Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Mister Rog on 19 July 2017, 11:26:09
-
So, Chris Evans is paid around £2.2m, Claudia Winkleman around £500k, Graham Norton £850k etc etc, plus other non BBC income.
The Mantra says " Market Forces", other TV channels will pay more etc. But I just question if it matters. The above people are just presenters, they do not create anything. I'm sure there are talented and less irritating people than Evans who would jump at the chance for a fraction of the cost, same applies to others. I just don't understand why a publicly funded organisation thinks it has to compete like this.
I'm a big supporter of the BBC and I'm happy to pay my TV license, but for quality programmes not for the above.
-
I quite like Graham Norton...
And therein lies the problem... it has to be universal.
I would be happier with a more politically neutral view on some of the output though :-\
-
So, Chris Evans is paid around £2.2m, Claudia Winkleman around £500k, Graham Norton £850k etc etc, plus other non BBC income.
The Mantra says " Market Forces", other TV channels will pay more etc. But I just question if it matters. The above people are just presenters, they do not create anything. I'm sure there are talented and less irritating people than Evans who would jump at the chance for a fraction of the cost, same applies to others. I just don't understand why a publicly funded organisation thinks it has to compete like this.
I'm a big supporter of the BBC and I'm happy to pay my TV license, but for quality programmes not for the above.
Thats just for His Radio Show, :o, the Muppet probably gets double that from stuff like Top Gear, other stuff and Appearances.
The Salaries the BBC have released are just whats paid out from the Licence Fee and not Monies from the BBC Commercial Stuff. :(
-
Couldn't find Huw Edwards in the newsreaders.
-
Thing is that it has to cater for a multitude of tastes and be as mainstream as possible in order to justify the use of public funds. I quite like the documentaries, most of the comedy shows and some things like Graham Norton. I hate some of the other rubbish on there but others love it so there is a none issue. Each to their own really and now it is all online you can pick and choose not just what you watch but when. I hardly ever watch anything live anymore less for rugby matches.
The downside I fear from this is that you will have two things happen:
1 Some stars will have been led to believe that they are getting as much money as X, and they are not. Cue a request/demand/ultimatum for an increase
2 Some agents and rival channels will use the information for their own benefit to challenge the beeb for certain stars.
In both cases costs for the beeb will rise.
-
Couldn't find Huw Edwards in the newsreaders.
There, think at £750k
I cannot understand why one of the Casualty actors is on £300k, twice the Prime Minster's salary :o
I too like a lot of BBC content, but I think some of the salaries for presenting is crazy
-
Couldn't find Huw Edwards in the newsreaders.
There, think at £750k
I cannot understand why one of the Casualty actors is on £300k, twice the Prime Minster's salary :o
I too like a lot of BBC content, but I think some of the salaries for presenting is crazy
Tellybox and Radio are the only company some people have.
-
Thing is that it has to cater for a multitude of tastes and be as mainstream as possible in order to justify the use of public funds. I quite like the documentaries, most of the comedy shows and some things like Graham Norton. I hate some of the other rubbish on there but others love it so there is a none issue. Each to their own really and now it is all online you can pick and choose not just what you watch but when. I hardly ever watch anything live anymore less for rugby matches.
The downside I fear from this is that you will have two things happen:
1 Some stars will have been led to believe that they are getting as much money as X, and they are not. Cue a request/demand/ultimatum for an increase
2 Some agents and rival channels will use the information for their own benefit to challenge the beeb for certain stars.
In both cases costs for the beeb will rise.
I suppose that is my point. I question the actual need for these "stars". There are a lot of talented people out there. And when it come to news readers or whatever, it can't that hard.
I will of course make an exception when it come to Fiona Bruce ::)
-
Couldn't find Huw Edwards in the newsreaders.
There, think at £750k
I cannot understand why one of the Casualty actors is on £300k, twice the Prime Minster's salary :o
I too like a lot of BBC content, but I think some of the salaries for presenting is crazy
Exactly what Wayne Rooney earns each WEEK. >:(
Has this young man found a cure for cancer or found a way for the entire world to be free of poverty?
No.....he kicks a ball about on a muddy piece of grass.
Number of world cup goals scored......ONE. :(
-
If its as great and wonderful as everyone says it is, and it must act according to market forces, the answer is simple.
Denationalise it and float it on the stock market. Then it could pay its presenters however much it wants to out of the squillions of pounds it would generate as the worlds greatest broadcaster.
Personally I think the whole thing is a combination of a leftie love in, a huge gravy train, and a sinister brainwashing machine.
I reserve a special loathing for the multi millionaire socialist, tax dodger Lineker.
The whole thing is a national disgrace.
-
So, Chris Evans is paid around £2.2m, Claudia Winkleman around £500k, Graham Norton £850k etc etc, plus other non BBC income.
The Mantra says " Market Forces", other TV channels will pay more etc. But I just question if it matters. The above people are just presenters, they do not create anything. I'm sure there are talented and less irritating people than Evans who would jump at the chance for a fraction of the cost, same applies to others. I just don't understand why a publicly funded organisation thinks it has to compete like this.
I'm a big supporter of the BBC and I'm happy to pay my TV license, but for quality programmes not for the above.
This approach seems to be of benefit for the wealthy only. :-\
Why does this philosophy not apply to people doing ordinary but essential work.......the type of work the country simply wouldn't function without.
We want the very best cleaners.....pay more to attract the very best.
