BBC Salaries - progress

[french frank]

Well, ok, then, on Andrew Neil who works more hours than many do. I didn't spot that he was on the list. All of the others I have mentioned were not on the list.

Well, Richard Attenborough died a couple of years ago and David Attenborough was mentioned as one who is paid through a production company (i.e. the company which makes the films for the BBC). Of the rest, I'm not sure they all do enough to come above £150,000 for their BBC work.

[Lat-Literal]

Well, Richard Attenborough died a couple of years ago and David Attenborough was mentioned as one who is paid through a production company (i.e. the company which makes the films for the BBC). Of the rest, I'm not sure they all do enough to come above £150,000 for their BBC work.

Well, yes, ok then.

I should have said David rather than Richard.

As a matter of interest are there any points I have made on this thread that people are of a mind to say have merit?

Or is it ultra critical week?

100% on one side and zero on the other - closer to the original understanding of bias rather than Harriet Harman's?

Incidentally, I held back from saying that Tony Hall needs to be replaced but I've changed my mind. I don't like him.

[Dave2002]

I am not sure which other services need the same transparency.

I don't really see why almost all work shouldn't be transparent. In California teachers pay is known to other teachers within the same school, and possibly state wide. In Sweden anyone can phone the tax office and ask about the tax of a particular person. I didn't believe this, but a friend took up the challenge, and phoned to find out the precise details of my pay - which I was able to confirm. It's no big deal for most people. Swedish newspapers sometimes publish the details of very big earners - probably once or twice a year just to sell the papers.

[Lat-Literal]

I don't really see why almost all work shouldn't be transparent. In California teachers pay is known to other teachers within the same school, and possibly state wide. In Sweden anyone can phone the tax office and ask about the tax of a particular person. I didn't believe this, but a friend took up the challenge, and phoned to find out the precise details of my pay - which I was able to confirm. It's no big deal for most people. Swedish newspapers sometimes publish the details of very big earners - probably once or twice a year just to sell the papers.

What I meant was other broadcasting services. There aren't licence fee implications with most or all of those and the significance of public accountability is less obviously direct. But I tend to agree with you. Most people don't put up walls to hide the size of their houses or the number of cars they own. Often such things are flaunted. The difference in those two approaches is irrational unless they have other reasons for concealment. And many of those who don't want transparency criticise the state for secrecy. News journalists, for example.

[ahinton]

What I meant was other broadcasting services. There aren't licence fee implications with most or all of those and the significance of public accountability is less obviously direct. But I tend to agree with you. Most people don't put up walls to hide the size of their houses or the number of cars they own. Often such things are flaunted. The difference in those two approaches is irrational unless they have other reasons. And many of those who don't want transparency criticise the state for secrecy. Journalists, for example.

The fact remains, however, that people who read this stuff about BBC salaries will not for the most part recognise or realise that most of what BBC pays for these people's services is not actually paid directly to them but to companies of which they may be directors; add to that the factor of non BBC-productions that BBC's subcontracted out (as has already been mentioned) and the exercise becomes almost entirely pointless, although licence fee payers will still have to pay for its costs.

[Lat-Literal]

The fact remains, however, that people who read this stuff about BBC salaries will not fo the most part recognise or realise that most of what BBC pays for these people's services is not actually paid directly to them but to companies of which they may be directors; add to that the factor of non BBC-productions that BBC's subcontracted out (as has already been mentioned) and the exercise becomes almost entirely pointless, although licence fee payers will still have to pay for its costs.

I agree that it needs broader context, as I previously indicated, and perhaps that is in the report but not, I suspect, as prominently as it might be and certainly it's not in most news.

One suggestion for not offering the information was that the process could be inflationary. We the public who pay them have, therefore, been advised we will be willingly entertained by some on even higher payments now that the BBC has been forced into this position. I think we are the better judges. It is wholly our attitudes which will keep inflation under control.

Every generation of listeners and viewers needs to do whatever is necessary to save the BBC from its managers. Ross would still be 'earning' what he was earning had it not been for us.

[P. G. Tipps]

Every generation of listeners and viewers needs to do whatever is necessary to save the BBC from its managers. Ross would still be 'earning' what he was earning had it not been for us.

I couldn't agree more ... and this applies to highly-paid senior managers in both the public and private sectors!

However I think 'us' must accept a good deal of the blame for these ridiculous salaries for some at the BBC. The plain fact is that millions viewers/listeners prefer to watch and listen to c**p (sorry I can't think of a more accurate term) on both TV and Radio than quality programming. In much the same way as the voter is currently responsible for the realities of Brexit (whatever one's point of view on the matter itself).

As for the 'gender gap' feminists like Harriet Harman .. egged on enthusiastically by the PC media ... they will foam at the mouth (her own words) over the fact that Clare Balding is not paid as much as Gary Lineker even though her shows attract a fraction of the viewers his do.

An SNP MP, proudly sporting a Scotland shirt in the House of Commons yesterday prior to the England v Scotland women's game in Utrecht, said later in an interview that she hoped women footballers would soon be paid as much as the men.

As it happens Puir Auld Scotland, with Ms Nicola Sturgeon watching in eager anticipation, got thumped 6-0 which is even worse than recent performances from the men. That is the headline news on BBC R4 Sport this morning. The attendance was 5,587. Then came the news about a men's equally one-sided Champions League game in Glasgow ... attendance just under 60,000!

