So we know that the BBC pays women less than men…..what do they pay transgender employees? Tricky one huh?
Gotta love old Lord Hall Hall, so full of horses**t. His plea to the government not to publish the pay rates was based on his thought that if women found out they were paid less than the men the BBC would have to cough up more…therefore don’t reveal this discrimination, brush it under the carpet, and things can continue as they are. So not at all bothered about the pay gap really.
So much for transparency, accountability, diversity, equality and fairness. Why should anyone listen to the BBC’s sanctimonious lecturing again…if they ever did?
Lord Hall Hall always claimed that the BBC was vital for the health of the commercial sector, feeding into it talent and creativity, taking risks the commercial companies might not take….just what risks would they be then? Sons of Anarchy, Breaking Bad, Fargo, Twin Peaks, Game of Thrones??? Or Sky which took a massive risk to set itself up. The commercial sector is way out in front at producing high quality, innovative programming that wins huge audiences…the BBC is not innovative in any major way, it is mainstream and follows on behind all too often. David Attenborough is great but the BBC has been doing that for decades…now just with more technical wizardry as the kit improves…it’s still the same old same old.
Look at their employment policy. Who do they get for their football commentators…Lineker…hardly a big risk, a hugely famous footballer, as long as he can string two words together he can hardly fail in his given task…not too intellectually stretching to chat about football is it? Politics might be beyond him but choppsing about kicking a pig’s bladder around…he’s top of his game. LOL.
What does the BBC do that no other media organisation can do that is so innovative and ground breaking?…
“The public associates the BBC with great drama,” says Lord Hall, in an interview with the Telegraph. “It’s something that’s in the lifeblood of the BBC. It’s just crucial to us as a creative and cultural organization. I made this a priority when I came back to the BBC, because I believe in the BBC being in drama.”
Oh yes, great drama…well yes the viewers do love a good drama….but hardly the stuff of magical, pioneering, revolutionary, experimental stuff that we are told only the BBC could produce. It’s mainstream, safe as houses, stock-in-trade BBC fair that they have pumped out for donkey’s years. It does not in anyway justify the enforced licence fee nor the gross overpayment of its staff.
If the BBC were really a risk taker and a national treasure that was the nurturing ‘mothership’ for the British creative industries that Lord Hall Hall claims then they would hunt out new and capable talent that they can develop and then send on to the commercial sector…and in the meantime not have to pay extraordinary wages for people doing very little [let’s be honest]…nothing incredible or vastly difficult anyway…just why does a DJ or someone who does the odd interview get such huge sums…it’s crazy. Jeremy Vine on over £700,000!! The wage packets are eye-wateringly bonkers for the work they do…not as if someone off the street couldn’t do it as well for far, far less. Remember what’s her name, the author, PD James?, who came onto the Today show and blitzed it as she interviewed Mark Thompson?
The BBC would in fact be all the better for a policy that meant it didn’t keep on the old and the bold, the dinosaurs who don’t change and bring nothing new to the game, who get entrenched in their jobs and opinions. Send them out into the scary commercial world and bring in the fresh talent with new ideas, new faces, new voices. One advantage of this is that bias, prejudice and partisan attitudes aren’t likely to develop as much as group think wouldn’t get a chance to take hold as the group is always changing and with so many new people it will be hard to keep up the indoctrination that institutionalises their thinking and also makes them believe they are untouchable with a licence to hold court over their fellow man just by virtue of the fact they have a BBC ID card in their pocket.
Then there’s Lord Hall Hall’s claim that he has to pay such vast sums because of commercial pressures…the private companies would otherwise poach BBC staff. Really? Aren’t BBC staff in fact paid more than the commercial sector in many cases?….[maybe Phillip Hammond could give us a quote] Only a public corporation like the BBC with guaranteed income can afford such largesse and know they can pay the wages…and just remember who is paying for this…the licence fee payer…you know those people the BBC hunts down and puts in court because they haven’t paid up the ransom money…..even if they don’t actually watch the BBC. Jeremy Vine & Co must be proud to take home all that money essentially stolen with menaces from people vastly, vastly less well paid and who go to jail if they fail to pay up…poverty stricken or not.
