Reputation of the BBC being dragged through the mud

Reputation of the BBC being dragged through the mud

Reputation of the BBC being dragged through the mud

First published in News by

I wrote to you several years ago regarding the imposition of unfair taxes on the British people.

In that letter I included the following, “Perhaps we are reaching the point where we should refuse to pay these unfair taxes - another example is the TV licence, where our money is used to pay vast salaries and bonuses to BBC executives and presenters - who in their right mind would pay Jonathan Ross £6 million a year?

I support the principle of public service broadcasting, but not when our money is used to further line the pockets of the already rich. If everyone refused to pay, then changes would have to be made”.

We now have a situation where the reputation of what was one of the finest and most respected institutions in the world is being dragged through the mud, and the people who actually fund the BBC – the licence payer – has no input and is never consulted.

Who appointed former Tory minister Chris Patten – always around when lucrative jobs are being handed out – to the post of Chairman? I did not get a vote. We now discover that the outgoing Director General is to be paid a year’s salary of £450,000 for 55 days work which was riddled with incompetence.

I have nothing but respect and admiration for most of what the BBC does, but now is the time to set up a democratic structure for governance of our BBC, with regional non-political representatives elected by licence payers, and a chairman selected from amongst them.

I was attacked verbally by one reader who suggested that I refuse to pay and go to prison, and another who accused me of trying to meddle with the BBC and to leave it alone. After all the revelations of the past two months, do they still feel the same?

Mike Perry, Prescot Road, St Helens

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:02pm Thu 15 Nov 12

mikeperry109 says...

I should have added, but was conscious of the length of the letter, that the BBC should be governed by the people for the people, and the Trust which oversees the organisation be representative of the population as a whole.
There are 12 members of the Trust at present. Six are media people, one is a banker, two are civil servants, one a businessman, and two are former politicians. The Vice-Chair, Diane Cole, who agreed the £450,000 package with Patten over the phone, is ex BBC and is married to a senior BBC correspondent. These people do are not elected by the licence fee payers and need to be replaced.
I should have added, but was conscious of the length of the letter, that the BBC should be governed by the people for the people, and the Trust which oversees the organisation be representative of the population as a whole. There are 12 members of the Trust at present. Six are media people, one is a banker, two are civil servants, one a businessman, and two are former politicians. The Vice-Chair, Diane Cole, who agreed the £450,000 package with Patten over the phone, is ex BBC and is married to a senior BBC correspondent. These people do are not elected by the licence fee payers and need to be replaced. mikeperry109
  • Score: 0

4:34pm Thu 15 Nov 12

pitbullboxing says...

Good stuff Mike. Totally agree.
Good stuff Mike. Totally agree. pitbullboxing
  • Score: 0

5:08pm Thu 15 Nov 12

anthonywilson says...

Totally agree Mike.

The BBC is supposed to be a beacon of "impartiality" which is simply impossible with ex politicians (regardless of their colour and affiliation) are involved.

Are the members of the trust elected as a consequence of them having funny handshakes, or is it case of who you know, status and privilege, rather than them having the talent, ability and skills to do the job?

The majority of programming at the BBC is excellent, but it does need a better and a more democratic governance reflective of the population its supposed to serve.
Totally agree Mike. The BBC is supposed to be a beacon of "impartiality" which is simply impossible with ex politicians (regardless of their colour and affiliation) are involved. Are the members of the trust elected as a consequence of them having funny handshakes, or is it case of who you know, status and privilege, rather than them having the talent, ability and skills to do the job? The majority of programming at the BBC is excellent, but it does need a better and a more democratic governance reflective of the population its supposed to serve. anthonywilson
  • Score: 0

8:46pm Thu 15 Nov 12

pitbullboxing says...

The beeb can't do that - it might upset some Mongolian ferret keepers , and they are a minority after all , we wouldn't wan't to upset them.
The beeb can't do that - it might upset some Mongolian ferret keepers , and they are a minority after all , we wouldn't wan't to upset them. pitbullboxing
  • Score: 0

1:30pm Fri 16 Nov 12

mikeperry109 says...

anthonywilson wrote:
Totally agree Mike.

The BBC is supposed to be a beacon of "impartiality" which is simply impossible with ex politicians (regardless of their colour and affiliation) are involved.

Are the members of the trust elected as a consequence of them having funny handshakes, or is it case of who you know, status and privilege, rather than them having the talent, ability and skills to do the job?

