Is he really that much better a presenter than Richard Attenborough for example?

To be fair I think Richard Attenborough went off the boil a bit back in 2014 and never really got it back.

Another way to look at this ....

Let's say the BBC decided to cover the DHWC or XCWC (or wow both)

They did a study and decided on a list of best presenters and these were asking £1 million+ a year ...so they can the idea. (You can pick your own best presenter)

I personally would be happy if they just put the WC on with no presenters.... but frankly I'd be gob-smacked if they couldn't find someone pretty good for well under 100k/yr

With McEnroes + Lineakers salaries they could cover every cycling event in the world with pretty decent presenters.and 95% of the salary left over

Controversially, the Govt is a winner too. The headline pay numbers are pretty big, as is the tax element from those salaries.... how much with the slebs actually get to keep after tax?

Thats not a bad thing is it? High earners paying more in tax so that the Govt can redistribute this as part of the social elements of its policy and manifesto commitments?

Oh... hang on.....

If Sky want to pay people that much to present then that is up to Sky... but they are paying with advertisers and subscribers money

But it's still money from you as a consumer that, Sky, BT, BBC, Netflix, Amazon etc are spending on 'Talent'. You are paying for it one way or another ... or is it the fact that the Licence Fee is a mandatory 'tax' that people object to? Genuinely interested.

To be fair I think Richard Attenborough went off the boil a bit back in 2014 and never really got it back.

*Stifles a s****

or is it the fact that the Licence Fee is a mandatory 'tax' that people object to?

Not even mandatory, if you don't have a TV and don't use iPlayer, you don't have to pay.

To be fair I think Richard Attenborough went off the boil a bit back in 2014 and never really got it back.

Granted ... but that would have been about his 90th Birthday....
The point is he [u]was[/u] actually really good in his day..(but never earned anything like that).. but then so are lots of the newer people in BBC documentaries/drama but they don't even make the list.

Vine: “I’m there as having a salary of between £700,000 and £750,000. How do you justify that?”

Purnell: “You’re fantastic…”

Only on the BBC

Charlie from Casualty the best paid actor. The man has one facial expression!

There are some 'interesting' comparisons in the news department. Not quite sure in what universe Jeremy Vine can ever be valued at 700K+ .

Not even mandatory, if you don't have a TV and don't use iPlayer, you don't have to pay

Ok ... so on a point of pedantry I should have clarified:

or is it the fact that the Licence Fee is a mandatory 'tax' [b]for owners of a TV [/b]that people object to?

Granted ... but that would have been about his 90th Birthday....
The point is he was actually really good in his day..(but never earned anything like that).. but then so are lots of the newer people in BBC documentaries/drama but they don't even make the list.

It's no fun when you have to explain a joke. Google [u]Richard[/u] Attenborough.

You don't need a tv licence just because you own a tv either.

Not quite sure in what universe Jeremy Vine can ever be valued at 700K+

It's worse because that's paid into a Ltd company, to avoid PAYE as well.

I hope when he's trying to embarrass some Sleb, they bring that up.

But it's still money from you as a consumer that, Sky, BT, BBC, Netflix, Amazon etc are spending on 'Talent'. You are paying for it one way or another ... or is it the fact that the Licence Fee is a mandatory 'tax' that people object to? Genuinely interested.

Not really because I actively avoid buying anything advertised by big celebs... or "advertised" if possible.
When I do its usually directly inversely proportional to the amount of advertising. If I'm going to buy a car, washing machine, group set I'll do so on the basis of reviews etc. not advertising

(I'll continue after ...)

Not even mandatory, if you don't have a TV and don't use iPlayer, you don't have to pay.

I don't use lots of things I'm taxed for but I don't mind paying [u]if the costs are kept reasonable.[/u]
ITV, Sky etc. have investors and sell advertising.
They need to justify salaries with income.

BBC doesn't sell advertising and gets the same income regardless.
If you want to pay more to watch a football match with Gary Lineaker then I don't have any objections .. but if you want ME to pay when you could have had one of thousands of ex managers/players who can do nearly as good a job then I object.

