Printable View
This has gone too far.These people are the modern day Robin Hoods in reverse.They have been so arrogant and smug.The latest announcement with alarming salary figures are a disgrace.On top of this they are trying to camouflage other huge salaries probably disguising what tax they are paying.This organisation is in the same league as the EU on integrity !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Have to agree Bill its quite sickeningQuote:
Originally Posted by MillerBill
Which ones are "socialist" then? Some are mates of the discredited Tony Blair possibly . I don't suppose the ordinary technicians, canteen staff, etc , are getting massive salaries or pay rises.
I wonder how much Piers Morgan ,Susannah ReidQuote:
Originally Posted by gm_gm
Lorraine Kelly,Jim White,Gabby Logan etc [the list is endless] are being paid
Make no mistake we as viewers pay in the end through Sky/BT/Virgin subscriptions & the products we buy that are advertised thereon
These TV companies are no better [In fact worse] Just watch as your subscription continues to rise mid contract but hey that's ok because they are private companies As Kerr often reminds us someone has to pay somewhere as no such thing as a free lunch [or words to that effect]
You have a choice upon whether to take out a Sky/BT/Virgin subscription, Zyles. If you take one out, then, yes, you have to pay.
With the BBC highest paid performers list you also have to factor in the hidden payments.
Graham Norton for example, listed at £610k per year, however this is only his direct pay. The production company that makes The Graham Norton Show is called So Television and was at one time owned by Norton but he sold it. Part of the agreement however is that Norton still does presenting for them. In 2015, he was paid £2.52million in “presenter fees, production fees and royalties” from that production company. The BBC still commissions and broadcasts the GN Show and pays So TV to do it. This means that the BBC pays GN indirectly to present the GN Show, this on top of the £610k they pay him directly.
Their male presenters were earning more so instead of lowering their salaries to match the women they raised the women's salaries to match the men.
TV licences sales are at at 10 year low but 26 million households still bought one.
Remember, if you just watch Netflix/ Amazon Prime/ Channel 4/ 5/ ITV catch-up no licence is needed.
Oh that's alright then so you actually agree that the practices of Sky /BT /Viigin are ok?Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrAvon
By the same token if you want to watch tv at all you need a licence You have a choice buy a licence or don't watch
Let's face it, most of these "stars" (Vanessa Feltz FFS) aren't worth ten bob.
I was just checking that you understood the position given your comment about free lunches.Quote:
Originally Posted by Exiletyke
If an adult with the mental capacity to freely enter into a contract that allows for a mid contract price rise chooses to do so then they accept that position. Ok doesn't come into it.
Of course you can choose whether to watch television and, hence, whether you require a TV licence.
I choose to pay my TV licence (and think it good value for money). I choose not to take out subscriptions with Sky/BT/Virgin.