it raises the interesting question if income is more equal, does wealth stick to those who have always had it?

Slightly on a tangent, but in the recent past, with the exception of lottery, winners, footballers and rock stars if you were born poor then you would more than likely remain poor. i.e. The only way to be wealthy was to be born into a wealthy family.

The middle classes that formed during the last industrial revolution have only been around a relatively short time – but I would say yes, wealth probably does [and always will] stick to those who have always had it.

Some of those salaries are quite shocking. Laura Kuenssberg on £250,000 from the BBC?? I thought she got paid straight from Tory HQ.

In all seriousness thought I can now see where all the BBC money goes. I would also be interested in seeing just how much profit BBC Worldwide brings into the BBC and what the total cash pot is when combined with license fee.

Although there are some very good BBC programs I do think the overall output quality has gone down over the last few years. There are a hell of a lot of repeats in the schedule. Look at the amount of people who work in that swanky open plan newsroom and then think of the number of news stories they report each day. There must be 30 people working on one story and the 24hr rolling news, well that can go as far as I’m concerned.

Maybe instead of some crappy Saturday night karaoke contest the BBC should do “Search for a radio presenter” or “MOTD host” and offer the winner a job on £60,000 p/a.

I would also say that this news was released the same day as news that some of us are going to work another year before pension age but I haven’t heard anyone at work discussing that, just the BBC pay story.

I just can’t believe how much John Humphreys and the Welsh news presenter get, 500-600K for essentially news broadcasting.

I don’t mind Adam Boulton on Sky, Johnny Vaughan on Radio X or any ITV person getting 10 million a week as i’m not paying, but licence fee money? Which i will go to prison potentially for if i don’t pay?

Maybe it’s about time that the BBC moved out of London altogether. Liverpool/ hull? (Albeit with a ‘regional’ news service in our nations capital.

Ah, you missed the memo where a whole shitload of radio and tv programming mas moved to Manchester and Cardiff, on the grounds of less centrification on the capital, and where they moved the likes of Casualty/Holby City out of Bristol and moved it to Cardiff, and quite a few of the 6Music crew were moved into studios in Manchester…
Most TV and radio has heavy presence in the capital city, it’s the capital city after all, I really don’t think moving everything out of London would be appropriate when it’s a city of global importance, but the programmes being produced in the regions is of huge importance and some, like Dr Who, sold worldwide, as are plenty of others, and Bristol has been a major regional producer of programming of national and international importance, their Natural History department has pretty much no equal anywhere.

In all seriousness thought I can now see where all the BBC money goes.

Really? Do you know what the TV licence fee collection comes to? A smidge under £4bn. The £31m paid to these ‘stars’ equates to 0.7% of the total. I’m not sure that helps to see where the other 99.3% goes.

According to the accounts BBC worldwide puts circa £200m back into the BBC annually.

just can’t believe how much John Humphreys and the Welsh news presenter get, 500-600K for essentially news broadcasting.

Got to say I was quite surprised at that one – more that he was paid so much more than the other today programme presenters. Maybe he does substantially more shifts than the others – not sure. To call what he does as news broadcasting is a bit disingenuous though – he is no news reader. Sounds like he had a mare with Konta and at 73 I do wonder if he is loosing touch a bit. Always had a bit of respect for him though – not your usual public school/oxbridge background.

Laura Kuenssberg on £250,000 from the BBC?? I thought she got paid straight from Tory HQ.

Broadly speaking, despite the alleged leftist leaning of Auntie Beeb, I think the BBC News and current affairs is balanced.

Interestingly Stephanie Flanders the former BBC Economics Editor now works for JP Morgan with a rumored salary of £400k (before bonus).

I don’t have a problem with the market rate approach to a certain extent – I think the likes of Laura, Mishal Husain, Martha Kearney, Justin Webb and Eddie Mair could all probably earn more in the ‘private sector’.

Apart from John Inverdale though … he’s just a ***t 😉

Let’s be honest – many of the people on the list have despite being born with a silver spoon in their mouth, probably grafted and worked hard to make themselves a viable commodity rather than just riding bikes and arguing on a forum. Their loss I reckon! 🙂

I don’t mind Adam Boulton on Sky, Johnny Vaughan on Radio X or any ITV person getting 10 million a week as i’m not paying

Yes you are … just more indirectly. #FollowTheMoney

Got to say I was quite surprised at that one

Mastermind

@Digby rumoured to be is almost always an exaggeration.