We want the very best teachers.....pay more to attract the very best.
If Lewis Hamilton stopped driving a car in circles for enormous financial reward the world would continue to spin as before.
Take away cooks, cleaners, doctors, nurses, teachers and the world would grind to a halt.
-
But they already earn more (10%) on average than private sector employees. :)
As for the Beeb. Make it pay per view might be the best option. Then they can charge everyone who wants to watch all their great programmes and objective news output the rate which the market dictates. I'm sure they would make a fortune. :)
-
If its as great and wonderful as everyone says it is, and it must act according to market forces, the answer is simple.
Denationalise it and float it on the stock market. Then it could pay its presenters however much it wants to out of the squillions of pounds it would generate as the worlds greatest broadcaster.
Personally I think the whole thing is a combination of a leftie love in, a huge gravy train, and a sinister brainwashing machine.
I reserve a special loathing for the multi millionaire socialist, tax dodger Lineker.
The whole thing is a national disgrace.
Pretty much my view, except I refuse to pay a bunch of Marxists for a daily indoctrination, so I don't have TV. :y :y :y
-
But they already earn more (10%) on average than private sector employees. :)
As for the Beeb. Make it pay per view might be the best option. Then they can charge everyone who wants to watch all their great programmes and objective news output the rate which the market dictates. I'm sure they would make a fortune. :)
;D ;D ;D
-
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
If its as great and wonderful as everyone says it is, and it must act according to market forces, the answer is simple.
Denationalise it and float it on the stock market. Then it could pay its presenters however much it wants to out of the squillions of pounds it would generate as the worlds greatest broadcaster.
Personally I think the whole thing is a combination of a leftie love in, a huge gravy train, and a sinister brainwashing machine.
I reserve a special loathing for the multi millionaire socialist, tax dodger Lineker.
The whole thing is a national disgrace.
Pretty much my view, except I refuse to pay a bunch of Marxists for a daily indoctrination, so I don't have TV. :y :y :y
Not the way to go if quality is required.
If advertising revenue is required to fund the BBC then wall to wall soaps and celebrity island trash will be the order of the day.
In my view the BBC should not be put in a position where it needs to compete. This is a race to the bottom. The BBC has already dumbed-down far too much with rubbish like Eastenders.
Once upon a time the BBC was a beacon of excellence. Sadly not any more and throwing it to the wolves would only make things worse.
-
In my view the BBC should not be put in a position where it needs to compete. This is a race to the bottom. The BBC has already dumbed-down far too much with rubbish like Eastenders.
The rot set in a long time ago, then, by your book ;)
First episode date: 19 February 1985
-
In my view the BBC should not be put in a position where it needs to compete. This is a race to the bottom. The BBC has already dumbed-down far too much with rubbish like Eastenders.
The rot set in a long time ago, then, by your book ;)
First episode date: 19 February 1985
Yes. The BBC should have given the soaps a wide berth. For those who wanted wooden acting made worse by piss poor scripts Coronation Street had already been televised since 1960. :)
-
Any kind of top quality sells, and sells for a higher price than shite quality - so, let auntie go into the market place and sell her top quality products at top of the market prices. Cant see the problem tbh.
An enforced tax to be able to watch your own TV is something from the USSR of the 1960,s.
The digital age will bring it to an end anyway. Its inevitable, so they may as well get on with changing things now. :)
-
If its as great and wonderful as everyone says it is, and it must act according to market forces, the answer is simple.
Denationalise it and float it on the stock market. Then it could pay its presenters however much it wants to out of the squillions of pounds it would generate as the worlds greatest broadcaster.
Personally I think the whole thing is a combination of a leftie love in, a huge gravy train, and a sinister brainwashing machine.
I reserve a special loathing for the multi millionaire socialist, tax dodger Lineker.
The whole thing is a national disgrace.
Pretty much my view, except I refuse to pay a bunch of Marxists for a daily indoctrination, so I don't have TV. :y :y :y
Not the way to go if quality is required.
If advertising revenue is required to fund the BBC then wall to wall soaps and celebrity island trash will be the order of the day.
In my view the BBC should not be put in a position where it needs to compete. This is a race to the bottom. The BBC has already dumbed-down far too much with rubbish like Eastenders.
Once upon a time the BBC was a beacon of excellence. Sadly not any more and throwing it to the wolves would only make things worse.
BBC already has a heavy advertising schedule between programs for advertising their own monopoly of programs. :( :( :( What is the difference between that and 3rd party advertising?
The Internet based digital TV revolution is going to make terrestrial broadcasting obsolete in the next 5 years. The flexibility this allows for consumption will allow many different types of revenue collection. I can't see how the TV license will be relevant or enforceable with thousands of global outlets offering video on demand, including near real-time (big enough delay, so TV tax, doesn't apply) news. :y :y :y
Of all the current broadcasters, currently, in the UK I can only see Sky surviving. There will be a smattering of European ones, where there are several major media companies, global ones like Sony and then US domination through Amazon, Apple, Disney, Google, Microsoft and Netflix. The major outlets will act as aggregators for a multitude of program makers.
-
If its as great and wonderful as everyone says it is, and it must act according to market forces, the answer is simple.
Denationalise it and float it on the stock market. Then it could pay its presenters however much it wants to out of the squillions of pounds it would generate as the worlds greatest broadcaster.
Personally I think the whole thing is a combination of a leftie love in, a huge gravy train, and a sinister brainwashing machine.
