BBC stars' pay to be revealed

Sutton-Claret · Post by **Sutton-Claret** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:10 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40633241

The media seem to be focussing more on the fact that only a third of the top earners are female. Surely this is a result of viewers preference and viewing figures - if viewers enjoy a programme they will continue to watch irrelevant of the gender. I don't think its a result of gender inequality - more ''this person suits the role better than this person''.

CleggHall · Post by **CleggHall** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:26 am

Few people at the BBC will earn as much as Kieran Trippier, reported in the Daily Mail that he is on £70,000 per week, nice work if you can get it!

Silkyskills1 · Post by **Silkyskills1** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:38 am

I don't think its a result of gender inequality - more ''this person suits the role better than this person''.[/quote]

Using what criteria?

Sutton-Claret · Post by **Sutton-Claret** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:50 am

Silkyskills1 wrote:I don't think its a result of gender inequality - more ''this person suits the role better than this person''.

Using what criteria?[/quote]

Examples - A male presenter such as Andrew Marr / Paxman would be better at grilling an MP than a female presenter. A female presenter would be more suited to presenting a daytime chat show. These are just my views

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:51 am

The outdated idea that if you have a television that has the ability to receive a particular broadcasters output means you're forced to pay a levy with the threat of a fine or potentially, imprisonment, is ridiculous.

It's 2017 we're in the digital age. We're in the subscription age.

The cry from the kept in clover, cosetted luvies at the Biased Broadcasting Company, is that they pay rates that reflect "the market and competition."

Fair enough, then let the "market and competition" decide. Scrap the tv tax (licence fee) which has a disproportionate effect on the poor. The BBC gets 4.5 BILLION pounds PER YEAR. If the BBC wants to pay show biz wages fine. But let them pay the show biz wages from money that is NOT derived from coercion of already hard pressed tax payers.

HelloHiGoodbye · Post by **HelloHiGoodbye** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:54 am

[/quote{Examples - A male presenter such as Andrew Marr / Paxman would be better at grilling an MP than a female presenter. A female presenter would be more suited to presenting a daytime chat show. These are just my views[/quote]

Is it 1973?

DAVETHEVICAR · Post by **DAVETHEVICAR** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:54 am

Kay Burley and Sophy Ridge just as capable as Marr and Paxman

CleggHall · Post by **CleggHall** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:57 am

But we don't know how much Kay Burley or Sophie Ridge are paid by Sky, that's the point!

HelloHiGoodbye · Post by **HelloHiGoodbye** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:00 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:The outdated idea that if you have a television that has the ability to receive a particular broadcasters output means you're forced to pay a levy with the threat of a fine or potentially, imprisonment, is ridiculous.

It's 2017 we're in the digital age. We're in the subscription age.

The cry from the kept in clover, cosetted luvies at the Biased Broadcasting Company, is that they pay rates that reflect "the market and competition."

Fair enough, then let the "market and competition" decide. Scrap the tv tax (licence fee) which has a disproportionate effect on the poor. The BBC gets 4.5 BILLION pounds PER YEAR. If the BBC wants to pay show biz wages fine. But let them pay the show biz wages from money that is NOT derived from coercion of already hard pressed tax payers.

They don't pay "show biz wages" though. That's the point.

£2.70 a week for BBC1, 2, 3, 4, News, Worldwide, Radio 1, 1Xtra, 2, 3, 4, 5Live, 6Music, red button services and iPlayer. (Sure I've missed some.) It's an absolute bargain.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:00 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:The outdated idea that if you have a television that has the ability to receive a particular broadcasters output means you're forced to pay a levy with the threat of a fine or potentially, imprisonment, is ridiculous.

It's 2017 we're in the digital age. We're in the subscription age.

The cry from the kept in clover, cosetted luvies at the Biased Broadcasting Company, is that they pay rates that reflect "the market and competition."

