There's no getting away from the fact that the number of "weather people" on salaries, holiday pay, sick pay, maternity pay, expenses, clothing allowances, etc., and gold plated pensions, seem a bit of an extravagance in these much harder times for the BBC.
Oh hang on! They aren't are they? It's the poor licence payer who's the only one disadvantaged.
What a load of old twaddle. Yes employed people get holiday pay, sick pay, maternity pay and expenses. That's hardly unique to BBC weather forecasters. I've known BBC onscreen staff make very clear they pay for their own clothes, and if you believe a local weather forecaster gets a gold plated pension you're clearly deluded.
For a great many of the audience, particularly older viewers -you know real people not Internet whingers - seeing a familiar face broadcasting the local weather or news is actually an important comforting reassuring thing. You'll laugh at that, but it's true.
You'll be happy to know that under DQF the number of local weather forecasters has been significantly reduced, and those that are left are not only write and present bulletins for multiple regions on TV and multiple local radio stations, but are often feature reporters for local news as well. Like much of BBC local a great deal of effort is made to hide just how much of a shoestring it's being run on. This week South Today have been using a Radio Solent newsreader as holiday cover weather presenter as more and more everyone has to multitask.
What a load of old twaddle. Yes employed people get holiday pay, sick pay, maternity pay and expenses. That's hardly unique to BBC weather forecasters. I've known BBC onscreen staff make very clear they pay for their own clothes, and if you believe a local weather forecaster gets a gold plated pension you're clearly deluded.
For a great many of the audience, particularly older viewers -you know real people not Internet whingers - seeing a familiar face broadcasting the local weather or news is actually an important comforting reassuring thing. You'll laugh at that, but it's true.
You'll be happy to know that under DQF the number of local weather forecasters has been significantly reduced, and those that are left are not only write and present bulletins for multiple regions on TV and multiple local radio stations, but are often feature reporters for local news as well. Like much of BBC local a great deal of effort is made to hide just how much of a shoestring it's being run on. This week South Today have been using a Radio Solent newsreader as holiday cover weather presenter as more and more everyone has to multitask.
Hmm..
Seems to be a step in the right direction.
Not before time.
I was unaware you were privy to the contract details of every BBC employee. Most of us are only aware of the ones where the extraordinary leaving payments are dragged out of the BBC under the FOIA.
The point I was making that for every salaried employee at the BBC there will be an on-cost. Or did you think they're all on "zero hours?" No, I didn't either.
If you think the number of weather presenters are necessary (remember someone posted that they only started with two, with many times the number of viewers) then that's fine by me, but it won't change my opinion.
Seems to be a step in the right direction.
Not before time.
I was unaware you were privy to the contract details of every BBC employee. Most of us are only aware of the ones where the extraordinary leaving payments are dragged out of the BBC under the FOIA.
The point I was making that for every salaried employee at the BBC there will be an on-cost. Or did you think they're all on "zero hours?" No, I didn't either.
If you think the number of weather presenters are necessary (remember someone posted that they only started with two, with many times the number of viewers) then that's fine by me, but it won't change my opinion.
I was unaware you spoke for most of us. Good to know most people think the BBC are moving in the right direction.
I love this idea that however many people you start with is the absolute maximum you will ever need. According to my RE lessons when I were a lad God started with Adam, but then really messed up doubling that to Eve. And it's got a lot worse since then!
So I wasn't wrong, newsreaders have given the weather forecast in "recent times"
Nope, not "recent times" at all, I would have said that with an 11:30pm closedown (as mentioned), we would still be looking at the 60's or at a push the early 70's with the 3-day week working (and that would have been for a short end-of-day news bulletin prior to closedown, hardly peak viewing) Still not "recent times" at nearly 50 years ago, stop wriggling.
I don't mind that you like "The Weather Show"
I haven't said that, on a personal level, I like it, nor that I dislike it.
