I think the cuts were looking at the wrong areas. Talk of getting rid of localised football commentary while not dumping some of the least popular shows was in my mind just crazy.

Breakfast, Primetime, the Phone in's and the local Football should be the crown jewels of local Radio. Any other good shows are a bonus...scrap the the rest and merge the local Network with 5Live as a National/Local Radio News/Sport talk/coverage network. Something that is nearer Delivering Quality First.

Well done, Thommo - beginning to see sense at last. Now you've worked out where not to prune, you'll need to start listening about where you should wield the axe.

Keep it simple and use an Odd Numbers strategy.

Bin BBC 3, going for the lowest. common denominator has produced dross. Decimate Radio 5, starting with the Breakfast and Morning shows where the collective IQs of the presenters is below idiocy level. Stop BBC1 news presenters flying all over the world to talk to each other. The exception to the Odd Number rule is 24 Hour News Channel which is actually just 24 Minute Speculation repeated over and over again. It's a time filler (Waster) - Scrap it!

Transfer some money out of shiny floor entertainment programmes and into local radio.

With Children In Need using the studio space at TV Centre normally used by Strictly, is it really the cheapest option to broadcast the show from Wembley Arena instead?

Hear hear. Granted, Strictly is a big ticket programme- though at least the ticket money of the paying punters in the audience want to Children in Need. But did the owners of Wembley Arena show such largesse in offering the arena for free? I'm sure that SIS, who now provide the OB facilities the BBC once owned themselves, certainly wouldn't have done. The way the BBC has virtually been forced to bite into its capital reserve by selling off its assets in recent years is scandalous, and of course can only ever be a short term filip to funds.

Still, I suppose we must be grateful for small mercies. At least the Beeb didn't move either Strictly or Children in Need to Media City UK this week- though they seem to be making a big puff about just about everything else they're moving up there of late, the latest enforced emigre being Newsround today.

I worked for BBC local radio for nearly seven years off and on and it was the happiest time of my working life. Why? Because the presenters and staff are people who live in and generally and genuinely care about the communities their station serves. They know what they are talking about and I loved working with most of them- though as in any media environment, there was the odd prima donna (mentioning no names). Indeed, several of the staff I worked with have gone on to roles in the capital or on the BBC World Service- but still keep their homes where their local radio career thrived.

Many local programmes are already made on a shoestring, but on the other hand modern technology has enabled massive savings on costs, for example, of Outside Broadcasts and also permits much smaller studios, saving immensely on property budgets. Local rado has borne more than enough cuts over the years; but it's the ideal meeting point between the BBC and it's real paymasters, licence payers. To further cut into its heart with enforced regionalising of programmes is to deprive not just local communities of an audible identity, but of a vital source of news and information. It should be protected whatever the cost.

In my personal experience, in some areas the local BBC radio stations is the only outlet that will report certain stories. The rest of the local media (bloggers aside) either has no budget or is in the pockets of local politicians, companies and other vested interests.

By cutting these services, the BBC is throwing local communities to the wolves.

"This is a genuine consultation and we have to take account of what people say about the BBC's role in providing services which the market doesn't provide," Patten told BBC Radio 5 Live's Drivetime programme last Wednesday."

Would the BBC Trust Chairman also like to clarify to MPs whether the decision to relocate near most all BBC network programming made in Birmingham to other UK production centres is a good proposal? Something of public value? Its not the "micro management" you need to focus on Mr Patten. You need to look very hard with your focussed microscope/periscope at the BBC top table. The basis of their decisions might in time be seen to be rooted in ill judged policy, poor research and bad strategic thinking.

The Director General clearly saw the public value of production in Birmingham some years back. The clear value to the creative economy of the West Midlands.
Now? Well it seems that the elite London BBC management doesnt really care about that. That's pretty clear. They seemingly got better business lunches up in the North West, a better dinner in Cardiff, a nicer bottle of red in Bristol.

