BBC Pension - is this for real?
Discussion
From this :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/art...
Comes this:
Abramsky was made a dame in the new year honours list after retiring last year from her job as head of BBC audio and music with a pension pot of £4m, giving her an annual income of £190,000
Now, I do not begrudge anybody success or wealth. If this is, in fact, a private pension where she has made huge contibutions from her own (probably large) BBC salary, then fair enough.
But I cannot help thinking that this £4m pension, returning £190k per year has probably all come out of the license fund.
Not sure how the BBC can continue to ask for more money when they seem to be leaking cash into frankly innappropriate areas.
Since when did people need £190k per year to retire on?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/art...
Comes this:
Abramsky was made a dame in the new year honours list after retiring last year from her job as head of BBC audio and music with a pension pot of £4m, giving her an annual income of £190,000
Now, I do not begrudge anybody success or wealth. If this is, in fact, a private pension where she has made huge contibutions from her own (probably large) BBC salary, then fair enough.
But I cannot help thinking that this £4m pension, returning £190k per year has probably all come out of the license fund.
Not sure how the BBC can continue to ask for more money when they seem to be leaking cash into frankly innappropriate areas.
Since when did people need £190k per year to retire on?
johnfm said:
From this :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/art...
Comes this:
Abramsky was made a dame in the new year honours list after retiring last year from her job as head of BBC audio and music with a pension pot of £4m, giving her an annual income of £190,000
Now, I do not begrudge anybody success or wealth. If this is, in fact, a private pension where she has made huge contibutions from her own (probably large) BBC salary, then fair enough.
But I cannot help thinking that this £4m pension, returning £190k per year has probably all come out of the license fund.
Not sure how the BBC can continue to ask for more money when they seem to be leaking cash into frankly innappropriate areas.
Since when did people need £190k per year to retire on?
I wouldn't think it came out of the LICENCE fund, although no doubt there would have been an element of employer's contribution during her working career at the Beeb.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/art...
Comes this:
Abramsky was made a dame in the new year honours list after retiring last year from her job as head of BBC audio and music with a pension pot of £4m, giving her an annual income of £190,000
Now, I do not begrudge anybody success or wealth. If this is, in fact, a private pension where she has made huge contibutions from her own (probably large) BBC salary, then fair enough.
But I cannot help thinking that this £4m pension, returning £190k per year has probably all come out of the license fund.
Not sure how the BBC can continue to ask for more money when they seem to be leaking cash into frankly innappropriate areas.
Since when did people need £190k per year to retire on?
While your having a pop at large pension recipients, the biggest I've seen in my work as a tax advisor are those received by retired BA pilots. I've seen one in the region of £100,000. For most of this chap's career with BA, the airline was state owned (he joined when it was still BEA).
Thanks Eric. Did I use the verb form spelling instead of the noun form? I blame Xmas and New Year drinking!
Either way, it seems excessive. I worked in broadcast tv for a number of years. The arguments trotted out by the BBC is that they have to pay these packages to get 'the best people'. If you have ever been involved in any way with the BBC you will know they do not get 'the best people' at all. They get people who would do the job for much much less, as the:
1. Working in tv production usually included large levels of job satisfaction which no amount of money can equate to
2. Working for the BBC carries a certain amount of prestige and, though there are cuts, job security. If you play the political game right, it is a job for life.
The sad fact is that TV is not meritocratic - the ones who get the jobs are, generally, friends of friends. It is how it has always worked and will always work.
I digress, the fact is many of the BBC's highest paid execs are not 'top of the industry', though their pay is.
Either way, it seems excessive. I worked in broadcast tv for a number of years. The arguments trotted out by the BBC is that they have to pay these packages to get 'the best people'. If you have ever been involved in any way with the BBC you will know they do not get 'the best people' at all. They get people who would do the job for much much less, as the:
1. Working in tv production usually included large levels of job satisfaction which no amount of money can equate to
2. Working for the BBC carries a certain amount of prestige and, though there are cuts, job security. If you play the political game right, it is a job for life.
The sad fact is that TV is not meritocratic - the ones who get the jobs are, generally, friends of friends. It is how it has always worked and will always work.
I digress, the fact is many of the BBC's highest paid execs are not 'top of the industry', though their pay is.
If you don't like the BBC rebel!
Campaign to abolish the TV licence
Campaign to abolish the TV licence
Edited by Fittster on Sunday 4th January 11:42
I do like the BBC. I just think that, like many government/tax funded entities, they can be a bit commercially inept.
I cannot comprehend how they can think, for instance, that £6m/year for Jonathon Ross was ever a commercially sound use of capital.
The BBC should NOT be run as a business, as it has a public broadcasting remit. But at the same time, it should not, therefore, need to compete with ITV for ratings - which is their basis for justifying Ross' outlandish contract terms.
I cannot comprehend how they can think, for instance, that £6m/year for Jonathon Ross was ever a commercially sound use of capital.
The BBC should NOT be run as a business, as it has a public broadcasting remit. But at the same time, it should not, therefore, need to compete with ITV for ratings - which is their basis for justifying Ross' outlandish contract terms.
Fittster said:
johnfm said:
I do like the BBC. I just think that, like many government/tax funded entities, they can be a bit commercially inept.