Years ago YTV had a farmer called Mr Foggitt who used to phone in his forecast every night based on country folk lore (the cows are lying on the south side of the field which means there'll be sunshine tomorrow). Over a year it turned out he was right 70% of the time and the official Met Office forecast only about 50%:eek:
Ah, that must have been in infamous Bill Foggitt whose month-by-month predictions for the year were printed in the Daily Mirror at teh start of each year - my Dad used to cut them out for reference, and very often those predictions were very wide of the mark, with only a few months being anywhere near correct. Of course, when his prediction for a hoy July proved correct, we thought that he was a genius, but used to forget the other 11 months where he was wrong.
A bit like the off-kilter weather stories from Nathan Rao in the Express.
This is so true. Wales Today has a Scottish weather forecaster.
I wasn't aware of that. Only know of Derek Brockway, Sue Charles (both Welsh) and Behnaz Akhgar (born Iran moved to Wales aged 10). Have I missed someone?
Nope, not "recent times" at all, I would have said that with an 11:30pm closedown (as mentioned), we would still be looking at the 60's or at a push the early 70's with the 3-day week working (and that would have been for a short end-of-day news bulletin prior to closedown, hardly peak viewing) Still not "recent times" at nearly 50 years ago, stop wriggling.
I haven't said that, on a personal level, I like it, nor that I dislike it.
So why are you still bangin' on about it?
Oh yes! This is DS, so you can.
I didn't use the words "recent times" in the first place, you did. I'm pretty sure at some times newsreaders have given the forecast in some bulletins more recently than the sixties, but what's so important about that?
My point was, is still and will always be, until someone may get a grip of it, there's too many weather presenters.
You can think what you like about anything on TV, why should I mind?
I was unaware you spoke for most of us. Good to know most people think the BBC are moving in the right direction.
I love this idea that however many people you start with is the absolute maximum you will ever need. According to my RE lessons when I were a lad God started with Adam, but then really messed up doubling that to Eve. And it's got a lot worse since then!
Err..
I don't think I've suggested I spoke for you.
The BBC is no different from many companies, it's all about "empire building" for some.
The bigger your "empire" the more cash you can demand.
You must have the "right people" and more of them and you have to pay them what they're worth.
Of course that'll mean you must be worth more yourself and so it goes on.
When cash is not a problem, then the control isn't always there.
Trouble with the BBC is the control of the cash has been historically weak.
Viewers are the ones who are paying for it.
As I said, over the years it's become "The Weather Show!"
"With a cast of thousands" (don't take that too literally), far from necessary, given the accuracy of the forecasts on occasions and the multiple ways anyone can find out about the weather now, even with something as simple as just punching your post code into a computer.
No, because firstly when someone misrepresents me or my opinions, I feel that it better to correct that misrepresentation.
Secondly, you are also "bangin' on about it" in your own inimitable style, and it makes me smile that you will always attempt to have the final word, often with one "clever" putdown.
Anyway, this is only a messageboard (as you say in your posts)
I didn't use the words "recent times" in the first place, you did.[/quote]I didn't say that you did use those exact word. But you did allude to them by posting
In the days when (our) money wasn't a problem for the BBC (compared with the recent increasingly revealed cavalier attitude they've been shown to have taken to the control of it), the newsreaders read the forecast over a couple of maps. That was good enough for most viewers.
(Not every use of quotation marks indicates a direct and attributable quote, as I am sure you are aware).
No, because firstly when someone misrepresents me or my opinions, I feel that it better to correct that misrepresentation.
Secondly, you are also "bangin' on about it" in your own inimitable style, and it makes me smile that you will always attempt to have the final word, often with one "clever" putdown.
Anyway, this is only a messageboard (as you say in your posts)
I didn't use the words "recent times" in the first place, you did.
I didn't say that you did use those exact word. But you did allude to them by posting
In the days when (our) money wasn't a problem for the BBC (compared with the recent increasingly revealed cavalier attitude they've been shown to have taken to the control of it), the newsreaders read the forecast over a couple of maps. That was good enough for most viewers.
(Not every use of quotation marks indicates a direct and attributable quote, as I am sure you are aware).[/QUOTE]
Err..
"Call me picky" but the first mention of "recent times" was yours. post #17
Paul Hudson covers 2 BBC TV regions and 5 BBC local radio stations
Lisa Gallagher covers 3 TV regions - does not say how many local radio stations
BBC integrated local news on TV and radio years ago, so presents have to cover both.
