A Biased BBC reader asks the sensible question….
“Yesterday it emerged that many BBC announcers, news readers and regular stars of major BBC programmes are being paid through companies, thereby paying lower rates of tax. Why are BBC journalists, as employees of a public broadcasting corporation, not investigating and reporting this news, together with background information and names, with the same passionate fervour at every opportunity on radio and TV, as usually experienced when members of the government, civil service, business executives and other branches of the media or entertainment community outside the BBC are alleged to be managing their tax affairs to reduce their tax bill? They seem quite capable of reporting even the flimsiest allegations, together with inuendo, comment from pressure groups etc when it is some other organisation or individual but seem reluctant or even not prepared at all to do it when it s “one of their own”. How transparent and fair is that?
If I remember correctly John Birt wife was paid a salary by John Birt. That would indicate that John Birt possibly used this tax avoidance scheme. If true then this practice has been going on for some times. I as a PAYE was told of this tax scheme during the early 80’s. Strange how 30 years later, this loophole has still not been closed, even though Labour brought in IR35. Okay to tax to IT contractors but not the rich and elite.
Yep, strange none of their thousands of reporters managed to crusade against the damage to the British IT industry caused by IR35- pretty much wiped sections of it out, that was the experience in the Aberdeen oil industry anyway.
Paid back some big doners though …
The left are implanted with a blind hypocrisy gene. This is why the BBC was/is able to bang on about the risks to plurality in newsreporting with Newcorp. without addressing the elephant in the room.
And no mention of Hunt’s comments about the BBC in their website lead story on Leveson tonight.
Got a link to the comments he made?
The bbc – not fit for purpose. Or is that too fit for purpose?
The BBC – too fat for purpose.
Every major media organisation in the country uses the services of freelancers who operate through sole-trader companies. I am one of those freelancers. We do it not to avoid tax but because it is a far more convenient way of working as a freelancer, preferred by many of our employers and (definitely) by our accountants. I am a Conservative-voting old-school Tory who works exclusively for right-leaning outlets, but the practice is near-universal across media organisations, however they are funded and whatever their political bent. The BBC presenters paid under such arrangements aren’t staff members, they are jobbing hacks like me who are trying to earn a living. Their contracts could be terminated next week and then they’d be out of a job. Unlike BBC staff members, they have no cushy pension arrangements or jobs for life. There are legitimate BBC targets you could have a pop at, but this isn’t one of them.
We’ve heard this before, and I accept it up to a point. Does the excuse also apply to the top talent at the BBC and full-time producers of flagship shows who don’t need to work for other outlets to make ends meet? And I’m not talking about people like Dermot Murnaghan or documentary producers.
For example, Katty Kay has a well-paid job as anchor of BBC World News America, in no danger of being fired next week, and it’s a full time position. Yet she’s still a “freelancer”. Is that right and fair? She – or her corporation – also gets paid by NPR for guest hosting and by MSNBC for regular appearances on Morning Joe and Meet the Press, even though the latter are in her capacity as a BBC journalist. Never mind all the five-figure speaking engagements she gets.
It’s one thing to have the practical setup of a corporation for all those various gigs, but quite another to exploit it for the high-profile, well-paid, essentially full-time position on the back of which one is getting all those other jobs.
I doubt many people here would begrudge the jobbing journos and producers on the lower rungs of the ladder. I believe the main concern here is about the high-profile Beeboids who don’t work all over the landscape in the way you describe.
You say that she’s at no risk of being fired next week, but it only takes one change of channel controller and she could be out on her ear. And the fact that she works for other outlets rather proves my point. These people are like star columnists at national newspapers and are employed in the same way. I’d argue that their presence actually improves the political balance of BBC output – my own preference is to tout my labour to many different buyers, as any good free-market capitalist should, rather than sign my life away to a publically funded corporation. And what’s the alternative? An army of BBC apparatchik newsreaders spouting the Corporation party line? No thanks.
‘I’d argue that their presence actually improves the political balance of BBC output’
As is your right… here.
Now, imagine you are doing so with the BBC system.
Then a faceless monolithic, unaccountable monopoly will ignore your substantive points, refuse to engage, intone over and over that ‘we are comfortable in the belief that you are wrong, and by arguing over and over as you are, it’s a waste of time and you are hence banned from doing so for a period of two years.
Why the unique difference do you think?
‘We do it not to avoid tax’
Odd. As a freelancer, my accountant and I are agreed that whatever we do, if it is legal we pay as little tax as possible.
Maybe it’s because I am not ‘I am a Conservative-voting old-school Tory’, and wouldn’t dream of seeding a blog post with such Trojan terminology if making a political point.
‘An army of BBC apparatchik newsreaders spouting the Corporation party line?’
