« Estonia v Krugman: It may work in practice, but it will never work in theory | Main | The IMF: another institution we can no longer trust »

05 October 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

John Hayes



I'm just speechless. Not only do we have to accept the outrage of mandatory funding for an organisation which throws millions into chasing sports coverage like F1, and rewards mediocre journalists, TV/radio presenters and management with premiership footballer-like salaries, but we also find out they are tolerating widespread tax avoidance schemes among their staff. When are we going to see some leaders with integrity and backbone emerge to start purging the system of this rottenness?

Terry Smith

Robert: I find the hypocrisy breathtaking. One of the Guardian columnists recently proposed a levy on broadband subscribers to fund newspapers-like the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/23/broadband-levy-save-newspapers These people are so arrogant that they think they should be funded by us compulsorily like the BBC. Any government worth its salt would surely stop the licence fee and leave the BBC to fund itself.


Hypocrites can never admit to being wrong, because they are hypocrites. Their modus operandi, as I'm sure you know, is to seek to discredit those who expose them, or are a perceived threat to exposing them.

We have yet to find a leader or leaders in Government with the necessary courage and moral fibre, prepared to fight the double standards and hypocrisy that is endemic at the BBC, or to investigate and curtail their profligate spending habits.


I totally agree with your point on hypocrisy by the BBC and I would say newspapers generally including the Guardian. Years ago I attended an event that the BBC reported on, it was like I was on Mars and the BBC was on Venus or even another galaxy!The BBC has on many occasions not provided news, just opinion, when challenged they just change the subject. I am one of those who used to support a licence fee but not any more.

I long ago stopped buying newspapers as stories to enlighten readers were in fact mostly lies and distortions to suit the editor or owner, they then hide behind freedom of the press. Despite the obvious bad points of the internet, we now have access to finding out the truth of hyped up media stories. Even the FT which back in the 60s and 70s was almost pure fact based, is now full of misleading and poor quality reporting.
I very much enjoy your site, more power to your elbow.


I agree the Guardian article really ought to have a full disclosure statement that indicates its own use of offshore tax havens (regardless of whether it has MPs on its Board).

With regard to the BBC article, it seems to be a balanced report and spends a reasonable number of inches describing its own role in the story. I'm not sure how I would write this differently.

OTOH, the Guardian article about a contribution to save newspapers is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've read in a long time (thanks for the good laugh!).

John pd

Love it.


There is a great clip of an MP or ex MP, it may have been Lord Falconer being harassed live on TV by a news reader about how much MP's earned. He turned the tables and insisted she told him how much she earned. When she finally replied I nearly fell off my seat. She said she was paid £90k for reading the news. The world has gone mad, I know many people who would pay to read the news !!. This is tax payers money. And as for Jonathan Ross being paid millions it beats me !!. In Norway the most popular book published each year is the earnings and tax returns of all the population. That would soon sort out the overpaid tax funded salaries there would be hell to pay if we really knew what they are paying themselves with our money.


If these "civil servants" and BBC bods are employed by their own companies and not by either the Civil Service or the BBC then logically they do not qualify for the Civil Service Pension or BBC pensions? Sorry, I forgot that logic does not apply here!

Terry Smith

PK: I don’t remember mentioning pensions.



BBC a Private Company now ?
So no freedom of information access



Here are the names of the"experts" on climate, the BBC spent (wasted) £ thousands on lawyers to prevent the release of, in their formulation on their stance / agenda on climate change reporting.
(Hardly a Scientist between them)
What do you think ?


Terry Smith

BLACK PEARL: Thank you for that. I have put this up as a blog post as I did not want it to be lost in the comment section.

The comments to this entry are closed.