I reserve a special loathing for the multi millionaire socialist, tax dodger Lineker.
The whole thing is a national disgrace.
Pretty much my view, except I refuse to pay a bunch of Marxists for a daily indoctrination, so I don't have TV. :y :y :y
Not the way to go if quality is required.
If advertising revenue is required to fund the BBC then wall to wall soaps and celebrity island trash will be the order of the day.
In my view the BBC should not be put in a position where it needs to compete. This is a race to the bottom. The BBC has already dumbed-down far too much with rubbish like Eastenders.
Once upon a time the BBC was a beacon of excellence. Sadly not any more and throwing it to the wolves would only make things worse.
BBC already has a heavy advertising schedule between programs for advertising their own monopoly of programs. :( :( :( What is the difference between that and 3rd party advertising?
The Internet based digital TV revolution is going to make terrestrial broadcasting obsolete in the next 5 years. The flexibility this allows for consumption will allow many different types of revenue collection. I can't see how the TV license will be relevant or enforceable with thousands of global outlets offering video on demand, including near real-time (big enough delay, so TV tax, doesn't apply) news. :y :y :y
Of all the current broadcasters, currently, in the UK I can only see Sky surviving. There will be a smattering of European ones, where there are several major media companies, global ones like Sony and then US domination through Amazon, Apple, Disney, Google, Microsoft and Netflix. The major outlets will act as aggregators for a multitude of program makers.
No. A fair chunk of the population are pensioners, who love their tv. Another fair chunk are people on low pay or unemployed, they wont have the equipment, or the money to pay for sky. I, for one, like my telly the way it is, and am quite happy to pay c.£3 a week for it.
Football hasn't died a death yet, and people pay sky a lot more for that than for all of the content on the BBC.
-
Anyway, what's all the fuss about? Women shouldn't get as much money as the far superior male. If women think this is wrong, they should be made to have a fight with the men, that would show them whose boss. :)
-
If its as great and wonderful as everyone says it is, and it must act according to market forces, the answer is simple.
Denationalise it and float it on the stock market. Then it could pay its presenters however much it wants to out of the squillions of pounds it would generate as the worlds greatest broadcaster.
Personally I think the whole thing is a combination of a leftie love in, a huge gravy train, and a sinister brainwashing machine.
I reserve a special loathing for the multi millionaire socialist, tax dodger Lineker.
The whole thing is a national disgrace.
Pretty much my view, except I refuse to pay a bunch of Marxists for a daily indoctrination, so I don't have TV. :y :y :y
Not the way to go if quality is required.
If advertising revenue is required to fund the BBC then wall to wall soaps and celebrity island trash will be the order of the day.
In my view the BBC should not be put in a position where it needs to compete. This is a race to the bottom. The BBC has already dumbed-down far too much with rubbish like Eastenders.
Once upon a time the BBC was a beacon of excellence. Sadly not any more and throwing it to the wolves would only make things worse.
BBC already has a heavy advertising schedule between programs for advertising their own monopoly of programs. :( :( :( What is the difference between that and 3rd party advertising?
The Internet based digital TV revolution is going to make terrestrial broadcasting obsolete in the next 5 years. The flexibility this allows for consumption will allow many different types of revenue collection. I can't see how the TV license will be relevant or enforceable with thousands of global outlets offering video on demand, including near real-time (big enough delay, so TV tax, doesn't apply) news. :y :y :y
Of all the current broadcasters, currently, in the UK I can only see Sky surviving. There will be a smattering of European ones, where there are several major media companies, global ones like Sony and then US domination through Amazon, Apple, Disney, Google, Microsoft and Netflix. The major outlets will act as aggregators for a multitude of program makers.
No. A fair chunk of the population are pensioners, who love their tv. Another fair chunk are people on low pay or unemployed, they wont have the equipment, or the money to pay for sky. I, for one, like my telly the way it is, and am quite happy to pay c.£3 a week for it.
Football hasn't died a death yet, and people pay sky a lot more for that than for all of the content on the BBC.
Easy decision for you to make, I hear, you don't get many Werther's Original for £3 these days. :P :P :P
-
BBC already has a heavy advertising schedule between programs for advertising their own monopoly of programs. :( :( :( What is the difference between that and 3rd party advertising?
The Internet based digital TV revolution is going to make terrestrial broadcasting obsolete in the next 5 years. The flexibility this allows for consumption will allow many different types of revenue collection. I can't see how the TV license will be relevant or enforceable with thousands of global outlets offering video on demand, including near real-time (big enough delay, so TV tax, doesn't apply) news. :y :y :y
Of all the current broadcasters, currently, in the UK I can only see Sky surviving. There will be a smattering of European ones, where there are several major media companies, global ones like Sony and then US domination through Amazon, Apple, Disney, Google, Microsoft and Netflix. The major outlets will act as aggregators for a multitude of program makers.
Sorry, just not going to happen. Viewing figures show people are hooked on Corrie, Eastenders, Emmerdale and other similar terrestrial programs. You get all that (and more) for your £147 per year. The cheapest Sky package is how much? £22 per month, £264 per year, plus you also need a TV license as well. If you must watch Premiership football, then you can pay Murdoch for that priveledge, but count me out.
My view is that the BBC seems to be able to upset all sections of the population almost equally, and therefore they are mostly doing a pretty good job.
-
We dont get Corrie and Emmerdale for our £147 per year. They are on ITV which doesn't receive any of the licence fee, although I believe Channel 4 does. Surely the fair, just and logical way to proceed is that those who are happy to pay for it, do so and receive BBC programmes.
Those who don't want to pay it, don't have to, but cant receive BBC programmes. Its quite simple really.
-
We dont get Corrie and Emmerdale for our £147 per year. They are on ITV which doesn't receive any of the licence fee, although I believe Channel 4 does. Surely the fair, just and logical way to proceed is that those who are happy to pay for it, do so and receive BBC programmes.
Those who don't want to pay it, don't have to, but cant receive BBC programmes. Its quite simple really.
I didn't say the TV licence pays for those soaps - I said that paying the License fee allows you to watch them. You do have to pay £147 p/a in order to watch these (and all other Free to air) programs. Except the OAP's that get the license for free obviously.
If BBC viewing figures were lower than other channels I would agree that the Licence fee is excessive for what it entitles you to. But they're not, and compared to Sky it looks like a bargain.
-
O know how the system works. I'm just saying its very obviously wrong, and nothing thats been said on here has changed my opinion in the slightest.
The licence fee as it stands is a tax on watching your own tv, and is used to fund the BBC. I don't see how anyone can argue that this is a fair and just system of funding the BBC. I avoid the BBC like the plague and deeply resent having to effectively subsidise other people who for some unfathomable reason want to watch it.
-
The delicious irony here is that if one of Britain's major blue chip companies was found to be paying women significantly less for doing the same or a similar job than her male colleague, then the BBC would be in the vanguard of leftie liberal outrage at such injustice! ::)
Huw Edwards - £550,000-599,999
Fiona Bruce - £350,000-399,999
Sophie Raworth - £150,000-£199,999
Hypocritical leftie bastards! >:(
-
I have yet to meet a leftie who wasn't a hypocrite. ;)
-
If any of us on here were offered a job with the beeb on half a million quid a year who would honestly refuse it ?
-
If any of us on here were offered a job with the beeb on half a million quid a year who would honestly refuse it ?
I think some of the oldies on here are joining the social media crowd. I honestly couldn't give a toss and I don't think it's any of our business.
-
If any of us on here were offered a job with the beeb on half a million quid a year who would honestly refuse it ?
I think some of the oldies on here are joining the social media crowd. I honestly couldn't give a toss and I don't think it's any of our business.
For the likes of Sky, which is an optional service I agree with this. You can pay [X] amount to have Sky, it's your choice and if you don't want it you cancel it.
BBC however it's forced, if I don't pay it I can have people banging on my door, demanding license fee payment. It is basically a tax-payer funded service, they closed down BBC Three and put it online to save money....
I quite liked BBC 3, I would have preferred that still on the air than Chris Evans :)
-
If any of us on here were offered a job with the beeb on half a million quid a year who would honestly refuse it ?
Damn straight. I'd even work nights or weekends for that kind of money.
-
If any of us on here were offered a job with the beeb on half a million quid a year who would honestly refuse it ?
I think some of the oldies on here are joining the social media crowd. I honestly couldn't give a toss and I don't think it's any of our business.
For the likes of Sky, which is an optional service I agree with this. You can pay [X] amount to have Sky, it's your choice and if you don't want it you cancel it.
BBC however it's forced, if I don't pay it I can have people banging on my door, demanding license fee payment. It is basically a tax-payer funded service, they closed down BBC Three and put it online to save money....
I quite liked BBC 3, I would have preferred that still on the air than Chris Evans :)
So you think, if the BBC reduced the pay limit to 50K, that the license would be cheaper? Dream on. As for them using the money to improve the quality of programmes, that's subjective, isn't it?
-
Personally, I'm not bothered by the levels of pay at the BBC. Do I think Chris Evans is worth £2.2m p.a.? Of course not. But he earns less than a lot of professional footballists and provides me with significantly more enjoyment than any one of that lot. Everything in this world is worth what someone else will pay you for it,
Evans has managed to convince someone that his time is worth £2.2m p.a. Good for him, I wouldn't mind some of the same. There's a lot of sour grapes in the UK about people who earn large sums of money.
That said, I do see the argument publishing salaries, as a quasi-public-sector institution, there is a public interest argument there.
-
Evans has managed to convince someone that his time is worth £2.2m p.a. Good for him, I wouldn't mind some of the same. There's a lot of sour grapes in the UK about people who earn large sums of money.
As a nation (thus, this is a generalisation) we don't like anyone who has done well for themselves, regardless of what profession they chose..
-
Evans has managed to convince someone that his time is worth £2.2m p.a. Good for him, I wouldn't mind some of the same. There's a lot of sour grapes in the UK about people who earn large sums of money.
As a nation (thus, this is a generalisation) we don't like anyone who has done well for themselves, regardless of what profession they chose..
You just said a mouthful, Aaron. :y
-
Good luck to them I say, why all the fuss? Some people earn little some earn lots that's life, won't ever be any different, always have the choice of binning the TV if you don't want to contribute..
-
If any of us on here were offered a job with the beeb on half a million quid a year who would honestly refuse it ?
I think some of the oldies on here are joining the social media crowd. I honestly couldn't give a toss and I don't think it's any of our business.
For the likes of Sky, which is an optional service I agree with this. You can pay [X] amount to have Sky, it's your choice and if you don't want it you cancel it.