I don't like the BBC, why should I be forced to pay for it?What would British broadcasting be like without it (and I am including radio in this as well as TV)?
Eric Mc said:
Fittster said:
johnfm said:
I do like the BBC. I just think that, like many government/tax funded entities, they can be a bit commercially inept.
I don't like the BBC, why should I be forced to pay for it?What would British broadcasting be like without it (and I am including radio in this as well as TV)?
Edited by Fittster on Sunday 4th January 12:02
Fittster said:
Eric Mc said:
Fittster said:
johnfm said:
I do like the BBC. I just think that, like many government/tax funded entities, they can be a bit commercially inept.
I don't like the BBC, why should I be forced to pay for it?What would British broadcasting be like without it (and I am including radio in this as well as TV)?
Edited by Fittster on Sunday 4th January 12:02
BBC Radio, on the other hand, is still way ahead of most commercial operations, especially Radio 4 and to a lesser extent, Radio 5.
DangerousMike said:
you're not forced to pay it at all, you only have to pay it if you use a television to watch television.
But regardless of whether you watch their services or not.The BBC knows that if they encrypted their channels and made them subscription based then an awful lot of viewers would happily do with out.
Eric Mc said:
Fittster said:
Eric Mc said:
Fittster said:
johnfm said:
I do like the BBC. I just think that, like many government/tax funded entities, they can be a bit commercially inept.
I don't like the BBC, why should I be forced to pay for it?What would British broadcasting be like without it (and I am including radio in this as well as TV)?
Edited by Fittster on Sunday 4th January 12:02
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 4th January 12:16
johnfm said:
From this :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/art...
Comes this:
Abramsky was made a dame in the new year honours list after retiring last year from her job as head of BBC audio and music with a pension pot of £4m, giving her an annual income of £190,000
Now, I do not begrudge anybody success or wealth. If this is, in fact, a private pension where she has made huge contibutions from her own (probably large) BBC salary, then fair enough.
But I cannot help thinking that this £4m pension, returning £190k per year has probably all come out of the license fund.
Not sure how the BBC can continue to ask for more money when they seem to be leaking cash into frankly innappropriate areas.
Since when did people need £190k per year to retire on?
My SIL recently took early retirement from the NHS where she was something senior in HR. Senior people have a deal (which I gather has changed for new entrants) that they have to be offered redundancy if their jobs changes even if there's a similar job they could do.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/art...
Comes this:
Abramsky was made a dame in the new year honours list after retiring last year from her job as head of BBC audio and music with a pension pot of £4m, giving her an annual income of £190,000
Now, I do not begrudge anybody success or wealth. If this is, in fact, a private pension where she has made huge contibutions from her own (probably large) BBC salary, then fair enough.
But I cannot help thinking that this £4m pension, returning £190k per year has probably all come out of the license fund.
Not sure how the BBC can continue to ask for more money when they seem to be leaking cash into frankly innappropriate areas.
Since when did people need £190k per year to retire on?
So as she's got her 30 years in, they pay into her pension pot as if she had worked until normal retirement so she draws her full pension. But, she's also back doing basically her old job on a consultancy basis, so she's now earning more (way more) than before she "retired". And she's been told by others that the daily rate she's charging isn't enough - it's showing them up.
Eric Mc said:
That's the problem. Commercial TV leads to lowest common denominator TV and much of the quality would go. As it is, my main problem with BBC TV is that is has moved way too close to commercial TV in its programming output and that we are seeing it behave as if it was a commercial broadcaster. It needs to return to some of its Reithian prinicples.
BBC Radio, on the other hand, is still way ahead of most commercial operations, especially Radio 4 and to a lesser extent, Radio 5.
To me the fundamental question is should the state impose a compulsory tax on me so that it can provide me with entertainment, which I may or may not consume. I don't think that is the role of the state. BBC Radio, on the other hand, is still way ahead of most commercial operations, especially Radio 4 and to a lesser extent, Radio 5.
The quality of the broadcasting of the BBC compared with its commercial rivals is a side issue.
Fittster said:
Eric Mc said:
Fittster said:
johnfm said:
I do like the BBC. I just think that, like many government/tax funded entities, they can be a bit commercially inept.
I don't like the BBC, why should I be forced to pay for it?What would British broadcasting be like without it (and I am including radio in this as well as TV)?
Edited by Fittster on Sunday 4th January 12:02
take a look at tv in the USA if you think commercial TV is the way forward
funk odyssey said:
Fittster said:
Eric Mc said:
Fittster said:
johnfm said:
I do like the BBC. I just think that, like many government/tax funded entities, they can be a bit commercially inept.
I don't like the BBC, why should I be forced to pay for it?What would British broadcasting be like without it (and I am including radio in this as well as TV)?
Edited by Fittster on Sunday 4th January 12:02
take a look at tv in the USA if you think commercial TV is the way forward
I agree.
In theory, the BBC isn't "state owned" and should resist any state interference. Whether it does or doesn't is a matter of conjecture but the argument should not ride on scrapping the BBC, but rather ensuring that there are enough safeguards and integrity within the structure to keep government interference at bay.
As it is, can you be sure that there is no interference in commercial broadcasting operations either?
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff