After all the scandals involving paedophiles at the BBC, their nes website offers up the latest headline. "Terry Wogan pulls out of Children In Need." 
BBC should think about the titles of news items
- Thread starter jockscott
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Here's another:
"Catalonia crisis forces Spain into unknown territory".
That'll be France, I suppose.
They don't normally use puns so I wouldn't think it intentional.
"Catalonia crisis forces Spain into unknown territory".
That'll be France, I suppose.
They don't normally use puns so I wouldn't think it intentional.
L
longdogs
If Sir Lord Smuggy Wogan isn't going to be there, I might actually watch it for once. I wonder if he will receive sick pay?
Sponsored Links
Good thing too (although the headline might be an amusing urban myth).
I was revolted to hear that with thousands of volunteers and service providers working for the charitable fundraising for nothing, Tel used to charge his "famous celebrity" fee until it became public knowledge.
I was revolted to hear that with thousands of volunteers and service providers working for the charitable fundraising for nothing, Tel used to charge his "famous celebrity" fee until it became public knowledge.
They don't normally use puns so I would think it international.
In actual fact the BBC takes 50% of everything they make, they even use the money whilst being held to make money for themselves in ''low risk investments'', so don't pick on Wogan for having no ethics, the BBC is the absolute pits when it comes to treating people right. Look hard evidence here, and all of it by their own admission. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/5ShlK3DH4J6XyLMXXTw355h/frequently-asked-questions-faq.
The organisation was and for all we know still is a safe haven for pedophile/pederast networks, no real accountability though on this front from the BEEB, and never will be, but that's a side issue anyway, let's not dwell on that.
Why people don't have the sense to bypass this money handler and give directly to the charities themselves really speaks volumes about this lazy apathetic nation in my view. Think about that in laymens terms, every £1,000,000 raised, the BBC keeps £500,000. You could argue that without the exposure and reach the BBC get the nominated charities would recieve even less, maybe so. You could also argue that in a reasonable, just and fair society there wouldn't be massive shortfalls in funding to begin with, as isn't this why we pay taxes in the first place?
I certainly will.
I just read your link, which says "As per the BBC Children in Need promise; for every penny we receive in donations, a penny will go to a project that we support."
and
"While we wait to release the funds, we invest them in low-risk investments to generate more money, which goes towards the running of the Charity. This income, along with Gift Aid and our trading income (from our sales of official merchandise and events) go towards the Charity’s running costs."
Last edited:
Then not taking into account the ethics of the organisation he works for, it basically makes it pointless me talking to you.
What contradiction ?
Unless you're looking elsewhere on that link Hawkeye, it does state that it uses low risk investments to raise money to pay for it's running costs which presumably include the cost of creating the show and other admin purposes. I assume that the camera crew and other staff aren't doing all of this for free, so why should the presenters?
According to the accounts, they gained about 50 million quids this year and operating costs being largely salaries were about four million quids. Less than ten per cent overheads is actually very very good. I assume the cost of the aired programmes is in effect a donation by Auntie Beeb.
Any links supporting this ?
We use the money raised to support a whole range of projects delivered by charities and community interest companies, all working with disadvantaged children and young people across the UK. As per the BBC Children in Need promise; for every penny we receive in donations, a penny will go to a project that we support.
50% wiped out according to them.
Contradicts nothing ? Are you hoping by basically not even bothering to state a proper rubuttal you're just hoping I'm going to forget about what you said, John ?
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