Commentating can't REALLY be worth more than 1/4M a year ... (or half year really) and honestly I think you'd find plenty of people who were [u]not at all bad[/u] for 50k for 6 months a year of 1 day a week.

As far as I can work out most people don't watch a match because of the presenter but because they want to watch that team play... (or another team lose) ... but I've never heard anyone say "Lets watch another game on XX channel because Gary is presenting"

Jings, that's some amount of money!
Just how 'special' are their needs?

That aside, the salary issue highlights some problems...

Most of the money earned will be spent in London, thus reinforcing any housing/ infrastructure pressures.

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.

More of that money should be sent back down the line to support more emerging talent.
Seems like a lot of eggs in a very small basket.
Heaven forbid that Isis or whoever should take out all our top presenters at a charidee gala, who would fill Chris Evans shoes?

if these presenters jumped ship to the commercial sector, wouldn't that mean that the BBC could redistribute more cash to their regional stations?

[quoteIt's no fun when you have to explain a joke. Google Richard Attenborough.

Fair cop I was thinking of his brother 😀 and missed the explicit "Dick"

Commentating can't REALLY be worth more than 1/4M a year

I've never heard anyone say "Lets watch another game on XX channel because Gary is presenting

It's worth putting this in context, it's £147 per year for the licence fee, under 50p per day. Yes, they may pay a few people a lot but I still think it's the think that represents the best value for money that I spend but a huge distance. I mean FFS, it's the same cost as 3 good tyres for my bike, or 2/3 of a Garmin 520...

If you want to pay more to watch a football match with Gary Lineaker then I don't have any objections .. but if you want ME to pay when you could have had one of thousands of ex managers/players who can do nearly as good a job then I object.

Agreed - and I'm in a similar position regarding my broadband with BT. Over the past few years they've increased charges to cover some of their foray into the world of 'content' specifically football. And I resent this.

So why not change to a different broadband/content provider you ask?. Well they all seem to be as bad as each other at paying over the odds for vacuous, facile, presenters and content in which I had no interest.

Up until recently I didn't mind so much with the BBC as it still made some ok programs and broadly speaking provided [relatively] balanced political commentary so seemed ok for the £147 per year it cost me.

However, I'm not sure how much longer this can be tenable though - I watch less [scheduled broadcast] television these days.

Many people seem happy to pay up to £600 per year to Sky etc

I can't help thinking that the BBC's purpose was to 'Inform, Educate and Entertain' whereas the purpose of Sky etc is to increase Shareholder value.

Chris Evans though ... wtf

Agreed - and I'm in a similar position regarding my broadband with BT. Over the past few years they've increased charges to cover some of their foray into the world of 'content' specifically football. And I resent this.

So why not change to a different broadband/content provider you ask?. Well they all seem to be as bad as each other at paying over the odds for vacuous, facile, presenters and content in which I had no interest.

Up until recently I didn't mind so much with the BBC as it still made some ok programs and broadly speaking provided [relatively] balanced political commentary so seemed ok for the £147 per year it cost me.

However, I'm not sure how much longer this can be tenable though - I watch less [scheduled broadcast] television these days.

Many people seem happy to pay up to £600 per year to Sky etc

I can't help thinking that the BBC's purpose was to 'Inform, Educate and Entertain' whereas the purpose of Sky etc is to increase Shareholder value.

Chris Evans though ... wtf

Yep .....
I didn't resent the £147 when it's being used broadly to 'Inform, Educate and Entertain'
and to be fair at commercial rates I'd be getting that in "Value" for a few things a year...

In the past I'd have paid £50 isn for the BBC/HBO Rome Series 1 .... (but not season 2)
but now to try and take something similar I'd get the Vikings on NetFlix for £8/mo along with BBC Documentaries etc.

For something like the same cost I get Sky and Netflix and the quality of BBC has gone off the bottom of the scale on quality.

Chris Evans though ... wtf

However the point I don't really get is WHY they think they need to compete with advertisers?

It would be interesting to see how much similar sized countries pay presenters etc. (e.g. France/Germany/Italy)

Out of interest, how much do the outraged think the talent should be paid? A £ figure please.