BBC however it's forced, if I don't pay it I can have people banging on my door, demanding license fee payment. It is basically a tax-payer funded service, they closed down BBC Three and put it online to save money....
I quite liked BBC 3, I would have preferred that still on the air than Chris Evans :)
So you think, if the BBC reduced the pay limit to 50K, that the license would be cheaper? Dream on. As for them using the money to improve the quality of programmes, that's subjective, isn't it?
Of course not :)
But 2.2 million could have been better spent in other areas, rather than on one quite annoying presenter.
-
Good luck to them I say, why all the fuss? Some people earn little some earn lots that's life, won't ever be any different, always have the choice of binning the TV if you don't want to contribute..
But what if you only want to watch ITV/C4/C5 and other freeview channels?
You still have to pay it.
-
If any of us on here were offered a job with the beeb on half a million quid a year who would honestly refuse it ?
I think some of the oldies on here are joining the social media crowd. I honestly couldn't give a toss and I don't think it's any of our business.
For the likes of Sky, which is an optional service I agree with this. You can pay [X] amount to have Sky, it's your choice and if you don't want it you cancel it.
BBC however it's forced, if I don't pay it I can have people banging on my door, demanding license fee payment. It is basically a tax-payer funded service, they closed down BBC Three and put it online to save money....
I quite liked BBC 3, I would have preferred that still on the air than Chris Evans :)
So you think, if the BBC reduced the pay limit to 50K, that the license would be cheaper? Dream on. As for them using the money to improve the quality of programmes, that's subjective, isn't it?
Of course not :)
But 2.2 million could have been better spent in other areas, rather than on one quite annoying presenter.
Subjective, as I said.
-
One example, but do they really need to pay just one news reader £750k to read the news for a couple of hours a day? :-\
-
Personally speaking worrying about the the cost of a TV licence or what others earn have never been high on my list of concerns, it is just another story in a few days it will be something else to wind people up.
-
Personally speaking worrying about the the cost of a TV licence or what others earn have never been high on my list of concerns, it is just another story in a few days it will be something else to wind people up.
Nor mine, but when a tax payer funded service pays someone 5x more than Prime Minster, just to read some news out ::)
Not fused what ITV/C4 or other corporations pay people, but BBC is public service.
-
I quite liked BBC 3, I would have preferred that still on the air than Chris Evans :)
I would prefer root canal surgery.. and that includes paying for it. ::)
-
Someone said yesterday during the reporting..'The licence payers have a right to see how their money is spent'.......
More to the point, when and how do we get a say in how its spent...and how do we get it stopped !!!!!! >:(
-
Someone said yesterday during the reporting..'The licence payers have a right to see how their money is spent'.......
More to the point, when and how do we get a say in how its spent...and how do we get it stopped !!!!!! >:(
You pay other taxes, and you don't get a say in how they're spent.
-
Someone said yesterday during the reporting..'The licence payers have a right to see how their money is spent'.......
More to the point, when and how do we get a say in how its spent...and how do we get it stopped !!!!!! >:(
You pay other taxes, and you don't get a say in how they're spent.
Like Road Fund Licence... ::)
;D
-
Someone said yesterday during the reporting..'The licence payers have a right to see how their money is spent'.......
More to the point, when and how do we get a say in how its spent...and how do we get it stopped !!!!!! >:(
You pay other taxes, and you don't get a say in how they're spent.
Like Road Fund Licence... ::)
;D
.
Don't get started on that one it will go on forever 😀
-
Evans has managed to convince someone that his time is worth £2.2m p.a. Good for him, I wouldn't mind some of the same. There's a lot of sour grapes in the UK about people who earn large sums of money.
As a nation (thus, this is a generalisation) we don't like anyone who has done well for themselves, regardless of what profession they chose..
Indeed. It is all jealousy, jealousy, jealousy! ::) ::) ::)
If people can attract those incomes in this hard, cruel, world so be it. Good luck to them ;)
-
>:( Jeremy Vine aka pious C**t , 700k- that sticks in the craw just a tad >:(
-
>:( Jeremy Vine aka pious C**t , 700k- that sticks in the craw just a tad >:(
Clit is not a rude word......no need for C**t. :)
-
O know how the system works. I'm just saying its very obviously wrong, and nothing thats been said on here has changed my opinion in the slightest.
The licence fee as it stands is a tax on watching your own tv, and is used to fund the BBC. I don't see how anyone can argue that this is a fair and just system of funding the BBC. I avoid the BBC like the plague and deeply resent having to effectively subsidise other people who for some unfathomable reason want to watch it.
I disagree with you & don't think there is another way of funding it. I happen to like it the way it is actually.
-
Evans has managed to convince someone that his time is worth £2.2m p.a. Good for him, I wouldn't mind some of the same. There's a lot of sour grapes in the UK about people who earn large sums of money.
As a nation (thus, this is a generalisation) we don't like anyone who has done well for themselves, regardless of what profession they chose..
Indeed. It is all jealousy, jealousy, jealousy! ::) ::) ::)
If people can attract those incomes in this hard, cruel, world so be it. Good luck to them ;)
I would fully agree with all of the above, if it wasn't my money they were being paid. Money which I don't want to pay, and don't believe I should have to pay, but it is a criminal offence for me not to pay it. Its legalised extortion.
It is said to be market forces, but I cant see any other radio station in the UK paying the ginger t wat over 2 million quid a year.
I doubt any radio stations outside of the Beeb could afford to.
