Why should the 'tax payer ' / the BBC License fee payer pay the fine for!
Question:
So, on top of Fred The Shred, we gotta pay the ￡150,000 BBC fine for Woss and Bland's outburst on Radio 2!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Bland at least did the honourable thing and left, the innocent, 'low paid' BBC Radio 2 controller fell {was pushed} on her sword!.
Woss still got his job, still laughing about his suspension {and hence the phone messages} and he's still getting paid his obscene wages!.
I say Woss should pay the ￡150k fine, plus the BBC legal costs and then cost of the time spent on the case by of-com {or what ever quango is involved} - I do not want any more of my license fee wasted because of woss and bland!.Www@Enter-QA@Com
Bland at least did the honourable thing and left, the innocent, 'low paid' BBC Radio 2 controller fell {was pushed} on her sword!.
Woss still got his job, still laughing about his suspension {and hence the phone messages} and he's still getting paid his obscene wages!.
I say Woss should pay the ￡150k fine, plus the BBC legal costs and then cost of the time spent on the case by of-com {or what ever quango is involved} - I do not want any more of my license fee wasted because of woss and bland!.Www@Enter-QA@Com
Answers:
Technically, the British Broadcasting Corporation should pay the fine imposed on the two broadcasters because they hired them, and the broadcasters were representing their employers when operating in the capactiy of broadcasters on their shows!. If they wish to pull off these pranks in private they can pay for the consequences of their actions in private as well!. It is true, that if the British Broadcasting Corporation is a corown or public corporation the public actually will be fitting most of the bill!. The fine must be a drop in the bucket in comparison to the salaries these two men were drawing from their employment with the company!. The public must have been spared much of the expense of the fine imposed on the two men just by their absence follwing the suspension of one and the dismissal of the other!. If they were really making in the line of ￡ 6,000,000 per year a a suspension of a few weeks can make a difference!.
I am really not familiar with these two dorks, but after playing the video of their prank call I wonder what made them worth their salaries!.Www@Enter-QA@Com
I am really not familiar with these two dorks, but after playing the video of their prank call I wonder what made them worth their salaries!.Www@Enter-QA@Com
For the same reason as the 'tax payer' / HM Treasury should get the fine!. It just goes round in circles from one Government agency to another!. During Wossie's three month suspension, the BBC must have saved a lot more than ￡150,000 by not paying that idiot's salary!. It's only right that they should hand some of it over to central Government!.Www@Enter-QA@Com
Hi i'm not to sure about Brand and Ross and if it's their fault we're made to pay tv license fee's, but i i most certainly think it's a disgrace!.
I don't watch tv so really don't see why i should pay for a service i don't use, but as i have a tv set at home and a communal alriel then it's been told to myself that i must pay!.
Then if i wanted to watch tv i could so on my laptop for free!.!. !. !. !. !. don't get at all !! Chelle x x xWww@Enter-QA@Com
I don't watch tv so really don't see why i should pay for a service i don't use, but as i have a tv set at home and a communal alriel then it's been told to myself that i must pay!.
Then if i wanted to watch tv i could so on my laptop for free!.!. !. !. !. !. don't get at all !! Chelle x x xWww@Enter-QA@Com
Not only should they be made to pay the fine from their own grossly
inflated incomes, they should have been banned from the screen
foreverWww@Enter-QA@Com
inflated incomes, they should have been banned from the screen
foreverWww@Enter-QA@Com
wasn't this question or similar asked a few hours ago!?!?
they should pay the fine themselves!. End of!.Www@Enter-QA@Com
they should pay the fine themselves!. End of!.Www@Enter-QA@Com