BBC licence fee poll.

[CoolHands]

Paying Jeremy vine and Claudia winkleman (as examples) those sums is indefensible.

[mybrainhurts]

La Liga said:

mybrainhurts said:

Do stop blathering on. I stopped reading when you said pseudo adult cool. Strewth.

If you stopped at that point you wouldn't know what my point was.

Correct. I don't. I just spied a load of blather...

[mybrainhurts]

Bet there are handbags flying about the BBC right now....

Which is nice...

[turbobloke]

mybrainhurts said:

Bet there are handbags flying about the BBC right now....

Which is nice...

Louise Minchin must be as cheap as chips, she's not on the list - or was she lost in the deep irony? Can't recall seeing her mentioned.

[anonymous-user]

CoolHands said:

Paying Jeremy vine and Claudia winkleman (as examples) those sums is indefensible.

It seems having a fking annoying voice gets you a fortune..

Cannot fathom some of these salaries, but not ultimately surprised.

[turbobloke]

Kierkegaard said:

CoolHands said:

Paying Jeremy vine and Claudia winkleman (as examples) those sums is indefensible.

It seems having a fking annoying voice gets you a fortune..

Cannot fathom some of these salaries, but not ultimately surprised.

It's quite possible that a lot of the payments aren't salaries but fees paid to personal companies e.g. Naga Munchetty Ltd.

The BBC, which frequently backslaps Labour by harping on about lawful tax avoidance as though following the law was some sort of perverse principle, pays big money to ltd co's so their presenters can avoid tax.

[mybrainhurts]

turbobloke said:

mybrainhurts said:

Bet there are handbags flying about the BBC right now....

Which is nice...

Louise Minchin must be as cheap as chips, she's not on the list - or was she lost in the deep irony? Can't recall seeing her mentioned.

I'm a bit lost with all this. I have never heard of most of the names mentioned.

[TTwiggy]

Who would have thought that appearing regularly on TV would attract a large salary? Next they'll be telling us that playing football for a Premier League team is quite well remunerated.

[AJL308]

mybrainhurts said:

AJL308 said:

Randy Winkman said:

How much do such people get on other channels?

Irrelevant - they are working for the BBC not "other" channels.

It's not irrelevant. If they're paid more than the market rate, we are paying more than the market rate and we are compelled to do do. This is wrong.

It's irrelevant in the sense that the BBC isn't subject to the normal forces of capitalism (they are keen to point out that their method of funding is "unique") so you can't make direct comparisons to other employers offering the same jobs.

The BBC is tax-payer funded and has no real need to employ big salaried star performers. It's supporters have banged on for decades about how lots of its shows wouldn't have got past their first series' in the "commercial" sector but they were carried on for reasons basically of cultural importance or quality of production, writing, etc.

Jeremy Vine gets over £700K a year for basically talking to people on the phone a couple of hours a day. If he can get that, or more, elsewhere then why isn't he doing his show elsewhere? He ins't because he probably couldn't get £700K a year elsewhere. If he wants to be part of the culturally and historically significant BBC doing a show which no one else will pay him to do then he should do it for less or get told to ps off.

I mentioned that a person I know reads the news on local commercial radio. Moira Stuart gets £200K a year on the Chris Evans show doing the news bulletins. If the person I know offers to do it for £150K and can do as good a job - which, not to be unkind to Ms Stuart, she could, easily - then surely market forces are at work and she should be given the job or the incumbent should have her pay dropped?

The BBC can't have it both ways. It's either subject to market forces or it's a British state funded cultural icon which should be a privilege to work for as opposed to getting a massive salary or it's run on commercial lines. They can't continue to claim that wages are justified by the market while at the same time claiming massive amounts of tax money.

[AJL308]

CoolHands said:

Paying Jeremy vine and Claudia winkleman (as examples) those sums is indefensible.

Entirely agreed.

[AJL308]

TTwiggy said:

Who would have thought that appearing regularly on TV would attract a large salary? Next they'll be telling us that playing football for a Premier League team is quite well remunerated.

No one is surprised.

The discussion is about whether it's morally right that such huge salaries should be funded by the tax payer. Do try to keep up.

