It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BBC pay scandal

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   
These 'Stars' also get expenses paid for taxis, dinners, hotels and travel etc. So they actually get paid MORE than just there pay packet.




posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   
We need to ask ourselves why the Government forced the BBC to release this information.

It was so that the Daily Mail and Sky and company could trumpet a lot of anti-BBC headlines.

Because Murdoch owns the Tories, and wants the BBC destroyed.


On its own it's meaningless information, we don't know how much people in competing jobs on other channels get paid. Is the BBC high? We don't know. I'd guess it's probably about the going rate.


And when you consider Evans' 2.2 million works out at 1p a week for every listener, you could probably ask those listeners if they were happy paying 52p a year to listen to his show, and I expect they'd consider it very good value.


So this is all just fake outrage generated on purpose by Murdoch and his meat puppets the Tories, designed to trigger outrage in people who are easily manipulated by Murdoch's hand up their rear ends.

I, for one, recommend not allowing Murdoch to put his hand up your rear end.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   

The BBC has the second largest budget of any UK-based broadcaster with an operating expenditure of £4.722 billion in 2013/14 compared to £6.471 billion for British Sky Broadcasting in 2013/14 and £1.843 billion for ITV in the calendar year 2013.


they spend what they collect


The BBC uses advertising campaigns to inform customers of the requirement to pay the licence fee. Past campaigns have been criticised by Conservative MP Boris Johnson and former MP Ann Widdecombe, for having a threatening nature and language used to scare evaders into paying.[80][81] Audio clips and television broadcasts are used to inform listeners of the BBC's comprehensive database.[82] There are a number of pressure groups campaigning on the issue of the licence fee.[83]


Brussels Broadcasting Corp
edit on 19-7-2017 by ZIPMATT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Painterz

I concur. This licence fee payer thinks the BBC is an absolute blessing.
Listening to BBC Radio is one of the few pleasures in my miserable existence. That and tea.

Celebrity salaries ? I doubt anyone would consider it reasonable for anyone to be paid millions to present a radio or tv show. What the BBC can and should do is get their talent spotters out and about, find new faces to keep us all entertained, ones who can be paid more modest salaries.

But you're right. Murdoch and the rest are out to destroy the BBC. If folk think the BBC is expensive at, what, twelve pounds per month, consider the alternative. My old man currently pays Virgin Media nearly a hundred pounds a month for his subscription, which includes Sky Movies and Sports. Me, I'm more modest, I pay BT sixty five pounds per month, although I always get that reduced to thirty odd because I work for BT lol.

Want to save money ? Pay your licence fee and buy a media streamer/Kodi box. Not entirely legal, but then, neither is dodging the licence fee.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: 83Liberty

Meanwhile there best presenter Victoria Derbyshire whom actually ask's the proper question's is kept to a short slot and probably not even in the top 100.

Who can stand Christ Evan's, I always turn him off, the same with Lineker and I am very disappointed that Hugh Edwards a mediocre news presenter and actually nothing more get's so well paid, for what exactly.
To Be frank I don't rate any of these so called celebrity's.

Back in the 1970's we had no choice about what we watched but the BBC back then was full of quality programming, open university all morning on BBC 2 every day with plenty of educational AND entertaining program's aimed at helping both Open University student's, school's and also simply educational programming with everything from Polymer Chemistry to Art covered at a high level and yet in such a way that even a kid off school sick could watch it and be fascinated by it.
Back then the BBC had world beating investigative journalism but these day's and probably because of the rot that this level of pay for mediocre staff show's it has been more and more politically right wing and deliberately toning down any left wing opinion's on it's show's while at the same time allowing thinly veiled attack's upon the left wing.
It all become's starkly apparent that it has become a cash cow and rabidly corrupt, we do need the BBC but we need it as it used to be not as it has become, we would still have BBC 3 on the air if even half of these crap presenters had been paid what they are worth rather than what someone believed they were worth.

The BBC need's to have a full purge of the affected management and staff, there is plenty of untapped talent out there and the like's of Victoria Derbyshire show's that there is also plenty of diamond's left in the rough by these idiot's.

edit on 19-7-2017 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 10:56 PM
link   
"National broadcaster pays competitive salaries to valued figures," shock exclusive.

You can bet your back teeth that if the BBC stopped paying well and all the well-known people buggered off to Sky, the same people who are whining about salaries now would be calling for the abolition of the BBC on the grounds that it was second-rate.

Just lately has been boom-time for various fringe causes promoted by a minority of loudmouthed obsessives. The reappearance of the Flat Earth Theory is one example. I could name some better-known ones, but that would turn this into a political argument.

I'll just shoot this nonsense in the head by pointing out one simple fact: If you don't want to pay the licence fee, then don't pay it. Get rid of your TV and watch everything online instead. As long as you don't watch in real time, you aren't "receiving a broadcast" and you are not breaking any law.

Is that a terrible imposition? No, it would probably mean that a few people moved about inside their homes a little less on a day-to-day basis.

But for some reason, the obsessive anti-BBC broadsiders never point out this perfectly-legal clause to anyone.

