If he was there to wield influence, he's not done very well this time - otherwise why would the BBC report on possible foul play by his former company? Why would they explicitly mention his connection with the BBC?

> If he was there to wield influence, he's not done very well this time - otherwise why would the BBC report on possible foul play by his former company

Well it such a big story now, they can hardly not run with it can they?

> Why would they explicitly mention his connection with the BBC?

Again, because they have to. I find it fascinating that private industry leaders would be involved, non-executive or otherwise, in the running of a state broadcasting company. The BBC is spending British taxpayer's money after all. Does not seem impartial.

> The BBC is spending British taxpayer's money after all.

There used to be funding from the Foreign Office for BBC World Service, but that has now ended. There's a tiny payment from Department of Work and Pensions to cover the discount for people over 70.

What other tax-payer money is used for the BBC?

> What other tax-payer money is used for the BBC?

License fee.

How is the licence fee a tax?

Watching any live TV in the UK, even when avoiding all BBC channels, is subject to this mandatory payment. Hence it is, by any reasonable definition, a tax.

So it's a voluntary charge, payable by anyone who receives live tv in the UK? Collected by Capita, and paid to the BBC but not to the government?

Call it tax-like, but it is not a tax, and mistaken terminology is unhelpful when campaigning to change the licence fee.

In that sense VAT is also a voluntary charge. You can avoid it by eating nothing.

Lots of food is VAT free or zero rated.

The real difference between VAT and the TV licence is that VAT goes to the government via the Inland Revenue (?), while the TV licence goes to the BBC via Capita. Because it doesn't go to the government it's not a tax. I've already said it's tax-like.