Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Chit Chat' started by Markham, Jul 3, 2019.
"For the many, not the few"
£1.75 million wages for a sports tv presenter is simply obscene.
i just wished i had the courage to stop paying the licence extortion.
I'm probably veering away from supporting the TV licence now that there are so many alternatives and the explicit pro Brexit bias shown by the BBC in recent years. I do think BBC World should still be funded by general taxation to put Britain's voice out there.
However, I do have sympathy with the BBC in this debate. It is Conservative Government policy to stop funding the licence for OAPs which has forced the BBC's hand in this respect.
Are Gary Lineker, Graham Norton and Vanessa Feltz overpaid? Like most TV personalities, the answer is probably yes. If the BBC put out wooden amateurs like me to present their shows, people would again be baying for blood so they are in a no-win situation.
The overbloated salaries of these 'stars' would only be a small dent in the shortfall following Conservative Government decision to reduce the funding, so it really only makes for a snappy meme rather then solution to the issue.
How much would he be getting paid if he was still a top class football player ?
But, yes.... take the free Playstations and TVs out of prisons, and give our over 75s (like my mum) a free licence.
You're having a laugh - "explicit pro-Brexit bias" - give us an example or two of this perceived bias. As far as semi-serious political discussion programmes, such as Question Time, there have been many weeks when panellists opposed to Brexit have outnumbered those in the other camp. The BBC is, after all, the broadcast arm of the Guardian and readership of that newspaper is required of all BBC talent that has an eye on further advancement. The only exception to that is Andrew Neil but he is in the process of being taken off-air: he and his production company no longer produces the Daily Politics and This Week, his only other programme, is about to be terminated.
The BBC negotiated and accepted a very generous financial settlement as part of the most recent Charter: it knew years ago that it would have to take responsibility for subsidising the over 75s in 2020 and hasn't made the necessary financial contingency plans. Their fault, not the Government's. In fact, instead of trimming their sales to match the available wind, they have gone out of their way to increase salaries to their talentless "talent" and to a whole raft of executives who contribute very little, if anything at all. £85 million for a new set for Eastenders? The present set, which also cost many millions to build, dates from 2010.
Gary Lineker's current contract (apparently) requires him to front Match of the Day for a maximum of 16 games plus a couple of dozen internationals: he's being paid over £35,000 an hour for his drivel - I read that it takes the licence fee paid by the inhabitants of Buckingham to pay his salary. Or put another way, the licence fee paid by over eleven thousand pensioners; over 400 licence fee payments per programme.
According to today's newspapers, the obscene salaries being paid to the BBC's talentless may only be the tip of the iceberg and that these same people are believed to be receiving substantial additional payments made in such a way that the BBC does not need to declare them.
another thing about the licence---
some 25 years back i moved into a rented house. i somehow forgot about the bbc licence ! i had one before. time went by--probably a couple of years...i came home to find a tv detector van outside the house!. i got in round the back--made sure the tv was off--and drove to the post office to take out a licence. i couldnt afford the whole year--so opted to do it monthly by DD. imagine my disgust when i found the bbc took double payments for the first 6 months--then single thereafter. so if you pay monthly you will always be 6 months overpaid.
incidentally--i had the forsight to take the licence out in my wifes name--just in case i got a bill for the unpaid years....
That twit is voicing what it`s like living in his own alternate universe and he probably forgot his daily medication requirements..
Take no notice..No biggie.
You didn`t really believe that those pretend detector vans could really tell what room your telly was in and what you was watching on it,did you?
Don't need a licence now anyway, as long as you've declared that the telly is only used for gaming, etc.
i believed they did.
It's a fair cop! Yes, I was having a laugh. Although I think the fact that both sides of the debate (and the perennial pro/anit-Lab, pro/anti-Con stuff during normal times) discuss this seriously at all times of the year suggests the BBC does a good job at remaining impartial (unlike the blatant bias at American networks and UK's C4 which is clearly biased against Brexit).
