BBC and other fat cats Pay - more than the PM!

[reohn2]

Hi,

Is Psamathe the only anti-beeb remainer?

Otherwise it looks like there's a strong correlation between beeb haters and breleavers.
(Not that it surprises me).

Nor me.

Add me
But there is also a correlation with Unions Labour Stayers and BBC lovers.............................

You could be right,but I wouldn't bet on it being an absolute

The later is confusing as its steered and licence set by hated gov

So what's that got to do with theprice of fsh?
The BBC has been in existence since 1922 and has seen many governments of all persuasions come and go,all of which have set the licence fee.
But taking your statment to it's logical conclusion,if I listen,watch and appreciate the BBC,it follows I should like the present government
Going off that kind logic I'm not surprised you're confused

[Cyril Haearn]

Germany has something like the bbc with compulsory tax to fund it, what do other nations have, France, Spain, Italy, Norway etc, how is NPR in the US funded?

+4 for funding for Sianel Pedwar Ec, S4C

[Tangled Metal]

I had an old dial in B&W TV as a kid. Channel 4 was S4C because it had the better signal. Although I used to try and watch the real C4 certain climactic conditions meant I couldn't get a good signal some days.

Still it's interesting to watch at times and the BBC alba to. Kid's programmes on alba amuse me a bit. It doesn't quite sound right. Different language but same images. I wonder how hard it is to match language to cartoon mouths?

[Stevek76]

I don't quite get the obsession over comparing pay to the PM. Pay should be compared to the market rate, not to someone in an entirely irrelevant job sector. There are plenty of jobs in the country that are largely or entirely public funded that pay more than the PM.

(not to mention that the UK pays its politicians pretty poorly by international standards - might be part of the reason the quality of them is as it is)

As for the BBC in general, my view of it is reasonably positive. I think that was enhanced from neutral somewhat by finding that its generally held in fairly high regard in other countries and that kind of soft power projection seems especially valuable at the current time when our political sector seems to be doing its best to damage the country's image.

There are areas where it could be imropoved. The license fee is daft, it should be funded from central coffers, the nominal independence provided by having it separate just seems unnecessary smoke and mirrors and wasting money paying capita to intimidate (usually vulnerable) people, the same 'independence' could be achieved by still keeping the royal charter structure etc.

Also while I can see the need for the BBC to provide some entertainment programming rather than just focus exclusively on areas that the private sector wouldn't cover, it should seek to fulfil this with home grown programs and formats and not e.g. get into daft bidding wars with ITV over 'The Voice'.

Also the news could be a little more incisive, it seems to have been intimidated in recent years by accusations of bias by the mail et al and often just presents both sides of an argument with little investigative fact checking or challenging of obvious falsities by contributors.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Suck it up, old news but still in job, yet to be grilled by culture secretary on gender pay gap at BBC, he's been there some five years-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvan ... alary.html

"Lord Hall, the new director-general of the BBC, will earn £532,000 a year from the corporation because he already draws an £82,000 pension which will be added to his £450,000 salary, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
The current chief executive of the Royal Opera House was the only candidate interviewed by the BBC Trust to replace George Entwistle, who quit earlier this month over the Lord McAlpine affair.
Lord Patten, the chairman of the Trust, said the 61-year-old former BBC News chief was the “outstanding candidate” for the job and was a unanimous choice among the trustees.
Lord Hall said he cared “passionately” about the BBC and would build a “world class team” to lead it.
But the cross-bench peer, who will take up the position next March, faced immediate questions about his financial package, which will allow him to continue drawing £82,000 a year from the BBC’s gilt-edged pension scheme on top of his salary."

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

But taking your statment to it's logical conclusion,if I listen,watch and appreciate the BBC,it follows I should like the present government
Going off that kind logic I'm not surprised you're confused

You watch the BBC and are happy for the Gov who is in power at any time to set licence fee..........................

Hardly makes BBC independent.............but they solely rely on gov to get their money and spend it independently on them selves
Gender pay gap in BBC runs at half the gen public but its still 9% more for men.