Laura K is very gentle on Corbyn. The right see the BBC as institutionally biased to the left.

Really? Do you know what the TV licence fee collection comes to? A smidge under £4bn. The £31m paid to these ‘stars’ equates to 0.7% of the total. I’m not sure that helps to see where the other 99.3% goes.

According to the accounts BBC worldwide puts circa £200m back into the BBC annually.

That figure does not include the salaries that are paid to people via production companies. A vast number of BBC programs are made this way now. The released list is a very small section of the total the BBC must payout. And then all the people who are on a fraction less than £150k and do not need to be named.

In 2014/15, BBC Worldwide generated headline profits of £138.6m and headline sales of £1,001.8m and returned a record £226.5m to the BBC.

To be having sales of £1 billion on productions that have already been paid for to be consumed here at home, before being sold to the worldwide audience, and only profit £138 million seems not quite right to me.

That figure does not include the salaries that are paid to people via production companies.

Given the huge number of companies, with deep pockets, commissioning programs, the BBC will be paying market prices for such content, so no real opportunity to cut back. The production companies can offer their wares to the market and the highest bidder gets the program.

They compete with Channel 4, ITV, Netflix, Amazon, HBO, Sky, etc etc

To be having sales of £1 billion on productions that have already been paid for to be consumed here at home, before being sold to the worldwide audience, and only profit £138 million seems not quite right to me.

I think the normal BBC has to buy the content from BBC Worldwide first and then sell it on.

If you don’t like a particular presenter/broadcaster/host/compare/pundit what you have to accept is that plenty of people do which is why they are employed. If they don’t get the ratings then usually they do not keep their jobs.
Storm in a teacup IMHO, there’s far more corruption/wrongdoing/injustice going on in other areas of UK society to get excited about.

Laura K is very gentle on Corbyn.

If my reading of the situation was correct she was given a body guard in the run-up to 8th June because of the death threats she received for being biased against Jeremy Corbyn

Given the huge number of companies, with deep pockets, commissioning programs, the BBC will be paying market prices for such content, so no real opportunity to cut back. The production companies can offer their wares to the market and the highest bidder gets the program.

Don’t believe market works like quite that, production companies tend to develop ideas with broadcasters who set the budget, but this isn’t based on direct involvement.

Funnily enough buying foreign series is much cheaper than making your own programmes, I remember hearing the Controller of BBC 4 explaining how Mad Men gave them a huge bang (ratings) for their buck. It would cost a lot less to show good American shows like they used to.

Wow, Jezza must have some nice mates?!?

Anyway,,time to congratulate all those folk on doing so well, especially those with such obviously limited talent – encouragement to all if you dare to believe and go for it.

Jezza must have some nice mates

Kinder, gentler mates.

Many or just a few (nice mates)?

I get that Digby, that’s left wing nutters for you. I think she is extraordinarily gentle with Corbyn

@countzero

Fair comment, but it’s not just the BBC that needs to relocate.

There’s a lot of ‘national’ institutions…art galleries, libraries and parliament itself that would be better off far outside London.

Will londons infrastructure will ever meet the needs of an expanding population?

The whole debacle over immigration was really just a ‘stress-test’ to see how the infrastructure would cope with the rise in population.

some well over paid people featured up there, just basicly reading an autocue jackanory style.

I think she is extraordinarily gentle with Corbyn

that’s right wing nutters for you

Mmm I was refering to ‘Gini’ but I also meant ‘perceived’ wealth gap

Gini is a just a diversion that diverts attention and hatred away from the properly rich …. to focus on the slightly above middle classes…

This is especially good for news media owners … who can focus the attention on say 100 bankers getting a bonus of say 1M for a year whilst earning more than that themselves on a daily basis

On a smaller scale Graham Norton and Chris Evans must be laughing all the way to Coutts with the BBC only revealing their actual SALARY as opposed to what is paid to them or companies thy own … whilst numerous sub-companies that provide them with the majority of their income and living expenses on depreciating assets make up most of their income and most of it will be carefully non taxable…

I’m sure Chris can own his non depreciating assets in the garage but he won’t need to personally own the helicopter or private jet that he gets exclusive use of that depreciate as his production company can own them and right off depreciation against tax (assuming they are registered somewhere that pays tax)

Surely all that’s allowed in the current Tax regime.

