RickMcD Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Another f**king Bitchfest! What's wrong with you people? That made I laugh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickMcD Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Well, they're St Mirren supporters, so ... Are you insinuating St,Mirren supporters are argumentative? You've got a f**kin nerve you cheeky bar steward! Supporting St.Mirren is like being home, home on the range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isle Of Bute Saint Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Because most people are capable of seeing a spend of ten k to bring in hundreds of millions as a no brainer.Which takes me back to what I wrote before. Are you telling me the public are dipping into their pockets because Terry Wogan is presenting the programme. Do you not think the public would dip into their pockets if Tom Jones presented the programme . I'm sure you are getting where I am coming from by now. In other words its a TV programme to raise cash to help children. it could be a nobody fronting the programme plenty cash would be raised because its for children In Need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isle Of Bute Saint Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Oh and its pretty tasteless to brag about your own charity work. Oh and its pretty tasteless to brag about your own charity work.The whole point is thousands of the public give time and money for nothing to help charities. Not taking 10 grand for the privilege of presenting a children In Need fund raiser is the moral and right thing to do given we are talking of a (multi millionaire) here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 I'm going to clarify a couple of things here. As already mentioned in the thread, and as the BBC confirmed years ago (all this nonsense came out in 2007), he wasn't directly paid as such, a fee was simply lumped in with his salary. He NEVER asked to be paid, he NEVER tried to negotiate a fee, and in 2007 when he was informed he asked for the fee to be stopped, which it was. The last time he was given the fee was in 2006 - a decade ago. And since then he presented the show 8 times with no fee. Honestly, it's not even difficult to get this information, confirmed directly from the BBC, so just stop all the bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 I'm going to clarify a couple of things here. As already mentioned in the thread, and as the BBC confirmed years ago (all this nonsense came out in 2007), he wasn't directly paid as such, a fee was simply lumped in with his salary. He NEVER asked to be paid, he NEVER tried to negotiate a fee, and in 2007 when he was informed he asked for the fee to be stopped, which it was. The last time he was given the fee was in 2006 - a decade ago. And since then he presented the show 8 times with no fee. Honestly, it's not even difficult to get this information, confirmed directly from the BBC, so just stop all the bullshit. Aye, you would think READING would be quite easy, obviously not. Makes you laugh/weep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isle Of Bute Saint Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 I'm going to clarify a couple of things here. As already mentioned in the thread, and as the BBC confirmed years ago (all this nonsense came out in 2007), he wasn't directly paid as such, a fee was simply lumped in with his salary. He NEVER asked to be paid, he NEVER tried to negotiate a fee, and in 2007 when he was informed he asked for the fee to be stopped, which it was. The last time he was given the fee was in 2006 - a decade ago. And since then he presented the show 8 times with no fee. Honestly, it's not even difficult to get this information, confirmed directly from the BBC, so just stop all the bullshit. I'm going to clarify a couple of things here. As already mentioned in the thread, and as the BBC confirmed years ago (all this nonsense came out in 2007), he wasn't directly paid as such, a fee was simply lumped in with his salary. He NEVER asked to be paid, he NEVER tried to negotiate a fee, and in 2007 when he was informed he asked for the fee to be stopped, which it was. The last time he was given the fee was in 2006 - a decade ago. And since then he presented the show 8 times with no fee. Honestly, it's not even difficult to get this information, confirmed directly from the BBC, so just stop all the bullshit. Utter nonsense here are the facts that Wogan has been paid for every show he has done for children in need while his co stars were paid nothing as they gave their services for free. He has hosted the BBC's Children In Need appeal for 26 years, helping to raise hundreds of millions of pounds for good causes. But Sir Terry Wogan is now at the centre of controversy over the fact that he is the only celebrity to be paid for his part in the appeal. Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act disclose that while his co-presenters give their time for free, 68-year-old Sir Terry receives £1,300 an hour to front the charity television extravaganza. Sir Terry has been paid for his efforts since the appeal - described by the BBC as the most important event on its calendar - began in 1980. In 2005, the Irishman - who earns £800,000 a year from his Radio 2 show - picked up £9,065 for his seven-hour stint as Children In Need's main presenter. Yet his co-stars Natasha Kaplinsky, Eamonn Holmes and Fearne Cotton do not receive a penny. All the musical acts that appear also waive appearance fees. There is no suggestion that Sir Terry, who owns a mansion near Windsor and a house in France, receives any money intended for charity projects, nor that he has ever claimed to be hosting the show for free. In the past, Sir Terry has made a show of donating personal items, such as his tie, to highest bidders. Other presenters and celebrities are thought to be unaware of his deal with the Corporation. Bucks Fizz singer Cheryl Baker, who has helped to present Children In Need and Eurovision Song Contest shows alongside Sir Terry, said last night: "Sir Terry has done amazing work for the charity. I am very surprised to hear he takes money for presenting and I think a lot of his fans will be as well. He is a bit of fool to have taken this money. "You would think someone in his position wouldn't need it." Details of his pay emerged after a series of enquiries made under the Freedom of Information Act. The BBC refused to divulge the information but, after an appeal, the Information Commission watchdog ruled it should provide the answers. They revealed that the costs of staging the event in 2005 were more than £1.2million - covering the use of studios, outside broadcast facilities, staff, production and making films used to promote the appeal. In a letter, the Corporation said: "The BBC paid Sir Terry a presenter payment of £9,065. Sir Terry Wogan has presented Children In Need every year since 1980. The BBC considered it appropriate to pay Sir Terry a non-commercial fee. "The BBC has made an adjustment to this fee every year to reflect inflation. This fee has never been subject to negotiation. It is paid by the BBC and does not come from the funds of the BBC Children In Need Appeal Charity. "No other BBC presenters or personalities were paid." Terry Wogan said: "I've never asked for a fee and would quite happily do it for nothing." And his spokesman said the fee was entirely at the discretion of the BBC, adding: "It has never been open to negotiation." A BBC spokesman said: "When Sir Terry first presented Children In Need in 1980, it was decided as part of his contract to pay him what, compared to the commercial cost of a presenter like him, is a nominal fee. "The fee has continued since and has never been negotiated. We regard it as an honorarium to Sir Terry. We are not ashamed to pay him it and see no reason why it should not continue. "If it wasn't for Sir Terry, Children In Need would not be what it is today." Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-439875/Wogan-celeb-paid-Children-In-Need.html#ixzz3z05Curzs Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Utter nonsense here are the facts that Wogan has been paid for every show he has done for children in need while his co stars were paid nothing as they gave their services for free. He has hosted the BBC's Children In Need appeal for 26 years, helping to raise hundreds of millions of pounds for good causes. But Sir Terry Wogan is now at the centre of controversy over the fact that he is the only celebrity to be paid for his part in the appeal. Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act disclose that while his co-presenters give their time for free, 68-year-old Sir Terry receives £1,300 an hour to front the charity television extravaganza. Sir Terry has been paid for his efforts since the appeal - described by the BBC as the most important event on its calendar - began in 1980. In 2005, the Irishman - who earns £800,000 a year from his Radio 2 show - picked up £9,065 for his seven-hour stint as Children In Need's main presenter. Yet his co-stars Natasha Kaplinsky, Eamonn Holmes and Fearne Cotton do not receive a penny. All the musical acts that appear also waive appearance fees. There is no suggestion that Sir Terry, who owns a mansion near Windsor and a house in France, receives any money intended for charity projects, nor that he has ever claimed to be hosting the show for free. In the past, Sir Terry has made a show of donating personal items, such as his tie, to highest bidders. Other presenters and celebrities are thought to be unaware of his deal with the Corporation. Bucks Fizz singer Cheryl Baker, who has helped to present Children In Need and Eurovision Song Contest shows alongside Sir Terry, said last night: "Sir Terry has done amazing work for the charity. I am very surprised to hear he takes money for presenting and I think a lot of his fans will be as well. He is a bit of fool to have taken this money. "You would think someone in his position wouldn't need it." Details of his pay emerged after a series of enquiries made under