[j_col]

> It's a non executive role, so I assume it's more for 'experience and wisdom' in their respective fields and expertise than anything else.

He's clearly there to wield influence. What other possible reason?

[johneth]

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?

[j_col]

> 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.

[DanBC]

> 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?

[j_col]

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

License fee.

[DanBC]

How is the licence fee a tax?

[accountoftheday]

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.