
and are the reason she is "famous" and on here.
Sorry, was that not #obvious?
( , Tue 28 Aug 2012, 12:41, Reply)

and I have no idea one way or the other on that - it tells us nothing at all about what she does in any other context. It's hardly as if BBC jobs are handed out on spec - and so it's reasonable to believe that she does do something.
As for your hard-earned cash - let's break it down a bit.
It's a bit hard to find any record of her salary; but based on the figures I've found for other presenters after a bit of googling, it's probably in the region of £100k. But - to give you as much room as possible - let's double that to be on the safe side.
The BBC's income from licence fees is £3.6bn. This means that her salary represents a massive 1/200th of a percent of that income - or, to put it another way, one twenty-thousandth.
The TV licence currently costs £145.50. So your contribution to her pay comes in at £145.50/20000. Which is less than three-quarters of a penny per year.
So if you're worried about your money being wasted, you could at least console yourself with the thought that - at worst - this terrible drain on your resources comes in at the sort of money that you could have earned while doing your job instead of reading this post to begin with.
( , Tue 28 Aug 2012, 13:33, Reply)

Assuming that you're an adult earning the minimum wage, you're on £6.08/hour - which is as much as to say that it takes you (0.0075/6.08)x3600 seconds - so 4.44 seconds - to earn three-quarters of a penny. It takes less time if you're on more than the NMW.
I reckon it takes about 20 seconds to read that post - which means that you'd've been able to earn three quarters of a penny about 4 times. If anyone should be concerned about a waste of earnings, it's your employer.
( , Tue 28 Aug 2012, 14:34, Reply)

My school arithmetic days passed a loooooooooooooooong time ago; I was worried that I'd made some silly error in the calculation.
( , Tue 28 Aug 2012, 15:21, Reply)