It's just talking about football and watching highlights, it's easy to think anyone could do it, but I would probably be awkward and shite in front of the camera, as I suspect most of us would be
Printable View
I wouldn't be and I've got faith you wouldn't be either after some practice and training. In fact I'm going to back you and put your name forward ☺️. It would be a wonderful way of saving money and introducing egalitarianism. By the way I'm in favour of ditching the TV licence and I'd like BBC funded by taxation, not subscription.
Why not record a 2 minute demo and post it on here for us all to see how good you are
it
Those two may well be earning very big bucks but I'm guessing that particular wage is a stand out on a private media company and paid by the revenue not the taxpayer , you need to consider all of the BBC labilities , from property , backroom , buildings facility contracts ,new builds , etc etc it dwarfs most private media companies .
£4.0 billion is crazy money, never mind the pension liability its not just about Ant and Dec v 90 minute a week 1.3 million Gary Lineker .
Westminster used to pay a large subsidy for Welsh language broadcasts. They offloaded that onto the BBC a few years ago and now the Beeb has to fund it all.
This isn't the first time Westminster has performed a sleight of hand with the BBC. We all remember the issue about free TV licences for the elderly, which the Government decided not to fund any more and expected the Beeb to do so. The BBC refused.
Sunak has just written off 4.3b of fraudulent covid grant claims, gas and electric doubling by end of this year, fuel prices up 30%, inflation at a 30 year high but the usual gammons celebrating a 35p a week freeze on the licence fee like it’s the answer to all the county’s problems 😂
No wonder the country’s ****ed.
Isn't the issue here less about the quality of the BBC (which is very high and world renowned) and less about any perceived bias (which there probably is some of but is likely overblown) and more to do with how it is funded?
A flat rate for everyone irrespective of income and whether they even use the service is in any other scenario a pretty blunt and regressive funding model, is it not?
I'm okay with paying it. I don't have sky and I only recently got netflix so I watch far more of the BBC than most, but quite clearly it is funded in a way that seems increasingly unsustainable, especially when lots of people are concerned about bias or quality, whilst still being compelled to pay for it?
Like I said, no issue from me, but I can see why people resent it tbh
In the interests of promoting it - I recommend the current short series on Andy Warhol. It's fantastic
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0b5mp52
Those on the right want to defend it.
Those on the left accuse it of right wing bias.
I believe John Humphries and Nigel Rees and just want it fixed and back as the great institution that it has been for so long.
Thanks for the condescension. I suppose it's a small upgrade in terms of your pleasantness.
It's called being open minded, seeing two sides to a situation and coming to a balanced opinion old boy. I'll make it simpler: I personally don't have a problem with the BBC. But I understand and respect that others do.
Understanding other opinions and not just insulting them is something you would do well to consider adopting.
And on the BBC, it's output and it's funding model, I can see that. There's two sides to the story - in fact, there's about five sides.