[Closed] BBC News readers are paid £92k!!

£92K is chump change. Please step forward:

Natasha Kaplinsky - £350K at the BBC, now on £1m at Five
Hugh Edwards - £400K at the BBC
John Humphries - £155K just for Radio4 work
Paxo - rumoured to be on the thin end of £600K
Adrian Chiles - fat bloke on "The one show" £1m a year

All of the above earn several times more than the Prime Minister, and in some cases just read off an autocue. It's frankly amazing that the public aren't in arms about the license fee being used to pay hundreds of thousands in salaries when there are many equally competent people who could do the job for much less.

As anyone who's ever spent any time at the BBC will know, the BBC squeals like a pig at the mere prospect of having to use our money more prudently.

Michael Ballack, of Chelsea FC. Who has apparently just signed a new contract reputed to be worth around £130,000.......

....... A WEEK.

[img] [/img]

But you don't have to watch football, or go to matches, or buy replica shirts, or anything, unless you want to.

Anyone getting it, yet?

But you don't have to watch football, or go to matches, or buy replica shirts, or anything, unless you want to.

Anyone getting it, yet?

Well put. The licence fee is, whatever you may say, voluntary. Therefore, what this lady is paid is largely irrelevant.

Lord Foulkes is "paid" over £150k a year. That payment is not voluntary for any of us.

Well put. The licence fee is, whatever you may say, voluntary. Therefore, what this lady is paid is largely irrelevant.

It's not quite voluntary, though, is it? There's no legal way in the UK to own a TV and only watch the Discovery Channel on it, is there?

I fully agree it's completely irrelevant to the argument over MPs expenses, though.

There's no legal way in the UK to own a TV and only watch the Discovery Channel on it, is there?

Yes there is, actually. The TV has to be de-tuned, so that it can't receive BBC channels. The licence covers 'equipment capable of receiving a television signal as it is broadcast live'. If it can't, then you is no have to pay licence fee.

So, it is a [i]completely[/i] voluntary fee.

Farmer_John, what exactly do you know of the BBC? I have worked inside that august institution and I can tell you that value for money and controlling costs is taken very seriously indeed.

So, I want to know what you know and who it concerns, and I will alert the appropriate people.

What's that, cat got your tongue?

[i]Yes there is, actually. The TV has to be de-tuned, so that it can't receive BBC channels. The licence covers 'equipment capable of receiving a television signal as it is broadcast live'. If it can't, then you is no have to pay licence fee.[/i]

Not quite true. It has to be detuned from recieving *any* TV signal, not just the BBC.
And of course the payment of MP salaries is also voluntary, in that no one is forcing you to live in this country.

Yes there is, actually. The TV has to be de-tuned, so that it can't receive BBC channels. The licence covers 'equipment capable of receiving a television signal as it is broadcast live'. If it can't, then you is no have to pay licence fee.

So, it is a completely voluntary fee.

I think you're wrong about that. I think you'll find that you need a TV license to watch *any* TV programmes live as they are broadcast.

Hmm, possibly, but I do know of people that have de-tuned a telly, so 'terrestrial' channels aren't available; for to play Ecks-Boks, for example, and can watch Sky etc without having to pay a licence fee. regardless; Only the BBC(and bits of C4) are funded by the LF.

Anyway; I have a choice over that. I don't have a choice over MPs lining their own greedy pokkits. Bastards.

And of course the payment of MP salaries is also voluntary, in that no one is forcing you to live in this country.

WTF is that sposed to mean? What a stupid statement to make.

Actually I was just being polite when I said I think you are wrong. You are wrong.

And your friends are breaking the law.

No, you're probbly right, actually. Not that it really matters, anyway.

i'm most concerned that this guy reckons 2x60k = 92k

maybe they should do basic arithmetic courses for mp's might help them add up the expenses claim.

Journalists report the news

LOL. Journalists decide what is news. Too often they go for easy stories, or stories which fit a particular narrative. They scaremonger, they manipulate, they make political points with what they decide we should be told about. Too many journalists are in cahoots with politicians, business, celebrities and (most obviously) sports people. Moreover, too many 'journalists', at best, don't understand or, at worst, can't be bothered to report the complexity of particular events.

They scaremonger, they manipulate, they make political points with what they decide we should be told about.

I feel fairly confident that no journalist scares me, no journalist manipulates me, and no journalist restricts my access to information.

What newspaper do you read CaptJon ?

You're obviously an intelligent person grizzly.

I don't read newspapers.

No, my intelligence is pretty average I would say.

So come you have such strong views on the behaviour of journalists, if you don't read newspapers - do you read books about journalists ?

**** all this shilly shallying around - come the revolution all these thieving b4st4rds will be heaped up on the burning fires of retribution at each street corner - loaded on by the pitchforks of the righteous masses - not that I'm bitter me - oh no no no....

Journalists decide what is news.

So, who should decide what is news? Maybe we shoon't have journalists at all, and just live in blissful ignorance?

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Maybe we should just have our lovely, honest politicians tell us what's going on, eh?

Some very emotive images there RudeBoy. I presume from your questions you take my point that journalists don't just report the news.

Grizzly, it is not easy to escape journalists these days. They have them on the radio and even TV, apparently some write in magazines too. I like know what is going on in the world. Unfortunately to get a decent picture of what is happening you have to go beyond the mainstream media because they are obsessed with news as entertainment and a limit spectrum of stories. Health scares, celebrities, depicting Westminster as a soap opera, headlines over substance, blame - these are the staples of mainstream news. Look at swine flu, the G20 protests, the work of MPs, Jade Goody etc. All dumbed down, hyped up and misrepresented by the various sections of the media.

She works for an essentially private company (albeit State regulated). She is not payed through taxpayers' money.

The BBC are big enough to affect the market price for "journalists" aka auto cue readers. Exactly the same happens with the BBC payments to "talent" such as Ross, Brand, Moyles etc

he benign BBC are also keep trying to destroy local independant news who can't compete when advertising revenues get squeezed