Here’s ITV’s Tom Bradby in 2011:
ITV political editor Tom Bradby has questioned the reported salary of around £600,000 being paid to BBC presenter Andrew Marr, arguing that “no-one in ITV News is paid anything like this”.
In a message on Twitter, Bradby wrote: “I like [Marr] a lot, think he words (sic) hard and is very smart, but £600,000? Seems a lot.
“No-one in ITV News is paid anything like this, so where is the market for all these BBC figures being paid such vast sums? I mean, who else will employ them at that level?”
Bradby decided to comment on Marr’s pay packet after noticing a gradual erosion of parity between the BBC and ITV news teams over the last decade.
He wrote: “During the first 10 years I worked for [ITV News producer] ITN, there used to be a much greater sense of parity between the BBC and us. But over the last 10, that has gradually disappeared. It’s really something when a commercial broadcaster struggles to compete against one funded by millions of people on very modest wages.”
Bradby claimed that the BBC has become an “internal market”, in which stars compared salaries to each other rather than the external market.
He also estimated that Sky’s political editor Adam Boulton only earns around £400,000 a year, despite being “by far and away the biggest name on Sky News”.
Out with the old dinosaurs and in with the new, fresh faced, innovative, go-getting talent…and if they head off for pastures new…great…that’s exactly as it should be and then the BBC can go out and get some more of that untapped potential that’s out there looking for the break.
Is this graph on the left real ?
Did they get the BBC “Climate Science” dept to rig it up ?
The true graph should look like the one on the right
This is a funny post from badass, i enjoyed his page thanks.
This is dry, about the surrender monkeys.
The BBC has no need to compete with the commercial market when it gets funded by the TV licence. I’ve always been at a complete loss for words when I hear that the BBC needs to pay high salaries to retain its talent. That’s just another way of saying ‘We’re too lazy to seek out and give unknowns a chance in the limelight’.
Not surprising though, seeing as the BBC are constantly recycling an established low risk talent pool (Barbara Windsor in Eastenders, for instance) or importing ‘approved’ actors and performers from ‘approved’ sources such as North London/Hertfordshire drama schools or subjects that have been discovered outside of the BBC’s narrow spectrum but are now ‘very popular’.
It is a closed door. You can knock, but no one will hear unless you have the ‘special’ knock. It isn’t a secret knock; just special. Very few people have the special knock, but if you live in the Greater London, Greater Manchester, Tyne and Wear, Wales, Scotland, or (to a lesser extent) Northern Ireland areas, you have a good chance of having the special knock that will open the BBC’s door. Once you’re in, JACKPOT!
Why does it have to be so exclusive? The BBC is OURS! The BBC belongs to every licence fee payer just as all the majestic (and not so majestic) public buildings in this country belong to every tax payer and we all have equal access to them.
The BBC, as we all know, has lost its way. It has no idea why it exists!
Edward
Al Beeb has always been held up as being ‘impartial’ by many of our trusting fore bearers, but its recent bias in politics and anti Brexit stance has let the country down. Time to cut it out like a cancer and end the telly tax .
I have never known the BBC to be impartial, and I am more than half a century old. But recently the BBC has plumbed new depths in bias. It’s absolutely shocking the way the BBC is operating today and without being held to account by those who have the power.
We are on the verge of 1984 – fake news – fake war. The BBC are not the only culprits! But they are a publicly funded culprit.
Austerity? BBC FAKE NEWS
Poverty in the UK? BBC FAKE NEWS
The economy is failing after Brexit? BBC FAKE NEWS
Public sector workers are suffering? BBC FAKE NEWS
Jeremy Corbyn is viable? BBC FAKE NEWS
Right wing politics is extremist and worthy of scrutiny but left leaning views are immune from interrogation? BBC FAKE NEWS
Want some more?
