[itsrobert]

Members are, of course, entitled to disagree with the decision, but you have to at least demonstrate what you would do instead, including accepting that losing BBC World News or putting it in a situation where it wasn't financially viable would require further cuts to BBC News.

To require members to provide an alternative solution is absurd. I would imagine that very few of us have access to BBC financial accounts or inside knowledge of the services provided. I think it's perfectly reasonable for members to voice concern over these proposals. Time will tell if it's the only credible solution, but I think it's fine to disagree in terms of the principle of the changes to BBC News without having to work out alternative cost savings.