egafd.com

Bring back John Noakes, Peter Purves and Valerie Singleton, thats what I say!!

Their shows were probably just as staged, its just they didn't have 'pay to enter' competitions then to trigger an investigation into wrong doings.

Here, Here.

If the BBC was operating in a Commercial Environment do you think J. Ross would be on ?6 million a year ?

Do you think anyone else would employ Ross, Wogan, Chris Evans etc ?

The BBC should be paid for through a subscription - just in the same way as if you wanted to subscribe to say 'Big Boobs.com' for a month, three months, six months or a year.

This would allow the viewer flexability and proper choice. Having this TV tax (compulsory licence "fee") is ancient and antiquated in this modern mutli-channel environment.

We all know where our licence "fee" is spent. Millions of quid is thrown at what is described as "corporate entertainment". This is in fact money spent on the purchase of alcohol, cigarettes and hush-hush produce.

When they had the big news conference at the BBC the other week to announce there were going to be big staff cuts because they had been given a below inflation licence fee increase, there was wine and nibbles for those attending afterwards.

I think that says everything there needs to be said about how they waste licence payers money.

When they were making the cuts they had to decide whether to get rid of Jonathan Ross, on ? 6 million a year or 300 technicians and admin workers on ? 20,000 a year. Guess what they did ?

I had to shed crocodile tears when they announced these cuts. What makes them think the crap they churn-out entitles them to an inflation-proof licence fee increase year after year?

spider wrote:

> When they were making the cuts they had to decide whether to
> get rid of Jonathan Ross, on ? 6 million a year or 300
> technicians and admin workers on ? 20,000 a year. Guess what
> they did ?

I heard Woss on his radio show the other week actually making a joke about these job sackings.