Maybe BBC employees need the money for drugs, hormone treatment and sex change operations. The unlucky 13th incarnation of Dr Who is cursed by the BBC,s obsession with sex change. I blame Thames Water, it must be more than just inland fish when it comes to hormones in the water supply. But then would the BBC approve if Jodie Whittaker wanted more money to change sex? And the BBC call this modernising Britain.
Sod the BBC (Genesis 19:24) it cant be modern because its in the Bible and the Quran.
In fact I remember being told that the BBC opens up to investigators if they pretend to be, or are transgender investigators.
This idiot is well known to my sources.
http://www.allabouttrans.org.uk/interaction-colin-tregear-bbc-complaints-director
I heard Lord Grade on the radio saying the list should never have been released because they will only scale up not down and in his words its a mess.
I assume these have to be released on a regular basis so we will know if they scale up.Lord Grade is typical of people living high on the taxpayer hog .He overlooks that most of the stars no matter what their gender, are vastly overpaid..Most of them have minimal output.I mean ,Moira Stuart is on the list.What does she do since she was kicked off of news reading.?
I really wish more would be made of the enforcement used to get people to pay just for having a TV.
If it was Sky the complsints would be through the roof ,Parliament would be outraged and they would lose their license.
Alan,
I think the issue is a simple one – since all of the luvvies are paid from the public purse they should be paid public level wages not some fictional commercial level.
Al Beeb has cut loose big personalities in the past – top gear presenters – Rolf – jimmy – dlt- Stewart hall – so can maintain the precedent. It’s easy because they have so many top draw managers on top draw wages.
If a luvvie pays their way – such as commercial sales – include that in the contract – otherwise – there’ll be a queue to replace the likes of vine, norton , humpreys, lineker for a saving of millions of taxpayers cash.
It would be nice to have some real diversity on the BBC, different opinions and different voices.
Some Radio 4 dramas are nearly impossible to follow as all the females sound the same, as if they are all played by Juliet Stevenson. Certainly on Radio 4 Extra they all are!
I quite like women but there are far too many on the radio now. The old ‘nails on a blackboard’ Sheila Dillon and Dame Jenny with her three octave “Whyyyyyy!” were bad enough but now we are getting the female lab cleaners on to discuss ‘science’ in preference to the aged ‘prof’ who knows his stuff. Maybe there are pleasant female voices ‘out there’ but the BBC hasn’t found them.
The BBC ‘talent’ has become the new aristocracy. It must be quite hard to spend £700k per annum, which probably explains why they are so free with ‘the government must spend more’ comments, they wouldn’t miss an extra £1000 in taxes.
Yes let’s have more diversity, more ‘open borders’ to the BBC! How about introducing Dutch auctions for ‘talent’? “What am I bid for teleprompt newsreader? £400k? £300k? £200k? £100k? £50k? £40k? £30k going to the old straight white man in the front row with a good speaking voice! Bang!”
Who’s that R4 presenter that does the interludes? The one that sounds like Nelson Mandela with a tracheostomy. He can fuck off for a start.
Ha Ha!
Oh joy! Every single paper having a go at al beeb on their front page, even the beeb-loving Grauniad.
Not just the obscene salaries, not just gender inequality, but a race divide too. Who’d have thunk it? The beebistan is SEXIST AND RACIST!!! Auntie beeb, the sanctimonious, pious, preachy, right-on, racism-sniffing, sexism-sniffing, finger-pointing, LGBT-friendly and now TQQIAAP-friendly too, heck let’s throw in the whole f’ing alphabet while we’re at it – a bunch of hypocritical fascists who pay their black slaves the equivalent of a few bananas. (The repulsive and useless Chris Evans gets more than ALL the black and ethnic ‘talent’ put together!!!)
That bastion of transparency, accountability, diversity, equality and fairness is shown to be none of the above, after trying desperately to hide and delay the publication of salaries.
