[0762]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40696402

As a bbc licence payer, who doesn't use the bbc provision too often anyway, I think that is the most searching question in the midst of the media smokescreen of 'the gender pay gap' or 'the ethnic pay disparity issue'. ARE MANY OF THESE PEOPLE WORTH IT or more importantly ARE THEY GROSSLY OVERPAID FOR WHAT THEY PROVIDE??? Sifting through some of these salaries I noticed, for example, the One Show presenters each earn an annual salary of about half a million quid - IMO massively overpaid by the bbc and there are lotsa other questionable examples on the list which have raised internal disputes among bbc colleagues who are upset over a salary disparity. However, I think that is another distraction from the real issue of why these people are grossly overpaid for what they provide!!! I've no doubt that defenders of this salary regime will say that's the price of entertainment but I 'don't buy that argument' particularly by a public corporation and noticeable that none of these salaries are applicable to bbc outlying regions apart from one radio presenter in Northern Ireland who again is grossly overpaid.
There is also a debatable footie argument attached to the bbc and covers the meagre bbc contribution of £1.3M to Scottish footie coverage while the English Premiership takes in £68M. If one analyses the financial data further, it transpires that Scottish contributors pay about £150M to the bbc and forget the argument re the high standard of English footie - the simple conclusion is that this payment is disproportionate from a public corporation - it's a pittance and just reaffirms the second class status that exists in this age old argument of 'better together' in the good old disunited kingdom which was always a crap argument riddled full of holes when one scrutinises it from a Scottish perspective.

[Lord Snooty]

Well in answer to the question in the title. A resounding no.

However we can't really comment until we know what the others pay. Is Gary Lineker's money comparable to Jeff Stelling? Is the money Clare Balding earns the same as she gets paid by C4 or BT or all the other channels she works for?

[0762]

I think there is a contrary argument that moving to the private sector comparison merely reaffirms that there are a lotta people in this category (and in the country!) who have 'their noses in the trough' in a world where we have discovered the great divide of the 'haves' and the 'have nots' and that social division has been exposed and criticised in different ways and in recent times by huge numbers of dissatisfied and disillusioned people within our population. I believe this phenomenon will not disappear and, without moving into the polarised political position and divisive ideologies practised in this country, there is a bigger story attached to this issue and it's one that will not end well IMO!

[ritchiebaby]

I blame the Tories!    I don't believe any of these quoted are worth anywhere near the money paid. I mean, Chris Evans!!!!!  

Seriously, there are 2 solutions. Either increase the female presenters salaries - a sure way to increase the rich/poor divide, but means more money for HMRC or reduce the male presenters salaries - a sure way to lose your "top" men. The letter will only mean more division among those with opposing viewpoints and will surely not end well.

[0762]

Also Gary Lineker on £2M pa??? I dunno how our English footie fans view it but IMO MOTD really is a 'tired bbc footie prog' and Shearer on £500K???? No way and 'old pals' act' comes to mind!!

[St Charles Owl]

The entertainment industry is always a difficult one once you analyse who is being paid what. As Snoots said, this article doesn't give us any idea what comparable presenters earn at other tv channels and at the end of the day the going rate is what it is, so if the BBC want to retain their best presenters they will have to pay accordingly. Its also very much an opinionated worth, for the BBC its all down to ratings, whether a particular presenter is liked by one person or disliked by another is neither here nor there, its about how many people tune in to watch the program itself that matters. Likewise the gender pay gap is also skewed by ratings, not by ability or any other normal measure within an occupation, a presenter is worth what he/she is paid based on household watching. Lastly, this type of work has its pay based on negotiations and contracts, not on what another presenter might be earning, its what you can get and what they are prepared to pay to get you. This is more similar to a footballers pay and the variance that comes within the game than it is to a "normal" job such as a hospital worker etc.

[0762]

Aye but lets not forget the dosh is still coming from millions of tv licence payers up n down the country and the bbc is a public broadcasting authority!!!! As for the idea of the 'going rate'? It covers the going rate for bbc people only located in a certain area of England!!! So much for the 'United' part of the UK acronym AGAIN!! The whole system and culture of paying out grossly overpaid salaries to a select group of people who prob make up under 1% of our population is all part n parcel of the culture and society that has been created to favour 'the few' esp when viewing and listening to these revelations during tough times for lotsa people in this country!! It's an obscenity and just exposes how skewed and flawed a system it is with no recourse whatsoever!! Recession and financial downturn? Not for these select groups of people!!!

[St Charles Owl]

I don't agree that just because the BBC is a public broadcasting company it should pay below market rate for jobs!! The BBC has a budget to work within and it makes the decisions as to how it spends that budget but if we want the BBC to remain a very good TV company then it needs to recruit the best presenters, actors, directors etc that it can. If you go down the road of employing lesser talent, then the quality of the programming will go down as well, for a tv company that makes no sense at all.

As regards the "going rate", the ones at the top of the list of earners all work on the national side of the business, which is based in London but also has other offices in the UK, not the local side, so not sure what difference that makes either. Match of the Day is filmed in Manchester, Strictly is partly filmed in Blackpool and most tv shows are filmed across the UK depending on the program. I am sure the local presenters are paid the "going rate" for their area, again no doubt based on the competition and on the viewing figures. How you can turn this into an anti-London or anti-UK thing is beyond me!!!

We live in a society that has always paid out large salaries to a small % of the population from a variety of walks of life, not just tv. There has never been a time when this hasn't been the case, its now a time when entertainment (sport, music, movies, tv etc) sees wages that put them in the top earners category above more traditional high earners such as lawyers, surgeons and company executives. Plenty of these top earners are Scottish as well, including quite a few on the BBC top earners list!!

[0762]

Plenty of these top earners are Scottish but again they are based in one main region of England!!!! This resurrects this age old debate re the UK and the perception of two (or three) separate countries based on the wealth and investment in their regions - it's a f###### joke and it was blatantly exposed in the previous referenda!!! Re the going rate and top earners I'd counter that argument with the words 'one big gravy train' but only for certain favoured people and I'm damn sure there are lotsa unrecognised entertainers and media people who will not be given a 'sniff' at joining the 'gravy train' and would certainly take far less money. That leads to the 'nub' of this debate which actually centres on wealth and proper wealth creation throughout the country - well explained by a famous Scottish economist, Adam Smith, together with many other past historical figures of similar minds. We live in the 'I'm alright Jack' culture and it sucks TBF - wonderful to be part of it, being one of the 'few', but for the majority of people in this country it's a 'pipe dream'! As said previously, there is another story to this whole debate and it centres on proper management/governance of wealth creation and providing for the majority of the population and stop pandering to this elite group of people (not just the entertainment side) who comprise a miniscule part of the UK population and yet influence the economics of this country in the wrong way - to suit their selfish needs and values and f### off to the rest of us!!!