The new BBC boss, a (IMHO) ‘liar’ like the old BBC boss?

We’re all meant to be pretty excited by the fact that a businesswoman,�Rona Fairhead, has become the new Chair of the�BBC Trust. But could it be the usual case of ‘meet the new boss, same as the old boss’?

If I understand correctly, the Chair of the BBC Trust is meant to represent licence-fee payers and ensure we get good value for money from the bloated, over-paid, over-staffed, paedophile-protectors who run the BBC.

So what do we know so far? Firstly that Ms Fairhead wants to protect the system of funding the BBC through us suckers being forced to pay for a licence to view programmes many people don’t watch any more.�In a session with Parliament’s Culture Committee, the good lady said the current �145.50 fee represents �good value� for money, given the breadth of services the BBC provides and that the BBC�s funding model provides �complete clarity and accountability� for how money is spent.

So, it rather look like the fragrant Ms Fairhead has already made up her mind about what we worthless plebs deserve from the BBC and how much we should pay.

But is it value for money that almost 100 BBC bosses are paid over �150,000 a year? Is it value for money that BBC sent 272 staff to Brazil for a month for the football World Cup when all TV footage is provided by local TV crews? Is it value for money that the BBC sends around 300 staff to the Glastonbury music festival? �Is it value for money that several top BBC bosses were given redundancy payments three to four times higher than necessary (with one receiving over �1 million) and nobody has been punished for what amounts to millions of pounds in theft? Is it value for money that we licence-payers have forked out millions in legal fees to try to hide the BBC’s cover-up of widespread paedophilia and sexual abuse?

Has Ms Fairhead carried out a detailed financial analysis of the BBC to see whether it does actually provide ‘value for money’? I suspect not.

Is there any difference at all between Fairhead and the disastrous Chris Patten? Or are they both (IMHO) lying, self-serving establishment stooges, out to enrich themselves and puff up their own egos and to hell with the fools who have to fund their gilded existence? (click to see more clearly)

How about letting the punters decide if the BBC is good value for money or not? After all, what other consumer product has the right to compel you to buy it? On pain of imprisonment at that, uniquely among debts, even if you don’t actually use the product.

If the BBC is as wonderful as its apologists claim, there will be no problem for the BBC becoming a subscription-only service. On the other hand, if we are allowed free choice and decide we don’t want the broadcast version of the Guardian, all sneering, preaching and self-righteous snobbery, why should we be forced to pay for it?

Why the need, Ms Fairhead,�to compel people to buy something that is supposedly such “good value”?