There have been a billion words written about the gender pay gap in salaries paid by the BBC announced yesterday and a little discussion about the ethnic pay gap which is equally as bad, if not worse, than the gender one.

But maybe the question should be what we want from a television and radio service that we are forced to pay for, maybe even if it should become a subscription service or forced to take advertising.

I'll admit to watching very little on the BBC or BBC Scotland. I watch Dr Who, Match of the Day and the tinky version we get of Scottish Football called Sportscene. I rarely listen to any of the radio output and didn't watch much of Wimbledon at all.

I rarely watch BBC news as it's about the worst news delivered, up there with Fox in my opinion, it's a propaganda machine that is about as Fake as it gets. It not only lies, it lacks balance and appears to be designed to maintain the UK system. Just look at their Royal coverage to see what I mean, I just don't sit and watch it anymore as life is too short.

Therefor, should the debate we are having not be about getting rid of it, selling it off. Now people will argue that tv will get worse, it can't get any worse in my opinion. Yes the BBC commissions some good nature programmes and documentaries I am told and some drama, but a drip of quality is not enough and again they can be part of the broadcasting license in the commercial agreements.

That can also still be funded via the commercial broadcasters and the argument that not everyone has Sky or Virgin is no longer relevant with freeview being around. Some people argue that we would lose large sporting events like Wimbledon and the Six Nations, so. Minority sports at best that again can still be paid for in a different way and on other broadcasters.

For me the BBC should purely be a public service broadcaster, not competing against the commercial companies if we must have it at all. Maybe it should just be news, and documentaries or educational.

Personally I would sell it off as it's not been fit for purpose for years, it was always a British propaganda machine to keep the natives in check and to promote the British way. We all saw the coverage during the referendum debate that was nothing short of a disgrace, and the political coverage in Scotland remains some of the worst anywhere, lacking balance and integrity at every turn.

I appreciate that what I think means little to anyone or the BBC, make a complaint and see the response you get and you will see how much your opinion matters. The best we can do though is to not pay the license fee which is illegal if you dare to own a tv, I have had people from abroad think we are mad putting up with that shit, or we can just not watch it which is what I tend to do.

If less and less people watch or listen to it then it will become an irrelevance that eventually even the politicians will have to take a stand on. For me the BBC is just pretty much rubbish that I resent being forced to pay for.



  1. trispw

    The whole licence thing is wrong. Why do we pay the BBC for the privilege of watching Dave or ITV3?

    The BBC is a horrible organisation. Of course, it is always beholden to the British government and the English Culture Department because they are the people who decide how much money it can charge in what is, for most intents and purposes, a poll tax.

    Over the years, this “law unto itself” organisation has been the home of some utterly disgusting behaviour, which it seems everyone knew about, except the licence payers. The Saville and Harris types were the worst but who knows how many others were engaging in sexual perversions. At the very least the “artistic licence” they felt they had because they worked in a ‘creative’ atmosphere meant that breast fondling was routine.

    No wonder Mr Hall wanted to keep the disparities in wages secret.

    Why on earth do we pay people that kind of money anyway? Gary Lineker is a likeable fellow, and I’m sure he’s knowledgeable, but why is he paid so much. And Chris Evans? What?

    I’m not going to judge them individually because entertainment is a matter of taste. There were those who liked Jimmy Saville, and some people really like Eastenders. That I didn’t and don’t is a matter of personal taste.

    But even your favourite personalities don;t deserve to be paid that much money when a nurse is earning £28,000 for keeping you alive.

    If the government requires a propaganda channel then I say fine. Pay for it out of general taxation, and let it be one radio station and one tv station.

    I’m not a believer in privatisation, but if ever there was something that should be privatised it is the state broadcaster with its dozens of channels and stations.

    Let’s see how much advertising they can attract and thus how much they can commercially afford to pay the likes of Graham Norton.

    • Anonymous


      The list goes on and on. The BBC has had its day now, there was an argument for it even 10 years ago but not anymore. It doesn’t serve the public, only it’s self and it’s over inflated ego and snobbery.

      I would get rid in a minute from the public purse, let it survive or not in the market. If it is so good then it will flourish and if not fade away. Either way I wouldn’t miss it and I don’t suppose many would other than those over paid by it.

      Thanks for commenting.


    • andimac

      Tris, a nurse may earn £28,000 a year as you say, but Derek Thompson is paid £350,000 – £399,999 per annum by BBC for playing the part of a nurse in Casualty. To be fair, he plays an Emergency Nurse Practitioner but I still think the NHS would get a lot of ENPs for what the BBC pays an actor for pretending to be one. BBC – a suitable case for treatment or a case for “Do not resuscitate”?

    • Anonymous


      It’s a good article and has been raised before. I think I mentioned it in a blog during Indy Ref concerning the likes of politicians and reporters being in the same schools and posh universities. It’s a joke and we should not put up with it but I’ve complained to the BBC in the past but they don’t care. They need sold off.

      Thanks for commenting.


  2. Brian

    It’s meaningless. Another distraction from the huge pay gap in the public services, the huge bonuses still paid to bankers and to utility chiefs. How much did that unecessary GE just cost the country? And another distraction from the real scandal – how much the BBC raise from Scottish license owners, and then how much the BBC ploughs back into Scotland. These are the things that should be on the front pages.

    • Anonymous

      I don’t mind the GE so much as it really weakened May and forced her into a situation that will finish her and maybe her government.

      The BBC, as they are forced to release information, are slowly on the way out. There will come a time when people will just have had enough of paying for what is a large group of people delivering little but getting rich at our expense. I totally agree that there is nothing but abuse at lots of levels but 10 years ago we would never have gotten this information so it is at least a little step in the right direction. It’s just a joke that in this country we have to fight for everything unless your a toff or a Windsor.

      Thanks for commenting.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.