Gaggsy wrote:Lineker.
It's Lineker.
NOT Linnaker ffs.
You'd think with the amount of media coverage he gets, folk would manage to spell his name right.
Sorry I was lazy and just copied what had been written! Lineker, Lineker. Got it!
Dod
Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site
Gaggsy wrote:Lineker.
It's Lineker.
NOT Linnaker ffs.
You'd think with the amount of media coverage he gets, folk would manage to spell his name right.
uspaul666 wrote:There is an exemption for the truly impoverished, the rest of the remarkably wealthy elderly can pay their way along with the rest of us.
JoyofBrex8889 wrote:uspaul666 wrote:There is an exemption for the truly impoverished, the rest of the remarkably wealthy elderly can pay their way along with the rest of us.
Perhaps that was intended to remind me that those rendered exempt from the unjust imposition of the telly tax should fall to their knees in gratitude at the generosity of their grand benefactors at the Beeb.
I on the other hand feel that this is an unnecessary and outdated tax, supporting an organisation that is institutionally biased. Indeed, stuffed to the gunwhales with overpaid luvvies. Truly the acme of champagne socialism.
It is utterly unsupportable as a public organisation. Allow the free market at it and maybe the Linnekers will get paid even better, I have no great objection to success. That is fine, as long as you are not requiring the taxpayer to foot the bill.
JoyofBrex8889 wrote:I on the other hand feel that this is an unnecessary and outdated tax, supporting an organisation that is institutionally biased. Indeed, stuffed to the gunwhales with overpaid luvvies. Truly the acme of champagne socialism.
bungeejumper wrote:Business model - no adverts, precious little sponsorship, 60 full minutes of broadcast entertainment in every hour, instead of 40, as with the execrable Dave.
bungeejumper wrote:Business model - no adverts, precious little sponsorship, 60 full minutes of broadcast entertainment in every hour
JoyofBrex8889 wrote:BBC hands stars £11m pay rise - while cutting free TV licences for over-75s.
Truly is there anything more ugly than a Leftist organisation impoverishing the elderly while enriching its managers and so-called “talent”.
The sooner the BBC is privatised, the better.
If the BBC didn’t already exist, you wouldn’t create it.
stewamax wrote:I don't habitually watch (or read about) sport.
On the few occasions I have seen Mr Lineker holding forth, I wonder how the Beeb judge 'presenter ability' because his skill in this area is amateurish. He was a fine sportsman but that is where it ends.
There are a few good 'uns such as Sue Barker who is an excellent presenter AND has the track record in tennis to back up her judgements. So why is she paid less than Lineker? Silly me: it's football, football, football ...
JoyofBrex8889 wrote:Perhaps that was intended to remind me that those rendered exempt from the unjust imposition of the telly tax should fall to their knees in gratitude at the generosity of their grand benefactors at the Beeb.
JoyofBrex8889 wrote:This was then used to fund an out-of control state broadcaster which for three generations was the preferred destination for sinecures for those scions of Oxbridge who lacked land and prospects under conditions of capitalist competition.
JoyofBrex8889 wrote:BBC hands stars £11m pay rise - while cutting free TV licences for over-75s.
Truly is there anything more ugly than a Leftist organisation impoverishing the elderly while enriching its managers and so-called “talent”.
The sooner the BBC is privatised, the better.
If the BBC didn’t already exist, you wouldn’t create it.
XFool wrote:JoyofBrex8889 wrote:BBC hands stars £11m pay rise - while cutting free TV licences for over-75s.
Truly is there anything more ugly than a Leftist organisation impoverishing the elderly while enriching its managers and so-called “talent”.
The sooner the BBC is privatised, the better.
If the BBC didn’t already exist, you wouldn’t create it.
Oh get over yourself!
You know, as well as I do, these high salaries are a feature of the contemporary, competitive capitalist(!) private enterprise society - which the BBC is necessarily a competitor in. So take your "Leftist organisation" BS with you on the way out!
Secondly, I am sure you know as well as I do, that the "Leftist" George Osborne did the BBC over on his deal with them over the license fee for over 75s. Any real world criticism of the BBC could possibly start from there.
JoyofBrex8889 wrote:Methinks you are struggling with the idea of competitive capitalism.
Competitive capitalists don’t tend to demand the government raise a specific tax to support their business do they?
JoyofBrex8889 wrote:Thank you!
But I have no objection to successful people getting well paid in the free market. If Linker is worth his salt he is free to sell his services to the highest bidder.
My objection is to the BBC bidding high with taxpayers money, when it ought to be mindful that it is a public sector organisation.
If it wants to pay extortionate amounts as a private sector organisation, that would be fine.
My issue is the BBC is not willing to risk its fat funding stream from long-suffering taxpayers, but is willing to behave like a private robber baron rewarding favoured retainers when it suits.
JoyofBrex8889 wrote:My issue is the BBC is not willing to risk its fat funding stream from long-suffering taxpayers, but is willing to behave like a private robber baron rewarding favoured retainers when it suits.
bungeejumper wrote:JoyofBrex8889 wrote:My issue is the BBC is not willing to risk its fat funding stream from long-suffering taxpayers, but is willing to behave like a private robber baron rewarding favoured retainers when it suits.
Congratulations on your persistence, if nothing else. But you've just reminded me of two TV things that used to be familiar in the good old days.
First the goldfish swimming round endlessly in their little black and white bowl, and not getting anywhere. And secondly the little white dot in the middle of the screen that didn't give up even after everyone had gone to bed....
BJ
JoyofBrex8889 wrote:Thanks! I just have to say "No" one more time than the opponent says "Yes". It is obvious that people here value and want to pay for the Beeb. That should be evidence enough that the BBC has a viable free market future without bilking the taxpayer for subsidy.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests