web analytics

BBC Fined, That Means You

By ATWadmin On April 4th, 2009

THEY’RE back, long after everyone else had forgotten about it

Jonathan Ross was under fierce pressure last night to pay personally the £150,000 fine imposed on the BBC over the Andrew Sachs phone calls scandal.

Critics said the presenter should dip into his £6million-a-year BBC salary to save the Corporation from having to cut funding for programmes.

Well, yes. Either Ross and/or Brand fork out for their potty mouths and childish stunts, or BBC Telly Tax licence payers bend over, which looks likely. Which means … sod it, either way, it ain’t me.

You’re not still forking out yourselves, are you?


5 Responses to “BBC Fined, That Means You”

  1. Couldn’t help noticing that the perfectly wonderful Barber adagio you posted earlier had been broadcast on that loathsome embodiment of all that is statist, socialist and, er, other -ists, the BBC.

  2. The same BBC that Pete Moore watches for free courtesy of law abiding pensioners with lower incomes then him who subsidise his viewing.

    As to the topic of the fine, yes of course it should be paid personally by the offenders, not the BBC as a corporation.

  3. The broadcaster is responsible for the fine. What is objectionable is a public service broadcaster paying enormous sums of money solely to prevent big name presenters working for a commercial broadcaster. This is not compatible with its purpose. Although i would defend the concept of public service broadcasting, it must be on the basis that it strives for something more than lowest common denominator drivel such as this which the private sector can quite easily provide without subsidy.

  4. Jimmy:

    I fully agree. I don’t want to come over all fuddy-duddy here but honestly I see no difference whatever between the BBC and the commercial channels. Same shite, same waste of airtime.

  5. You’re not still forking out yourselves, are you?

    Yes, and happy to do so.

    However, I would be even happier if the BBC imposed a maximum salary of £100,000 per annum (approx 5 times average UK earnings) for all employees, including the so-called "stars" like Jonathan Ross.

    But of course Pete, that would surely smack of socialism, would it not? Maybe they could temper it by making arrangments to stash the salaries "off-shore" in one of the tax havens cesspits you are so fond of, just like some of the premiership football players get.

    Word is that a lot of them pay no UK tax worth talking about, despite earning £3million plus per annum, all paid for from of (taxed) UK wages and salaries. But this is what you want to see, no?