Fair enough, then let the "market and competition" decide. Scrap the tv tax (licence fee) which has a disproportionate effect on the poor. The BBC gets 4.5 BILLION pounds PER YEAR. If the BBC wants to pay show biz wages fine. But let them pay the show biz wages from money that is NOT derived from coercion of already hard pressed tax payers.

If anyone can't afford £12.12 per month to watch TV then they need to readjust their priorities.

Silkyskills1 · Post by **Silkyskills1** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:03 am

Sutton-Claret wrote:Using what criteria?

Examples - A male presenter such as Andrew Marr / Paxman would be better at grilling an MP than a female presenter. A female presenter would be more suited to presenting a daytime chat show. These are just my views[/quote]

Oops!

claretdom · Post by **claretdom** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:08 am

HelloHiGoodbye wrote:They don't pay "show biz wages" though. That's the point.

£2.70 a week for BBC1, 2, 3, 4, News, Worldwide, Radio 1, 1Xtra, 2, 3, 4, 5Live, 6Music, red button services and iPlayer. (Sure I've missed some.) It's an absolute bargain.

To some it probably is a bargain but the question is should it be forced on people if they don't want it. Some will say SKY is good value but if people don't want to pay for it they don't have to. The stories you read of them threatening people with prison don't show them in a very good light for a service people have no option in their eyes but to pay for if you want it or not.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:10 am

Remember that most of the people complaining about this will be people who are either competitors or who like their news in a Daily Mail format.

lucs86 · Post by **lucs86** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:10 am

DAVETHEVICAR wrote:Kay Burley and Sophy Ridge just as capable as Marr and Paxman

Kay Burley

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:11 am

If people don't want to watch the BBC then they're a cretin. The type of cretin who is more than happy to pay Sky £50 a month to watch Duck Dynasty, no doubt.

HelloHiGoodbye · Post by **HelloHiGoodbye** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:16 am

claretdom wrote:To some it probably is a bargain but the question is should it be forced on people if they don't want it. Some will say SKY is good value but if people don't want to pay for it they don't have to. The stories you read of them threatening people with prison don't show them in a very good light for a service people have no option in their eyes but to pay for if you want it or not.

It's £2 a week for a vastly larger service without any adverts. (And you're not paying Murdoch.) SKY is £18 a week for what? News, Sky 1, Sports and er the Discovery Channel and maybe a channel exclusively about sheds in between the religious channels?

Similar to the NHS, the BBC is respected around the world - recognised as a leader in what it does. It's output is extraordinary. There's no company like it. And yet if some people had their way, there'd be no BBC or NHS.

claretdom · Post by **claretdom** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:22 am

HelloHiGoodbye wrote:It's £2 a week for a vastly larger service without any adverts. (And you're not paying Murdoch.) SKY is £18 a week for what? News, Sky 1, Sports and er the Discovery Channel and maybe a channel exclusively about sheds in between the religious channels?

Similar to the NHS, the BBC is respected around the world - recognised as a leader in what it does. It's output is extraordinary. There's no company like it. And yet if some people had their way, there'd be no BBC or NHS.

Again the same point stands, if you believe in your product you are telling people they need to pay for shouldn't it be an option rather than compulsory.
I don't get the attitude directed towards SKY by people who are happy to accept the money from them for the football club to operate at a higher level but then try to portray them as a bad company when defending the BBC. It isn't a competition between them both.

HelloHiGoodbye · Post by **HelloHiGoodbye** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:25 am

claretdom wrote:Again the same point stands, if you believe in your product you are telling people they need to pay for shouldn't it be an option rather than compulsory.
I don't get the attitude directed towards SKY by people who are happy to accept the money from them for the football club to operate at a higher level but then try to portray them as a bad company when defending the BBC. It isn't a competition between them both.

Er- you brought up SKY.

The BBC's one of the jewels in the UK's crown. And people talk about a lack of industry in the UK...

claretdom · Post by **claretdom** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:29 am

HelloHiGoodbye wrote:Er- you brought up SKY.

The BBC's one of the jewels in the UK's crown. And people talk about a lack of industry in the UK...