Often the local TV anchor also has a daytime showon BBC local radio.
Peter Levy does for Humber/ Yorks, I think Stuart White does/ did in Norfolk/ East Anglia
BBC weather presenters are shared between several regions during breakfast, lunchtime and weekends. However for the evening and late night a dedicated presenter is usually live in the studio for each region.
Over at ITV, yesterday and today Granada's weather is being done from Wales! This because their usual cover is, yes you guessed it, covering Tyne Tees & Border.
I wasn't aware of that. Only know of Derek Brockway, Sue Charles (both Welsh) and Behnaz Akhgar (born Iran moved to Wales aged 10). Have I missed someone?
Behnaz gets bustier with each forecast.
The national weather beckons for her.
There's no getting away from the fact that the number of "weather people" on salaries, holiday pay, sick pay, maternity pay, expenses, clothing allowances, etc., and gold plated pensions, seem a bit of an extravagance in these much harder times for the BBC.
Oh hang on! They aren't are they? It's the poor licence payer who's the only one disadvantaged.
From that quoted post, someone seems to be sayingthat BBC pensions are financed from the Licence Fee, which seems to contradict what the Trustees of the BBC Pension Scheme (now closed to new joiners) say, in that
And are not things like "holiday pay, sick pay, maternity pay, expenses, clothing allowances, etc.," (and even employer pension contributions) generally paid to all qualifying staff in any business, and normally legally obligated or paid under HMRC rules?
From that quoted post, someone seems to be sayingthat BBC pensions are financed from the Licence Fee, which seems to contradict what the Trustees of the BBC Pension Scheme (now closed to new joiners) say, in that
And are not things like "holiday pay, sick pay, maternity pay, expenses, clothing allowances, etc.," (and even employer pension contributions) generally paid to all qualifying staff in any business, and normally legally obligated or paid under HMRC rules?
Nearly all contributory company pension funds and I'm talking about the "40/60" ones. (forty years service will provide a pension of 60% of final salary, some like I think the police are even more advantageous to the employee) have an element paid for by the employee and a greater proportion by the employer. The cash in the fund can't be touched by the BBC.
Yes, those funds will be invested and the pension will ultimately come from the return on the investments.
But the cash has to get there in the first place. They won't be taking money out of the fund to pay their contribution to it, will they?
Now if you are saying the BBC's contributions to the fund come from other non-pension related investments, it hardly matters whether they pay the employer's contribution that way, or out of the licence fee, they still have to pay them, it's just juggling with figures.
Most companies recently have had to top up their funds, to fill the "black holes" with regular additional annual payments, in some cases also increased the contributions of employees and many have closed "final salary" schemes.
I'd be surprised if the BBC hasn't had to top up theirs.
But all this is academic as my point was to highlight the additional on-costs, as well as pay, for so many "weather people."
"Gold plated pensions" are generally referred to those which are based on final salary. Sadly for many, those sort of pensions are rapidly being phased out.
Whether this has happened at the BBC yet, I've no idea, but they will have a lot of full time employees on them, many of 'em I suspect with long service and on "big money." Details of these big pension "pots" get dragged out of the BBC under the FOIA when someone on a lot of money leaves.
These payments, they can take some as cash, some used to buy an annuity (if they have an AVC element) and some as pension, are unavoidable for any employer.
This applies to anyone in the scheme regardless of salary levels.
The announcement that the "big pay-offs will stop" only applies to what we'd call the "wedge" that's anything in addition to contractual redundancy or payments in lieu of notice. Many companies pay out more than they are legally required.
I read that the BBC say this will now be restricted to a maximum of £150,000. But if their contractual rights, due to length of service, employment contract, or redundancy entitlement is more than that, then they'll still get it, whatever it is.
A good move, for a favoured employee, is to give someone a big rise in their final year, as that's what the pension in these schemes will be based. But it's not something any company will willingly divulge.
