That could be why 😂
Printable View
I think that what any person earns is a private matter between him/her adn the employer, and should not be discussed in the public domain.
Yes BBC is publicly funded so it is a legitimate question to ask how much of that money goes on salaries, but what an individual gets? Why do these polititians and people who ask these freedom of information need to know? how does knowing affect anybody. It is just nosiness and jealosy in my opinion. Knowing serves no purpose what so ever
Compared to footballers its peanuts , and hey what do we watch most of ?
I couldn't give two ****s what anyone else earns
Surprised Richard Dimblebys not on the list?.
Whats strange about it? We have a choice. We dont have to pay to go to the games, we dont have to pay for Satellite TV.
If you disagree that much with the amount footballers get paid then simply stop paying towards the product.
We have no choice with the TV licence and paying our taxes.
This was started by John whittingdale the former culture secretary, who is rampantly anti BBC and very pro Rupert Murdoch.
He would love to dismantle the BBC.
Currently you have to pay for a TV licence, but even if you don't watch, read or listen to any BBC content you get a real benefit from the BBC being there.
For starters there is a very good return on money invested in the BBC, additionally it has a profound effect on the quality of output on other channels by simply being there producing a certain quality of output.
If it wasn't there C4 and itv would not need to spend much on programming to gain market share and we would get lots of cheap output and a hell of a lot more USA imports.
If you have spent much time watching TV in places like Australia or France then I think that's the way we would be heading.
Whittingdale thinks that without the BBC then itv would become the next HBO. I think the reality is that itv would become ITV2.
I'm surprised the actors make so little. No wonder so many come over to America to work, they can make more in one episode.
That's a false analogy though. TV market share is a bit more than just BBC, ITV and C4 even on Freeview alone.
For all the Sky bashing, they've invested in comedy and drama producing some decent things. Factor in the other channels available on the Sky platform, I don't think many would believe the BBC has improved the quality of output. Increased competition has - channels like Sky Atlantic, Fox and AMC via BT have far better output than the BBC for the most part.
Advertising costs are incurred irrespective of you buying the product or not.
TV license is let's be honest a tax. You can choose to subscribe to Sky, whatever but have to pay for the license even if you don't watch BBC. The fact that people are in prison for not buying a TV license is quite frankly an utter disgrace.
You are indirectly paying toward the cost of any product you buy which has been advertised on ITV though. Agree imprisonment for paying the license fee is ridiculous.
I am not a fan of the BBC but to me this is an attack by the Tories wanting to control it
Plenty of people have been getting fed up with BBC to be honest. I end up paying the same for watching the news and Question Time as others who are glued to the Beeb. Understandable people would get irked by that - I'd be happy to have zero access to BBC output in return for not having to pay for a license.
BBC has a private arm in BBC Worldwide - end of the day I can't see how they can justify having a commercial arm yet still want to be funded by what is a de facto tax.