[TTwiggy]

AJL308 said:

TTwiggy said:

Who would have thought that appearing regularly on TV would attract a large salary? Next they'll be telling us that playing football for a Premier League team is quite well remunerated.

No one is surprised.

The discussion is about whether it's morally right that such huge salaries should be funded by the tax payer. Do try to keep up.

I wasn't aware that the 'tax payer' was funding them? The licence fee is a charge to have a licence to receive live broadcasts. Calling it a tax doesn't make it so.

[BlackLabel]

John Simpson isn't happy.

[TTwiggy]

BlackLabel said:

John Simpson isn't happy.

And rightly so. It is a pointless exercise. And it's pure politics of envy - something I thought was frowned upon round here.

[anonymous-user]

technodup said:

schmunk said:

You do realise that you need a TV license to watch live broadcasts on Sky, even channels other than the BBC, don't you...?

That's a technicality (and a con) which exists purely because of the BBC

Irrespective of if you think it's a con or a technically, you still have to pay it, unless of corse you have no problem being one of the 180,000 people per year taken to court over the matter.

It is irresponsible to suggest to people they don't have to pay it. I image only an absolutely tiny proportion of people fall into the category of legitimately not needing to have a licence.

[Randy Winkman]

AJL308 said:

Randy Winkman said:

How much do such people get on other channels?

Irrelevant - they are working for the BBC not "other" channels.

But they are free to go and work for other channels aren't they? Then, what does the BBC do?

[AJL308]

TTwiggy said:

AJL308 said:

TTwiggy said:

Who would have thought that appearing regularly on TV would attract a large salary? Next they'll be telling us that playing football for a Premier League team is quite well remunerated.

No one is surprised.

The discussion is about whether it's morally right that such huge salaries should be funded by the tax payer. Do try to keep up.

I wasn't aware that the 'tax payer' was funding them? The licence fee is a charge to have a licence to receive live broadcasts. Calling it a tax doesn't make it so.

Of course it's a tax. It's a tax on using television receiving equipment. Just like "Vehicle Excise Duty", or "Road Fund Licence" or whatever it's called this week is a TAX on using the roads - hence why it's referred to as road tax. Excise duty on alcohol and tobacco are taxes too.

[TTwiggy]

AJL308 said:

TTwiggy said:

AJL308 said:

TTwiggy said:

Who would have thought that appearing regularly on TV would attract a large salary? Next they'll be telling us that playing football for a Premier League team is quite well remunerated.

No one is surprised.

The discussion is about whether it's morally right that such huge salaries should be funded by the tax payer. Do try to keep up.

I wasn't aware that the 'tax payer' was funding them? The licence fee is a charge to have a licence to receive live broadcasts. Calling it a tax doesn't make it so.

Of course it's a tax. It's a tax on using television receiving equipment. Just like "Vehicle Excise Duty", or "Road Fund Licence" or whatever it's called this week is a TAX on using the roads - hence why it's referred to as road tax. Excise duty on alcohol and tobacco are taxes too.

Referring to it (erroneously) as a tax opens the door to disingenuous suggestions that the 'tax payer' is funding the BBC. We pay a fee for a licence to receive live broadcasts. That money is then used to provide us with the BBC. Most countries charge a licence fee, very few (if any) offer something as comprehensive in return as the BBC.

[AJL308]

Randy Winkman said:

AJL308 said:

Randy Winkman said:

How much do such people get on other channels?

Irrelevant - they are working for the BBC not "other" channels.

But they are free to go and work for other channels aren't they? Then, what does the BBC do?

It gets other people? It encourages new talent?

Are you seriously suggesting that in a country of knocking on 70 million people the BBC needs to pay Jeremy Vine £700K a year for talking to people on the phone for a couple of hours a day? Really....he's the only person in the country who can do that specific job which justifies his £700k wage packet?

This all supposes that they all could get work at other channels. I suspect that many of them (most?) could not.

[bitchstewie]

It's an interesting list.

I can't say that I'm especially "angry" about it but as an example simply because it's on LBC now - half a million quid for Alan Shearer's football insights?

News presenters? Struggle with why any of them for any organisation are worth quarter of a million.

Dan Walker's on there now fair enough I think he does the football stuff too but I bet he and Louise Minchin have a fun conversation tomorrow