As opposed to what, exactly… now?
Beyond what they read, or who they ‘interview’, conjured in the pre-pro and shaped via the ear-bud, there are also the little quirks such as a Marresque ‘hm-hmn’ when with a One-Flanders, Paxmaniac hectoring with a non-Labour target or, of course, those ever-so impartial non-BBC flagged ‘tweets’.
As is your right… here.
Why the unique difference do you think?
I was making a point about freelancers. How the BBC deals with your complaints (or fails to) are entirely irrelevant.
‘An army of BBC apparatchik newsreaders spouting the Corporation party line?’
As opposed to what, exactly… now?
A much smaller constituency of prominent broadcasters would be willing to sign up as employees, salaried by the State. You think it’s left-wing now, but it would be staffed exclusively by committed socialists if freelancers were excluded. The only broadcasters in the world that don’t employ freelancers are state-owned and state-controlled. I’m not sure that’s the model this country should be copying.
“How the BBC deals with your complaints (or fails to) are entirely irrelevant.”
And, this is a view you are entirely entitled to hold too.
However, as to relevance rather poetic in its irony given how the BBC complaints system also conducts its discussions, arrogantly defining the parameters by its own, unique, narrow, cherry-picked and often rather less than credibly accurate measures.
Especially given the additional presumption contributed below:
‘Having only recently discovered this site, I’m quite surprised by the blind prejudice expressed here. As somebody with three decades’ experience of the world of journalism, it is my considered view… the lot of you appear .. you cannot see that some of the positions you take are wildly illogical … difficult to wholeheartedly support what you do when the positions taken are so extreme. … I can’t be the only reasonable person who finds themselves put off by the borderline racist rhetoric elsewhere on the site, either.’
You have posted opinions, and people have politely disagreed, and explained why.
This has moved you to full chest-out puffery and the quaint justification of a self-claimed ‘considered view’. Plus yet another attempt at being seen (if in your own mirror) ‘as a voice of sweet reason’. With the obligatory.. ‘you lot’… ‘racist rhetoric’ faux-saddened head-shake.
Good luck with that.
I doubt you are the only person to agree with you, but in the terms you have chosen to make your case so far and especially now, I could really give a fig what someone who thinks ‘3 decades in the media business’ alone matters (for whom!, doing what?), and hence places what they think or who they claim agrees with them in suitable context.
Care to answer Roland’s, on-point, in-context comment on hypocrisy below now?
Martin, surely the argument here isn’t that you shouldn’t be operating through a company. As an accountant, I’d be advising you to do just that. It’s arranging your affairs perfectly legally to keep your tax bill to a minimum. Your “employer” benefits too by avoiding Employer’s National Insurance. If you find it more convenient than operating as a sole trader then that’s just a side benefit.
The argument, as I see it, is the hypocrisy of the Beeb having a pop at people who do just that whilst indulging in the practice themselves.
Who are the ‘people’ you say the BBC have been having a go at for arranging their tax affairs in this way? Ken Livingstone? He was caught out for his rank hypocrisy in saying one thing and doing another, and not just by the BBC. Civil servants? Well, they have a point there – it’s an absurd anomaly for them to be paid in this way. But that’s the point: the civil service is not the broadcasting industry. Civil servants aren’t free agents for hire, touting their business around.
Anyway – and this isn’t a criticism of Roland, whose question was perfectly reasonable – having followed the discussion on a number of threads over the last few days, I’m out of here. The vast majority of posters seem only to want their own prejudices confirmed. This website could be doing so much more to offer a sensible, objective, reasoned opposition to the stream of leftist rubbish being pumped into our homes, and instead it’s a forum for the bitter and the unreasonable, with a nasty whiff of bigotry to many of the comments. You might want to ponder the fact that I’m not even the first person today to announce they won’t be coming back.
This site has seen a large increase in it’s traffic recently. That there might be a few who find it not to their taste is to be expected. The fact that there is very little moderation of comments here – people can express their thoughts robustly without fear of censorship – is a strength, not a weakness. One of the reasons many people find the BBC so insufferable is their suppression, silencing and proscribing of opinions that are deemed socially unacceptable or politically incorrect by a small clique with a particular set of sensibilities. It would be odd for a blog whose main purpose is to challenge this mentality to actively engage in the same.
Well said, Reed.
Seems darned odd for a person to pose a question of someone in the first sentence, and then later announce the terminal flounce of no return.
Seems familiar mind.
Wasn’t long ago another heretofore ‘I am a loyal Conservative (as if that makes a whit of difference to most this site highlights), but must now emerge to announce… I’m leaving’ dashed into the desert to explode alone.
Another day, another avatar.