A new kind of mates.

I don’t mind Adam Boulton on Sky, Johnny Vaughan on Radio X or any ITV person getting 10 million a week as i’m not paying

Yes you are … just more indirectly. #FollowTheMoney

I understand that indirectly i will be for lots of things, state funded TV from the licence fee is slightly different though don’t you think? It would be like finding out MP’s or minister for rural affairs were on 800k salary instead of the 70-90ish they are on now. It wouldn’t be right for the state to pay that much for an individual. However i personally think MP’s and ministers should be on a hell of a lot more than they are on now anyway,
especially compared to BBC staff like John Humphreys. Why is he paid more than ministers who have huge depts to run whether labour or conservative.

Seems the BBC has moved on very quickly from this story, yet if it was ministers on this wage they would be days of people lined up for shows to moan about it…

Seems the BBC has moved on very quickly from this story, yet if it was ministers on this wage they would be days of people lined up for shows to moan about it…

You can watch other channels you know 😉

It’s all about context, without knowing what penis Morgan, Matthew Wright or Adam boulton etc earn it’s just some big numbers

It’s all about context,

No, it isn’t. It is about BBC deciding to pay these people that amount of money. Would the One show be any worse (I know) if Alex Jones was replaced with a new presenter who was paid a lower amount.

If people stopped watching the same show just with a different presenter then fine, stop making the show. Alex Jones would move to ITV, Channel 4 or whatever and people could watch her there.

Seems the BBC has moved on very quickly from this story

Well to be fair it’s been one of the main topics of discussion on BBC Radio 4’s ‘Today’ program this morning. As has the Gender Pay gap.

I’m all for transparency – as long as it’s fair and across the board. Whilst I fear the pay details of individuals in the Private Sector will always be shrouded in secrecy, if we are going to have transparency in the public sector then it should include NHS Consultants (which tops out at just over £100 p.a. not inc o/t) and the highest paid NHS executive which was reported at being £340k p.a. a few years ago in the ‘Daily Telegraph’.

What stands out in the BBC list though is the huge jump between the ‘middle ground’ and the amounts paid to Gary Lineker & Chris Evans.

What would happen if everyone (apart from Mr and Mrs M&S) stopped paying the TV license fee, just stopped..cancelled the DD’s.

What would happen if everyone (apart from Mr and Mrs M&S) stopped paying the TV license fee

The same argument could be applied to Council Tax, Income Tax etc …
I don’t use many of the facilities that the council provide so why should I pay for them? I can’t stand football, so why should I pay for it?

But as a society surely we have a moral & social responsibility to ensure that all needs, tastes etc are included and provided for.

Apart from Chris Evans obviously … ! 😉

Surely all that’s allowed in the current Tax regime.

I’m not suggesting it’s not following tax rules….
I’m pointing out that the BBC published SALARIES not how much INCOME they get from the BBC through shadow companies nor what other legitimate benefits they then derive.

So everyone knows Chris has a huge car collection (which is why I targeting him other than also being the top salary)… which is a non depreciating asset but he can equally have several cars at his disposal for driving to places or a helicopter or private jet and these would not be paid out of his SALARY…. but out of money from various companies to which the BBC pays.

I’m not saying any of this is not perfectly legitimate for Chris Evans Ltd …. but that by publishing his salary only the BBC have managed to not publish how much they pay Chris Evans

Then rinse and repeat ….

Where does the license fee go ???
Well the BBC have taken great pains to prevent accountability….

If they published they spent 1Bn a year on private jets for example there would be outrage … but because of the production companies they can spend as much as they like and get a single receipt from the production company… hence the role of the production companies is to obfuscate where the license fee goes.

Semi embarrassing as these salaries may be, they hide the wastage of the license fee by getting us to focus on the salary side and then of course some people argue Chris Evans or Graham Norton are worth their salary… others say not … and the BBC say’s well we can’t please everyone ….