'Gender details' released 4-5 hours before the disgustingly high figures.

Talk about 'burying bad news' !

Scrap the license fee completely and replace with a mix of advertising and subscriptions.

tomhoward - Member
Out of interest, how much do the outraged think the talent should be paid? A £ figure please.

If they are in the public sector then there should be a cap, they simply cannot siphon off public funds just because they can.

Non of them should earn more than 100K per year or more than the PM.

If they don't like that then they can go fly kite nobody cares.

There are many who can do their job and better for less.

£2.5 mil for Evans! 😯

£1.8 mil for Lineker! 😯

No wonder there are so many people starving ...

[quoteOut of interest, how much do the outraged think the talent should be paid? A £ figure please.

Surely that has to depend on how much work is involved and how much the BBC is paying them indirectly as well??? (If they own the production company on top of a salary) and if the BBC is able to sell the "product" directly.

e.g. If they can sell episodes outside the UK because they pay more and can prove it brings net revenue.

If they aren't able to prove actual net revenue then surely they are not worth more than a specialist surgeon or consultant per hour ???

In the private sector nobody cares.

This was kinda my point earlier ... why [b]don't[/b] people care when it's in the private sector - you [the consumer] are still ultimately 'paying' for it one way or another unless you yourself are the actually commodity that is being sold ... in which case you are being used to a certain extent - (yes, I'm looking at you Facebook).

If we are aiming for transparency then surely this must apply to both public and private sector ... but this seems to go against some kind of British notion of fair play where we feel uncomfortable about other people knowing about our income etc. Director's remuneration is frequently disclosed so why not extend that to other management tiers?

Contrast this with tax returns in Norway ... but then it's easy to have transparency when the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' is not quite so large.

Scrap the license fee completely and replace with a mix of advertising and subscriptions

The advertising and the commercial breaks are the reason why I haven't watched any of the TdF for the past couple of years - not from any socio-political standpoint ... just the fact that they annoy me. I don't really go in for watching many sports on TV but Wimbledon is like a breath of fresh-air thanks to the lack of major headline sponsorship/branding.

Nick knowles is a ****.

worth repeating.

See also Adrian Chiles.

@footflaps my point about Norton and Evans is they are presenting light entertainment which should be done on a commercial basis, ie paid for by ads. The licence fee should fund specific high quality programmes which are differentiated from commercial content.

I knew these salaries would raise eyebrows, a partner at an accountancy makes £500k-£1m and a lawyer £2m-£3m. Ed Balls brother makes £10m at PIMCO (asset manager). As I said HMRC should post some banded summary data

Junkyard I read part of your post by mistake, the UK's "top teacher" can absolutely get paid a lot if they work in private sector or at a University for example. In the state sector they are capped at something like £150k (plus £30k-£50k in pension value) as a Head but that still not bad especially outside London.

Wimbledon is like a breath of fresh-air thanks to the lack of major headline sponsorship/branding.

It's just as bad as all the rest. Stories of folk being threatened with being thrown out for eating a different yoghurt to the official yoghurt sponsors product on centre court etc

why don't people care when it's in the private sector - y

This just isn't true, it's frequently a story. The issue of bankers bonuses and c-level/executive pay comes up regularly. Indeed what everyone earned in all areas and by all high level categorisations seems to be a national obsession in the UK.

I couldn't care less what 96 people in the BBC earn but I do care that in general in any society the bigger the gap in wealth between top and bottom (the Gini Coeffecient) the more that society suffers from violent crime.

This was kinda my point earlier ... why don't people care when it's in the private sector - you [the consumer] are still ultimately 'paying' for it one way or another unless you yourself are the actually commodity that is being sold ... in which case you are being used to a certain extent - (yes, I'm looking at you Facebook).

It depends what you have in the way of choice.....

I can choose to have netflix or not..... same with amazon prime or sky

I can't choose my water company though .... but I can choose my gas/electricity supplier or car insurer within reason

In Norway you can't choose much of anything....or suppliers are controlled so you can't buy wine unless it's from a government shop .... you can't choose gas.... (at all) and you can't choose our electricity supplier...

TV licensing is decided by if you can or cannot receive NRK1 ... if you can't receive NRK2 or 3 then you still have to pay.

The spookiest thing I remember was phoning a taxi for work one morning as for some reason I couldn't cycle that day.... (As I remember it was probably when I tore my meniscus.... but can't remember exactly)

I phoned from the house and they answered ... yep Taxi to work at 06:30 (or whatever) then hung up...

I called them back and said "don't you need my address"... nope they have that
"Well don't you want to know where I'm going?" - Yes we have that and as your wife doesn't work it must be these offices.

Contrast this with tax returns in Norway ... but then it's easy to have transparency when the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' is not quite so large.

Norwegians are trained from childhood that nothing is personal from government appointed agencies or companies....

On the other hand I remember going in one Monday and asking one the the blokes who worked for me "So what did you do at the weekend" ....(or something like that)
He got alleviated and asked "What right did I have to ask about his weekend"

It might have been less strange if on the Friday I hadn't thought he must be going for a weekend away as he had a whole load of live bullets on his desk.... but he (and most Norwegians) just has a different idea of personal/private/secret to me.

A bit later on (but before the taxi) we had out yearly review and this bloke was the most promising person to take over from me.... he did a good job, reliable etc. so I said something about him getting training... but his answer was immediately "but you earn less than I do and have to do far more work".....

I can't say if that is good or bad.... it's just DIFFERENT

Odd point about the private sector especially given the relative transparency on pay data

Now for Auntie, we finally have some transparency and then genuine discussions can be have re VFM etc, plus the glaring anomalies are exposed to see. It's like Uni fees, now that they are semi transparent at least sensible discusssions can take place. Before it was a black hole.

Anyone complaining about the salaries can always apply for the job and offer to work for considerably less. Worth a try, if it's that easy? Unfortunately I don't look as good as Tess Daley in a dress but I can ad lib better. Chances.....?

Contrast this with tax returns in Norway ... but then it's easy to have transparency when the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' is not quite so large.

The gap is actually larger in pretty much every Scandinavian country

[img] ?itok=XzTU75kt[/img]

Mark Chapman must be on about 50p an hour

When can radio 2 be axed? What does it deliver that a million other stations for the under developed sales rep demographic don't? (Apart from a well feathered departure lounge for radio bores of yore?)

Turns out Little Ted was on three times what Jemima was paid. Bloody disgrace.

The gap is actually larger in pretty much every Scandinavian country

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

Gini:

[url= https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/datablog/2017/apr/26/inequality-index-where-are-the-worlds-most-unequal-countries ]https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/datablog/2017/apr/26/inequality-index-where-are-the-worlds-most-unequal-countries[/url]

Odd point about the private sector especially given the relative transparency on pay data

Pretty much every private company I've worked for in the last 30 odd years has had a culture of privacy surrounding an individual's salary etc. Yes, everyone is obsessed with what other people are earning, but it's still regarded as very personal information. Genuine question - where is this transparency you refer to? (apart from what is required by law - SI 2015/980 repealed the Companies Act 2006 which required disclosure of Directors remunerations in companies with t/o < £10.2m)

Regarding Wimbledon:

It's just as bad as all the rest

A comparison of google images of courts between Wimbledon and say Roland-Garros will show the former with blank green hoardings and the latter plastered with BNP Paribas as the 'headline' sponsor.

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

That is Gini, but for wealth rather than income, it raises the interesting question if income is more equal, does wealth stick to those who have always had it?

Unfortunately I don't look as good as Tess Daley in a dress

Dont be so down on yorself, post a pic in your best frock and we'll let you know what we think!

Is that 10 Claire Baldings for 1 Gary Linaker ?

You people watch television? Or see adverts? Or pay a licence fee?

How quaint.

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 s****y 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.

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.

[img] [/img]

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 [b]against [/b] 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.

[quote=CaptainFlashheart said]Jezza must have some nice mates
Kinder, gentler mates.

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[u] the BBC [/u]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.