|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2017 21:18:08 GMT
If any political party had the appetite to privatise the Beeb or make them take adverts then £165 a year saving for people would be a big vote winner.
|
|
185 posts
|
Post by boybooshka on Jul 19, 2017 21:20:18 GMT
Parsley, you are truly oblivious to how life is for most people aren't you? Are you a Tory cabinet minister by any chance?
Quite frankly I find these salaries obscene, given that the BBC is a public body and how hard life is for so many people, people who are legally obliged to pay a licence fee. Nobody needs to earn those amounts of money at all.
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Jul 19, 2017 21:56:54 GMT
If any political party had the appetite to privatise the Beeb or make them take adverts then £165 a year saving for people would be a big vote winner. It might be, but things that are vote winners are not always a good thing and vice versa. It's clearly having the desired effect, publishing these salaries. I'm sure certain people will be getting grief on Twitter for their salary and I can imagine that in a year's time certain people will have left their jobs. Some people will see that as a victory, but it will only be a temporary victory.
|
|
2,954 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 19, 2017 22:03:15 GMT
|
|
5,582 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 19, 2017 22:23:19 GMT
2 problems here 1. The amount of the salaries 2. Women not being paid same as men for same job as in the Today prog on Radio 4
I expect Claudia has clout cos Strictly is the highest audience figures for BBC ( or one of ) and this is a factor as said by bloke on Newsnight just now. It was nice watching Kirsty stopping herself from giving him a clout... We all have our faves. For me Graham Norton is worth every penny... But when you hear that a kid needs £100 a day medication to live and has to fight for it in court then I wish my licence fee would go to him.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2017 23:02:19 GMT
I'm really surprised to hear that Gary Barlow is only earning £250,000 a year for his BBC work. I mean after tax that's just under... £250,000 a year.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 19, 2017 23:11:54 GMT
I'm really surprised to hear that Gary Barlow is only earning £250,000 a year for his BBC work. I mean after tax that's just under... £250,000 a year. LOLOLOLOL
|
|
2,051 posts
|
Post by infofreako on Jul 19, 2017 23:11:58 GMT
I'm really surprised to hear that Gary Barlow is only earning £250,000 a year for his BBC work. I mean after tax that's just under... £250,000 a year. Probably just over £250,000 a year when you factor in any expenses loopholes hes found
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2017 23:12:29 GMT
Most companies will publish what their directors earn - councils, Civil Service, Public Service pay for senior staff is published too, so I don't see what the issue with the BBC publishing these figures are. The likes of Evans, Lineker and to a lesser extent Norton are multi millionaires any way!
The BBC's main gripe is that rival broadcasters can see who gets or doesn't get what an make offers accordingly.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 19, 2017 23:13:24 GMT
If any political party had the appetite to privatise the Beeb or make them take adverts then £165 a year saving for people would be a big vote winner. Live in the U.S. and you soon be very glad of the T.V. License.
|
|
893 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Jul 19, 2017 23:26:05 GMT
If any political party had the appetite to privatise the Beeb or make them take adverts then £165 a year saving for people would be a big vote winner. Really so why has no party ever tried? The Tories would love to dismantle the BBC to make life easier for Murdoch but even they realise it remains very popular and there is no real appetite to destroy it. That means instead they do stuff like this to erode public confidence in the BBC in the same way they emphasize when the NHS has problems in order to make the argument that these institutions are out of date and can no longer be maintained all so they and their friends can make more money out of all of us. They go on and on about the BBC but when is one of them going to raise the issue of tax dodgers like the owner of the Daily Mail a much bigger threat to public funds.
|
|
1,329 posts
|
Post by CG on the loose on Jul 19, 2017 23:27:38 GMT
We can't really see what is happening because as said above some are paid through production companies. It does seem a bit murky to me trawling through other people's earnings but then if they get our dosh via the licence fee then I suppose we are entitled to know. So does anyone know what the 'lower' ranks earn, the reporters like that gloomy girl in the flak jacket and the brilliant one who reports on Russian affairs? They seem to me to be the real talent of the BBC. I think this revelation will make them all decide to go through production companies and other channels to be paid and then we will never know! Re BIB, I'm not really sure we are... you could say the same of anything we pay for. Does paying for a meal in a restaurant entitle us to know the chef's wages, or the owner of the restaurant, or the Chief Exec of the hotel chain it's part of? The law requires disclosure of data that will highlight gender gap (numbers of people of each gender in each pay band), but not the naming of names. I too find it murky. Also, as many have already said, this disclosure is only half (if that) of the BBC story and made in isolation. With no comparable disclosures from the commercial sector, and a lack of like for like comparability within the data that HAS been disclosed, it is pretty meaningless. Yes, there's some big numbers in there, but there are in every industry/sector - big doesn't automatically equal overpaid. We live in a market economy. Does anyone think that the ensemble in a show should all earn the same as the leads? That all leads should be paid the same, regardless of experience, talent, box office draw, size of production, venue, etc? Why is this any different? The Beeb pays less than the commercial sector, but if we demand high quality programming from it, they must do what they can to secure and retain talent. What does concern me is the gender and ethnicity pay gaps and they clearly have some work to do there. But again, they are hardly unique in that. I confess I'm in something of a grump today for reasons totally disconnected with this subject, but I'm really getting quite hacked off with all the indignant shouts of "how much?" I'll shut up now - and lynette, none of the above is aimed at you, you just inadvertently lit the blue touch paper ;-)
|
|
893 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Jul 19, 2017 23:28:13 GMT
Most companies will publish what their directors earn - councils, Civil Service, Public Service pay for senior staff is published too, so I don't see what the issue with the BBC publishing these figures are. The likes of Evans, Lineker and to a lesser extent Norton are multi millionaires any way! The BBC's main gripe is that rival broadcasters can see who gets or doesn't get what an make offers accordingly. Yes which potentially could lead to inflation of salaries. What a genius move from the government. But then this isn't about transparency this is about trying to erode public trust in the BBC.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 19, 2017 23:35:32 GMT
For those trying to claim that the BBC should be unique in doing this because 'public money', where do you think ITV, Sky etc get their funds from? Subscriptions from....the public. Advertisers who make their money from......the public. Etc. Every single product and service is, in the end, paid for by public money, or maybe the complainers actually do think there is a magic money tree.
|
|
1,329 posts
|
Post by CG on the loose on Jul 19, 2017 23:40:56 GMT
If any political party had the appetite to privatise the Beeb or make them take adverts then £165 a year saving for people would be a big vote winner. It might be, but things that are vote winners are not always a good thing and vice versa. It's clearly having the desired effect, publishing these salaries. I'm sure certain people will be getting grief on Twitter for their salary and I can imagine that in a year's time certain people will have left their jobs. Some people will see that as a victory, but it will only be a temporary victory. ... to go to higher paid jobs with broadcasters who won't disclose their salaries. As you say, a temporary victory.
|
|
893 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Jul 19, 2017 23:41:19 GMT
And at the moment advertisers are currently pissing away a ton of your money on digital advertising that people don't like with zero proof it actually works and in a completely untransparent market.
|
|
1,329 posts
|
Post by CG on the loose on Jul 19, 2017 23:43:57 GMT
For those trying to claim that the BBC should be unique in doing this because 'public money', where do you think ITV, Sky etc get their funds from? Subscriptions from....the public. Advertisers who make their money from......the public. Etc. Every single product and service is, in the end, paid for by public money, or maybe the complainers actually do think there is a magic money tree. THIS!!!
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Jul 19, 2017 23:46:51 GMT
It might be, but things that are vote winners are not always a good thing and vice versa. It's clearly having the desired effect, publishing these salaries. I'm sure certain people will be getting grief on Twitter for their salary and I can imagine that in a year's time certain people will have left their jobs. Some people will see that as a victory, but it will only be a temporary victory. ... to go to higher paid jobs with broadcasters who won't disclose their salaries. As you say, a temporary victory. Yes and as the BBC loses familiar, trustworthy faces, and loses more and more viewers, people will be less and less willing to pay the licence fee. Job done.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 20, 2017 0:24:54 GMT
It might be, but things that are vote winners are not always a good thing and vice versa. It's clearly having the desired effect, publishing these salaries. I'm sure certain people will be getting grief on Twitter for their salary and I can imagine that in a year's time certain people will have left their jobs. Some people will see that as a victory, but it will only be a temporary victory. ... to go to higher paid jobs with broadcasters who won't disclose their salaries. As you say, a temporary victory. That is the long-term plan. The only way to truly get rid of the BBC is to make it unpopular, the only way to truly make it unpopular is to strip it of its talent - take away the 'entertain' pillar of 'inform, educate and entertain' so that watching the BBC is a chore rather than a pleasure. The ratings will plummet, the awards dry up, and before you know it there are cries of 'why are we paying for a service that no-one watches?!' This has always been the long-term plan - it's why you always see the Murdoch-owned newspapers trying to argue that the BBC shouldn't provide any service that the commercial market can, or in other words, that they should only do the unpopular stuff. At the moment, the BBC runs regular tests. They get volunteers to live without any BBC services for a time period, and see how many of them would be happy to continue to live without it when the time is up. People who try it overwhelmingly miss the BBC services and want them back. I'm seeing so much of the comments under articles about this story that say 'But I'm FORCED to pay for it.' Of course, they're not forced to pay for it - if you don't watch broadcast TV you don't have to pay for it at all. The fact is that the vast majority of those people can't actually contemplate living without BBC services. Even the ones that claim they watch Sky or Netflix or Amazon Prime instead would find most of their favourite shows disappearing if they couldn't watch anything produced or funded in some way by the BBC, or featuring/made by people who were discovered and nurtured by the BBC. The BBC is a huge part of the reason why this country punches above its weight in the creative industries.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 20, 2017 5:44:39 GMT
The most egregious of these people is Lineker. He is paid £1.75 million a year by the BBC to present sports programmes which is several times more than they pay equivalent sports presenters like Claire Balding. And that is for a part-time job - he also presents similar programmes for their direct commercial rivals BT Sports presumably for a similar amount. On top of that, unlike BBC news presenters, he is allowed to advertise products hence his long-running multi-million pound campaign for Walkers. And he has his own production company which sells content to the BBC for payments that are not included in this disclosure. And then, not content with all that, it has been reported he participates in aggressive tax avoidance schemes involving exploiting a tax loophole in film investments. However, a few anti-Tory tweets is enough to set him up as a hero of some on the Left.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 20, 2017 5:51:10 GMT
For those trying to claim that the BBC should be unique in doing this because 'public money', where do you think ITV, Sky etc get their funds from? Subscriptions from....the public. Advertisers who make their money from......the public. Etc. Every single product and service is, in the end, paid for by public money, or maybe the complainers actually do think there is a magic money tree. It is unique because it is funded by a non-optional license fee and if I don't pay it I am subject to a criminal prosecution (10% of all prosecutions in the country) and could go to jail (hundreds have). Given that I'm very interested to know how they spend that money. For a similar reason I'm interested in knowing what specific named NHS chief executives get paid relative to nurses - would anyone here arguing for BBC secrecy on pay be happy for it also to apply to the NHS ?
|
|
18,776 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 20, 2017 6:41:41 GMT
The most egregious of these people is Lineker. He is paid £1.75 million a year by the BBC to present sports programmes which is several times more than they pay equivalent sports presenters like Claire Balding. And that is for a part-time job - he also presents similar programmes for their direct commercial rivals BT Sports presumably for a similar amount. On top of that, unlike BBC news presenters, he is allowed to advertise products hence his long-running multi-million pound campaign for Walkers. And he has his own production company which sells content to the BBC for payments that are not included in this disclosure. And then, not content with all that, it has been reported he participates in aggressive tax avoidance schemes involving exploiting a tax loophole in film investments. However, a few anti-Tory tweets is enough to set him up as a hero of some on the Left. Not to mention the chauffeur driven cars between media city and his home in London after appearing on MOTD www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2116217/Match-Day-BBCs-15-000-travel-Gary-Linekers-chauffeur-ride-Salford-London.html(I know it's the DM but.....)
|
|
185 posts
|
Post by boybooshka on Jul 20, 2017 7:41:02 GMT
For those trying to claim that the BBC should be unique in doing this because 'public money', where do you think ITV, Sky etc get their funds from? Subscriptions from....the public. Advertisers who make their money from......the public. Etc. Every single product and service is, in the end, paid for by public money, or maybe the complainers actually do think there is a magic money tree. It is unique because it is funded by a non-optional license fee and if I don't pay it I am subject to a criminal prosecution (10% of all prosecutions in the country) and could go to jail (hundreds have). Given that I'm very interested to know how they spend that money. For a similar reason I'm interested in knowing what specific named NHS chief executives get paid relative to nurses - would anyone here arguing for BBC secrecy on pay be happy for it also to apply to the NHS ? Exactly! It's not comparing like for like at all. I can choose, and generally do, not to buy any of the crap that is advertised between programmes on commercial channels. I do pay for Sky, but I'm not going to complain about the salaries they pay because I Choose to pay for that service and won't go to prison if I don't. I accept that we live in a rampant unregulated capitalist society, even though I hate the fact, however I don't feel I should have to accept that it's ok for public funded organisations to operate by the same principles. I'd be more than happy for professional unknowns to host programmes on the BBC. For the record I don't have any problem with those people as individuals, it's the system I'm unhappy with.
|
|
893 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Jul 20, 2017 8:12:03 GMT
Really you don't use Microsoft, Samsung, Apple, a high street bank any phone network, any supermarket, fast food restaurant, any branded food or drink or any other retailer?
That's quite an achievement.
|
|
185 posts
|
Post by boybooshka on Jul 20, 2017 8:16:47 GMT
Really you don't use Microsoft, Samsung, Apple, a high street bank any phone network, any supermarket, fast food restaurant, any branded food or drink or any other retailer? That's quite an achievement. Oh you such a wag aren't you? I'm pretty utilitarian when it comes to my shopping habits, and buy for my needs and my own desires, not to attain some "Lifestyle" that is rammed down my throat by advertising agencies.
|
|
893 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Jul 20, 2017 8:20:24 GMT
No just a lot more informed than you are clearly.
|
|
185 posts
|
Post by boybooshka on Jul 20, 2017 8:23:37 GMT
Good Grief.
|
|
5,582 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 20, 2017 9:08:54 GMT
Play nice, people, please CG, it's a long time since I lit any blue touch paper so thank you for that. Nice that someone else obviously likes Claudia and Graham too - ))
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 20, 2017 9:25:07 GMT
Play nice, people, please CG, it's a long time since I lit any blue touch paper so thank you for that. Nice that someone else obviously likes Claudia and Graham too - )) What I sort of like in the list is that some people who I've always thought of as stage actors in the old days are making a nice living on TV - Hugh Quarshie for example. Guy Henry too, although in his case I'm perfectly happy that he's only seen on TV these days.
|
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Jul 20, 2017 9:43:16 GMT
I also worship at the altars of all the above. Did anyone else think Susanna Reid was a bit extra bouncy this morning.....?
|
|