May the internal and external recriminations rumble on for weeks, months, years. May the odious Beeb sink without a trace, with no survivors.
Times: “BBC faces revolt over pay divide – Anger of female stars will force rise in salaries”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/
Least we forget that the TV tax paid Saville (how much?) , gave him untouchable status to molest children and when it was revealed, the public could NOT stop paying the imposed tax, enforced with the legal court system, for the BBC company that financially supported him.
Due to the unique way the BBC is funded
Floor the salaries to £80k … equality for all high paid BBC employees. The rest of the money saved is used to help the homeless on the streets of London – making the home of the BBC a better place. Or at minimum give each homeless person £5k …. like Grenfell victims.
BBC high paid employees like Lineker. Think of the homeless!
MarkyMark
You sound like a socialist! Yes ‘floor’ the salaries but lower the tv license fee. I have no interest in donating to the Grenfell tragedy, they have enough trough grovelers as it is.
Just applying socialist high morals to them. They really don’t like playing to their own rules …. that’s why you get 71 genders … with more to come once you thought you knew what was happening.
Chris Evans is a known Labour, thus Corbyn economics supporter. Have fun with that fact nugget!
Like the fact that he asked his mum if he was worth his money.
Poor Chris.
She’s not going to say, “are you fuck you little ginger twat!” is she?
The gender pay gap is a non-story. In fact, I say it has nothing to do with gender, instead the stupidity of organisations which pay their employees.
Take my second most loathed profession after “BBC ‘ journalist'”, the “professional footballer”. Despite all players on a team being employed as “professional” footballers, the income on a team can range from ‘only £10,000 per week to an absolutely ludicrous £300,000+ per week. Football clubs just explain this seemingly unfair difference by saying they “pay what the player is worth,” so I’m not surprised to see the BBC using the same excuse.
BBC ‘journalists’ and footballers are one and the same – both vastly overpaid, both profiting from their employer’s stupidity and both just about smart enough to keep their mouths shut and pull the wool over their consumers’ eyes.
i dont really get the gender fuss either, if the ladies think they are underpaid why are they not all heading to ITV or SKY on mass, after all they are all fantastic talents any broadcaster would be delighted to employ
More,
My most loathed “professionals” are politicians !
Grant – don’t get distracted, the politicians who go on the BBC shows and get paid (what would be their yearly wage?) when they should be in Parliament or helping constituencies are implicit in this.
Diane Abbott // Name of donor: Muslim Charities Forum / £5,313.78 / 7apr2017 (3 days) {theyworkforyou.com}
Diane Abbott // Co-presenting BBC’s ‘This Week’ // £700ph = £700*8hr*5day*48weeks = £1,344,000 would be her BBC wage or 38 nurses on £35Kpa
– all whilst holding down an MP job, going to parliament and helping her constituency
– would be interesting to know how long this takes out of Diane Abbot’s day – travelling to the ‘This Week’ show, makeup, after programme drinks in the BBC bar – is the BBC bar funded by the TV Enforced Tax!
Marky,
I posted recently that politicians should not be paid for TV and radio appearances. It should be part of their job. Nobody is forcing them to appear. It is also interesting to note how many MPs never appear . Are they not asked or do they refuse ? The whole thing stinks.
Marky ,
To use the journo bias method of questioning –
Some might say Diane Abbot is worth every penny of the public money she gets to pay for her kids’ private school so he /she can inherit her rather large seat .
If you saw the last car crash interview on itv yesterday think you’d agree . Guido has the link
Noticed that when our limp PM was asked about the BBC wages all she could bleat about was the pay gap between male and female.Not the fact about the cost to you and me and she should have said next year a flat £50 tv tax and if you want to watch BBC,then its encryption and subscription . How hard can it be. Sky can do it
If you want top BS, make an ex Labour DCMS minister head gob on a stick at the BBC.
Newswatch will be a hoot.
