They only disclose it because they have to. What interests me is, what exactly is he doing with the BBC?
Over the last 10 years technology like the web, podcasts, home broadband, iPlayer etc have had a lot of impact on the BBC. It makes sense to have someone on the board who has an engineering background and experience managing complex technology projects.
They seem to have a wide range of people from different backgrounds and industries. 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?
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.
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?
License fee.
Call it tax-like, but it is not a tax, and mistaken terminology is unhelpful when campaigning to change the licence fee.
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.