1.  
   TREVOR from CHESHIRE says:

   Nov 23, 04:17

   Ross definately should have been sacked, perhaps in view of their decision , the whole board of governors should go too. I for one will not be tuning in to radio2 whilst he is there . We all call the fat cats in industry for huge unjustifable wages , what about him ? and the millions he is paid from our licence fees ?, perhaps the licence payers should have the last word . I mean he is talentless , his whole presenting style is based on sarcasm, sexual innuendo and not the end of the pier variety , he`s crude , supeficial and everything I loathe about what this country has sunk to . Alternative humour ( Brand ) there is nothing even vaguely funny about , what happened to the saying , " Sarcasm is the lowest form of witt ". No inconclusion if it were possible I would withdraw from the B.B.C , it used to be an organisation that we could be proud of , not anymore , by the way Iseem to remember Ross along with others being " Labour Lovies " invited to parties at No 10 by Blair , obviously cast from the same mould .
2.  
   Dave from Manchester says:

   Nov 23, 02:59

   No one should under the current license fee system be paid a salary of six million at the BBC which is funded by license payers' money, that money could be much better spent. A fairer system would be to scrap the license fee, scramble the signal and make each channel pay per view / listen. Let people choose to pay only for what interests them instead of forcing them (because they own a television set) to pay for channels they don’t watch or listen to or to fund the BBC at all if it doesn't carry the programming that interests them, why should they be forced to pay for it just because they have a television set and would only watch channels for example paid for by advertising? It isn't a fair system and doesn't represent good value for money for some television viewers.
3.  
   Dave from Manchester says:

   Nov 23, 02:54

   No one should under the current license fee system be paid a salary of six million at the BBC which is funded by license payers' money, that money could be much better spent. A fairer system would be to scrap the license fee, scramble the signal and make each channel pay per view / listen. Let people choose to pay only for what interests them instead of forcing them (because they own a television set) to pay for channels they don’t watch or listen to or to fund the BBC at all if it doesn't carry the programming that interests them, why should they be forced to pay for it just because they have a television set and would only watch channels for example paid for by advertising? It isn't a fair system and doesn't represent good value for money for some television viewers.
4.  
   MICK from coventry says:

   Nov 23, 01:52

   Don't watch the show. He wont last long when the viewer figures are checked out.
5.  
   gary king from glasgow says:

   Nov 23, 01:52

   whos laughing now, NO he should get the sack, i liked his show but the way he and his clown of a pal were carrying on was tasteless , he should do the right thing,

Comments page 9 of 239