That reason is because the anti-BBC cranks aren't interested in the supposed 'injustice', they just want a stick with which to beat the BBC and any excuse to stir up resentment is fine by them.
edit on 19-7-2017 by audubon because: typo



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: 83Liberty

Sounds like Australia's left-wing-taxpayer-funded ABC. At least we don't have to pay a direct levy to watch (or not) ours is just siphoned out of the hospitals and roads budget



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 06:26 AM
link   
I don't have a problem with the BBC and what they broadcast, I couldn't give a fig about how much they pay their staff. The only thing that would be fair, is to give people a choice to pay the fee, and if we don't pay, they scramble the channel just like Sky or any other subscription service does.

But that won't happen because they know they would go bankrupt within weeks.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: 83Liberty

Im sure its fine as long as you don't watch live BBC shows its fine or any BBC channels
they dont control live streaming from netflix or amazon and therefore cant charge me a fee

I told them I don't want to support an organisation that knowingly supports pedophiles
and they haven't bothered me since



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cropper
I don't have a problem with the BBC and what they broadcast, I couldn't give a fig about how much they pay their staff. The only thing that would be fair, is to give people a choice to pay the fee, and if we don't pay, they scramble the channel just like Sky or any other subscription service does.

But that won't happen because they know they would go bankrupt within weeks.


You think its ok they harbor pedophiles and protect them from prosecution and actively block investigations into their pedophile activities ?



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: 83Liberty

Another element to this "scandal" is the disparity in pay between male and female "stars". Makes no sense to me!
edit on 2072017 by MrCrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: 83Liberty

Pay them no heed never mind there belligerent licence fee!


And the words are "I here by remove your implied right of access to the property". That's Capita stumped really hence no £200 quid for passing go.

Bastards are like vampires really, you have to invite them in.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Yes and no. If you turn them away when they come knocking, you can be sure as eggs is eggs that they will be straight off down the local Magistrate Court and obtain a warrant and be back before you've finished your tea. (I exaggerate, but not much). And if you try and obstruct a warranted search you will be entering a whole world of strife.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: audubon

How do you get an search warrant without a name and/or sufficient reason for such???

You don't and most self respecting Magistrates would never issue such.

The search warrant is just another tactic in there arsenal, just like there TV detection vans really.

The bugger off method has worked for myself for the last 20 years, still no search warrant.

edit on 20-7-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: audubon

How do you get an search warrant without a name and/or sufficient reason for such???

You don't and most self respecting Magistrates would never issue such.


Search warrants in theses cases are predominantly premises-specific, and don't need an identified suspect. Magistrates (being laypeople and easily swayed by professionals) hand them out like confetti. Something would have to be seriously and glaringly wrong for an application to be refused.

The bar the authority needs to cross is set at the 'reasonable suspicion' level. 'Reasonable suspicion' is not precisely defined, so it can include statements such as 'we opened the letterbox and heard the sound of the the Jeremy Kyle show, accompanied by derisive laughter from an occupant of the house'.

Congratulations on avoiding a search for 20 years or so, that's quite impressive.
edit on 20-7-2017 by audubon because: typo



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82

originally posted by: Cropper
I don't have a problem with the BBC and what they broadcast, I couldn't give a fig about how much they pay their staff. The only thing that would be fair, is to give people a choice to pay the fee, and if we don't pay, they scramble the channel just like Sky or any other subscription service does.

But that won't happen because they know they would go bankrupt within weeks.


You think its ok they harbor pedophiles and protect them from prosecution and actively block investigations into their pedophile activities ?



The Conservative party are as much, if not more to blame for that. Remember, Saville regularly campaigned for the Tories and was friends with senior Conservatives.

So I trust you have similiar anger towards the Tory party?



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: audubon

Kind of harder than you imagine to get a "predominantly premises-specific" warrant for a residential home.

The Magistrates are going to generally want a name and if they have acquired such without your consent or help then who ever done so could very well be in breach of the data protection act.

Keep in mind that Magistrates know all about "Reasonable suspicion" as they are not stupid people and generally understand the law better than most.

Also they cannot enter on to your property to hear or view anything if indeed you have removed there right of access.

End of the day Capita and there like have no power, or at least less than we imagine, unless you give them it, well up Scotland way that is.

edit on 20-7-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Painterz

"Remember, Saville regularly campaigned for the Tories and was friends with senior Conservatives."

Lets face it chances are they shared underage paraplegics for sexual gratification.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Whilst it is nice not to have adverts interrupting programmes every 15 mins for 4 minutes, it would be nice to have a choice though. As the payers of their wages we should know and they are probably competitive and fairly like for like with other independent channels. That said the BBC also has its world service and radio.

As far as being impartial and unbiased, that's a joke. It was very clear with the EU referendum that the Beeb was obviously pro remain. You just had to see their faces when the public democratically voted to leave and they played a huge part in the racist slurs tarnishing those who had voted to leave.

We also need more reporters who are able to ask probing and relevant questions rather than "who puts out the bins" and all about shoes (Mrs May on The One Show).

The Beeb was set up between the wars in 1922 and is clearly there to deliver propaganda to the masses (it's called programming for a reason)



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Painterz

"Remember, Saville regularly campaigned for the Tories and was friends with senior Conservatives."

Lets face it chances are they shared underage paraplegics for sexual gratification.


Yes and there is also this scandal that most in the Beeb knew about and covered up.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join