Maybe Samira will pull a sickie?
NHS ready for massive influx of potential diabetes cases due to BBC wage criticism.
Diane Abbott on hand to assist and blame it all on racism when required, possibly venturing back to “this week” programme for more BBC TV Tax money extraction.
Wonder if you work our Diane Abbott’s hourly rate when on BBC, what her yearly wage would be?
Would be fun to do for other MPs … if they worked for the BBC on rate paid for show they would earn … one Lineker … or 55 nurses?
Good idea Marky Mark.
Why DON`T we mix and match them-Dianne Abbott to head up Match of the Day, Newsnight with Graham Nortons Red Setter…be fun!
WE pay these versatlie talented folk-let US decide where to put them on shows and decide if we need them?
Make a good phone in vote show I`d have thought, surely we could get a new slew of Russell Brands and Keith Lemons to elevate their Radio 4 and Current Affairs offerings.
There`s LOADS of these creeps going cheap every and any Friday night in Grimsby.
(This offer comes in at £5M, c/o Cheeky Monkey Enterprises+gay linen suit and rent boy of Dulux compatible shade-drugs t.b.a)
How BBC presenters can validate their earnings …
Chris Evans (2.2m)- Talks to Jeremy Corbyn on Labour’s manifesto and the inequality created by uncontrolled, non-market driven organisations. (Evans is an avid Labour supporter) //
Gary Lineker (1.8m)- Alternatives to democracy, an interview with Kim Jong-un //
Graham Norton (0.8m)- Political Interview with President Erdogen on ‘Turkish Gays’ //
Gary Lineker (1.8m) – Interview’s people who think there is more than one positive in Brexit //
Dianne Abbott (1.3m est.) – Switches ‘This Week’ TV appearance for CBeebies Numberjacks //
Lord Tony Hall to earn £532,000 as new BBC boss by drawing pension (early) on top of salary {telegraph nov2012}
– now ask Gary Lineker and his friends at the BBC about their pensions? Have they taken Lord Hall’s approach and drawn on the pensions (future TV Tax payments – your children will be paying for these people) as well?
Excellent MM, except to say that I think the word ‘earnings’ may give the wrong impression. Getting or receiving might be closer to reality.
Yeah, I slipped a bit there with my words using earnings …
‘BBC Earnings’ = ‘A salary extracted from the working population under threat of prison backed by the Government, the tax payers have no recourse to stop paying.’
“For the Many (200,000 TV Tax Evictions), Not the Few (42 BBC journalists paid more than £150,000)”
The total hypocrisy of the scum at the BBC laid bare ! Wonderful !
What this article misses out is not just the huge disparity in rates of pay between BBC and its competitors, but the numbers of people it employs to cover a story.
The BBC is massively overmanned (and yes I know that isn’t a word the Fascists like these days) reports from other world class broadcasters of them turning up with a camera man and a presenter, and the BBC turning up mob handed with an entire film crew are legion.
When the rest of the world are paying two people an average salary, and the BBC are paying 10 above the odds the true excess comes to light.
There is however no one controlling this excess and no one protecting tax payers money from being wasted and this is yet another good reason why the BBC should be privatised.
So far two senior BBC types have interviewed themselves on the BBC to claim they had no idea how they are paid so much.
And they wonder why they need to be uniquely funded by compulsion.
Toady watch
We were treated to the discount version of al beebs award winning Today programme – this morning with the head girl and the work experience girl in charge. At the end of the programme the work experience girl had a chat with a friend called “Nish” who is being paid by al Beeb to put a satire programme on. There was a hilarious sketch about a white middle class family having to recover from using a mega bus to get from their home in the counties to London.
Fun all round eh? I did well only catching 5 minutes of that programme – it’s like coming off cigarettes.
I suppose the toady boys were at home counting their £600000 wages again
Why didn`t Liam Fox ask if Sarah was the rich one or the poor one, before she did her “I say we`re staying in the EU ballet piece(-as ineffective as ever, needless to add.
