Are they worth it - BBC announces high earners

[Horsetan]

.....When people admit that it is based in self interest I can respect it. However usually these arguments are clothed in rhetoric about equality.

Some animals are more equal than others.

[Free At Last]

Joseph_Pestell, on 20 Jul 2017 - 14:27, said:

Try living without a TV and experience the disgraceful harassment in the form of letters that you get for not having a licence.

 

Like  this...

This is an old photo, I now have over 80 since I started keeping them (thrown as many in the bin) ready to hand back to 'The Man' when he eventually appears.

I have letters stating what to expect when I appear in court...  that my house is under investigation... that the man will be calling on such and such a date, I wait in and no one calls.

All a waste of licence payers money.

[Mark Saunders]

Some animals are more equal than others.

Some have better agents than others!

 

Mark Saunders

[Rivercider]

Like  this...

TVLA.jpg

This is an old photo, I now have over 80 since I started keeping them (thrown as many in the bin) ready to hand back to 'The Man' when he eventually appears.

I have letters stating what to expect when I appear in court...  that my house is under investigation... that the man will be calling on such and such a date, I wait in and no one calls.

All a waste of licence payers money.

A neighbour of mine had a number of similar letters (not as many as you I suspect).

He had his licence framed and mounted on his lounge wall, and was eagerly awaiting the day when someone called,

he was ready to grab them by the scruff of the neck and take them to see the licence! No-one called though...

 

cheers

[runs as required]

Old fart that I am, I still "tune in" to either Radio 4 or Radio 3 in the car.

I can't abide Classic FM with its 4 minute 'lollipops' and depressing BUPA adverts.

I reckon I have learnt almost all I know about music and opera from Radio 3 and its predecessor the Third Programme.

 

And TV: News at Ten is not a patch on the Beeb news and Newsnight.

 

As for paying for it, can't 'Pay for what You Watch' metering be devised for the Beeb in place of the 1930s 'Licence Fee', much as road usage ought to be metered?

Surely much Broadcast Media output is watched retrospectively via iPlayer type devices nowadays rather than the old crowded together on the sofa 'Royle Family' manner

 

I seem to remember the Conservative gov has already shorn the BBC of the publishing and web subsidaries that were supposedly defraying licence income. 

I think their secret agenda is to bin it along with the NHS and most places north of Chipping Holton

dh

Edited July 20, 2017 by runs as required

[Dunsignalling]

Hi

 

Or when they replace regular programs with football. Not everyone cares about twenty two grown men kicking a bag of wind about.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

That's more an ITV issue and usually involves competitions that even those who do care have barely heard of..........

[Ozexpatriate]

I find it quite ironic that given Europe is doing all sorts of work on data protection to protect the privacy of individuals that it is apparently OK to indulge in “naming and shaming” of peoples pay details like this. I’m guessing that not many here would welcome details about their income being splashed across the front pages. What is the point of this?

I find comparing the pay of BBC employees to the PM quite funny. 

It reminds me of similar state government 'accountability' disclosures here in the US where local government salaries are made public. The unintended consequence of this is that, more often than not, the highest government paid employee in the state is shown to be the state university football coach.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Ozexpatriate

[Ozexpatriate]

Making a conscious investment in a news outlet that is not the mouthpiece of a political party or an administration really feels like something worth continuing to invest in.

Sadly, the belief that BBC news is unbiased and independent is a myth.  For some time now BBC news has been a parochial institution that serves largely to spout the views of the Establishment and ignore or denigrate items that the Establishment disagrees with or, even worse, considers to be a threat - an prime example is the BBC's coverage of Jeremy Corbyn during the recent election campaign.  It is unfortunate that so many people still believe the BBC to be unbiased, but their number is dwindlling, perhaps largely due to the internet.

I never said it was unbiased and the real question is one of 'independent' of what.

 

Every news outlet is subject to editorial control, in terms of what stories get reported and what do not. Every news outlet is subject to the worldview filter through which the way we see the world (and the way reporters describe what they see) is reported.

 

I suspect that since it's inception, the BBC has ever been a parochial institution that reflects the British Establishment, similar to the way institutions like the civil service behave. To that end it is not the mouthpiece of a particular party or administration. It may well have a strong (lower case c) conservative bent, and in some ways (perhaps more behavioural than political) I suspect it always did.

 

What I can share is my observations that a US news outlet becoming the mouthpiece for one party, has driven polarizing bias that wasn't previously present into competing outlets in the way that nature abhors a vacuum.   

Edited July 20, 2017 by Ozexpatriate

[jjb1970]

And paying the TV licence is not the least of it. Try living without a TV and experience the disgraceful harassment in the form of letters that you get for not having a licence. Having been there, I do find myself being very anti the TV licence fee as much as I agree that John Whittingdale MP raised all this for political reasons.

Nicely put.

[jjb1970]

Like  this...

TVLA.jpg

This is an old photo, I now have over 80 since I started keeping them (thrown as many in the bin) ready to hand back to 'The Man' when he eventually appears.

I have letters stating what to expect when I appear in court...  that my house is under investigation... that the man will be calling on such and such a date, I wait in and no one calls.

All a waste of licence payers money.

It's more than a waste of money, it's an appalling abuse of power.

[phil-b259]

A neighbour of mine had a number of similar letters (not as many as you I suspect).

He had his licence framed and mounted on his lounge wall, and was eagerly awaiting the day when someone called,

he was ready to grab them by the scruff of the neck and take them to see the licence! No-one called though...

 

cheers

 

 

Not surprising, as calling on people in their homes requires the use of expensive field staff. Such staff (if they exist) are far more usefully employed an a few high profile troublesome cases than being sent all over the place.

 

My relatives had a similar issue when disposing of a deceased relatives estate because it took quite a while to sell on the property. As a result regular threatening letters were received from the TV licensing people warning of dire consequences if the now deceased / non existent occupier did not pay up immediately. Repeated calls and complaints to the TV Licensing people eventually elected the response that they work on the assumption that every UK address has a TV and thus should be paying for a TV licence. Hence their database was programmed to automatically send out threatening letters until payment was received - and the staff could only stop the automated process for 3 months at a time - after which the letters would resume.

[jjb1970]

A rather neat inversion of being innocent until proven guilty.

[Zomboid]

Though the likelihood is that it's only a very small proportion of addresses in the country which don't have TV recieving equipment. Doesn't make it less annoying if you are one of them, but as assumptions go it's a pretty safe one IMO.

[Butler Henderson]

Comment I saw on twitter - BBC high paid salaries total £29.5m, Ant & Dec £30m. Enough said.

 

I do struggle with the hate that emerges from many on the BBC. My typical day starts with listening to the news and weather on Radio York, I then switch to Five Live Breakfast interrupting it to listen to the news on the local commercial station, which I tend to have on in the car. Return from work; Pointless to wind down then the 6 O'clock news and maybe the local news. Rest of the evening viewing when I get round to its usually off the PVR so if its a BBC program settle back and watch; if its off any other channel have the remote to hand to fast forward through the commercials. It was only watching TdF live last weekend on ITV4 that I actually sat and watched a commercial for the first time in ages.

[Free At Last]

For the number of years that my property has been under investigation for suspected unlicensed viewing, instead of sending out threatening letters and wasting taxpayers money they should be performing a peak viewing time raid to try and catch me watching the X Factor or Eastenders . Then remove me from their data base.

 

[Horsetan]

It's definitely worth it for the satire:

 

[gismorail]

Not surprising, as calling on people in their homes requires the use of expensive field staff. Such staff (if they exist) are far more usefully employed an a few high profile troublesome cases than being sent all over the place.

 

My relatives had a similar issue when disposing of a deceased relatives estate because it took quite a while to sell on the property. As a result regular threatening letters were received from the TV licensing people warning of dire consequences if the now deceased / non existent occupier did not pay up immediately. Repeated calls and complaints to the TV Licensing people eventually elected the response that they work on the assumption that every UK address has a TV and thus should be paying for a TV licence. Hence their database was programmed to automatically send out threatening letters until payment was received - and the staff could only stop the automated process for 3 months at a time - after which the letters would resume.

I wander what the situation is now that all TV's are digital as an anologe set is not capable of receiving a signal but like an old friend of mine does it's still able to show VHS tapes which is what he uses his TV for now. He has of course stopped paying the license fee an is also in receipt of many letters !!!......

[James Makin]

I don't think the numbers are that shocking, within the business I work I know a number of senior managers & director-level colleagues with salaries that would match or beat a decent number of those on the BBC list - if you want talent at the top of the food chain then it needs to be paid for!

 

I would however recommend that Radio 1 DJs Scott Mills and Greg James are worth (to me) far, far more than their salaries in the daily entertainment & superb podcast content they provide! I hope their loyal assistants Chris Stark and Chris Smith (with the News!) get a decent wage to!

