950 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.
|
|
1,351 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. |
|
4,156 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 ? |
|
19,787 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. |
|
950 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. |
|
950 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.
|
|
5,707 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.....? |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 20, 2017 9:49:56 GMT
I also worship at the altars of all the above. Did anyone else think Susanna Reid was a bit extra bouncy this morning.....? Guy ............ Henry .......... as ........... I ........... call .......... him. He's like a 78 played at 33 and a third #OneForTheTeenagers |
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Jul 20, 2017 10:13:58 GMT
^Spik Eeeeeeeenglish please.........
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2017 10:40:07 GMT
There was a very good Sky News paper review last night (Stig Abell, his waistcoat and someone else whose name I didn't catch). A good explanation as to how removal or neutering of the BBC by canning the licence fee would destroy the whole infrastructure as other channels feed off it and its training. Also, in relation to the death of print media (less than a handful within the next decade).
I can find out so little about where my taxes go. By paying income tax/national insurance I pay for things I don't want or use or even agree with but am fine because the principle is necessary. With the BBC I can actually see and hear where my money goes and that is easily enough. The anti tax libertarians at least have a consistent position, even if it is mad. For anyone to agree to the payment of some taxes but not others is just playing politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2017 10:54:49 GMT
Well. You know I really don't begrudge the majority of them their big salaries (although Claudia Winkleman clearly should be earning far more than she does) but I draw the line at Charlie from 'Casualty'. If it was Amanda Mealing I'd be fine because she is glorious but, really, Charlie?? He can't act! Some of those others who actually can act on that list must be fuming. I would be.
|
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Jul 20, 2017 11:16:13 GMT
Well. You know I really don't begrudge the majority of them their big salaries (although Claudia Winkleman clearly should be earning far more than she does) but I draw the line at Charlie from 'Casualty'. If it was Amanda Mealing I'd be fine because she is glorious but, really, Charlie?? He can't act! Some of those others who actually can act on that list must be fuming. I would be. Agree about the fantastics Claudia and Amanda. I also agree about Charlie's acting ability, but he's reportedly extremely popular and well respected on set - keeps spirits up with his guitar playing I think - so I'm not sure whether the up and comings on Casualty would actually begrudge his salary or not. It's great to have an elder statesman in all jobs I suppose. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 20, 2017 11:57:03 GMT
There was a very good Sky News paper review last night (Stig Abell, his waistcoat and someone else whose name I didn't catch). A good explanation as to how removal or neutering of the BBC by canning the licence fee would destroy the whole infrastructure as other channels feed off it and its training. Also, in relation to the death of print media (less than a handful within the next decade). I can find out so little about where my taxes go. By paying income tax/national insurance I pay for things I don't want or use or even agree with but am fine because the principle is necessary. With the BBC I can actually see and hear where my money goes and that is easily enough. The anti tax libertarians at least have a consistent position, even if it is mad. For anyone to agree to the payment of some taxes but not others is just playing politics. But this discussion isn't anything to do with the license fee, that is remaining until at least December 2027. This is about transparency, I don't see anyone arguing that a NHS CEO being paid £600,000 should have that figure kept secret. This is no different. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2017 12:17:11 GMT
There was a very good Sky News paper review last night (Stig Abell, his waistcoat and someone else whose name I didn't catch). A good explanation as to how removal or neutering of the BBC by canning the licence fee would destroy the whole infrastructure as other channels feed off it and its training. Also, in relation to the death of print media (less than a handful within the next decade). I can find out so little about where my taxes go. By paying income tax/national insurance I pay for things I don't want or use or even agree with but am fine because the principle is necessary. With the BBC I can actually see and hear where my money goes and that is easily enough. The anti tax libertarians at least have a consistent position, even if it is mad. For anyone to agree to the payment of some taxes but not others is just playing politics. But this discussion isn't anything to do with the license fee, that is remaining until at least December 2027. This is about transparency, I don't see anyone arguing that a NHS CEO being paid £600,000 should have that figure kept secret. This is no different. I agree, as long as there is a level playing field with competitors and they are compelled to do the same. Otherwise the assymetric nature of any transparency is going to affect them badly. It is just bad business to reveal your pay structure to competitors who are able to, and mostly do, pay more than you do. Therein lies the fear that this is not about transparency but about something else. |
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Jul 20, 2017 12:30:21 GMT
Well. You know I really don't begrudge the majority of them their big salaries (although Claudia Winkleman clearly should be earning far more than she does) but I draw the line at Charlie from 'Casualty'. If it was Amanda Mealing I'd be fine because she is glorious but, really, Charlie?? He can't act! Some of those others who actually can act on that list must be fuming. I would be. Amanda Mealing's on more than she deserves if you ask me. She's one of the reasons I'm very close to giving up on Casualty. I have liked her in other things though. If all the other actors do begrudge him that amount, perhaps they should stick around for thirty years and then it would be comparable. Having said that, I'd get rid of Charlie in a tachycardic heartbeat as his (and Duffy's) storylines have run out. I need to get a job on Radio 2. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 20, 2017 14:24:33 GMT
But this discussion isn't anything to do with the license fee, that is remaining until at least December 2027. This is about transparency, I don't see anyone arguing that a NHS CEO being paid £600,000 should have that figure kept secret. This is no different. I agree, as long as there is a level playing field with competitors and they are compelled to do the same. Otherwise the assymetric nature of any transparency is going to affect them badly. It is just bad business to reveal your pay structure to competitors who are able to, and mostly do, pay more than you do. Therein lies the fear that this is not about transparency but about something else. BBC radio pays way higher in all positions - talent and technical - than commercial rivals. I think in TV news the BBC numbers are about the same as commercial. Not sure on sport. Hard so say on actors because so much programming on both sides is done via independent (or pseudo-independent) production companies. |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 20, 2017 14:29:22 GMT
I expect what it is about, Cardinal, is the boss realising that this was coming out anyway and being sick of women having a go at him. So there, splash it out and then someone can mop it up.
You can find out the salaries of everybody if you know where to look. The BBC is ridiculously secretive and now to its own cost ..and to ours.
|
|
))