Perhaps Chris takes a 50% cut in actual salary but one of his companies gets double that in revenue from the BBC… etc.

I don’t think Social Services can be brought into the same conversation and as TV, which is essentially a choice.

I watch about 10% BBC TV these days, and I’m sure if I logged it 90% of that would be BBC4, 10% BBC2, my watching profile would be Sky and a choice of channels they provide…

So by my reckoning of the £147 fee only £14.7 is attributable to my viewing which I’m happy to pay for… the £100 goes to support horsecrap like Eastenders and the BBC’s fascination with reality programming and “the sheriffs are coming” steaming poo pile.

So by my reckoning of the £147 fee only £14.7 is attributable to my viewing which I’m happy to pay for… the £100 goes to support horsecrap like Eastenders and the BBC’s fascination with reality programming and “the sheriffs are coming” steaming poo pile.

One of the main benefits of the BBC is the excellent news department. This keeps the bar high and means the Murdoch controlled Sky (and others) have to compete on quality. Without the BBC, Sky would just turn into Fox News, a right wing propaganda machine.

We’re really lucky to have the BBC, it’s an excellent institution and I’m more than happy to pay the license fee even though we watch virtually no TV at all.

I’m sure if I logged it 90% of that would be BBC4, 10% BBC2

Same hear, but I do listen to Radio 4 and BBC 6 Music quite a lot and I rely on BBC news (in all formats) to provide me with a broadly balanced perspective on current affairs etc.

Without the BBC, Sky would just turn into Fox News, a right wing propaganda machine.

Agreed.

On a slightly related note, I notice that Channel 5 has not been made to disclose salaries (although to be fair it just pays for content so probably doesn’t have many ’employees’) despite being publicly owned. Is this distinction purely because the BBC receives ‘public’ money whereas C4 is commercially self-funded through advertising and sponsorship?

So by my reckoning of the £147 fee only £14.7 is attributable to my viewing which I’m happy to pay for… the £100 goes to support horsecrap like Eastenders and the BBC’s fascination with reality programming and “the sheriffs are coming” steaming poo pile.

Alternatively add up how many hours you watch BBC annually. Then add the number of hours you listen to BBC radio, look at the BBC website and watch BBC iplayer. Then add the same figure for everybody else that lives under the umbrella of the same TV licence. Then divide the licence fee by that figure and calculate what the BBC is costing you per consumed hour. It will be vanishingly small. Yes, I know you don’t have to be a licence fee payer to listen to radio, use the website or watch on demand but they still need paying for and it might as well be you. The current finance model is not really functioning in the 21st century as it does not reflect our consuming habits and probably needs changing but as a nation we stump up £4bn a year for it and I suspect we spend money less wisely on a lot of other things.

Overpaid the lot of em. Outrageous.
None of them deserve more than £100K.

I felt they turned the story to gender pay gap, and away from “look at the ridiculous money we pay some staff for reading news” compare to the PM and ministers. Some seem to thing this should just be a gender pay issue and all should get the same but honestly none should be paid what they are. Put them all on 50k and if they want to walk fine, what is Tess Daly going to do? What is John humphreys going to do? drag hundreds of thousands of pople over to LBC? fine don’t have a problem with this as the charter is not about chasing ratings.

Its not about context as the private sector can pay what they like but the bbc is not or should not be competing for ratings and chasing stars to host shows, thats not what the state prodcaster is all about. IMO

Plenty of whataboutery, as always.

News, Obvz is an important piece of the BBC. But during the Brexit fallout I turned off R4, turned down R2 when the news reports came on.. so I need a refund for that thanks 😆

I don’t watch any of the period dramas, in part because they’re tired storylines for the dumbdown generation, no reality tv because frankly I find watching someone having a camera thrust in thier face whilst they go through some personal grief quite abhorrent. “Find me a .. strictly come frills… I must take your first answer” programming is a complete waste of resource and effort, adds no value to anyone’s life.
The BBC have lost any way that they claim to have ever held, if you still claim that the News is the only reputable feed then I think you’ve probably only ever listened to the BBC. So, as claimed, why not just Fund a license fee for the News? Leave all other channels to a pay-per-view basis ?

Just throwing it out there, why not.