Maybe she`s that crap and fails to shaft the Tories that the BBC don`t think she`s worth as much as Mishal-who at least angers the israeli Embassy-which gets kudos from Momentum I`m sure.
Does Sarah have to clean the studio afterwards and piss on the potted plants too?
Liam DID say that he could no more guarantee that he`d be still in post this time next year, than Sarah could…did I get a whiff of absinthe at that chill in proceedings?
If i`m ever on Toady-I will speak to nobody on less than a Yentob.
How come Huw Edwards gets so much dough-he`s shit.
Reckon they still think he`s Hugh Scully. A crap tribute act, but a fine corpulent rotund body double nonetheless with that widows peak of his.
OK We have seen the top. What about the bottom? What is the BBC paying the techs, producers, researchers, artists etc. without which the BBC or any other media producer would be mute?
I think you’ll find that the people being paid nothing are the kids of albeeboid getting their legs under the table during their PPE gap year as interns in preparation for a lucrative career not doing much except for undermining Blighty and sucking on the taxpayer asexual breast. ( bad image eh.?)
All you have to do is read the BBC annual report to see how they obscure real figures…….even those released ignore those on contracts through 3rd parties that are not accessible and it ignores pensions etc and how many on these salaries are for part time.
I find it odd that reducing the senior manager headcount last year by 47 saved £4.4m which is about £93K per head? something doesn’t add up here….
And to see the BBC turn this into a positive is hilarious – we have gender pay gap so let’s address it by reducing the salaries of some men?
Has anyone noticed that the BEEB has a “Target” to reduce the % of LGBT staff over next few years to 8% as they exceeded their 2017 target of 5% by double to 10% .. wouldn’t be good for them to highlight they want fewer LGBT – goes against the lefty principles – so we will keep that quiet..
Given that the highest figure I can find in UK for LGBT is 5% with a more common figure of 2% one has to wonder why their target is 8%….
OK We have seen the top. What about the bottom? What is the BBC paying the techs, producers, researchers, artists etc. without which the BBC or any other media producer would be mute?
Why are the unions so quiet?
Little wonder that the BBC talking heads are so keen on socialism then, well, socialism for them and capitalism for everybody else, stick a straw into a trough full of money demanded with menaces and suck it dry. Once again the root cause is the licence fee, it must go.
I have a novel idea; WHY NOT REDUCE THE PAY OF MEN.
Why not solve the problem by bringing down the pay of men to that paid to women. It appears that the men are being grossly overpaid, not that the women are being underpaid.
I guess cost efficiency, and steps to get this under control, is of no concern to an organisation run on the TV tax extorted by fear of prosecution. Typical of all public/state service.
The BBC were unable to question Corbyn/labour over the fantasy magic money tree, because the BBC themselves rely upon such a magic money tree for all their jollies. The BBC and its employees are laughing all the way to the bank at ordinary UK citizen.
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/piers-morgan-blasted-for-leaking-bbc-salaries-and-claiming-scoop/ar-AAor6XZ
A revealing little spat re Piers Morgan scooping the good folk at ITV and the Guardian over the pay at the BBC.
Unprofessional, where`s your honour, respect the embargo like we do.
If this is not “we`re all in this together” then what is?
Time to splice the dead tree press and all those sucking the shade from the BBCs right to stay great, until we stay in the Eu, Trump is dead and Corbyns not after their money.
The list is, of course, incomplete. No mention of the Dimblebys, for example. As I understand it, the BBC have only included those presenters, etc. who are paid directly from the licence fees. Not included are those paid by BBC Worldwide (a private company) or through individuals’ management companies. This surely is not in the spirit of the exercise and amounts to avoidance, if not evasion.
Because of the unique way the BBC is funded, we can do and say what we want, without financial penalties. (Chris Evans – £2.5million. Lineker, twitter 6.9M followers and the BBC guidelines?)