I used SKY as that is another broadcaster who charges I could have said BT or Virgin they all charge but it you don't want them you don't have to have them. Still no answer as to why it can't or shouldn't be optional.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:30 am

Would you opt not to receive the BBC dom?

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:32 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Remember that most of the people complaining about this will be people who are either competitors or who like their news in a Daily Mail format.

People who like their news in a daily mail format, pay for it. If you don't want it in a daily mail format, you don't have to pay for it.

You HAVE to pay for the BBC even if you don't want it. You HAVE to pay for the BBC simply because to have a t.v.!!!!

It's an anathema. It's wrong. Its outdated. It belongs in the 1950s. In a digital and subscription age, it's simply unfair and unjustifiable.

HelloHiGoodbye · Post by **HelloHiGoodbye** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:42 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:People who like their news in a daily mail format, pay for it. If you don't want it in a daily mail format, you don't have to pay for it.

You HAVE to pay for the BBC even if you don't want it. You HAVE to pay for the BBC simply because to have a t.v.!!!!

It's an anathema. It's wrong. Its outdated. It belongs in the 1950s. In a digital and subscription age, it's simply unfair and unjustifiable.

If you buy the Daily Mail you buying a right wing perspective of the world. It's important to have impartiality. The BBC is as impartial at it gets - you'll disagree because I'm familiar with your posts on here. (You'll say they're all left wing and ignore Laura Kuenssberg and the fact Farage is on every other Question Time.)

Cryssys · Post by **Cryssys** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:42 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:

It's an anathema. It's wrong. Its outdated. It belongs in the 1950s, it's simply unfair and unjustifiable.

A lot like you then Dingo

HelloHiGoodbye · Post by **HelloHiGoodbye** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:43 am

claretdom wrote:I used SKY as that is another broadcaster who charges I could have said BT or Virgin they all charge but it you don't want them you don't have to have them. Still no answer as to why it can't or shouldn't be optional.

If it was optional, one of the best services worldwide would decline. Simple as that. Inundated with adverts, shrunken coverage...

Guich · Post by **Guich** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:43 am

UpTheBeehole wrote:If people don't want to watch the BBC then they're a cretin. The type of cretin who is more than happy to pay Sky £50 a month to watch Duck Dynasty, no doubt.

That's a pretty ferocious defence of the Beeb UptheBeehole. I find it hard to find anything I'm interested on BBC - there are good dramas here and there; eg 'Ripper Street' and 'In the Dark'. But the sport coverage is pitiful other than TMS on the radio.
There is so much choice now I wouldn't miss the BBC TV at all and, in my opinion, I'm not a cretin.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:43 am

HelloHiGoodbye wrote:They don't pay "show biz wages" though. That's the point.

£2.70 a week for BBC1, 2, 3, 4, News, Worldwide, Radio 1, 1Xtra, 2, 3, 4, 5Live, 6Music, red button services and iPlayer. (Sure I've missed some.) It's an absolute bargain.

Johnathen Ross - 6,000,000 pa !!!!!!

Claudia Winkleman - 500,000 for presenting Strictly come dancing!!!!!?

Graham Norton - 2,500,000 pa !!!!

NOT show biz wages!?

Are you having a laugh!?

If there such an "absolute bargain" then let competition and the market decide. Scrap the unjust license fee and see If, in your view, the people are willing to pay for their services, without the threat of a thousand quid fine hanging over them!

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:44 am

One thing that proves that the BBC is impartial is that its hated by everybody who doesn't like being criticised.

You clearly like your news Ringo to reflect your view of the world. Thats fine, but dangerous (in my opinion).

