Cutbacks at the BBC - Who should go?

[Gromit]

Big job cuts at the BBC. Which of the estemed gathering of 'stars' should be first to go. Thier annual salaries are in brackets.


Terry Wogan (�800,000)
Jonathan Ross (�6,000,000)
Chris Evans (�540,000
Chris Moyles (�630,000
Graham Norton (�2,500,000)
Jeremy Paxman (�1,000,000)
Jo Whiley (�250,000
Sara Cox (�200,000)
Steve Wright (Not disclosed)
David Walliams (�1,000,000)
Matt Lucas (�1,000,000)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/70504 40.stm

[Oakleaf51]

Sack any one earning over 150G's
Thats still rich, but not stupid money.
Loads of talent waiting for a chance that could do the jobs for a lot less.
Lokk in you local pub to see what I mean.
Mines full of dead funny clever witty switched on characters that would do these jobs standing on their heads.

[LeMarchand]

All of them. I doubt whether anyone should be getting paid that sort of money, let alone talentless pond scum like most of that list.

Ross in particular should be removed from our screens immediately, along with Jeremy Clarkson (who should be on that list, even if they pay him 10p/year it's too much).

[I.Don No]

If, as has been said elsewhere, the BBC will make fewer programmes and in their words better quality ones, that inevitably means more repeats.

Now, as I see it, we have already paid for these 'repeats' to have been made in the first place and it seems we will have to continue to pay for them to be shown even if we, ourselves, do not watch them.

The BBC has to get its financial situation with regard to who gets paid what sorted out soon or I think very many more licence payers will revolt at having to pay to receive less programmes i.e. fewer new ones being made.

I fail to see why we are taxed by the BBC even if we do not watch any of their programmes. It is high time they took adverts (after first sorting out their finances as above) or were a subscription only service, then perhaps we would see exactly how popular the BBC actually is.