Do we need a 24 hour TV news service on the BBC

I agree - why have a reporter standing outside 10 Downing Street to tell us that Cameron had gone to Brussels?

I do not have a problem with the 24 hour service as you can dip in whenever you have time rather than having to watch gruesome news at meal times. What I, as a license payer, object to is the needless sending out of crew and reporter to stand outside an empty court building to report on a trial, to Downing Street because an announcement is expected, outside the Houses of Parliament being drowned out with traffice noise, standing at a Police barrier a mile from the incident and yesterday several of them standing out in howling gales to tell us this or that bridge is shut which we already knew. If you think about it the 'news' they are reporting must have been relayed to them from the news studio for them to report back. There is no way they can gather information on the spot.

I used to be friendly with the local BBC radio reporter, who was called upon from time to time to do a TV report if something big happened locally. She always stood BEHIND the camera while the footage concentrated on the incident or the person with a tale to tell.

I was going to have a rant here, but NannyState has already said everything I want to say, so all I can say is "ditto".
and
NO!

In a word NO

We are news junkies so, from an entirely personal point of view, yes! But I do agree about the seemingly unnecessary number of people involved. I have noticed some crossover of reports, though, between radio and tv, maybe , as part of the economies, that could become a normal thing.

I mean ?

NannyState, I agree with a lot of what you say. One thing that bugs me is the number of correspondents they have in the same places - for radio and TV. Could they not combine them? Or are the radio ones not sufficiently photogenic? [fconfused?]