Mary Poppins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quite shocked how much some of the radio presenters get,not just Evans.

Think Jonathan Agnew will be pissed off considering what people like Jason Mohammad and Gabby Logan get.
 


What annoys me more than the salaries is that the BBC will send a shitload of pundits to Rio for the 2014 World Cup only for them to spend 4 weeks all expenses paid sitting on the Copofuckingcabana f***ing beach, watching the games on the tele.:evil:
 
b1gals said:
What annoys me more than the salaries is that the BBC will send a shitload of pundits to Rio for the 2014 World Cup only for them to spend 4 weeks all expenses paid sitting on the Copofuckingcabana f***ing beach, watching the games on the tele.:evil:
Click to expand...

Is this post from 2013?
 
Daylight said:
It's not a shit argument 40p a day is nothing. I use BBC services a lot. Was just saying it provides great value so I'm not bothered how much Shearer and Lineker get - they could leave and get more with Sky and ITV but don't. How is my statement apathetic and brainless?
Click to expand...
Well the very fact you typed 'I'm not bothered' proves my point about apathy, and I never said you were 'brainless' or I wouldn't have wrote 'use your brain'.
 
The Fish said:
The other terrestrial channels use their infrastructure. Would you pay £5-10 a month for ITV, and the same for Channel Four? and Channel 5? Because if the TV License is replaced by a BBC subscription, you'll surely have to.

Also the minute the BBC opens itself up and needs to subsidise itself with advertising revenue it will be forced to make decisions based on that, which ultimately lead to the channel providing the kind of shit on itv that makes me want to dropkick my television.

I get that you want the freedom of choice, but this choice will cost you more money, so why would you want it?

The BBC is an institution and should be protected.
Click to expand...

Can you clarify what you mean by the bit in bold?

I agree that ITV is appalling, there's not much I'd watch on that except Family Guy and American Dad on ITV2.

Let's face it, television on the whole is shit. TV via terrestrial radio transmission is probably not that far from its death, IMO. It takes up a huge amount of arguably the most useful part the radio spectrum, and when most households have broadband which offers on-demand viewing, it's a matter of time before it reaches its natural end.
Then the government will auction the TV band off and it will be snapped up by mobile providers for 10G or whatever it is by then! For stuff like watching TV programmes on their mobile devices, ironically!

Where all this will leave the BBC remains to be seen. They'll probably introduce a computer and mobile device licence. You can bookmark this and bet your house on it!
 
Giddup Sausage! said:
You think they are worth 450k a year? Give over.
Click to expand...
totally agree. The media presenting lark is a self fulfilling climb up the tree where each of them points at the rest saying they deserve more and more. Many many perfectly decent and hard working people get a fraction of these kinds of wages yet we are collectively being told these kinds of wages are right and normal, and the only way to attract top talent.

there are loads of people who could easily step in to these presenters shoes for a fraction of the wages.

dont get me wrong, i really like Lineker and thing Shearer is an OK pundit, but what a massive waste of money.
 
b1gals said:
What annoys me more than the salaries is that the BBC will send a shitload of pundits to Rio for the 2014 World Cup only for them to spend 4 weeks all expenses paid sitting on the Copofuckingcabana f***ing beach, watching the games on the tele.:evil:
Click to expand...
:lol::lol::lol:
 
dangermows said:
Massive pay cut for Alan. Just doing it fir the love of the game.
Click to expand...
Tight as a camels arse in a sandstorm allegedly

Sima said:
They are worth whatever someone wants to pay them. If the BBC didn't pay Shearer 450K someone else would.

I'm not privy to what Sky pay the likes of Henry, Redknapp, Neville and Carragher but I bet it's in the region of what Shearer gets.

They are all a relatable face to the casual and hardcore viewer for an industry that generates millions.
Click to expand...
I resent f***ing Chris Evans getting owa 2 million and I don't even listen to the ugly (but rich) t@@t.
 