[Chris M]

salaries are not about the value of the job; it is all down to supply and demand. If a personality working for the BBC is made an offer by another company they can either move or discuss their remuneration with the BBC. This is what will be driving these salaries. The same applies to all other jobs. Footballers get obscene salaries because the very best are very rare. In the IT world typically when a type of code becomes old fashioned demand drops and so do salaries. Programmers move to new languages where demand is high. There comes a time when there are very few who can write in the old language and those that still can can name their price to the companies still running the old software.

[Mallard60022]

It's definitely worth it for the satire:

 

image.jpg

I actually read the Times yesterday and saw this too. Had a giggle. I buy that paper every so often as it actually seems to have a go at most sides of politics and isn't so biased towards one particular bunch (although individuals th at write for it are, of course). Yes I know who 'owns it' but that doesn't make me want to burn it. I have read it following the Referendum and the latest election and yesterday because I happened to be in my corner shop and thought I'd see what they had to say about this BBC thing. This helps me understand the points of view of others, perhaps more enlightened than myself, that also have opposing beliefs to myself. I find it balances out my increasing old git's attitudes to stuff. Sadly the Beano seems to be no longer available.

Phil

[Arthur]

I don't think the numbers are that shocking, within the business I work I know a number of senior managers & director-level colleagues with salaries that would match or beat a decent number of those on the BBC list - if you want talent at the top of the food chain then it needs to be paid for!

 

 

salaries are not about the value of the job; it is all down to supply and demand. If a personality working for the BBC is made an offer by another company

 

This is nothing to do with the actual figures, it is whether or not these are competitive, and therefore reasonable, salaries within the broadcast industry.

 

Are some ITV newsreaders being paid £500,000/annum? If they are not, then the BBC is paying unwarranted salaries to some of it's employees.

 

I have no issue with competitive salaries within an industry, amongst a skill set. However, I have said before, I do have an issue with public bodies squandering taxpayers money. I do have an issue if they are setting the 'pay race'.

 

However, again as I said before, without those other salaries being published we will never know, the suspicion will therefore remain.

 

.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Arthur

[PatB]

There are countries (Australia is the one that I'm familiar with, but I'm sure there are others) which manage to maintain a quality public broadcaster without the anachronism that is the UK TV license system. Admittedly the ABC has its problems and is perhaps not fully up to the BBC's standard in many areas but it's not bad and would be better if successive governments of both colours had not starved it of funds.

[Horsetan]

I actually read the Times yesterday and saw this too. Had a giggle. I buy that paper every so often as it actually seems to have a go at most sides of politics ...

Peter Brookes' cartoons are pure genius.

[Dunsignalling]

This is nothing to do with the actual figures, it is whether or not these are competitive, and therefore reasonable, salaries within the broadcast industry.

 

Are some ITV newsreaders being paid £500,000/annum? If they are not, then the BBC is paying unwarranted salaries to some of it's employees.

 

I have no issue with competitive salaries within an industry, amongst a skill set. However, I have said before, I do have an issue with public bodies squandering taxpayers money. I do have an issue if they are setting the 'pay race'.

 

However, again as I said before, without those other salaries being published we will never know, the suspicion will therefore remain.

 

.

But you can't know any of that unless you can make direct comparisons, which you can't and never will because the information needed to do so is shrouded in the shyster's catch-all "Commercial Confidentiality"

 

The BBC figures revealed are pretty much irrelevant unless the commercial sector is forced to do the same, but everybody concerned knew that beforehand.

 

It has just stirred up a load of angst that nobody has the inclination to do anything about, least of all the BBC-haters at Westminster and their accomplices in the right-wing media, who will all be rubbing their hands in glee at the furore

 

Blindingly obvious and another pointer to the government's real motive in all this.

 

John

Edited July 21, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[Arthur]

 

I don't think that revealing the salaries funded by taxpayers is ever irrelevant. We know what the PM earns, ministers, MP's. Just nice to see where our money goes, helps act as a brake on unjustified costs.

 

Maybe the BBC should cut some of these salaries and then we'd see just which private broadcasters snapped them up.

 

I return to BBC newscasters. The differences in salaries is staggering. As far as I'm concerned they all do the job well enough, I actually prefer some of the lower paid ones.

 

Again, do we need some newscasters earning £500,000, more than twice that of others doing an equally competent job. Don't see the value in it myself.

 

.