Twitter today - stuff I follow attacking the BBC salaries

- Guido Fawkes (who makes you look left wing Ringo)

- All daily Mail columnists, including the one who looked genuinely shocked at getting laughed at on QT the other week

- Piers Morgan

- Scottish Nationalists

- Corbynistas

*worth mentioning as well Andy Goldstein (talksport presenter) defending them as well, so its not all competitors

quoonbeatz · Post by **quoonbeatz** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:44 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:You HAVE to pay for the BBC even if you don't want it. You HAVE to pay for the BBC simply because to have a t.v.!!!!

you don't.

you have to have a tv licence to watch any tv channel, including satellite/subscription channels.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:45 am

Cryssys wrote:A lot like you then Dingo

Some classic playing the man , not the ball there mate.

You're not Kevin Ball are you!?

HelloHiGoodbye · Post by **HelloHiGoodbye** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:45 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:Johnathen Ross - 6,000,000 pa !!!!!!

Claudia Winkleman - 500,000 for presenting Strictly come dancing!!!!!?

Graham Norton - 2,500,000 pa !!!!

NOT show biz wages!?

Are you having a laugh!?

If there such an "absolute bargain" then let competition and the market decide. Scrap the unjust license fee and see If, in your view, the people are willing to pay for their services, without the threat of a thousand quid fine hanging over them!

Yes - they are vast sums but they aren't show biz wages. They're smaller wages than Channel Four, ITV, SKY, Netflix... Shall I go on?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:49 am

Worth mentioning that I don't think the license fee is a good idea, but overall the BBC does a good job, and a lot of its culture/history stuff wouldn't get made unless it was non-advertiser funded.

And, crucially, its less than the amounts being handed out to commercial tv stars

HelloHiGoodbye · Post by **HelloHiGoodbye** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:50 am

A lot of the criticism - I feel - comes from people perceiving "being on tv" and making TV as an easy thing to do. It's not and it isn't. Gary Lineker is the best at what he does. Graham Norton - again, the best at what he does. Both could earn more elsewhere. But they don't. They work for the BBC because those initials mean something.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:50 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:Johnathen Ross - 6,000,000 pa !!!!!!

Claudia Winkleman - 500,000 for presenting Strictly come dancing!!!!!?

Graham Norton - 2,500,000 pa !!!!

NOT show biz wages!?

Are you having a laugh!?

If there such an "absolute bargain" then let competition and the market decide. Scrap the unjust license fee and see If, in your view, the people are willing to pay for their services, without the threat of a thousand quid fine hanging over them!

Ant & Dec earn £29.5m between them per year.

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:53 am

The BBC should be self funded by adverts like ITV.

The programs are the same length just the BBC advertises it's own products/shows rather than outside companies.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:54 am

quoonbeatz wrote:you don't.

you have to have a tv licence to watch any tv channel, including satellite/subscription channels.

Taken from the official tv licensing website -

Over 90% of the licence fee is spent on BBC TV channels, radio stations, BBC iPlayer and online services.

The costs of administering the TV Licence are less than you might think. For every £1 taken in licence fee payments, just 3p is spent on collection.

Part of the fee also contributes to the UK broadband rollout, funding local TV channels and S4C, the Welsh language TV channel, as was agreed with the government as part of the 2010 licence fee settlement.

In 2016 the Government announced that the licence fee would rise in line with inflation for five years from 1 April 2017. A standard TV Licence now costs £147.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:55 am

UpTheBeehole wrote:Ant & Dec earn £29.5m between them per year.

And your point is!?

HelloHiGoodbye · Post by **HelloHiGoodbye** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:55 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:And your point is!?

That's a showbiz wage.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:56 am

HelloHiGoodbye wrote:A lot of the criticism - I feel - comes from people perceiving "being on tv" and making TV as an easy thing to do. It's not and it isn't. Gary Lineker is the best at what he does. Graham Norton - again, the best at what he does. Both could earn more elsewhere. But they don't. They work for the BBC because those initials mean something.

BBC

Bloated

Biased

Corrupt

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:56 am

No wonder garry Lineker can afford to be a champagne socialist on 1.79m a year!

HelloHiGoodbye · Post by **HelloHiGoodbye** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:57 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:BBC

Bloated

Biased

Corrupt

I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE! SO clever!

