leaving ONLY £7,900 for each of these personnel to live and survive on for a full

10 days. I'm just amazed they managed to survive on such a small amount. Well done to them, I say.

[renaissanc]

Possibly half the cost was travelling in Phuket's mafia tuk tuk taxis, which cost a fortune.

[nosatisfaction]

“There was a break in filming but the team continued to work on other material,” a BBC spokesman told the newspaper.

So what was the " other material " they kept working on.

Maybe another lady boy documentary, or the umpteenth report about the sex slaves working against their will in the bars and go-go's on the island?

Material: what to do in LOS while not reading TV

[ranma500]

God, I hate to have to defend the BBC, but there's nowhere near enough facts here to make any sort of decision on what went on.

Firstly, it sounds like the crew came to Thailand to film two documentaries, and one of them was cancelled.

That meant that they had ten days before the next one started filming.

Well, it is of course fairly normal to send a crew out a little time before the filming starts. This is not just to get over jet-lag, it's to test out equipment, find locations, apply for local permissions etc. In fact, any filming in Thailand requires a film permit, which must be submitted well before the filming starts.

So, in all likelihood the idea was that while they were filming the first documentary, the production team would be also prepping the second, which would in fact be quite an efficient use of time.

When the first project became impossible, it would probably not have made sense to send the crew home to England, then back again.

Firstly, they would have had to have bought a new air ticket, which would probably have been at least 40,000 Baht - quite likely more than the cost of their hotel.

Secondly, they would not be able to prep for the next documentary, so some of the crew would not have been able to go home anyway.

Finally, they were quite probably on a visa obtained for the specific purpose of the filming, arranged via the Thailand Film Office. If they returned home, the visa would be invalidated, so they would have to start the process again, which might not have happened in time.

Of course, there are other possible factors. We don't know what deal they had with the hotel, and whether there would have been a cancellation fee if they moved out.

There is also no real mention of what this 150,000 pound bill included. Did it include shipping of their equipment, the carnet costs, local transportation? If we don't know that information, we cannot possibly say whether it is a waste or not.

The average US TV drama series costs $3m per episode.

Perhaps we should not be criticising the BBC, but instead criticising the appallingly lazy journalists, who write sensationalist pieces like this without any supporting facts. This is horrible journalism. How much were the journalists paid to write this? That is a waste. Maybe they should fly a journalist out here just so they can report on the story with more pictures of the resort.

[nosatisfaction]

£150,000 between 15 personnel = £10,000 the cost for each individual, even if they flew business class, as we cannot expect them to fly economy or super economy and then Minus Group discount, plus cost of equipment,this I am guessing would make the travel cost

approximately £2,000 per person, leaving £8,000 per person to live on, minus hotel room, £90 per night per person, as again we cannot expect BBC personnel to shares rooms, thus leaving ONLY £7,900 for each of these personnel to live and survive on for a full

10 days. I'm just amazed they managed to survive on such a small amount. Well done to them, I say.

They mentioned Phuket, not Nontabury or Korat.

5555555555

[Morakot]

the team continued to work on other material,” a BBC spokesman told the newspaper.

[Greer]

"The BBC is financed by British taxpayers" NO it's not, It financed by a TV licence fee the reporter should get their facts right.

...and cars are not taxed, the owner just have to buy a Road Fund License (yes that's the proper name for car tax - and it doesn't even go to the roads anymore ). Get real - its a tax, always was. Besides, who do you think buys the "TV Licenses"? Could that be the British Tax Payers perchance?

BBC is also funded by: selling content and technology (including patent royalties); advertising on non-UK based channels (like BBC America); and government grants and subsidies. 7m baht would not scratch the surface of the Gbp4.5 Bn revenue raised each year.

A taxpayer is an individual - the license for a TV set is per set, not per viewer, it is therefore more correct to say that it is a license, not a tax per person. If you want to be totally correct you should say that ALL TV is paid for by the viewers one way or another - 13 minutes of advertising per hour, or more depending on where it is...

[wolf5370]

"The BBC is financed by British taxpayers" NO it's not, It financed by a TV licence fee the reporter should get their facts right.

...and cars are not taxed, the owner just have to buy a Road Fund License (yes that's the proper name for car tax - and it doesn't even go to the roads anymore ). Get real - its a tax, always was. Besides, who do you think buys the "TV Licenses"? Could that be the British Tax Payers perchance?

BBC is also funded by: selling content and technology (including patent royalties); advertising on non-UK based channels (like BBC America); and government grants and subsidies. 7m baht would not scratch the surface of the Gbp4.5 Bn revenue raised each year.

A taxpayer is an individual - the license for a TV set is per set, not per viewer, it is therefore more correct to say that it is a license, not a tax per person. If you want to be totally correct you should say that ALL TV is paid for by the viewers one way or another - 13 minutes of advertising per hour, or more depending on where it is...

Sorry it is NOT per set:

It covers the home and all people resident therein (flats/apartments are different homes within the same address). So it is a home tax - such as community charge (rates as were) - levied at people at home. Over 75s are completely funded by the tax payer as their licenses are paid out of the benefit purse (same as blind people). BBC does not advertise (commercial adverts) in the UK on terrestrial TV - it is not allowed to under charter.

For a main home or business => It covers the installation and use of TV receivers at the premises specified on the licence.

For a vehicle, boat or touring caravan used as your second home =>

It covers:

• The current licence holder
• Anyone who normally lives with them at the licensed premises
• Anyone who normally works at the licensed premises (as long as the vehicle, boat or caravan is being used for business purposes)

For a static caravan, mobile home or moveable chalet used as your second home => You’re covered by your main home’s TV Licence, as long as you or your family don’t watch TV in both premises at the same time.

At any location => Any device powered solely by its own internal batteries (i.e. it is not connected to an aerial or plugged into the mains).

Edited August 13, 2013 by wolf5370

[Greer]

God, I hate to have to defend the BBC, but there's nowhere near enough facts here to make any sort of decision on what went on.

Firstly, it sounds like the crew came to Thailand to film two documentaries, and one of them was cancelled.

That meant that they had ten days before the next one started filming.

Well, it is of course fairly normal to send a crew out a little time before the filming starts. This is not just to get over jet-lag, it's to test out equipment, find locations, apply for local permissions etc. In fact, any filming in Thailand requires a film permit, which must be submitted well before the filming starts.

So, in all likelihood the idea was that while they were filming the first documentary, the production team would be also prepping the second, which would in fact be quite an efficient use of time.

When the first project became impossible, it would probably not have made sense to send the crew home to England, then back again.

Firstly, they would have had to have bought a new air ticket, which would probably have been at least 40,000 Baht - quite likely more than the cost of their hotel.

Secondly, they would not be able to prep for the next documentary, so some of the crew would not have been able to go home anyway.

Finally, they were quite probably on a visa obtained for the specific purpose of the filming, arranged via the Thailand Film Office. If they returned home, the visa would be invalidated, so they would have to start the process again, which might not have happened in time.

Of course, there are other possible factors. We don't know what deal they had with the hotel, and whether there would have been a cancellation fee if they moved out.

There is also no real mention of what this 150,000 pound bill included. Did it include shipping of their equipment, the carnet costs, local transportation? If we don't know that information, we cannot possibly say whether it is a waste or not.

The average US TV drama series costs $3m per episode.

Perhaps we should not be criticising the BBC, but instead criticising the appallingly lazy journalists, who write sensationalist pieces like this without any supporting facts. This is horrible journalism. How much were the journalists paid to write this? That is a waste. Maybe they should fly a journalist out here just so they can report on the story with more pictures of the resort.

Yes I absolutely agree - I have worked in broadcasting most of my working life and sending a crew to the other side of the world is no mean feat, and works out expensive no matter what. The usual practice is that the company has to pay for meals, travel, and accommodation, as well as all the usual costs at the location, and there is usually a per diem to help defray the costs to the crew of being away from home base. But for any partying, that would most definitely be paid for by the crew themselves out of their own pocket and whatever amount of the per diem they want to use for that - which is all completely normal and is part of the cost of sending ANY crew ANYWHERE, and not just by the BBC either.

As you say, there are loads of other incidentals (not so incidental in some cases) such as the logistics for all the kit - cameras, lights, recorders, tape/disk stocks etcetera.

What many may not realise is another little thing called the "shooting ratio" - which refers to the amount of material shot, relative to the amount actually used in the final edit - and this directly affects costs because of the amount of recording medium that must either be purchased locally (not a good idea as you don't know how it has been stored) or carried from home base (expensive due to weight and size issues). For each hour of a high quality documentary, it is not unheard of to shoot up to 100 hours or so of material.

But the overall point is that there is a lot more to it than is reported here, and possibly the same may apply to the report by the originating newspaper.

[bobl]

"The BBC is financed by British taxpayers" NO it's not, It financed by a TV licence fee the reporter should get their facts right.

And the tv license fee is not a tax? Well done, you've passed indoctrination 101. You may now move along to course 102, "VAT" isn't a tax.

[Maestro]

...Full story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10239133/BBC-crew-spend-150-000-of-licence-payers-money-partying-in-Thailand.html

-- The Telegraph 2013-08-13

Clicking on the above link I get "Sorry. We cannot find the page you are looking for" and I wonder if somebody at the BBC used his influence to get the article removed.

[Maestro]

Not much to film at the mo, so spending time relaxing! BBC boss' Facebook boast as TV crew partied for 10 DAYS in Thailand on trip which cost licence fee payers £150,000

By STEVE ROBSON

PUBLISHED: 08:25 GMT, 13 August 2013 | UPDATED: 12:06 GMT, 13 August 2013

A BBC film crew spent £150,000 of licence fee payers' money during ten days of alcohol-filled partying in Thailand.

The 15-strong team was flown out to a five-star resort in Phuket to film episodes of the BBC Three series Sun, Sex and Suspicious Parents.

The show follows parents as they secretly watch their children during their first holiday abroad.

Read more, with many photos: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2391144/Sun-Sex-Suspicious-parents-BBC-boss-boast-TV-crew-partied-10-DAYS.html#ixzz2bqufARtL

[Bagwan]

A couple of good time girls who won't be having a good time for a while.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Bagwan

[Ulic]

God, I hate to have to defend the BBC, but there's nowhere near enough facts here to make any sort of decision on what went on.

Firstly, it sounds like the crew came to Thailand to film two documentaries, and one of them was cancelled.

That meant that they had ten days before the next one started filming.

Well, it is of course fairly normal to send a crew out a little time before the filming starts. This is not just to get over jet-lag, it's to test out equipment, find locations, apply for local permissions etc. In fact, any filming in Thailand requires a film permit, which must be submitted well before the filming starts.

So, in all likelihood the idea was that while they were filming the first documentary, the production team would be also prepping the second, which would in fact be quite an efficient use of time.

When the first project became impossible, it would probably not have made sense to send the crew home to England, then back again.

Firstly, they would have had to have bought a new air ticket, which would probably have been at least 40,000 Baht - quite likely more than the cost of their hotel.

Secondly, they would not be able to prep for the next documentary, so some of the crew would not have been able to go home anyway.

Finally, they were quite probably on a visa obtained for the specific purpose of the filming, arranged via the Thailand Film Office. If they returned home, the visa would be invalidated, so they would have to start the process again, which might not have happened in time.

Of course, there are other possible factors. We don't know what deal they had with the hotel, and whether there would have been a cancellation fee if they moved out.

There is also no real mention of what this 150,000 pound bill included. Did it include shipping of their equipment, the carnet costs, local transportation? If we don't know that information, we cannot possibly say whether it is a waste or not.

The average US TV drama series costs $3m per episode.

Perhaps we should not be criticising the BBC, but instead criticising the appallingly lazy journalists, who write sensationalist pieces like this without any supporting facts. This is horrible journalism. How much were the journalists paid to write this? That is a waste. Maybe they should fly a journalist out here just so they can report on the story with more pictures of the resort.

Not sure I agree. I have a buddy who has a production company. He films concerts and sporting events around the world. He will supply equipment (8 camera shoot) staff, there salary and travel expenses and it would not be close to this cost. You provide the director and producer and off you go. This is the BBC who has

all equipment, staff on salary and knows how to waste money. Very similar to the CBC in Canada.