Need labour to introduce their senior exec ratio cap

Would be interesting to see linekars tweets after that
 
Geronimo said:
Don't pay it now I know there are no detector vans and never has been :D

This is an intersting read IMO if anyone can be arsed

https://medium.com/@adambanksdotcom...re-going-to-intercept-your-wi-fi-ce0ac4fe1e82
Click to expand...

I've seen it all now! :lol::oops:
Back in the day, the line was that they could use very sensitive equipment to pick up the weak intermediate frequency (IF) that inevitably leaked from TVs. That actually stands up to scrutiny, in theory. However, developing such a system that could work reliably, lift the tiny signal clearly above the noise floor and provide sufficient proof it was coming from the right address would be something NASA would be proud of.

Now that this is not even workable in theory due to the extensive shielding in modern TVs, they monitor 'light at specific frequencies' (WTF?) to indentify broadcast signals?!
It's the most technically laughable pile of utter shite I've ever seen coming from a so- called 'official' source.
Ooooh! Sounds scary, better get a licence! I wonder how many hours and how much money was spunked on this ridiculous nonsense that falls apart at the slightest scrutiny?

As for monitoring your WiFi, really? They're going to crack WPA encryption and any other layers of encryption in use like SSL? Apart from the shocking level of invasion of privacy to catch people for such a minor alleged infraction, I want to see the gear they're going to be using to do this. I'm really fascinated!

The whole licence enforcement thing stinks. The cynic in me says that this isn't about watching TV for nowt, it's about protecting a source of propaganda broadcast to the world. Why else would they even discuss such Orwellian measures? It's disproportionate beyond belief.
 
Boldoneye said:
Well the very fact you typed 'I'm not bothered' proves my point about apathy, and I never said you were 'brainless' or I wouldn't have wrote 'use your brain'.
Click to expand...
All I'm saying is I'm happy giving BBC 40p a day. No need to scrutinise and pull apart that statement and be so judgemental. It gives me plenty value thanks and I am not the apathetic person you sanctimoniously have decided I am.
 
Last edited:
shaun61 said:
I resent f***ing Chris Evans getting owa 2 million and I don't even listen to the ugly (but rich) t@@t.
Click to expand...
TBF he attracts listeners and is good at what he does. MotD presenters and most other presenters offer very little and their jobs could be done by a large number of people IMO.
 
Most media salaries these days are daft man. Boris Johnson was on 275k for just writing a weekly newspaper column, on top of his MP salary of 'only' 80k-ish. If you can get into that game you're laughing, even if your not top of the tree. I bet all the eg. Talksport presenters are well into 6 figures.
 
shaun61 said:
If there's a joke in there, you've completely lost me.
Click to expand...

Just all of the stories you used to hear:

'Worked on Shearer's kitchen, he was a right arsehole'
'Done some decking for him, asked him a question about Gullit and he told me to fuck off'
'Wasn't allowed to look him in the eye'

Etc...
 
sdurhamlad said:
Aye an institution filled with establishment privileged stooges pushing the status quo Tory line.

It is shocking that everyone should be expected to maintain such an outdated Old Boys shop when the majority of people hate what they stand for.

I have mates who stopped buying the licence years ago and there is nothing they can do about it. If anyone comes they just say " not interested" and shut the door in their face and as they have no proof of crime and no name they're snookered.
Click to expand...

Only way to influence what is on the BBC is to get in touch with them, dodging the license fee certainly won't push them to the left. Fwiw I think they are reflective of the country, which has leant to the right over the past x years. Admittedly it's shifting left at the minute, but overall I'd say it was much, much more balanced than anything on the other channels.

Hard to get bothered by your mates dodging the license fee when so many of us watch sports on dodgy streams. If it's a political thing I think their tactic is fundamentally flawed, and if it's a financial thing I think it's daft as the £147 a year is buttons for the product you actually get.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top