-
O know how the system works. I'm just saying its very obviously wrong, and nothing thats been said on here has changed my opinion in the slightest.
The licence fee as it stands is a tax on watching your own tv, and is used to fund the BBC. I don't see how anyone can argue that this is a fair and just system of funding the BBC. I avoid the BBC like the plague and deeply resent having to effectively subsidise other people who for some unfathomable reason want to watch it.
I disagree with you & don't think there is another way of funding it. I happen to like it the way it is actually.
Alternative methods of funding it are very simple. Pay per view, or float it on the stock market. As its the jewel in the crown In the world of broadcasting, it would surely make a fortune. Cant see why it hasn't been done years ago. :)
-
If Jeremy Whine is funded by me, does that give me the right to repeatedly punch him in the chops, then shoot him?
The fact that "market forces" deem the useless, annoying twonk is worth more than tuppence shows how far down the shitter the country has gone.
The only cure is TB for President.
-
Now now, don't be so jealous. ;D ;D ::).................. I,ll punch him in the chops, you shoot him. :y ;D
-
If Jeremy Whine is funded by me, does that give me the right to repeatedly punch him in the chops, then shoot him?
The fact that "market forces" deem the useless , annoying twonk is worth more than tuppence shows how far down the shitter the country has gone.
The only cure is TB for President.
What tells me that is how many channels are now in existence surviving by pushing out such utter tripe for programmes, and people who pay for Sky and Virgin PAY for much of it! That I find amazing, but that output just shows how great the BBC is giving us quality programmes, documentaries, drama, and news for just £3 per week. Not even the price of a single pint nowadays! So what is the problem? :-\ :-\
-
Read my posts, you will see the problem. :y :D
SKY is also mostly crap of course, but if you pay them a tenner a week you get hundreds of channels of crap rather than just 3. ;)
-
I'm amazed at most of you not giving a shit how public money is squandered at the BBC. :o :(
-
I'm amazed at most of you not giving a shit how public money is squandered at the BBC. :o :(
On my list of things to worry about, it's quite far down. ;D
-
I'm amazed at most of you not giving a shit how public money is squandered at the BBC. :o :(
On my list of things to worry about, it's quite far down. ;D
Understandable, where adult nappies that don't leak and controlling your dog's diarrhea must be your day-to-day major concerns. :P :P :P
-
I'm amazed at most of you not giving a shit how public money is squandered at the BBC. :o :(
On my list of things to worry about, it's quite far down. ;D
Understandable, where adult nappies that don't leak and controlling your dog's diarrhea must be your day-to-day major concerns. :P :P :P
The 'Barnsley whippet' is known throughout the world for it's loose stinky stools. :)
-
If Jeremy Whine is funded by me, does that give me the right to repeatedly punch him in the chops, then shoot him?
The fact that "market forces" deem the useless , annoying twonk is worth more than tuppence shows how far down the shitter the country has gone.
The only cure is TB for President.
What tells me that is how many channels are now in existence surviving by pushing out such utter tripe for programmes, and people who pay for Sky and Virgin PAY for much of it! That I find amazing, but that output just shows how great the BBC is giving us quality programmes, documentaries, drama, and news for just £3 per week. Not even the price of a single pint nowadays! So what is the problem? :-\ :-\
.
Exactly cheap entertainment, not.quite as cheap as this forum but buttons nevertheless 😀😀😀
-
I'm amazed at most of you not giving a shit how public money is squandered at the BBC. :o :(
On my list of things to worry about, it's quite far down. ;D
Indeed, compared to the amount of tax I pay for everything else (probably in the order of 300x more than the TV license once you factor in VAT, fuel duty, insurance premium tax, income tax, national insurance etc) it pales into insignificance.. and I quite like Dr Who.
-
I'm amazed at most of you not giving a shit how public money is squandered at the BBC. :o :(
On my list of things to worry about, it's quite far down. ;D
Indeed, compared to the amount of tax I pay for everything else (probably in the order of 300x more than the TV license once you factor in VAT, fuel duty, insurance premium tax, income tax, national insurance etc) it pales into insignificance.. and I quite like Dr Who
[/highlight]
New Doctor is a woman.
So a time lady rather than a time lord. :-\
-
I'm amazed at most of you not giving a shit how public money is squandered at the BBC. :o :(
Well, I'd wager 80% of our taxes are squandered on pointless shit, so why get upset over the beeb.
-
I'm amazed at most of you not giving a shit how public money is squandered at the BBC. :o :(
On my list of things to worry about, it's quite far down. ;D
Indeed, compared to the amount of tax I pay for everything else (probably in the order of 300x more than the TV license once you factor in VAT, fuel duty, insurance premium tax, income tax, national insurance etc) it pales into insignificance.. and I quite like Dr Who
[/highlight]
New Doctor is a woman.
So a time lady rather than a time lord. :-\
Yes it is great news, but I wonder if it is a cost cutting exercise as the female actor will be paid less than her male predecessors! ::) ::)
-
I'm amazed at most of you not giving a shit how public money is squandered at the BBC. :o :(
Well, I'd wager 80% of our taxes are squandered on pointless shit, so why get upset over the beeb.