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:58 am

HelloHiGoodbye wrote:That's a showbiz wage.

Absolutely

And not a single penny is derived from already hard pressed people forced to pay for it by compulsion.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:00 am

Gary Lineker on £1.79m a year, or Jeremy Clarkson on £10m a year

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:00 am

Well, what a shock

Both Ringo and Andy think the BBC is bad idea.

More proof that its doing a good job.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:01 am

HelloHiGoodbye wrote:Yes - they are vast sums but they aren't show biz wages. They're smaller wages than Channel Four, ITV, SKY, Netflix... Shall I go on?

Hard up families pay nothing to channel 4 ITV SKY and Netflix. If they choose not to.

With the BBC they have ZERO choice.

Don't bother going on fella.....

HelloHiGoodbye · Post by **HelloHiGoodbye** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:03 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:Absolutely

And not a single penny is derived from already hard pressed people forced to pay for it by compulsion.

I've said previously why it's important the BBC continues as it is. I'm not going round in circles. You want the world to be one long Daily Mail front page, I get it. Cool.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:03 am

This unholy alliance between really rich people who own anti-BBC media outlets and people who have a grudge against everything and anything that isn't what they want it to be is really quite scary.

Every thought for a moment Ringo that very rich people are using you?

quoonbeatz · Post by **quoonbeatz** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:04 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:Taken from the official tv licensing website -

Over 90% of the licence fee is spent on BBC TV channels, radio stations, BBC iPlayer and online services.

The costs of administering the TV Licence are less than you might think. For every £1 taken in licence fee payments, just 3p is spent on collection.

Part of the fee also contributes to the UK broadband rollout, funding local TV channels and S4C, the Welsh language TV channel, as was agreed with the government as part of the 2010 licence fee settlement.

In 2016 the Government announced that the licence fee would rise in line with inflation for five years from 1 April 2017. A standard TV Licence now costs £147.

ah so you're bothered about how the licence fee is spent, not that there is one.

as i said, you'd still need to pay it even if you just had sky.

what about all those people who can't afford sky, bt, netflix, etc? should they just not be allowed to watch telly? bit selfish that isn't it?

RocketLawnChair · Post by **RocketLawnChair** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:04 am

HelloHiGoodbye wrote:A lot of the criticism - I feel - comes from people perceiving "being on tv" and making TV as an easy thing to do. It's not and it isn't. Gary Lineker is the best at what he does. Graham Norton - again, the best at what he does. Both could earn more elsewhere. But they don't. They work for the BBC because those initials mean something.

You had the upper hand until this HelloHiGoodbye. Gary Lineker isn't a patch on Jeff Stelling in fact he isn't the best on MOTD. And what exactly does Graham Norton do?

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:06 am

HelloHiGoodbye wrote:If you buy the Daily Mail you buying a right wing perspective of the world. It's important to have impartiality. The BBC is as impartial at it gets - you'll disagree because I'm familiar with your posts on here. (You'll say they're all left wing and ignore Laura Kuenssberg and the fact Farage is on every other Question Time.)

"It's important to have impartiality"

In my opinion, it's more important to have CHOICE.

With the BBC you don't have CHOICE. You have a thousand quid fine if you don't cough up for it's "impartiality!"

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:07 am

The BBC's approach to wages is like Burnley's in the Premier League.

They only have a certain amount coming in, so pay what they can to the best talent available within that price range.

They may pay Gary Lineker £1.79m or whatever it is, in the same way BFC pays Robbie Brady around £35k a week.

ITV pay Ant & Dec £30m a year, in the same way Man Utd pay Pogba and Lukaku an absolute sh1tload.

Amazon pay Jeremy Clarkson £10m in the same way Man City pay Aguero £220k a week or whatever.

Internationally, Oprah Winfrey earns £63m a year, in the same way Messi earns £550k a week.

As you can see, the wages paid to BBC stars are minuscule compared to the market they're in. Stop ******* fussing over nothing.