I’m sure you will have been reassured by the news that a report due out later today and commissioned by the BBC Trust makes it clear that the BBC is not paying “stars” such as Jonathan Ross beyond the going market rate. The review will also say such salaries have not inflated pay in the talent market. It comes after pay details were leaked last year, including a three-year deal for Ross reportedly worth £18m. So,£6m a year for being an oily self-obsessed vulgar sycophant is the going rate? In which universe might this be? Ross is a particularly obnoxious character whose Friday evening lewd programme represents a nadir in the values that BBC allegedly espouses. When I see the words “BBC” and “Trust” together, I know I am going to be misled and this latest white-wash will not cover up the wanton wastefulness of the State Broadcaster.
MARKET RATE?
Bookmark the permalink.
Perhaps the licence fee will be thrown open to the market rate? In other words, if you don’t want the BBC, you don’t have to pay for it.
Maybe the BBC should do with the TV licence what Radiohead did on the initial release of their current album, In Rainbows, just have it as a download for which you paid nothing at all or as much as you liked.
I guess that would soon put a stop to all those lefty middle-class idiots who are forever braying “it’s awfully good value for money”, see if they’d still be willing to pay the full amount…
The BBC is copying the Labour Government in terms of public finance:
‘We’ll do what we want with the public’s money; if we’re criticised, we’ll say we’re listening, and then just carry on as before: simple.’
Like this: big pronouncement, and then: forget it:-
“BBC stars warned to expect pay cuts in bid to cut budget”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-487398/BBC-stars-warned-expect-pay-cuts-bid-cut-budget.html
“Ross is a particularly obnoxious character whose Friday evening lewd programme represents a nadir in the values that BBC allegedly espouses”
It’s Mary Whitehouse reincarnated!
As to the main point, commercial rivals pay more.
Joel: Commercial rivals can pay what they like.
What you lefties don’t get is the BBC is funded by a compulsory tax. Many people who are forced to pay for the BBC don’t watch it, but are still forced to fund it.
Why can’t you thicko’s on the left get that?
Let the BBC go to a subscription only service, then see how much money they get.
I remember when poor old David Attenborough had to appear on wossie’s show.
I think wossie asked him about his shoes and then talked about farting. Completely out of his depth.
It was like watching a goat eating the canvas of a Rembrandt painting.
Jack,
I know what you mean but the BBC loves Wossie. H’s their kinda guy, and he even carries Joel’s sign of approval. Well worth £6m of OUR money each year, eh?
Ross sums up the depths to which the BBC has sunk. He’s nasty, bad-mannered, pig ignorant, self-obsessed jerk who shouldn’t be given airtime on a local radio station let alone BBC1. Instead, the BBC has elevated him to sainthood – largely because he’s an epitomy of the cult of lefty celebrity that the corporation reveres so much.
Martin | 02.06.08 – 9:44 am
Many people who are forced to pay for the BBC don’t watch it, but are still forced to fund it.
Actually there is no evidence that this is true.
The evidence shows that >95% of people DO use the BBC’s services (they may be forced to pay, but no-one forces them to watch) and the just over 4% that don’t corresponds to the number of homes without TVs or licences.
So, apart from Pete on this board and one or two others, there are HARDLY ANY people who are forced to pay for the BBC but don’t use it.
The evidence shows that >95% of people DO…blah, blah, idiocy..
That’s the craziest pretzel musing yet I’ve ever read from an odd beeboid.
You put the ill into illogical.
What bollocks. Please point to your eveidence for this?
I’ve hever read so much bollocks in my life.
I watch the BBC from time to time (because I pay for it).
But if the BBC was a subscription based service I wouldn’t pay for it and I wouldn’t expect to watch it.
What is it with you leftie BBC tpyes that just can’t get it through your thick skulls, that people should’nt pay for something they don’t want to use?. Especially the BBC.
If everyone was forced to pay for Sky TV, I bet most would also watch it!!!!!
I heard a bit of the News Quiz on Saturday. Mark Steel and Jeremy Hardy on it yet again. I’m sure they don’t get nearly as much as Toss, but the programme does seem to have become a sort of pension for these two tiresome lefty jerks. Was the producer in some SWP-style group with them back in the 80’s? Certainly their “humour” has not progessed much beyond “Support the Miners, Down with Thatcher.” Hilarious chaps, enjoy spending my money won’t you?