Because of the unique way the BBC is funded, our staff can hide what we pay them in independent companies. (David Dimbleby)
Because of the unique way the BBC is funded, our employees can have multiple jobs and we don’t mind. (Lineker+Walkers+BT Sports)
Because of the unique way the BBC is funded, our staff can force their opinion on the public using their celebrity status with no come back. (Lineker – ‘It’s hard to see a single positive (in Brexit)’)
Because of the unique way the BBC is funded, ,paedophiles can hide in our business with the TV Tax payers having no recourse to punish the business financially. (Jimmy Savile – Kids Entertainer, Chris Denning – DJ)
Because of the unique way the BBC is funded, we can, through the legal system and threat of prison with the Governments backing, demand 200,000 people to pay the wages of our staff. (Gary Lineker and friends)
Because of the unique way the BBC is funded, our Directors can claim £34.76 {2014} for hospitality when being paid £450,000 a year. (Lord Hall)
Because of the unique way the BBC is funded, we don’t have to declare where we spend YOUR money. (trustees)
Because of the unique way the BBC is funded, we have hidden this information from the TV Tax payers for years.
Because of the unique way the BBC is funded, we can send our well paid Ex-BBC staff into Ofcom – the company that is supposed to be independent.
Because of the unique way the BBC is funded, we have revealed what happens when you create a totalitarian echo chamber (BBC diverse in people, but NOT diverse in opinion) that is enforced upon its citizens with threats of prison at £145pa … raising £3.5bn in TV Tax.
As a public body the BBC has a responsibility to operate as transparently as possible. The Trust takes this duty seriously and has tasked the BBC with setting new standards in openness and transparency. … The BBC Trust is directly accountable to licence fee payers; this is essential to maintaining the BBC’s independence. This means we have a responsibility to operate transparently. {bbc.co.uk – bbctrust – jul2017}
just popped into my mailbox: BBC spends £33m on redundancies… staff headcount increases, wagebill rises above £1bn
http://www.cityam.com/268750/w1a-bbc-spends-33m-redundancies-staff-headcount-increases?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=170720_CMU
The more I think about the more venal many of these al beeb people are . I’m bit scared to actually write their names but the idea that these characters spend their days holding people to account and then can’t account for the amount of taxpayers money they Hoover up is a disgrace and if they knew the difference between right and wrong they’d be ashamed .
By the way the London evening standard as short bits of interviews with two very rich beeboid journos – guess which ?!
Just read an article in the Telegraph And being that its the Daily Telegraph and not the BBC so I would trust the Telegraph to be right unlike the BBC and guess what ? auntie is being less than truthfull about the wages its talking heads get as the figures quoted by the BBC DONT include money paid from the BBC worldwide and other commercial operations or is paid via “management or production” companies that are owned or run by the BBC talking heads oops stars. Also how are those obcene salaries actually justified by the skills required by the BBC talking heads to do their jobs. From what I have seen of those people and the skills required to do their jobs £100K is pushing it and most would struggle to get past £50K in the real world. But we all know the BBC does not live in the real world.
This highlights a deep seated problem with public sector pay in general. It requires a complete overhaul and restructuring.
No one should be paid more than the Prime Minister. He/She is the top dog doing the most important job, and is on call 24/7.
Maybe there is a case of paying the Prime Minister more, but then if he/she is paid say £200,000, then everyone else sucking on the public teat should be paid less. Maybe the Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Office should be paid £175,000 and then at say a lower level of around £150,000 heads of the large Metropolitan Councils, head of the Met etc.
Very few people sucking on the public teat should be paid in excess of £100,000. that should be a very rare exception.
One cannot and should not compare public sector pay with private sector pay. The private sector generates income for the benefit of the country as a whole, whereas the public sector is just a drain and is parasitic.
There are far too many people employed by the state. Many do jobs which have no real benefit and would not be noticed if they were disposed of.