the Freedom of Information Act. The BBC refused to divulge the information but, after an appeal, the Information Commission watchdog ruled it should provide the answers. They revealed that the costs of staging the event in 2005 were more than £1.2million - covering the use of studios, outside broadcast facilities, staff, production and making films used to promote the appeal. In a letter, the Corporation said: "The BBC paid Sir Terry a presenter payment of £9,065. Sir Terry Wogan has presented Children In Need every year since 1980. The BBC considered it appropriate to pay Sir Terry a non-commercial fee. "The BBC has made an adjustment to this fee every year to reflect inflation. This fee has never been subject to negotiation. It is paid by the BBC and does not come from the funds of the BBC Children In Need Appeal Charity. "No other BBC presenters or personalities were paid." Terry Wogan said: "I've never asked for a fee and would quite happily do it for nothing." And his spokesman said the fee was entirely at the discretion of the BBC, adding: "It has never been open to negotiation." A BBC spokesman said: "When Sir Terry first presented Children In Need in 1980, it was decided as part of his contract to pay him what, compared to the commercial cost of a presenter like him, is a nominal fee. "The fee has continued since and has never been negotiated. We regard it as an honorarium to Sir Terry. We are not ashamed to pay him it and see no reason why it should not continue. "If it wasn't for Sir Terry, Children In Need would not be what it is today." Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-439875/Wogan-celeb-paid-Children-In-Need.html#ixzz3z05Curzs Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Somebody PLEASE point out the flaw in this item. A couple of clues....................article says the 68 year old and also it mentions 2005 several times. The poster above also quotes he has hosted the show for 26 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isle Of Bute Saint Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Somebody PLEASE point out the flaw in this item. A couple of clues....................article says the 68 year old and also it mentions 2005 several times. The poster above also quotes he has hosted the show for 26 years. Somebody PLEASE point out the flaw in this item. A couple of clues....................article says the 68 year old and also it mentions 2005 several times. The poster above also quotes he has hosted the show for 26 years. Oh dear read the second last sentence, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickMcD Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Of course I'm not suggesting that. I've never had a f**king argument in my life. I just have conversations where I try to show the other person why they are wrong. Right!?! I was actually suggesting that, by being a Buddie, there does have to be something wrong with you - mentally and at a base level, so to speak. If you disagree with that then you are obviously wrong and I will try to show you why. Ya auld *#@&%. ETA: f**k the deer and the antelope ... not literally, of course. : Right you! I don't mind getting called a *#@&%, but 'auld' is ageist and illegal. I have instructed my solicitor accordingly. But before I don't talk to you again, only stupid yanks could make up a song with the name of a species in it that never lived in America. And they try to make out a discouraging word was never heard? A hell of a lot of cowboys were African, Irish or Scottish and I bet they swore like troopers. American troopers. Mind you, they were mainly African, Irish or Scottish too, with a few English to boot,which is what they probably did to them. PS Do us a favour and send your full name and address so my solicitor can pass it to the police to get you arrested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) Oh dear read the second last sentence, FFS, that article is out of date ya dumbcnut. Read what ZA posted. I'm out, no point reasoning with you, you don't have the brains you were born with! http://metro.co.uk/2007/11/16/wogan-waives-children-in-need-fee-515742/ The above article, dated 2007, also states the fee was NOT from Children in Need, in fact the BBC. " Reporting of this fact omitted to mention that Wogan had donated his fee to the charity and that it had been paid from BBC resources and not from the Children in Need charity fund" Edited February 2, 2016 by faraway saint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isle Of Bute Saint Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 FFS, that article is out of date ya dumbcnut. Read what ZA posted. I'm out, no point reasoning with you, you don't have the brains you were born with! http://metro.co.uk/2007/11/16/wogan-waives-children-in-need-fee-515742/ The above article, dated 2007, also states the fee was NOT from Children in Need, in fact the BBC. Oh dear again ! The article is from ) THIS WEEKS DAILY MAIL ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaside Nipper Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 