Rob I try to avoid the News Quiz these days for just those reasons. At least when Alan Coren (PBUH) was alive there was at least one funny panel member and to be fair despite being a fellow SWP’er Linda Smith was funny as well. The last time I listened to this show I felt like I had as a child when I watched “Terry & June” in the mid-1980’s i.e a sense of squirming embarrassment that what was being broadcast was 20 years out of date but that no one at the Beeb has decency to tell the performers their act was out of date and should be put to bed.
1327 — how dare you attack Terry & June.
Compared to what passes for “funny” at the beeb (e.g: 2 Pints of Laughfree and a Packet of Crap) T&J are like the Marx Brothers.
>1327 — how dare you attack Terry & June.
>
>Compared to what passes for “funny” at
>the beeb (e.g: 2 Pints of Laughfree and
>a Packet of Crap) T&J are like the Marx
>Brothers.
Sadly Jack I fear you are correct ! I do enjoy the American animated comedies on BBC3 (American Dad & Family Guy) but they like to put them on a weird ever changing times yet put their homemade rubbish on at prime times.
Coren funny? Jesus wept. He was a self-important, pompous nonentity with little talent. Even Terry & June were giants in comparison.
His son is much like him.
I disagree NO, Giles Coren is much, much more annoying than his old man ever was.
BBC (D)HYS “Most Recommended” on this topic:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=4882&edition=1&ttl=20080602122901&#paginator
Oh, OK, Rob 😉
I pay for the NHS Martin. I hardly ever use it. Haven’t used it since birth.
But I’m happy to keep paying for your granny’s hip opertaion and I would gladly stump up to have that chip removed from your shoulder.
First time I’ve ever heard of someone protesting at robbery being accused of having a chip on his shoulder.
Has Joel been sipping a little to deeply at his Michel Foucault?
I pay for the NHS Martin. I hardly ever use it. Haven’t used it since birth
Interesting, one of the arguments put forward for the license fee funding of the BBC is that it is a ‘public service’ broadcaster. I am not sure what that means. From observation precisely what does the BBC provide that isn’t now available, often of better quality on other channels?
If the BBC is confident that the Market has established fair compensation for its Talent – why won’t they let the market determine thier income?
Just how do you establish a ‘market rate’ for Tosser? I suspect that the ‘Trust’ said – “£18.5m, yep – that’s about right”. There can be no dynamic market in such ‘talent’ because the BBC constrain the market be insisting that the Tosser has ‘Brand recognition’ [there is a pun in there somewhere]. I am sure that there are lots of people with sufficient talent to perform as well as Tosser (such comic genius as detailed descriptions of his masturbatory habits, film of his endoscopy, sundry self important mutterings, inane gabbling on the radio and the bullying of guests) who would be willing to pay the BBC for the air time. His odious brother has driven me from the Radio London Breakfast show. Paul Ross is a pompous bore with an affected accent and a track record of failure. Why is he on the air I wonder?
I genuinely loathe Jono the self confessed Tosser and if he was performing in the village hall I wouldn’t pay a 50p entry fee to see him – so why should I have £135 taken from me under pain of imprisonment to fund his lifestyle?
The ‘Green Pixie’ is similarly over compensated for his minuscule talent [sexual innuendo may be popular, but I hear stuff that is just as funny down the pub]
personally I think that like all public bodies the BBC is so bloated with my cash that they think £18.5m is small change (remember that the non criticism by the BBC of the overspend on NPfIT at £12.5bn)
Joel: I wondered how long it would take for some BBC liberal to try to equate the BBC to the NHS or the education system.
So ‘Joel’ you really think paying a twat like Ross £18 million a year is the same as paying a nurse £20,000 a year?
The NHS and the education system provide services that I might need in the future.
I don’t need the BBC.
I notice the BBC Trust refuse to disclose the salaries of top BBC earners. Why not?
Who cares if Ross fucks off to ITV? IF ITV want to pay him £18 million, then good luck.
Why should the salaries of BBC employees be kept secret? I pay their sodding wages (and I don’t even get a choice) so why can’t I find out how much these useless Guardian readers get paid?
After all, it’s not as if Jonathan Ross or many of the other top Beeboid earners are NOT going ot appear on TV in the UK somewhere is it?
If the BBC told Ross to sod off he’d soon pop up somewhere else, perhaps on a lower salary.
The BBC don’t care. They spend money liked a drugged up chav with a stolen credit card.
“Government appointed poodle fails to bite! Wags tail to order” Read all about it!
If BBC on-air talent salaries are on par with the market rate, the bosses make 4.5% more than average, according to their own report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5156682.stm
Which is just fine with them, of course.