If I can borrow your lexicon TB, it's this sort of apathy that's taking this country down the shitter! :)
-
I'm amazed at most of you not giving a shit how public money is squandered at the BBC. :o :(
On my list of things to worry about, it's quite far down. ;D
Indeed, compared to the amount of tax I pay for everything else (probably in the order of 300x more than the TV license once you factor in VAT, fuel duty, insurance premium tax, income tax, national insurance etc) it pales into insignificance.. and I quite like Dr Who
[/highlight]
New Doctor is a woman.
So a time lady rather than a time lord. :-\
Yes it is great news, but I wonder if it is a cost cutting exercise as the female actor will be paid less than her male predecessors! ::) ::)
Sorry, Lizzie, but it's non-news. The type of news that makes people look at the telly, fart, grunt and go back to something more interesting. Doctor who is a badly made kids tv series.
-
I'm amazed at most of you not giving a shit how public money is squandered at the BBC. :o :(
Well, I'd wager 80% of our taxes are squandered on pointless shit, so why get upset over the beeb.
If I can borrow your lexicon TB, it's this sort of apathy that's taking this country down the shitter! :)
Sorry, Tig, but this is nothing new. You vote at the general election and then the people you vote for spend your money on anything they fancy. It's not apathy, it's just being realistic.
-
I'm amazed at most of you not giving a shit how public money is squandered at the BBC. :o :(
On my list of things to worry about, it's quite far down. ;D
Indeed, compared to the amount of tax I pay for everything else (probably in the order of 300x more than the TV license once you factor in VAT, fuel duty, insurance premium tax, income tax, national insurance etc) it pales into insignificance.. and I quite like Dr Who
[/highlight]
New Doctor is a woman.
So a time lady rather than a time lord. :-\
Yes it is great news, but I wonder if it is a cost cutting exercise as the female actor will be paid less than her male predecessors! ::) ::)
Sorry, Lizzie, but it's non-news. The type of news that makes people look at the telly, fart, grunt and go back to something more interesting. Doctor who is a badly made kids tv series.
At last, we agree on something. :D
-
I'm amazed at most of you not giving a shit how public money is squandered at the BBC. :o :(
On my list of things to worry about, it's quite far down. ;D
Indeed, compared to the amount of tax I pay for everything else (probably in the order of 300x more than the TV license once you factor in VAT, fuel duty, insurance premium tax, income tax, national insurance etc) it pales into insignificance.. and I quite like Dr Who
[/highlight]
New Doctor is a woman.
So a time lady rather than a time lord. :-\
Yes it is great news, but I wonder if it is a cost cutting exercise as the female actor will be paid less than her male predecessors! ::) ::)
[/highlight]
She should be paid less Lizzie because being a pretty blonde girlie she won't have any idea how to parallel park the Tardis. :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*
-
I wonder if she'll have a young, male companion or if we're going to go fully down the pc route with a black, lesbian, disabled female.
-
I wonder if she'll have a young, male companion or if we're going to go fully down the pc route with a black, lesbian, disabled female.
........black lesbian disabled female with learning difficulties and mental health issues would be more PC.
Anyway I thought the black girl already with the Doctor is a rug muncher.
-
It must be a bugger when you're only on £500 000 a year ........ ::)
-
I wonder if she'll have a young, male companion or if we're going to go fully down the pc route with a black, lesbian, disabled female.
That's a good idea... Oh, wait a minute... ::)
Bubblewrap alien slug anyone...
-
The Beeb has been touting Dr Who and all the cr@p spinoffs as serious drama for years. As STEMO said. it,s a poorly made kids programme. My brother loves it. ;D
-
BBC 4 this evening has been worth every single penny.
-
It must be a bugger when you're only on £500 000 a year ........ ::)
Stemo wouldn't get out of bed for that ;)
-
BBC 4 this evening has been worth every single penny.
The one jewel in the enormous pile of steaming shite. :y
-
I'm amazed at most of you not giving a shit how public money is squandered at the BBC. :o :(
On my list of things to worry about, it's quite far down. ;D
Indeed, compared to the amount of tax I pay for everything else (probably in the order of 300x more than the TV license once you factor in VAT, fuel duty, insurance premium tax, income tax, national insurance etc) it pales into insignificance.. and I quite like Dr Who
[/highlight]
New Doctor is a woman.
So a time lady rather than a time lord. :-\
Yes it is great news, but I wonder if it is a cost cutting exercise as the female actor will be paid less than her male predecessors! ::) ::)
Sorry, Lizzie, but it's non-news. The type of news that makes people look at the telly, fart, grunt and go back to something more interesting. Doctor who is a badly made kids tv series.
[/highlight]
Absolutely, but with a adult following of millions; all mad, mad, mad and bad ;D ;D ;D
Nothing will replace the REAL Dr; William Hartnell! He was and always will be my real Doctor Who ;)
-
I'm amazed at most of you not giving a shit how public money is squandered at the BBC. :o :(
On my list of things to worry about, it's quite far down. ;D
Indeed, compared to the amount of tax I pay for everything else (probably in the order of 300x more than the TV license once you factor in VAT, fuel duty, insurance premium tax, income tax, national insurance etc) it pales into insignificance.. and I quite like Dr Who
[/highlight]
New Doctor is a woman.
So a time lady rather than a time lord. :-\
Yes it is great news, but I wonder if it is a cost cutting exercise as the female actor will be paid less than her male predecessors! ::) ::)
[/highlight]
She should be paid less Lizzie because being a pretty blonde girlie she won't have any idea how to parallel park the Tardis. :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*
I am shocked!!! :o :o :o :o :o ;D ;D
-
I'm amazed at most of you not giving a shit how public money is squandered at the BBC. :o :(
Well, I'd wager 80% of our taxes are squandered on pointless shit, so why get upset over the beeb.