However, I stand by the rest of my message. Expecting the BBC to self finance a £770m reduction in funding from the Conservative Government - even with a few year's notice - is nigh on impossible. They can't do ads, so someone was going to have to pay. And that someone, unfortunately, is my grandma.
they do ads on the other bbc digital channels. i tend to watch those the most
They do advertising on their websites (bbc.co.uk) too if your viewing from a non UK IP address.
Again: the BBC has a strong anti-Brexit pro-EU bias. The BBC has been 'pink' ever since John Major was Prime Minister and the corporation's greatest wet dream ever was Blair becoming Prime Minister. That marked the start of the good days for the corporation. During war time, the BBC was very much pro-Britain, now it is very much pro-EU and anti-Britain.
Whose fault is it that the BBC was incapable of negotiating better terms than it did for the current Charter? Is it the Government's? No. What about the licence fee payer? NO, not them either. So in a deliberate act of blackmail they cynically choose the most vulnerable in society, people who are least likely to complain but are in greatest need of a radio or TV voice to keep them company. Although they must realise that their decision makes them as popular as Pol Pot, they are insulated by sheer dint of being located within the liberal metropolitan hinterland within the M25. Lord Haw-Haw knew the Charter terms and conditions but made no attempt to restructure is profligate organisation accordingly. Instead he raised his salary, those of just about every other executive and the talent spend takes the piss.
You'd think that the BBC would petition Government to allow it to charge a lower concessionary licence fee to the over 75s - but no, they want their full £150. I wait with baited breath to hear Lord Haw-Haw's mealy-mouthed response upon being told of the first septuagenarians being sentenced to a spell in the Scrubs. Of course, it won't be the BBC that broadcasts that interview!
The BBC gets good income from advertising on its web sites, its print magazines, its commercial sale of TV and radio content, DVD sales, royalties and licensing fees. It also gets big bucks from BBC Studios which makes commercial films as well as those destined for its own channels.
Edited to add:
BBC Studios made a profit of £243 million last year.
The hash tag #boycottthebbc is currently trending.
Decided not to have a licence yet...nothing I watch on tv...either in internet or watching a blu ray...or chatting with mrs...so not needed and no time lol...no doubt the lady will want it when she comes
Couldn't agree more.
The BBC plumbs new depths of cynicism with its decision to give HMRC £12 million of our licence fees to settle the tax bills of its most highly paid so-called stars. Surely those talentless prima donas who are paid countless thousands of our licence fee Pounds can afford to - and should - pay their own taxes. That really is a two-fingered salute to all licence payers and a sneering middle finger raised in the direction of the over 75s. What a malign organisation the BBC has become under Lord Hall: the self-serving and self-righteous mouthpiece of the establishment.
What is not clear is whether the BBC will be paying the (gift) tax due on this windfall payment that directly benefits its "talent". If so, that too is taxable.
This all arose, incidentally, because the BBC wanted to be different to other employers by requiring its "stars" to form personal service companies thereby saving the corporation millions of Pounds a year in National Insurance contributions, holiday and sick pay, pension contributions and other staff entitlements. The talentless potentially benefited by a greatly reduced tax exposure - 19% Corporation Tax as opposed to up to 45% Income Tax - except that HMRC disagreed and sent them tax bills. Those that have challenged HMRC in court have lost.
If you had any common decency, Lord Hall, you and your entire board would resign immediately.
IR35 has been around for probably more than 20 years now to specifically deal with this and disguised employment, PSC's don't get round IR35 unless the person who owns the Limited Company can show they have multiple contracts and are exposed to risk.
So why not blame HMRC for failing to apply IR35 correctly from day one.
Both self employed people those without a PSC and those who choose to protect themselves via a limited company are subject to proof that they are not in disguised employment, key criteria are the ability to set your own delivery times for your goods or services, provision of your own tools and they must show that they are exposed to an element of risk in the business they are undertaking.
If they can't do all of that they are in disguised employment and it is up to HMRC to act.