grrclark Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 Not much evidence of talent whenever Clamidia Winksatmen is on the idiot box. You'd think that earning over £400K a year she could afford to get her fringe trimmed to somewhere above her eyeline & have her squint fixed: though she'd need to then work on a new USP - or just make sure her mother pulls the strings again to get her a few more easy jobs.... That's a subjective opinion, I think that Claudia Winkleman is hugely talented in her field. I don't belive that her talent extends to the tune of nearly half a million, but if that is what the market sustains then fair play to her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-dot Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 It is public money they are WASTING let them raise it by consent PPV or advertising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 It is public money they are WASTING let them raise it by consent PPV or advertising. Why is it a waste? How do we know that level of pay to talent isn't supported by their commercial activities? I'm not trying to be argumentative with you in particular, but the Beeb employ 20,000 more people than those listed on that pay scale. Indirectly many of those jobs are in place as a result of the talent on the list published today. If there was no audience for the shows that talent appears on then there would be no production team, no set or studio staff, no researchers, no editors or writing teams, no back office support, etc. For what it's worth I do think much of the pay to talent is excessive, but that is a symptom of our society and not the Beeb in itself. The Beeb also drives the other commercial providers to deliver a high standard of output as well. I am not a fan boy of the BBC and think that further rationalisation would be a good thing, I believe they should support emerging talent and not sustaining 30 year very well paid careers for the likes of Steve Wright, Ken Bruce, etc. They are however a hugely valuable contributor to the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-dot Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 Chris Evans earns more in a year than all the firemen, paramedics and police who ran towards our four recent disasters.... justify that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 Chris Evans earns more in a year than all the firemen, paramedics and police who ran towards our four recent disasters.... justify that? You can't but somebody is willing to pay him that and not willing or able to pay firefighters that amount. Life isn't fair. Are you saying we should all earn the same amount? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 Chris Evans earns more in a year than all the firemen, paramedics and police who ran towards our four recent disasters.... justify that? As AVB says I can't justify that and nor would I attempt to. The same question that AVB asks, should we all be paid the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-dot Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 Did i say that? No but public money should not stretch to paying BBC presenters obcene amounts. Like the bankers who threatened to leave when their bankers bonuses were to be capped....BYE BYE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 I agree that there should be greater accountability in the level of pay to BBC talent, however the license is not a tax, it is an elective payment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-dot Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 They (Capita/BBC) have pensioners jailed for non payment of said elective payment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 They (Capita/BBC) have pensioners jailed for non payment of said elective payment. Why particular reference to pensioners, just out of curiosity? The law as it stands is that if you watch broadcast telly you need a licence, if you don't then you don't. That is a choice. The law is the mechanism by which people may go to jail, not the will of the BBC or any contractor. The BBC pursue licence enforcement much the same as HMRC pursue revenue enforcement, however it is the criminal justice system that determines the consequence. Purely out of interest how many pensioners went to jail for non licence payment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShootingEgg Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 They (Capita/BBC) have pensioners jailed for non payment of said elective payment. Do you watch any bbc programs, if you do why are you so angry at them beibg paid. Different jobs are set at different pay grades. I have a manager and theb directors above myself in work, they get paid more than I do, because they are deemed to have more responsibility. I expect bbc presenters do more than your average hours per week, they draw millions of viewers to the programs they present. If they make the company money by getting us to pay so we can watch then they will get paid silly money. But as grrclark has said, there are 20,000 plus other staff who are behind the scenes so saying youd be happy if they all lost their jobs us a bit off... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitebridges Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 I agree that there should be greater accountability in the level of pay to BBC talent, however the license is not a tax, it is an elective payment. Is it fair to say it used to be a tax? You'll recall the days when we only had the BBC and ITV used to get a few quid from advertising. Was there ever any declaration from a tax to an elective payment? Sorry , I can't recall when this happened, if it ever did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 Is it fair to say it used to be a tax? You'll recall the days when we only had the BBC and ITV used to get a few quid from advertising. Was there ever any declaration from a tax to an elective payment? Sorry , I can't recall when this happened, if it ever did. It is an argument of semantics, i do appreciate that. It isn't and has never been a tax, but it is an obligation if you choose to watch broadcast TV. So in that sense it has always been elective. If you just like to listen to BBC radio then no licence required, you get to listen to several millions pounds worth of talent* for free. * At least it's millions of pounds worth of talent by someone's evaluation. We may or may not agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbob Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 Chris Evans earns more in a year than all the firemen, paramedics and police who ran towards our four recent disasters.... justify that? Lots of people earn far more than those in the emergency services, what do you suggest we do about it? Pay fireman £400,000 each a year? You can't compare those that work in the entertainment industry with those that work for public services. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 To me the key question is; "Are the BBC Senior Management, who are in themselves 'well paid' getting good value for money for the license payer by paying really very large (over £1m) in some cases salaries, possibly in addition to other remunerations through other means, to these 'stars'?" My feeling is that they are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 To me the key question is; "Are the BBC Senior Management, who are in themselves 'well paid' getting good value for money for the license payer by paying really very large (over £1m) in some cases salaries, possibly in addition to other remunerations through other means, to these 'stars'?" My feeling is that they are not. The supplementary question then arises; "Are the BBC Senior Management providing good value for money by running the organisation in an efficient and cost effective manner?" I also believe the answer to that in that they are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 Would it not be possible nowadays to block BBC channels? Like the 'naughty' channels or any pay per view satelite channels I can't get a tv signal where i am so have had to resort to sky, programmed the few channels i generlly watch on the favourites list and been a long long time since i even looked wot was on a bbc channel never mind watched 1. If u have a tv in the house can u prove that u don't watch bbc channels? (i don't internet (wot ever u call it) them either) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 To me the key question is; "Are the BBC Senior Management, who are in themselves 'well paid' getting good value for money for the license payer by paying really very large (over £1m) in some cases salaries, possibly in addition to other remunerations through other means, to these 'stars'?" My feeling is that they are not. I think that is an entirely reasonable and valid question, but regrettably by just publishing salary details we cannot possibly determine an objective answer. It would be nice to see the justification by BBC management/remuneration committees for why they believe such a level of payment is appropriate. By just publishing salary details it only really gives rise to emotional reaction and nothing particularly considered. You may well be correct in your feeling of course. Would it not be possible nowadays to block BBC channels? Like the 'naughty' channels or any pay per view satelite channels I can't get a tv signal where i am so have had to resort to sky, programmed the few channels i generlly watch on the favourites list and been a long long time since i even looked wot was on a bbc channel never mind watched 1. If u have a tv in the house can u prove that u don't watch bbc channels? (i don't internet (wot ever u call it) them either) If you watch any broadcast TV at all you still need a licence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 I think it's long overdue the BBC were shut down, they're nothing more than state backed bullies and the way they go about business, assuming everyone has a licence is disgusting, I don't fish and wouldn't expect the licencing authority to send threatening letters and demand to check if I have fishing rods in the house, more do I do cb radio broadcasts and likewise I don't expect to be harassed by their licencing body either, or at least not without evidence of more than I haven't paid their licence subscription anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 (edited) The thing is, its more complicated now, all these programmes are being watched more and more via third party subscription services like Sky and Virgin for which a fee is already being paid. I can watch Iplayer on my phone. I can watch BBC live TV in Ireland and Holland and they don't have to pay the licence fee. I could probably live stream BBC programmes to my laptop from these countries Edited July 20, 2017 by Vince Green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krugerandsmith Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 It is an argument of semantics, i do appreciate that. It isn't and has never been a tax, but it is an obligation if you choose to watch broadcast TV. So in that sense it has always been elective. If you just like to listen to BBC radio then no licence required, you get to listen to several millions pounds worth of talent* for free. * At least it's millions of pounds worth of talent by someone's evaluation. We may or may not agree. I am of an age when I can remember Ice cream adverts used mash potato because the genuine article melted under the studio lights. When car radios and house radios required a licence. However back in the sixties they increased the TV licence substantially and as way of pacifying people said you will no longer have to pay for your radios. The licence itself read ..... For the right to receive, not programs or people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldypigeonpopper Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 Chris Evans earns more in a year than all the firemen, paramedics and police who ran towards our four recent disasters.... justify that? hello, not forgetting he is already a multi millionaire, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 hello, not forgetting he is already a multi millionaire, Again not sure what point you are trying to make? Are you saying that multi-millionaires shouldn't earn more money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShootingEgg Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 I think people need to start taking the lemons out of their mouths. Sounding very bitter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 I think people need to start taking the lemons out of their mouths. Sounding very bitter Well, I'm not exactly bitter, but I am concerned (as a license payer) that the license fee is spent sensibly and carefully - not rashly. I'm not convinced that is presently the case. IF there is a really sound business case for needing to pay these salaries, so be it. I'm not a socialist and do understand that high rewards are needed in some places to attract the best people. However - I'm not convinced this is the case here (in that I think there would be other equally good/better people available at a more sensible cost). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.