I did ask the BBC once how they call themselves independent............they never replied............how could they.............

OK, so the gov are telling the BBC to spend an extra 32 mil on the 100 mil they currently spend on child programs....so GOV is definitely in charge...........nothing was different under labour? or was it................

[reohn2]

Hi,

But taking your statment to it's logical conclusion,if I listen,watch and appreciate the BBC,it follows I should like the present government
Going off that kind logic I'm not surprised you're confused

You watch the BBC and are happy for the Gov who is in power at any time to set licence fee..........................

Hardly makes BBC independent.............but they solely rely on gov to get their money and spend it independently on them selves
Gender pay gap in BBC runs at half the gen public but its still 9% more for men.

I did ask the BBC once how they call themselves independent............they never replied............how could they.............
Np
OK, so the gov are telling the BBC to spend an extra 32 mil on the 100 mil they currently spend on child programs....so GOV is definitely in charge...........nothing was different under labour? or was it................

The BBC rely on subscriptions from the public,at a rate set by the government,so they don't have to rely solely on advertising revenue,like commercial stations do,go figure.
As for the gender pay gap,the BBC is no worse than some other companies but as a publicly funded body IMO its a disgrace we should even need to be discussing the issue in 2018,and I hope that pay is equalised sooner rather than later.
Like many things in life I find unfair and biased but have no control over,the BBC is no different but I'm not prepared to cut my nose of to spite my face.
Edited for typos

[Cyril Haearn]

I do wish people would write "receives" or "gets paid" xxx, not "earns" xxx

[old_windbag]

I think its important to separate the bbc and its output from its pay structure. Be critical of the latter, which reflects uk companies in general, as all the salaries, pensions etc are unjustified. But if they aren't parasiting in the beeb, ahem offering the public value, they would be parasiting elsewhere. It's a big club, once in you'll be living the dream.

Then many of the celebs below the execs level are just as bad. This country is full of people like these who aren't worth the steam off my excrement.

[Tangled Metal]

Pay is interesting all round. In a recent survey or study BBC actually isn't that bad for gender pay gap worst in the study was 60%+ for the men. They tried to justify it because men in the organization tend to be in head office where the higher wages are. OK! We know that that's what the study says, they employ men in higher pay jobs which is kind of against equality principles.

Then you get the British museum. It's gender pay gap is something like 0.3% towards men. They have no policy on gender pay gap unlike the BBC but they still managed near equal pay. How? They employ the best person for the job but still end up equal. Why?

Then I think there's a police constabulary that's got a gender pay gap in favour of women IIRC.

Or the company with a party gap of 19% in favour of women! What's happening there?

So it's a complex situation. There's good and bad stats out there. How it's to be changed for the better is a better discussion than the pm's pay or how much you hate the bbc/BBC licence fee.

[reohn2]

Pay is interesting all round. In a recent survey or study BBC actually isn't that bad for gender pay gap worst in the study was 60%+ for the men. They tried to justify it because men in the organization tend to be in head office where the higher wages are. OK! We know that that's what the study says, they employ men in higher pay jobs which is kind of against equality principles.

Then you get the British museum. It's gender pay gap is something like 0.3% towards men. They have no policy on gender pay gap unlike the BBC but they still managed near equal pay. How? They employ the best person for the job but still end up equal. Why?

Then I think there's a police constabulary that's got a gender pay gap in favour of women IIRC.

Or the company with a party gap of 19% in favour of women! What's happening there?

So it's a complex situation. There's good and bad stats out there. How it's to be changed for the better is a better discussion than the pm's pay or how much you hate the bbc/BBC licence fee.

I agree, if two people are doing the same job and have the same experience at that job they should be paid the same if they're producing the same results,whatever their gender.