For some unexplained reason Mark Thompson has now done a BBC uturn in his big BBC strategic limosine it would seem. Mr Patten seeminlgly is happy with him doing this, even if it wastes many thousands of licence payer pounds to rip the heart out of the midlands region. One or two other people are not very happy with this proposal, they think the local radio hack and slash is also a poor strategic move. There is little trust in some of this thinking, it comes from overpaid people who pay millions of pounds of public money for their insight and wisdom from consultants. What do the consultants really know? Do they know what's best?

The public consultation has an important role in ensuring decisions made are not neagtively impacting on local media markets. The consulatation gives the BBC the opportunity via the Trust to see the error of its proposed ways.

It is without doubt important to deliver quality but not if the quaity process takes jobs and investment from important areas like the West Midlands. The Midlands seeks growth like other areas but the Midlands has taken a real and significant hit in employement over the last few years. The BBC proposed move takes jobs, money and investment out of a struggling region comprising of many many licence payers.

The BBC must support the midlands region, with money, investment, training, production and jobs. The BBC Trust and Ofcom have an important role to ensure it does the right thing. They have a responsibility to ensure the right thing is done here.

The local radio issue has had much press but it seems no-one really gives an ITV monkeys about the dumping of the midlands as a BBC production centre. Carol "spin a line" Thomson suggests this BBC masterstroke to pull out from Birmingham is not to save money, its pretty clear in fact it will waste alot of money. A clear mistake. Can you see it?

If this really is a genuine consultation then can i stongly encourage Lord Pattern to talk to MPs about how a better decision on this aspect of the DQF process be found.

It is important that the impact of the proposed BBC move from the West Midlands is clearly and fairly evaluated. It is very important that publc money is not wasted on a clear strategic error based on the ill judged thinking of consultants who probably should never have been paid for the many hours they spent guidedogging the often blind BBC managers in the wrong direction.

There is no shame in a uturn if mistakes about to be made. Often taking a turn need not need to be 180 degrees. Clearly the local radio proposal needs rethinking. But so does the move of network TV & Radio production from Birmingham. It clearly needs a rethink.

You don't need to be consultant to see a clear mistake before it is made. Sometimes it is plain for all to see.It's important that folks tell the BBC Trust what they think. If a mistake is being made, then that needs to be brought to the attention of the BBC Trust.

Even if the BBC Trust seemingly doesn't choose to listen to people on some key proposals, they should be encouraged to do so by as many people as possible.

It's interesting to note that scheduling wise there are some notable differences depending on local radio station.

For instance with BBC Cambridgeshire the 10pm-1am slot is also shared with Essex, Norfolk, Northampton, Suffolk, and Three Counties. Then between 1am and 4am the station is "as BBC Radio 5 live". A similar set-up appears to occur for many other local stations.

By contrast BBC London's 10pm-2am programme is exclusive to that station, and it doesn't handover to 5 Live afterwards. Hopefully DQF might end this apparent London bias and bring it in line with other regions.

I have to say I agree with JackTorrance80, why is TV/Radio production in Birmingham being cut? If anything more should be made there from both the BBC and ITV. The areas including and surrounding London, Birmingham, Manchester/Liverpool and Leeds/Bradford are the biggest metropolitian areas in England therefore surely the most programmes should be made there?

I'm not saying programmes shouldn't be made in Bristol (all the government regions should get at least 2% of each one of the PSB channels Programming budget in my opinion) but why at the expense of the much Birmingham area? More West Midlands bashing I feel.

How many people do we think actually know about the DQF Public Consultation? The BBC haven't exactly exactly gone out of their way to publicise it have they? No banner ad on bbc.co.uk (Though there is one promoting the new home page). No trails on BBC One. No ads on radio services.

It's almost as if they want the changes to slip through with no comment.... Who would have though it!?

Thomson doesn't need to preside over the death of local radio - just get rid of 700 or so of the massively overpaid managers and "top stars" like himself, his Chief exec- plus reduce the pay of the likes of £40k per show Alan Hanson et al and bobs your uncle, £700 million saved and a better service for all.
In other words less waste hiding behind the fatuous defence "we must pay the market rates", when the BBC IS the market and sets the rates.