I remember, a long time ago (probably around 201/2011), Andrew Neil was interviewing an MP regarding cuts to the army. The MOD were getting rid of 23,000 soldiers. Andrew Neil pointed out that Israel spends about the same money as the UK on weapons procurement/supplies for the military and does this with a department of about 450 persons whereas in Westminster there were nearly 25,000 people employed on military procurement. Andrew Neil asked why not get rid of 23,000 jobs in Westminster, this would save more money and would not put defence of the realm at risk. The MP had no answer.
Of course there are some essential jobs in the public sector, but it is ironic that they pay mid to lower levels. The mind boggling pay is paid to people who for the main part are useless, and would not be missed if there job was simply got rid of.
Finally, don’t overlook that these people have pensions which those in the private sector can only dream about. The private sector employee cannot make adequate arrangements to cover their own pension since they are having to fund (through high taxation – Council tax payment) the extraordinary generous public sector pensions of people employed by the state on a salary of more than £40,000 pa.
Fundamental revision of pay and pensions is required, but no political party will pick up the challenge. Eventually this will lead to a public backlash.
Public backlashes over anything, these days appear, sadly, to be non-existent.
I,ve read some brilliant contributions on this site and there’s probably enough evidence to close the bBC 10 times over.
But sadly it is a SCAM……..
How else could the people who run it shamefacedly and without even a wince stand by some of this:
*DJ Chris Evans over £ 2 million in wages
*Salt n Lineker over £1.8 m
*DJ and gross windbag Humphries ( aged 73 and a half) £ 700k
AND
We are totally impartial
In conclusion ( to any criticism) ” we just about got that right”
It is a top to bottom SCAM perpetrated on us by compliant governments and the timing of this latest salary info is perfectly
placed as we blend into the mist of a long hot summer………..
Someone kindly shared a rare HYS about this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40653383
As expected, the BBC may be disappointed in the results so far.
I decided to take a sneaky peak at the lowest ratings as well as the highest. One managed both.
14. Posted by CaptainSlow81 on
19 Jul 2017 10:46
I want the choice as to whether I want to pay my license fee or not.
Number of positive ratings for comment 14: 762
Number of negative ratings for comment 14: 142
Now, who would actively disapprove of such a choice?
Seems closed now.
4376. Posted by FreeSpeech
1 hour ago
Comment number 4375. Posted by notory
2 hours ago
Seems… odd that there was one comment in one hour when it attracted over 4000.
Guido catching up on that merry BBC phenomenon of what is not mentioned by them being often as if not more interesting than is:
https://order-order.com/2017/07/20/bbc-stars-notonthelist-paid-via-production-companies/
Top comment:
Alan Ackbarsson. • 2 hours ago
This is what I extrapolate ….
The BBC, a publicly funded body contracting work out to Private Enterprise because it’s more efficient = Good.
The NHS, a publicly funded body contracting work out to Private Enterprise because it’s more efficient = Bad.
Is this correct?
A question many at the BBC could pose to many in politics.
But bet they won’t.
Then of course there is BBC ‘editorial integrity’ to further ‘explain’ (BBC ‘quotes’ all round):
https://order-order.com/2017/07/20/bbc-press-office-takes-libdem-graph-lessons/
Glad to see the albeeb overpayment scandal still running.
I see that hislop and Merton
Some one called Charlie broker – who has 4 companies – some in holland
The dimbley twins
Others being paid through production companies – Attenborough – norton – do not have there wages from the public made public.
So glad be avoiding tax myself – namely the to licence tax I am giving nothing to these people. Until sense returns to
Al Beeb post Brexit ( or never ) morally I cannot contribute to al beeb so will avoid it as much as I can. It can only be a matter of time before they try to charge for using the wireless.
Well isn’t this “gender pay gap” a pretty surprise from the hypocritical propagandizing BBC… the solution is clear: Chris Evans and Gary Lineker should get an emergency sex-change operation… and if they refuse then they are misogynistic and should be fired.