Those of you in the UK torn between Poldark and Victoria must wonder why the BBC, which needs no advertising revenue, for whom ratings are irrelevant, have quite deliberately attempted to sabotage ITV's big, quality, commercial offering. Actually, I suspect you already know why.
The debate this morning on R4's BH over the new requirement for the BBC to disclose all salary earners with a wedge of over £150k revealed with a startling honestly exactly who the BBC is working for - and the answer is itself. The sole argument made against the high earnings disclosure was that it would be 'unfair' to the BBC as ITV and Sky could offer the top earners more money and poach them.
Bugger the BBC. The people who watch TV really couldn't give a monkey's fart which channel their fave slebs appear on - why should we protect the BBC? In fact if the BBC uses its compulsory tax funding to find and nurture talent and then to pass it on to the commercial channels is actually the best solution for everyone; the BBC doesn't waste tax money, the commercial channels are more attractive to advertisers, make more revenue, and can therefore afford to pay the talent more AND to commission more quality TV such as Victoria. Everyone's a winner - except the non-productive dags at the beeb who justify their own leech-like salaries by the amount their talent earns. The overall effect will be to reduce waste, duplication and redundancy at the BBC.
With the new Charter now written, and to be published this week, we will see what else is in store for the bloated Behemoth. But the reason of course that the BBC is using our tax money to sabotage a commercial company is that it is scared - for so long it has trumpeted that only the BBC can make quality drama, and that this is therefore the major justification for its cost, that if ITV's ratings give this the lie, they will truly have something to worry about.