Actually, make that month as, despite the other non-sequitur huff and puff, and despite claims of a vast protest movement, as you have pointed out to our now dear departed, it is about 2 (out) to several hundred (even thousand) in. So beyond a career in BBC Complaints, on an accuracy-based-on-narrative basis that 30 years as Ed Morrow’s fag igniter or Jon Simpson’s burqua fluffer would stand him in good stead for Head of ‘News’ (narrative-included) Gathering.
‘I’ (wouldn’t presume the royal ‘we’ to the final dire ‘you lot’ attempt) must try more of such pondering… it’s fun.
With luck, future moles will at least try to engage a few times, and with luck in a hilarious ‘down wiv’ da peeps’ BBC-critiquing terms (with a waiver from ‘control’ as it’s to garner cred), then suddenly becoming ‘devastated’ at the betrayal of their high hopes in an impassioned decrial whilst trying to dodge the door on the way out.
Shame you’ll never get an answer to your other, highly pertinent questions below, either.
But if I may presume, I think ‘we’ have seen that before, too.
It’s also a bit ironic that some visitors happen upon this site, suggest it’s full of people who only want their own opinions reflected, but then claim to be offended by some of the tone and content to such a degree that they wish not to return. Perhaps they only frequent sites with opinions they find entirely agreeable. It does demonstrate that all are welcome here, though.
Speaking of which/whom..
http://biasedbbc.tv/2012/05/25/explaining-briefly-why-some-people-are-prejudiced-against-the-bbc/#comment-26829
If not the same person, does the content and tonality seem familiar?
David, with respect, that is total rubbish and I think you know it. Hardworking freelancers, paid per hour with no pension, no benefits, no security etc. we understand and EVERYONE agrees they deserve to be paid at a higher rate because they take on all the risk themselves.
Senior execs at the BBC, raking in hundreds of thousands of pounds a year, working ‘freelance’ and ‘contracting’ for a single employer over 10 or 20 years? NOT ONE has ever been fired, increases come thick and fast. They are sheer slimy tax dodgers. But more than that, they are hypocrites, because they take the Ken Livingstone approach to ‘fat cat tax dodgers’, aggressively seeking out people who are pushing the limits and then we find out they are the very worst.
If we had a Conservative government, they would be investigated, fined and jailed.
Sorry, should have said Martin, not David – mea culpa.
Your reply is alarmingly lacking in facts. The freelancers in question are mainly presenters, i.e. on-air talent. Who are these ‘senior execs raking in hundreds of thousands’? If such people existed, it would indeed be a scandal and I’d be on your side. And ‘not one has ever been fired’? You say this with such certainty, but how is it possible to state such a thing? Can you prove it?
Having only recently discovered this site, I’m quite surprised by the blind prejudice expressed here. As somebody with three decades’ experience of the world of journalism, it is my considered view that media outlets are better when they employ freelance talent: you get more freely-expressed views, more independence from a ‘party line’ and (from the editor’s point of view) more flexibility to chop and change. That’s not a controversial view to express anywhere but on this messageboard. Bizarrely, the lot of you appear to be arguing for some sort of Statist alternative in which BBC presenters are salaried lackeys of the corporation. Because you’re so intent on doing down the Beeb you cannot see that some of the positions you take are wildly illogical. I applaud the general aims of this site, but it’s difficult to wholeheartedly support what you do when the positions taken are so extreme. As a general observation (and unrelated to anything said in the current exchange), I can’t be the only reasonable person who finds themselves put off by the borderline racist rhetoric elsewhere on the site, either.
“media outlets are better when they employ freelance talent: you get more freely-expressed views, more independence from a ‘party line’”
That would rather depend upon their selection process, wouldn’t it. Considering the disproportionate number of senior journalists who have past and present links to the Labour party, I think it’s fair to call into question that selection process. If you browse this site, you’ll find plenty of evidence of journalists engaging in the very practise you claim is lessened by their ‘freelance’ status – promoting a party line. This freelance arrangement is designed primarily to minimise tax bills, not to maximise diversity of opinion.
“Bizarrely, the lot of you appear to be arguing for some sort of Statist alternative in which BBC presenters are salaried lackeys of the corporation.”
Actually, what most of us on this site would like is the redressing of the overtly left-wing perspective present in so much of the BBC’s news coverage, with the portrayal of any right of centre views as either contemptible or extreme. The financial arrangements of staff are less of an issue, but still an important one – as has been stated, there is an element of hypocrisy and double standards in the BBC highlighting the issue of tax avoidance, whilst insisting that their own employee’s tax affairs remain for the most part private, even though they are publicly funded.
What, in any of this, do you find ‘extreme’?
‘Why are BBC journalists, as employees of a public broadcasting corporation, not investigating and reporting this news,’
I think it is something to do with the unique way it conducts its ‘business’.