Monday - October 05, 2009

BBC wins bid to keep star salaries under wraps (and it only cost us £200,000)

The big deal about this bit of business, is that the BBC is publicly funded.  For those who don’t know, people here pay a yearly TV license and they do try and collect using whatever means necessary.  So why shouldn’t the salaries be made public?

Thankfully, just last week we gave away the perfectly good (for now) TV set as anything I want to see is not shown on television. The set belonged to the wife’s mom who didn’t even use it the final two yrs of her life.  It just stood there in her room, silent. Truth to tell, we don’t miss TV and haven’t watched but one program in five years here.  Thank heaven for You Tube.

Even if we hadn’t given the set away, I’d have fought tooth and nail and refused to pay as others have.  Use my money to help pay millions a year to ONE foul mouthed,rude and crude individual? (pictured) Not bloody likely!

The surprise is how many folks simply buckle down and give up and pay.  I guess addictions are like that and I can only assume it is an addiction as why else would so many watch what’s on offer?  No thank You.

Think of it this way.  What if you were required to pay a license (USA) for a channel hosting Howard Stern? Even if you weren’t demented enough to think he was funny or talented or whatever.  Yes, I know millions do and millions are also tasteless and possibly very sick as well. But that’s not the point.  At least in the US you aren’t forced to get a TV license to fund things you think are gross and in very poor taste. Like the fellow pictured here who thought it quite funny when he and his sidekick made public calls to a well known actor, on air, telling the old guy all about the enjoyable sex one of em had with his grand daughter.  That’s what passed for entertainment, and this guy gets paid millions a year. Well, not with any of our money.

BBC wins bid to keep star salaries and Middle East report under wraps (and it only cost us £200,000)

By Liz Thomas
Daily Mail

Big earner: Jonathan Ross earns a reported £6million a year

The BBC has won a High Court battle to keep the salaries of its stars a secret.

The corporation spent more than £200,000 ensuring those who fund the service never know how their cash is spent.

Three years of appeals and legal wrangles mean it will not now have to disclose what it pays on-screen talent, production staff or how much money shows cost.

Mr Justice Irwin concluded that the ‘BBC has no obligation to disclose information which they hold to any significant extent for the purposes of journalism, art or literature, whether or not the information is also held for other purposes’.

Although insiders insist that details of executive pay will continue to be publicly released, the BBC could still use this ruling as a further tool to ensure it does not have to disclose the salaries of top talent.

The BBC has come under fire for the eye-watering sums it pays stars such as Jonathan Ross, Graham Norton and Chris Moyles.

Ross earns a reported £6million a year and around 40 other stars are paid more than £1million annually.

Jeremy Hunt, Tory culture spokesman, said: ‘We have long called for the BBC to open their books to the National Audit Office so licence-fee payers can be sure they are getting value for money.

‘If the BBC was more transparent about its finances then court cases like these could be avoided.’

Matthew Elliott, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘The BBC’s behaviour is shocking and incredibly disappointing.

‘Firstly, the fact that the Corporation has blown a fortune on lawyers trying to obscure the truth shows they see zero need for accountability, even when it’s rightfully required of them.

‘Secondly, the BBC should be entirely open and honest about how it spends licence-fee payers’ money. If they can’t justify the amount they are spending, they shouldn’t do it in the first place.

‘This is yet another example of the BBC being out of touch with the concerns of the people it is supposed to be entertaining, and who pay its keep.’

The case went to the High Court because the BBC consistently refused to comply with freedom of information requests from newspapers and members of the public.

The broadcaster was taken to the Information Commissioner, and the Information Tribunal, who both ruled that it should release the information.
Ruling: The BBC will not be forced to disclose an internal report on its Middle East coverage, or details of staff salaries

Ruling: The BBC will not be forced to disclose an internal report on its Middle East coverage, or details of staff salaries

But the BBC appealed to the High Court, which found previous hearings had not properly taken into account its evidence.

It also ruled that the broadcaster was exempt from sections of the Act as a public body, and therefore did not have to give out information relating to its programming in journalism, arts or literature.

A spokesman for the BBC said: ‘The BBC was entitled to decline to disclose the information on the basis that the Freedom of Information Act did not apply to it.’

SOURCE

Macker and BMEWS… I didn’t have this when originally posted but, here’s the other sick no talent turd who once worked for the BBC and was in on the sick joke I wrote about. And this bit of filth btw is doing well I understand, in the USA. GAK!

Posted by peiper     on 10/05/2009 at 08:00 AM   
Filed Under: • Big Business • Celebrities • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Economics • Television • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner