|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2017 14:18:34 GMT
Also what's missing are the relative salaries they pay to their 'non talent' staff. While many middling to managerial roles get a really good salary at the Beeb their bottom rung employees don't get much (and from their job descriptions are required to do Tea- Shop Theatre levels of grovelling to get there...though at least at the Beeb there's a CHANCE of a decent salary one day I guess)
|
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Jul 19, 2017 14:33:40 GMT
I used to give one of his sons instrumental lessons and he was always the slowest one to cough-up the lesson fee. I cannot tell you how disgusted I am to hear this. Shocking. (Off topic but I once worked in an exclusive private school near Marbella which was going through severe financial trouble. A letter went out one day threatening to send home any child in a taxi whose parents had not paid their fees by a certain date. On said date 26 children were discharged in taxis.) |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 19, 2017 16:05:58 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!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2017 16:23:28 GMT
The amount of
Pathetic jealousy
In this country
Is quite laughable
One year ago junior doctors were being vilified
And being labelled at greedy
The point is as a society and country
We are constantly forced to look below and beneath
Those who look above and beyond
Are taunted as greedy and undeserving
See how much apple
And Netflix
And US channels pay out
Quite a lot more
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 19, 2017 16:25:55 GMT
relative to say footballer wages these are small change. Yes, but that's voluntary. When I was a student we were fined £400 because I was using our home portable tv during termtime in our student house. We had a TV licence - I presume every student in that house had one at home. My Mum had just had a serious cancer op at the time and £400 was a shedload of money and we were too dispirited to fight it and I've never forgotten how sh***y they were to us then. If 'top talent' wants to walk, let it walk. There is plenty of talent-in-waiting out there that doesn't get the opportunities - no connections, bank of Mum and Dad, not in London - and that money would be better spent giving them a leg up and a foot in the door through traineeships. |
|
721 posts
|
Post by hulmeman on Jul 19, 2017 16:33:50 GMT
This whole business is a spiteful attack on the BBC by the tory government in the hope of whipping up anti beeb support in advance of the Royal Charter negotiations.
I would suggest we know the salaries of ITV/CH4/SKY people as well, because we all pay for them by paying for products advertised on their channels.
|
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Jul 19, 2017 16:34:59 GMT
For once I agree with Parsley.
|
|
5,060 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 19, 2017 16:36:20 GMT
Firstly it is absolutely right that the BBC publish their talents earned, I hope other media platforms follow suit, but doubt that will happen.
I wasn't too shocked by the high earners and would've thought more would be in the top bracket, as Jonathan Ross set a president, although a lot of money to us mere mortals - but I am also shocked how much your run of the mill presenters don't earn, such as the fantastic Fiona Bruce and Claire Baldin, I thought they would be on a lot more.
|
|
37 posts
|
Post by Elisa on Jul 19, 2017 16:36:38 GMT
I was a bit shocked by the lack of actors (only 22 and not many big names) and the relatively low figures. Then I realised that not all the BBC shows are actually produced by the BBC itself. I guess the others got their money from those productions, didn't they?
|
|
5,060 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 19, 2017 16:40:35 GMT
Also I don't have a real issue how much they earn, my issue is if they pay the correct amount of tax on their earning, by which I mean the top rate.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 19, 2017 16:42:35 GMT
But they don't fine you or send you to prison if you don't subscribe. We were fined for using a portable TV in termtime in a student room and we HAD a licence at home, where this tiny TV spent most of the year. They were horrible to us, and we had a licence! I'd be interested to see how the current pay levels compare to those of years ago when the BBC managed to produce superb, intelligent programmes, specially arts programmes, rather than the cooking shows and other trash they fill most of the schedules and seem to spend a huge chunk of the budget on these days. |
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Jul 19, 2017 16:44:57 GMT
This whole business is a spiteful attack on the BBC by the tory government in the hope of whipping up anti beeb support in advance of the Royal Charter negotiations. I would suggest we know the salaries of ITV/CH4/SKY people as well, because we all pay for them by paying for products advertised on their channels. Exactly how I feel, sadly it's working. You could take a risk with all of the talent but I fear we would end up with a severely diminished BBC. It is quite fun to play I wouldn't pay so and so that much though, to find out who likes whom. |
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Jul 19, 2017 16:46:35 GMT
I don't mean to sound uncaring crowblack but when I was at Uni we were told hundreds of times we needed our own TV Licence in every room, if the room had a lock. Maybe I went after you and they were warning us after hearing your story. Edit: Actually, does the fact it was portable make a difference? I know you didn't use to need a licence when watching on mobile devices that weren't plugged in. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2017 16:48:15 GMT
Jason Mohammad is in the £250,000 - £299,000 per year bracket! I am speechless!
Other than that outrage, the main issue is the many wide disparities in pay between BBC presenters doing similar jobs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2017 16:55:51 GMT
Dan Walker's wages I thought might have been higher given he fronts two shows. But Louise Minchin is much senior to him so I thought she might be on the list. Also no "Flavour of the month" Steph McGovern who seems to be on a range of programmes at the moment. Also no David Dimbleby who given Question Time, Election Night specials and the amount of years he has been at BBC must surely have production company route.
The Newnight team are relatively low as Evan Davis also does Dragon's Den and Kirsty Walk has been with BBC for years, Emily Maitlis isn't on the list either which is surprising as she is a respected senior BBC Newsreader/Journalist. Maybe she might get a pay boost by doing Strictly, she has often been top of some wish lists and did CIN Special one year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2017 17:00:20 GMT
Interested Lineker gets so much dosh. I used to give one of his sons instrumental lessons and he was always the slowest one to cough-up the lesson fee. Multiple invoices always used to have to be sent out before I received his (Coutts) cheque. Gary apparently had big offers from other broadcasters, so BBC say this is justification. Gary has always been very good at maintaining a good media image, he split from his first wife to go with someone nearly 20 years younger than himself but got no negative press. Also when he played Football he was always a very high earner but didn't flash his money, he quietly knew his worth |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 19, 2017 17:37:55 GMT
This whole business is a spiteful attack on the BBC by the tory government in the hope of whipping up anti beeb support in advance of the Royal Charter negotiations. Those would be the charter negotiations in December 2027 when the current charter expires ? Admirable forward planning. |
|
19,786 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 19, 2017 17:41:25 GMT
The amount of Pathetic jealousy In this country Is quite laughable One year ago junior doctors were being vilified And being labelled at greedy The point is as a society and country We are constantly forced to look below and beneath Those who look above and beyond Are taunted as greedy and undeserving See how much apple And Netflix And US channels pay out Quite a lot more So you think that bland actor who goes through the motions playing a male nurse in Casualty merits being the highest paid actor on the BBC? It's not jelousy, it's incredulity. |
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Jul 19, 2017 17:51:32 GMT
The amount of Pathetic jealousy In this country Is quite laughable One year ago junior doctors were being vilified And being labelled at greedy The point is as a society and country We are constantly forced to look below and beneath Those who look above and beyond Are taunted as greedy and undeserving See how much apple And Netflix And US channels pay out Quite a lot more So you think that bland actor who goes through the motions playing a male nurse in Casualty merits being the highest paid actor on the BBC? It's not jelousy, it's incredulity. That's just longevity. I think they could get rid of him but there would be an outcry. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2017 17:56:15 GMT
That's just longevity. I think they could get rid of him but there would be an outcry. It can't be just longevity because June Spencer has been in The Archers for most of its 67 years but appears not to such be a high earner. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 19, 2017 17:58:21 GMT
Every single one of the people listed are in the top 1% of U.K. earners - aren't we meant to vilify the 1%-ers ?
|
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Jul 19, 2017 17:58:47 GMT
That's just longevity. I think they could get rid of him but there would be an outcry. It can't be just longevity because June Spencer has been in The Archers for most of its 67 years but appears not to such be a high earner. Apparently it's to do with his contract. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2017 18:03:24 GMT
relative to say footballer wages these are small change. Yes, but that's voluntary. When I was a student we were fined £400 because I was using our home portable tv during termtime in our student house. We had a TV licence - I presume every student in that house had one at home. My Mum had just had a serious cancer op at the time and £400 was a shedload of money and we were too dispirited to fight it and I've never forgotten how sh***y they were to us then. If 'top talent' wants to walk, let it walk. There is plenty of talent-in-waiting out there that doesn't get the opportunities - no connections, bank of Mum and Dad, not in London - and that money would be better spent giving them a leg up and a foot in the door through traineeships. I'm really not interested in a debate about TV liscence. I was pointing out the comparative salaries based on an observation someone else made as I said. I agree with you about ploughing the money 'lower down' as it were and supporting up and coming talent. The amount the BBC puts into that end of things is very little and should be far more to fulfil it's 'education' or 'public service' obligations relative to other organisations. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2017 18:04:55 GMT
That's just longevity. I think they could get rid of him but there would be an outcry. It can't be just longevity because June Spencer has been in The Archers for most of its 67 years but appears not to such be a high earner. I enjoyed the comment from (and the name escapes me now) a Radio 4 writer who said something like 'Radio salaries have not been published to save us all embarassment' |
|
19,786 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 19, 2017 18:06:17 GMT
I'm not a BBC basher. I support it and I support the public funding (although I think it should be through taxation and not a license fee). But I do get a smidgeon of pleasure knowing that the oh-so bloody right-on BBC are guilty of shafting their female talent whilst at the same time looking dissapprovingly at anyone who doesn't meet their very high standards of political correctness.
|
|