The majority of programming at the BBC is excellent, but it does need a better and a more democratic governance reflective of the population its supposed to serve.
Well Anthony, the BBC website -
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/bbctrust/who_we_are
/trustees/appointmen
t.html - explains this, "BC Trustees are appointed by the Queen on advice from DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) ministers through the Prime Minister. When new Trustees are needed the posts are publically advertised. Trustees are chosen on merit and the process is regulated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments".
The salaries for part-time work are pretty staggering for us mere mortals to grasp - but anyone can apply.
[quote][p][bold]anthonywilson[/bold] wrote: Totally agree Mike. The BBC is supposed to be a beacon of "impartiality" which is simply impossible with ex politicians (regardless of their colour and affiliation) are involved. Are the members of the trust elected as a consequence of them having funny handshakes, or is it case of who you know, status and privilege, rather than them having the talent, ability and skills to do the job? The majority of programming at the BBC is excellent, but it does need a better and a more democratic governance reflective of the population its supposed to serve.[/p][/quote]Well Anthony, the BBC website - http://www.bbc.co.uk /bbctrust/who_we_are /trustees/appointmen t.html - explains this, "BC Trustees are appointed by the Queen on advice from DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) ministers through the Prime Minister. When new Trustees are needed the posts are publically advertised. Trustees are chosen on merit and the process is regulated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments". The salaries for part-time work are pretty staggering for us mere mortals to grasp - but anyone can apply. mikeperry109
  • Score: 0

1:44pm Fri 16 Nov 12

mikeperry109 says...

On the issue of salaries paid to Trust members, "Trustees' fees are set by the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. The Chairman's fee is set at £110,000 a year and the Vice Chairman's at £77,005 a year. Fees for the Trustees for the UK nations are set at £41,070 a year and for other Trustees at £35,935 a year.
The Chairman is expected to spend 3-4 days a week on Trust business, and the Vice Chairman about 2.5 days. Other Trustees are expected to spend about 2 days a week".
So the Vice Chair is effectively earning £154,000 a year fte, with other trustees on around £100,000 fte.
I suggest that it is time to "clear out the Augean stables". It may be a Herculean task, the incompetence, nepotism and cronyism being so deeply embedded, but it is our BBC. We own it, we pay for it, and it is time to democratise it. Cameron has the power to start the process - but has the the balls (and I don't mean Ed)?
On the issue of salaries paid to Trust members, "Trustees' fees are set by the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. The Chairman's fee is set at £110,000 a year and the Vice Chairman's at £77,005 a year. Fees for the Trustees for the UK nations are set at £41,070 a year and for other Trustees at £35,935 a year. The Chairman is expected to spend 3-4 days a week on Trust business, and the Vice Chairman about 2.5 days. Other Trustees are expected to spend about 2 days a week". So the Vice Chair is effectively earning £154,000 a year fte, with other trustees on around £100,000 fte. I suggest that it is time to "clear out the Augean stables". It may be a Herculean task, the incompetence, nepotism and cronyism being so deeply embedded, but it is our BBC. We own it, we pay for it, and it is time to democratise it. Cameron has the power to start the process - but has the the balls (and I don't mean Ed)? mikeperry109
  • Score: 0

11:58am Sat 17 Nov 12

mikeperry109 says...

There are people and organisations who abuse their positions when spending public money. The BBC is just one - have a look at the waste in procurement at the MOD.
There are people and organisations who abuse their positions when spending public money. The BBC is just one - have a look at the waste in procurement at the MOD. mikeperry109
  • Score: 0

12:15pm Tue 20 Nov 12

jumper says...

Amazing the jobs he has had since being kicked out of Bath,what does that tell us.
.
Amazing the jobs he has had since being kicked out of Bath,what does that tell us. . jumper
  • Score: 0

6:06pm Tue 20 Nov 12

mikeperry109 says...

jumper wrote:
Amazing the jobs he has had since being kicked out of Bath,what does that tell us.
.
He knows one or two funny handshakes?
[quote][p][bold]jumper[/bold] wrote: Amazing the jobs he has had since being kicked out of Bath,what does that tell us. .[/p][/quote]He knows one or two funny handshakes? mikeperry109
  • Score: 0

12:21pm Wed 21 Nov 12

jumper says...

I do but it's through to many bad passes. It terrible how we get took for whatever they want.
I do but it's through to many bad passes. It terrible how we get took for whatever they want. jumper
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree