OK, so 180000 individuals per year on average are not prosecuted and Gary Lineker is not paid £1.8M salary. I think we can all rest easy now. Thanks, Red!
Theyre noyt prosecuted for refusing to pay gary linekers salary theyre prosecuted for avoiding a charge the rest of us manage to pay, but don’t let that get in the way of the latest witch hunt
LOL. The ball took a serious deflection, right there. Do you hear that *whoosh* sound very often? : o D
Shock horror news item. Pay is not fair; it is about what you can negotiate and what you can leverage on both sides. I know this forum is very left wing but are we arguing for a communist system? No noob I don’t want the Marxist extremist in any more than this lot. But in the words of the great Doug Stanhope - how does the Labour Suck make Tories Suck, suck less I am a huge fan of the BBC, It is an anchor to our entire media system that stops Murdock and the other flying away. I believe it is fair and impartial. The problem is that (as an example) it can’t say that Brexit is a good thing ,which we know 51% of the electorate believe is “true”. It can only deal in facts which are not the same as the truths. This is Murdock’s plan – with the BBC gone, then after a while they attack the principle that the broadcast media must be impartial and even. “Hey – you are not forced to watch our channel so can’t we take sides” (same as the US) Then the power they have is 10 fold and we march into the Russian system. It is not democracy that keeps things even, it is a free media system.
I find this new fangled invention called a remote allows me not to see them and for free *God I wish we had the old smiley faces*
There are a lot of anchors in the BBC granted, but an organisation that says, hey people stop complaining it's 2017, of course doctor who can be female, we all should be sexually equal. Then they announce the wages list which show very little sexual equality and every director general since it's inception and since 1927, has been male. The BBC are not the bastion of standards some would have you believe but they are very good at saying do as I say and not as I do. Now this works to my advantage. In your supposition you seem to be saying the same as me but a different twist. You are saying or appear to be saying, Murdoch is trying to brainwash us all. My standing is, if people are sheep, they will always look for a shepherd but you can't blame the shepherd that the sheep are as dumb as a box of frogs.
Not quite. The rationale goes - if we don't like the fact that Mr Tescbury, the chairman of a large supermarket chain, receives what we consider to be an obscene amount of salary/bonus/remuneration, we can vote with our feet and shop elsewhere. If we don't like Chris Evans though, we still have to fund his salary if we want to watch any live broadcasted TV - whether or not we hate Chris Evans with a screaming rage and avoid anything to do with the weird git. Tru dat. The least worst option doesn't much feel like the best option. Your argument is self-referential - but you are entitled to an opinion, all the same, same as the rest of us. No need to thank me : o ) When we get a free media system, I'll be prepared to fight to defend it. We haven't yet seen one though. Maybe in the future? Perhaps some of the BBCs critics would instead be its supporters, if the BBC was actually the broadcaster people want it to be.
Pretty sure you can't be watching the same BBC that I am being forced to pay for/hardly watch then:even the BBC admit that they do not feel obliged to be unbiased now that the Referendum is over,and there are plenty of independent reports that confirm they are biased in favour of remain/the so-called liberal political stance. Of course if their bias happens to agree with your political leaning,you will either deny it exists or be blind to it. A free media? No such thing. All media has a bias,whether it is in favour of the Owners interests or whether it is in thrall to a political agenda,or simply in favour of making money. But the media has a responsibility to tell the truth,not to deceive it's consumers into believing that lies are the truth. And if what is said/written/promoted as the truth is in conflict with provable facts,then the so-called free media should be brought to book over it. I'm sure I've mentioned this before,but some years ago my mother-in-law heckled Tony Bliar at the annual Albert Hall WI AGM . Not because she was anti-Bliar or Labour,but because the WI is a non-political organisation and political posturing is not allowed in any way. The majority of the audience slow-hand-clapped Bliar until he stopped talking about Labours achievements,(and left the stage,embarrassed). Despite the truth of the matter,my very upstanding MIL was hounded and vilified by the Daily Mirror/Guardian/every Labour supporting media organisation simply because she had the temerity to point out that,no matter who is the speaker at the WI,no one talks about their politics. The Times was the only newspaper who both reported the incident factually,subsequently interviewed her at home,and printed an article that stuck to the truth of the matter. "Free",does not mean the opportunity to tell barefaced lies and for their victims to have no opportunity for redress,nor is it permission to print any old shite in the attempt to mislead people. Car salesmen aren't allowed to do it,and the media shouldn't be allowed to do it either.
I like the bbc, and a fair bit of its various content and am happy to pay the approx £12 per month for it to do what it does on tv, radio, online. It is also good that we have scrutiny and can have this debate - would Sky TV customers get have this sort of open debate on where their subscription money goes? Not a massive fan of Evans, but his radio show seems to be the most listened to, despite how many seems to "hate" him. Lineker is good at what he does, as is Balding at what she keeps turning her hand to (semingly underpaid when weighed agianst some on the list, whereas wtf is Feltz still doing on any payroll). not sure if the orders of magnitude are meritocritous (is that even a word??) but I would truly hate for us to head any further down the path of a US style TV free for all, where the choice teeters between awful and abject shite, all with (a) subscription AND (b) adverts every 5 minutes. Would be interesting to see what the various anchors of Sky/ITV/Amazon get paid (wasn't the fat geezer off the car programme paid a humungous chunk of cash by Amazon - would that serve as a yardstick for what station anchors may be pad outside the BBC?) - just a thought to see what the "market" does look like. Pete
A lot of the arguments above appear to say that everyone must like everything on the BBC. Chris Evans is not there for you or me, he is there for the thousands if not millions who do.
Amazing how many people seem to think that because they don't like him/her/a certain programme at the BBC then they should not be spending money on it. Chill out a bit FFS. The world doesn't revolve around you alone. Interestingly they seem to be the same people saying that they believe that all students and youngsters Feel the world owes them something.
A lot of the arguments are saying something quite different, though. If you want to watch a live TV broadcast, you are legally obliged to fund the BBC. Much like if you want to shop in Tesco, you must also pay a fee to Waitrose. Oh, wait ...
TBH this whole thread says exactly why the Government want this out in the open so those with a closed mind can feel cheated and DEMAND that the government do something about it.