[Psamathe]

Hi,
Suck it up, old news but still in job, yet to be grilled by culture secretary on gender pay gap at BBC, he's been there some five years-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvan ... alary.html

"Lord Hall, the new director-general of the BBC, will earn £532,000 a year from the corporation because he already draws an £82,000 pension which will be added to his £450,000 salary, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
The current chief executive of the Royal Opera House was the only candidate interviewed by the BBC Trust to replace George Entwistle, who quit earlier this month over the Lord McAlpine affair.
Lord Patten, the chairman of the Trust, said the 61-year-old former BBC News chief was the “outstanding candidate” for the job and was a unanimous choice among the trustees.
Lord Hall said he cared “passionately” about the BBC and would build a “world class team” to lead it.
But the cross-bench peer, who will take up the position next March, faced immediate questions about his financial package, which will allow him to continue drawing £82,000 a year from the BBC’s gilt-edged pension scheme on top of his salary."

I'm unsure of exactly what/how but the NHS apparently have very strict rules about drawing pensions and continuing to work. I used to know an NHS consultant and she retired drawing her pension but was then asked if she would start working again to cover a maternity leave (I think it was for 12 months) and she had quite a bit of "hoops to jump through" because she would be drawing a pension AND drawing a salary.

Maybe somebody here works for the NHS and can provide details?

Ian

[Psamathe]

I think its important to separate the bbc and its output from its pay structure. Be critical of the latter, which reflects uk companies in general, as all the salaries, pensions etc are unjustified. But if they aren't parasiting in the beeb, ahem offering the public value, they would be parasiting elsewhere. It's a big club, once in you'll be living the dream.

Then many of the celebs below the execs level are just as bad. This country is full of people like these who aren't worth the steam off my excrement.

For me the output and corporate issues become closely related when considering where I spend my money e.g. I wont even consider subscribing to Sky because I can't tolerate the Murdochs (though it seems unclear if Murdochs will continue having involvement), similarly I wont even consider amazon Prime (not any organisation that will pay Clarkson shed loads of money whilst avoiding paying so much UK tax.

But I have a choice with Sky, Amazon Prime, etc. and can "vote with my feet". No such choice with the BBC.

Ian

[rmurphy195]

One thing about the people who we elect to run our country - whoever they may be ...

How many people onn here would be able to put up with people telling you you don't know your job, and publicly criticising and rubbishing everything you do, day in, day out, every single day, without collapsing under the strain?

[old_windbag]

or me the output and corporate issues become closely related when considering where I spend my money e.g. I wont even consider subscribing to Sky because I can't tolerate the Murdochs (though it seems unclear if Murdochs will continue having involvement), similarly I wont even consider amazon Prime (not any organisation that will pay Clarkson shed loads of money whilst avoiding paying so much UK tax.

But I have a choice with Sky, Amazon Prime, etc. and can "vote with my feet". No such choice with the BBC.

Oh I know what you mean, I too refuse to pay sky, amazon etc because I feel that money is spent on sensationalist programs, overpaid buffoons like clarkson who simply have a bit of ability but a greater ability, like many, to make people believe they are worth their fee. At present the BBC still produce some good intelligent programmes. If it became a no licence fee, advert based, organisation I'd worry that they'd fall into the trap of the others we dislike. Salary wise I tire of hearing the excessive salaries given to many but for example hugh edwards. We'll hear "but if we don't pay them that they'll go to our competitors", well let them, like clarkson he didn't keep me watching the BBC nor make me want to cough up for a fire? stick.

The other un-savoury aspect of sky etc is in the fact people pay for a "package" yet have to pay further for special events, i.e. haye v klitchko, yet these are what people paid to have with boxing included in their package. Hard capitalism without thought of creating a quality service to satisfy the gogglebox families.

Personally I think £100k to read the news is more than enough and there are many erudite individuals who could do so and be happy/satisfied on such an income. These BBC presenters/stars/execs need to be taken down a peg. Quality of programs wouldn't suffer. Tonight I saw edwards summon sopel outside the whitehouse, he'll ask "whats the atmosphere like in the white house tonight john", "oh its very edgy hugh it'll be a tense few days". Thats the sort of made up flannel we get, no witnesses or evidence of truth, yet they get paid for it, we can all do that.