That's the reality I'm afraid, ladies .. you need to attract a lot more punters, whether they be men or women!

[french frank]

As for the 'gender gap' feminists like Harriet Harman .. egged on enthusiastically by the PC media ... they will foam at the mouth (her own words) over the fact that Clare Balding is not paid as much as Gary Lineker even though her shows attract a fraction of the viewers his do.

The whole BBC thinking behind this, with individuals' and station pay, is that the more listeners/viewers you attract, the more money you get because 'value' is judged on that basis. That is your 'value' to the BBC - pulling in the punters.

In other words, no Radio 3 presenter, male or female, will ever get paid a fraction of what a Radio 2 presenter, male or female gets, in spite of working as hard or harder and with the same or greater competence. It's not just 'PC foaming-at-the-mouth feminists' who have a right to question this. [And R2 which had a number of the highest-paid radio presenters, has the highest guideline budget of R1, R2 & R3 (network music stations), also overspent its budget by the highest margin (R3 the only one inside its budget).]

[Stanfordian]

I couldn't agree more ... and this applies to highly-paid senior managers in both the public and private sectors!

However I think 'us' must accept a good deal of the blame for these ridiculous salaries for some at the BBC. The plain fact is that millions viewers/listeners prefer to watch and listen to c**p (sorry I can't think of a more accurate term) on both TV and Radio than quality programming. In much the same way as the voter is currently responsible for the realities of Brexit (whatever one's point of view on the matter itself).

As for the 'gender gap' feminists like Harriet Harman .. egged on enthusiastically by the PC media ... they will foam at the mouth (her own words) over the fact that Clare Balding is not paid as much as Gary Lineker even though her shows attract a fraction of the viewers his do.

An SNP MP, proudly sporting a Scotland shirt in the House of Commons yesterday prior to the England v Scotland women's game in Utrecht, said later in an interview that she hoped women footballers would soon be paid as much as the men.

As it happens Puir Auld Scotland, with Ms Nicola Sturgeon watching in eager anticipation, got thumped 6-0 which is even worse than recent performances from the men. That is the headline news on BBC R4 Sport this morning. The attendance was 5,587. Then came the news about a men's equally one-sided Champions League game in Glasgow ... attendance just under 60,000!

That's the reality I'm afraid, ladies .. you need to attract a lot more punters, whether they be men or women!

I believe that audiences watch 'Match of the Day' for its football content not because Gary Lineker presents it. I doubt the audience figures alter much when Gabby Logan is in the presenting chair.

[Richard Tarleton]

Just two small points, out of many

As for the 'gender gap' feminists like Harriet Harman .. egged on enthusiastically by the PC media ... they will foam at the mouth (her own words) over the fact that Clare Balding is not paid as much as Gary Lineker even though her shows attract a fraction of the viewers his do.

A key question here - could she do what he does, on his show? Does she, on the shows she is allotted, demonstrate similar skills? Stanfordian's Gabby Logan point is well made. Comparability exercises by other organisations break the job down into its component parts and look at it that way. .

That's the reality I'm afraid, ladies .. you need to attract a lot more punters, whether they be men or women!

Football not funded by the license payer, AFAIK, and irrelevant. And, your point not relevant in the case of news and current affairs, where women are paid less for doing identical job (Emily Maitlis's agency says her absence from the list "beyond madness", likewise Sarah Montague).

[ahinton]

Football not funded by the license payer, AFAIK, and irrelevant. And, your point not relevant in the case of news and current affairs, where women are paid less for doing identical job (Emily Maitlis's agency says her absence from the list "beyond madness", likewise Sarah Montague).

Indeed - and it must have been embarrassing for Sarah Montague to participate in an item on this on Today, alongside her colleague Mishal Husain, when she's the only presenter of that programme not on the list; good for her for keeping that out of the discussion. I wouldn't have cared to be in her shoes on that occasion.

[P. G. Tipps]

The whole BBC thinking behind this, with individuals' and station pay, is that the more listeners/viewers you attract, the more money you get because 'value' is judged on that basis. That is your 'value' to the BBC - pulling in the punters.

In other words, no Radio 3 presenter, male or female, will ever get paid a fraction of what a Radio 2 presenter, male or female gets, in spite of working as hard or harder and with the same or greater competence. It's not just 'PC foaming-at-the-mouth feminists' who have a right to question this.

I agree completely!

[Dave2002]

However I think 'us' must accept a good deal of the blame for these ridiculous salaries for some at the BBC. The plain fact is that millions viewers/listeners prefer to watch and listen to c**p (sorry I can't think of a more accurate term) on both TV and Radio than quality programming. In much the same way as the voter is currently responsible for the realities of Brexit (whatever one's point of view on the matter itself).

[kernelbogey]

aaah

Not forgetting the army of monks to produce the manuscript ?
I'm going to see if I can sneak Letraset into my accounts next time

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

[Serial_Apologist]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

My old dad could still translate Latin inscriptions on tombs etc when in his 80s, whereas I who only got 39% in O Level had forgotten most of it by my 40s. So that's too advanced for the likes of me (and, I would think, most on this board).