FFS, that article is out of date ya dumbcnut. Read what ZA posted. I'm out, no point reasoning with you, you don't have the brains you were born with! http://metro.co.uk/2007/11/16/wogan-waives-children-in-need-fee-515742/ The above article, dated 2007, also states the fee was NOT from Children in Need, in fact the BBC. So 'far away', yet you can feel the heat from the raw seethe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Oh dear again ! The article is from ) THIS WEEKS DAILY MAIL ) Sorry, I love you, you are really funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 So 'far away', yet you can feel the heat from the raw seethe I know, it's, well, just astounding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isle Of Bute Saint Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Sorry, I love you, you are really funny. Sorry, I love you, you are really funny. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-439875/Wogan-celeb-paid-Children-In-Need.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-439875/Wogan-celeb-paid-Children-In-Need.html Last updated at 02:59 02 February 2016 The article was written 2007'ish. Are you capable of READING the article, paying close attention to the dates/number and most of the "co-stars" they quote were involved in the mid 2000's? Run along, CBeebies must be on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaside Nipper Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Last updated at 02:59 02 February 2016 The article was written 2007'ish. Are you capable of READING the article, paying close attention to the dates/number and most of the "co-stars" they quote were involved in the mid 2000's? Run along, CBeebies must be on. I'd suggest the Clangers, but then again...................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 It must be true, the BBC told me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 It must be true, the BBC told me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Which takes me back to what I wrote before. Are you telling me the public are dipping into their pockets because Terry Wogan is presenting the programme. Do you not think the public would dip into their pockets if Tom Jones presented the programme . I'm sure you are getting where I am coming from by now. In other words its a TV programme to raise cash to help children. it could be a nobody fronting the programme plenty cash would be raised because its for children In Need. Yes of course the name behind the campaign makes a difference. It's a very well known psychological fact. It's why companies spend so much money on advertising and getting celebrity endorsement. Are you seriously suggesting the entire business world is wrong about this despite decades of evidence to suggest otherwise? BTW I'm not even going to entertain the idea that a complete nobody would be able to generate hundreds of millions of pounds. That's ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Look who's talking! Did I do it right? If he is using StuD's solicitor then you won't need to pass on your address, he'll already have tracked you down. I'd imagine... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Yes of course the name behind the campaign makes a difference. It's a very well known psychological fact. It's why companies spend so much money on advertising and getting celebrity endorsement. Are you seriously suggesting the entire business world is wrong about this despite decades of evidence to suggest otherwise? BTW I'm not even going to entertain the idea that a complete nobody would be able to generate hundreds of millions of pounds. That's ridiculous. Here..................batter your head against this................more joy.............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickMcD Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Are you using the same solicitor as Mr Dickson? You know, the imaginary one. "Auld" might be ageist and illegal but, in this case, it is also accurate. I was quite aware that the "Home Home" never lived in America, thank you. They sometimes use antelope to refer to the pronghorn but, then again, they call a bison a buffalo, an elk a moose (just so they can call something else an elk). They're not very bright sometimes. (Awaits the usual suspects to give it the "Look who's talking" patter.) My solicitor is a local bloke and if I went to him about an ageist comment that had greatly distressed me, he'd tell me , quite rightly, to f**k away off and grow up. Can you imagine ringing StuDick's solicitor and saying you were a friend of Stu? Talking about solicitors, are MacLay,Murray and Spens still known as Delay, Worry and Expense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nosferatu Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) No surprise to see that Tony Soprano gets his 'facts' from the English based right wing gutter press... And continues to believe it unquestioningly for a decade! Edited February 2, 2016 by nosferatu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.