BBC Salaries - progress

[jean]

I think I read your stupid, stupid man... as a more-in-sorrow-than-in anger comment.

But even if I read it as more censorious than that, there's something essentially harmless - in its motivation, anyway - about stupidity.

(An irresitible diversion. Perhaps too early to speak if it in the past?)

[P. G. Tipps]

...This was a diversion worthy of Tarantella …

No, on the contrary, it was simply an anticipation of a hostile reaction after a factual response to a 'diversion'.

Believe it or not ... and I suspect it will be the latter ... I was simply attempting to be rather less 'stupid' than Mr Myers.

I clearly failed!

[jean]

Don't flagellate yourself, Tippsy - the diversion took off in Lat's post:

Seeing that only the columnist has been fired, I would have thought that people who subscribe to this publication might now wish to vote with their feet, so to speak:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40768352

I really don't know how some people get their jobs - proven holocaust deniers are clearly totally untrustworthy in terms of having any relationship with factual truths.

All you did was try to defend the indefensible.

[Lat-Literal]

Don't flagellate yourself, Tippsy - the diversion took off in Lat's post:


All you did was try to defend the indefensible.

Yes, well, apart from the main issue of the nature of the article about which Vanessa Feltz is upset - and consequently that's the number one "news" story on the BBC site - it seemed to me to be yet another indication why any drift away from the BBC towards the Murdoch Empire, often of the BBC's own doing, might in a small way on a matter of principle be reversed.

(In fairness, the most read - not given the absolute highest billing)

[Stanfordian]

There needs to be a thorough inquiry into the people in the BBC that commission the exorbitant pay rates of these high paid personalities. I can’t believe that most of these ‘personalities’ wouldn’t do the job for a fraction of the pay.

[ahinton]

There needs to be a thorough inquiry into the people in the BBC that commission the exorbitant pay rates of these high paid personalities. I can’t believe that most of these ‘personalities’ wouldn’t do the job for a fraction of the pay.

I can believe it, in some if not most cases, if for no better reason than that as they've gotten them from BBC they can get them elsewhere instead.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

There needs to be a thorough inquiry into the people in the BBC that commission the exorbitant pay rates of these high paid personalities. I can’t believe that most of these ‘personalities’ wouldn’t do the job for a fraction of the pay.

That's probably true in many cases, Stanf - but, call me cynical, I would not be surprised to hear that many of them would do a similar job for a higher salary from the "independents" when offered. As has been said - unless we're told what "equivalent" fees are being paid from ITV/SKY etc, the publication of BBC top salaries is at best limited, at worst, damaging in that readers are led to think that these fees are higher than those offered by other companies. (Which may be true - but there's no way of knowing.)

[ahinton]

That's probably true in many cases, Stanf - but, call me cynical, I would not be surprised to hear that many of them would do a similar job for a higher salary from the "independents" when offered. As has been said - unless we're told what "equivalent" fees are being paid from ITV/SKY etc, the publication of BBC top salaries is at best limited, at worst, damaging in that readers are led to think that these fees are higher than those offered by other companies. (Which may be true - but there's no way of knowing.)

Indeed - but, as I've mentioned before, it's not all about BBC "salaries" but BBC pay to - or for the purposes of securing the services of - the people concerned and by no means all such payments will be to staff members employed by BBC and on its payroll; if all that's being considered are amounts paid by BBC to people that it employs, the result will at best be a half-truth that certainly won't reveal the full amounts that it pays to secure everyone's services.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I agree entirely.

[Richard Tarleton]

Indeed - but, as I've mentioned before, it's not all about BBC "salaries" but BBC pay to - or for the purposes of securing the services of - the people concerned and by no means all such payments will be to staff members employed by BBC and on its payroll; if all that's being considered are amounts paid by BBC to people that it employs, the result will at best be a half-truth that certainly won't reveal the full amounts that it pays to secure everyone's services.

And of course, to underline the vanity of it from the BBC's point of view, it makes absolutely no difference to the viewer which channel these people are on. If (hypothetically) Graham Norton were to decamp to ITV, so what - people who want to can simply watch him there. Remember Jonathan Ross? The Beeb can just get someone cheaper. Nobody is irreplaceable.

[teamsaint]

I can believe it, in some if not most cases, if for no better reason thn that as they've gotten them from BBC they can get them elsewhere instead.

IF Gary Lineker could get £2m PA elsewhere for what he does, he would go.
He can't.
And somebody at least as competent could be got for 10% of the fee.
Nobody watches match of the day to see him. They watch to see the games played that day.
The fees he gets are a scandalous waste of public money.

Perhaps they could put the money towards trying to get some more live football on, since there is almost none paid for with the licence fee.

[ahinton]

IF Gary Lineker could get £2m PA elsewhere for what he does, he would go.
He can't.

Can we be certain of that? You might well be right, but we can't be sure. Anyway; he's not the only one.

And somebody at least as competent could be got for 10% of the fee.
Nobody watches match of the day to see him. They watch to see the games played that day.

I don't watch him or indeed any football programmes so I'm in no position to comment, but some of the other highly paid people might be in a better position to secure such large amounts elsewhere than he might.

[teamsaint]

How certain do you need to be ?
Offer 250k a year,and you'll get a nice long queue of interested folks, plenty of whom are capable of introducing a match, and asking non searching questions of the panelists.

[ahinton]

How certain do you need to be ?
Offer 250k a year,and you'll get a nice long queue of interested folks, plenty of whom are capable of introducing a match, and asking non searching questions of the panelists.

Possibly, unless some of them could get more elsewhere (and one could argue that Lineker might have set some kind of precedent here) - but what you say might well be true in that people watch his programme rather than him and so it's the incomes of some of the other highly paid people that might perhsaps be of more interest here.

[teamsaint]

I'm putting that down as a "yes".