David Preiser (USA):
If BBC on-air talent salaries are on par with the market rate, the bosses make 4.5% more than average, according to their own report:
Doesn’t $12 million a year put him in the same category as Letterman and Leno… on highly competitive networks who make a fortune in advertising?
The only difference is, they are actually funny and talented.
Okay — UPDATE.. I just checked the respective salaries in the Post (NY)
They are…
“Letterman’s annual salary is a reported $31.5 million, while Leno’s is around $27 million.”
But Dave does own his own show.
I pay for the NHS Martin. I hardly ever use it. Haven’t used it since birth.
But I’m happy to keep paying for your granny’s hip opertaion and I would gladly stump up to have that chip removed from your shoulder.
What a THICK wanker you are. The NHS is an INSURANCE system. Ever heard of this concept, wanker?
The only one here with a chip, especially regarding his mythical cleverness, is you.
Sorry — and I don’t want to come across like Turrets Poster korova, but I forgot to mention that both Jay and Dave do a ONE HOUR show nightly, 5 days a week.
Why not let the section of the market that wants to buy wanking jokes from Jonathan Ross buy them for whatever price they can agree with him? Why do I need to get involved just because I want to watch football on Sky TV?
I don’t pay a market rate for the BBC. I pay for it so I can watch Sky Sports without getting a fine and criminal record. That’s more like a protection racket than market forces.
Jack Bauer: But I don’t think the likes of Letterman are paid using the threat of prison and a knock on your door if you don’t pay up.
Surely the issue is not whether the BBC is paying the market rate, but whether the BBC should be in this particular market in the first place.
The BBC is a public broadcaster and, in my view, different criteria apply. £18M is not acceptable.
If the BBC was sold to willing customers only we wouldn’t need BBC investigations into whether the BBC were paying celebrities who make masturbatory references to ex Prime Ministers the market rate or not. They could just bid for this type of ‘service’ like all other entertainment companies and the market rate would found without the need for dubious analysis/justification after the event exercises.
Richard Bacon on 5 lite is doing a phone in right now about the pay of the BBC. One of his guests is the very very vile Edwina Curry. She is sticking up big time for the BBC.
This is a problem that I’ve mentioned before. Even Tory MPs see the BBC as a potential source of a job when the get booted out of power.
I’m sure several Tory MPs have taken the BBC shilling over the years.
All politicians are reluctant to shut off a potential source of freebie (public) money.
It’s one reason why come the next election the blogosphere has to really bring the funding of the BBC to the fore.
The old excuse that there was no way to regulate who watched the BBC is soon to be a thing of the past once everyone has gone to digital.
I’ve got an old 78rpm of E.Ross playing dance music; but who’s this other bloke?
“I’ve got an old 78rpm of E.Ross playing dance music; but who’s this other bloke?”
I think he’s something to do with fish fingers.
“The 40 British TV stars on £1m.
(but the BBC won’t tell the licence-
payers who they are).”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1023747/The-40-British-TV-stars-1m-But-BBC-wont-tell-licence-payers-are.html
“BBC presenters in line for large payrises”
[Extract}:-
“BBC’s top pay deals
Salary for one year (unless stated):-
Jonathan Ross – £18 million (three-year deal)
Graham Norton – £5 million (two-year deal)
Matt Lucas and David Walliams – £3 million each (three-year deal)
Jeremy Paxman – £1 million
Terry Wogan – £800,000
Fiona Bruce – £800,000
Chris Moyles – £630,000
Jo Whiley – £250,000 ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2067120/BBC-presenters-in-line-for-large-payrises.html
________________________________________
“BBC licence should not be used to
pay stars”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/03/dl0301.xml
That ignorant tosser Paxman is worth about 1 p. In old money.
BBC report states that stars are not overpaid
A bit of a surprise
In other news: the Pope is revealed to be a Roman Catholic; bears defecate in woodland and one legged ducks swim in circles
Jonathan Ross’s pay
Seems to me that the BBC really are being a bit dim in not realizing that the fact that the beeb keep these celebs in contracts are the reason these ‘stars’ have the market value they claim. Once they are off the telly for a few months, their value drops like a stone – how much would it cost to give Hale & Pace a show?
Ross has been working for the BBC on and off since the early 90’s – although the beeb seem to think he is worth silly money, none of his work on any other channel has lasted more than a series or two. Do you really see ITV or C4 paying for this loser?
In fact, the only thing he seems to be any good at is talking about himself and his own interests!
I’d do that for a lot less!!
LOL, Starfish.