If I can borrow your lexicon TB, it's this sort of apathy that's taking this country down the shitter! :)
But I shout louder at the colossal wastes of money. Like the lazy and the NHS. In comparison, the beeb burns through bugger all really.
-
I do find Dr Who quite tedious. Its a vanity production to appease the 1960's/70s kids (like me), but I find it falls flat.
They should have ended it this year, as I seem to recall the Doctor cant regenerate more than 12 times... ...and regenerate into a chick is just taking it to a new level of daftness, and clearly a case of positive discrimination.
-
I'm amazed at most of you not giving a shit how public money is squandered at the BBC. :o :(
On my list of things to worry about, it's quite far down. ;D
Indeed, compared to the amount of tax I pay for everything else (probably in the order of 300x more than the TV license once you factor in VAT, fuel duty, insurance premium tax, income tax, national insurance etc) it pales into insignificance.. and I quite like Dr Who
[/highlight]
New Doctor is a woman.
So a time lady rather than a time lord. :-\
Yes it is great news, but I wonder if it is a cost cutting exercise as the female actor will be paid less than her male predecessors! ::) ::)
Sorry, Lizzie, but it's non-news. The type of news that makes people look at the telly, fart, grunt and go back to something more interesting. Doctor who is a badly made kids tv series.
[/highlight]
Absolutely, but with a adult following of millions; all mad, mad, mad and bad ;D ;D ;D
Nothing will replace the REAL Dr; William Hartnell! He was and always will be my real Doctor Who ;)
If I were to be uncharitable I'd say you are showing your age, Lizzie. ;) :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*
My favourite is Jon Pertwee who seems like a bit of 'dandy' looking back. Closely followed by the manic Tom Baker.
-
I'm amazed at most of you not giving a shit how public money is squandered at the BBC. :o :(
On my list of things to worry about, it's quite far down. ;D
Indeed, compared to the amount of tax I pay for everything else (probably in the order of 300x more than the TV license once you factor in VAT, fuel duty, insurance premium tax, income tax, national insurance etc) it pales into insignificance.. and I quite like Dr Who
[/highlight]
New Doctor is a woman.
So a time lady rather than a time lord. :-\
Yes it is great news, but I wonder if it is a cost cutting exercise as the female actor will be paid less than her male predecessors! ::) ::)
Sorry, Lizzie, but it's non-news. The type of news that makes people look at the telly, fart, grunt and go back to something more interesting. Doctor who is a badly made kids tv series.
[/highlight]
Absolutely, but with a adult following of millions; all mad, mad, mad and bad ;D ;D ;D
Nothing will replace the REAL Dr; William Hartnell! He was and always will be my real Doctor Who ;)
If I were to be uncharitable I'd say you are showing your age, Lizzie. ;) :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*
Ah, but I was only a baby then! ::) ::) ::) :D :D ;)
-
I'm amazed at most of you not giving a shit how public money is squandered at the BBC. :o :(
On my list of things to worry about, it's quite far down. ;D
Indeed, compared to the amount of tax I pay for everything else (probably in the order of 300x more than the TV license once you factor in VAT, fuel duty, insurance premium tax, income tax, national insurance etc) it pales into insignificance.. and I quite like Dr Who
[/highlight]
New Doctor is a woman.
So a time lady rather than a time lord. :-\
Yes it is great news, but I wonder if it is a cost cutting exercise as the female actor will be paid less than her male predecessors! ::) ::)
Sorry, Lizzie, but it's non-news. The type of news that makes people look at the telly, fart, grunt and go back to something more interesting. Doctor who is a badly made kids tv series.
[/highlight]
Absolutely, but with a adult following of millions; all mad, mad, mad and bad ;D ;D ;D
Nothing will replace the REAL Dr; William Hartnell! He was and always will be my real Doctor Who ;)
If I were to be uncharitable I'd say you are showing your age, Lizzie. ;) :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*
Ah, but I was only a baby then! ::) ::) ::) :D :D ;)
If you say so, Lizzie....... :D ;D :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*
-
When you think about it though,there are many who are paid far more than they're worth-footballers for instance-but which of us if offered a stupidly high amount of cash for what we do would turn it down saying no thank you that amount is far more than I'm worth?
-
It must be a bugger when you're only on £500 000 a year ........ ::)
I just about manage . . . . . . . ;D ( I wish )
-
The solution is obvious.
Tell everyone you are applying to be a man. Then you can have mans pay. Mr Fiona Bruce, Mr Tezza Daly
To make it fair any man who thinks they are on too much can apply to be a woman e.g. Mrs Christina Evans.
-
The solution is obvious.
Tell everyone you are applying to be a man. Then you can have mans pay. Mr Fiona Bruce, Mr Tezza Daly
To make it fair any man who thinks they are on too much can apply to be a woman e.g. Mrs Christina Evans.
That one's worthy of a whole new thread, Ms Varche. The ramifications of this story are far reaching with lots of unintended consequences.
For example, I believe Usana Bolt is already planning to hold the womens 100M world record until the day she dies. ;D
-
One name just came to my attention, Alex Jones a local girl, and I'm sure that she's a nice lady. She co-presents "The One Show"
BUT she's as thick as a brick and earning £400k + I'd be very happy to be think and earn that