A factor of the "gold plated" element, is that any employee on a final salary, can predict how much they'll be getting in pension at retirement, or at any date they plan to jack it in. It's not based on interest rates that apply at any time, it's a straight forward mathematical calculation after allowing for anticipated salary increases.
(It's a nice mathematical exercise on a few "bad days" at work, though it'll always work out the same!)
Any AVC element will be affected by interest rates, but only annually on the value of that year's contributions together with that on the growing pot.
I try to, but you seem to always want to come back with the final word or put-down.
And where you don't, you often post something that is open to challenge.
Err..
I "started", by saying I thought there were too many "weather people." I also said I didn't mind if you thought there weren't.
You could have left it at that.
Can I just put a word in for Ian Ferguson down here in the West. His forecasts are very accurate - during the snow last winter he was excellent and saved me a lot of pain.
However when Ian is off on holiday etc the forecasts are far less accurate.
Can I just put a word in for Ian Ferguson down here in the West. His forecasts are very accurate - during the snow last winter he was excellent and saved me a lot of pain.
However when Ian is off on holiday etc the forecasts are far less accurate.
Hmm..
s'pect he takes home his own pine cone and seaweed.
Sorry, but with all due respect, though it might seem like that, it's got to be a coincidence.
Edit.
I didn't explain the pension correctly. In a 40/60ths pension, forty years service would earn a 2/3rds final salary pension. It's pro-rata, so twenty years service would earn twenty 60ths of final salary, etc.,
For those unaware and believe me, so many young people are, AVC refers to Additional Voluntary Contributions, you can increase your total contributions to up to 15% of your salary. The employer's contribution doesn't change.
You now have to take your AVCs as an annuity. This was a good option a decade or so ago, when annuities gave a good return, but not so much now.
I'd buy a second house instead and rent it out.
The pension situation sadly looks more bleak, the younger you are.
I "started", by saying I thought there were too many "weather people." I also said I didn't mind if you thought there weren't.
You could have left it at that.
Not much of a "discussion" then on a public discussion forum (where the discussion is "one to many" as opposed to "one to one").
Especially when there is another point of view.
Or when there is more information that can be imparted (information that others might wish to read)
Most companies recently have had to top up their funds, to fill the "black holes" with regular additional annual payments, in some cases also increased the contributions of employees and many have closed "final salary" schemes.
I'd be surprised if the BBC hasn't had to top up theirs.
For info - 30th June 2010 (for those who are interested):
The BBC yesterday became one of the first quasi-public sector bodies to take the axe to its final salary pension scheme, blaming a £2bn funding black hole. The final salary scheme will be closed to new staff from this December while existing staff will see their benefits sharply reduced.
The corporation said that from April next year, pensionable pay will increase at only 1 per cent a year – regardless of the size of any future pay award. However, staff who opt to voluntarily move into the new "money purchase" pension – where the benefits depend on investment returns, will get a better deal from the funds that they have already built up in the final salary scheme.
"If you choose to join the DC (defined contribution) plan for future service you will become a 'deferred member' of the scheme and stop building up benefits in the scheme. The benefits you have built up will increase broadly in line with inflation to your retirement."
The corporation claimed the shake-up was designed to ensure its pension scheme "remains sustainable, flexible and affordable for the future". The deficit stood at just £470m in 2008 compared to the £2bn shown by the 2009 valuation.
Zarin Patel, the BBC's finance director, said yesterday: "This has not been a sudden decision. When changes were made to the scheme in 2006, we made it clear we would need to review the scheme's performance. Our original aim of reviewing it in 2013 has had to be brought forward because of the impact of market performance and growing life expectancy.
Comments
What a load of old twaddle. Yes employed people get holiday pay, sick pay, maternity pay and expenses. That's hardly unique to BBC weather forecasters. I've known BBC onscreen staff make very clear they pay for their own clothes, and if you believe a local weather forecaster gets a gold plated pension you're clearly deluded.
For a great many of the audience, particularly older viewers -you know real people not Internet whingers - seeing a familiar face broadcasting the local weather or news is actually an important comforting reassuring thing. You'll laugh at that, but it's true.
You'll be happy to know that under DQF the number of local weather forecasters has been significantly reduced, and those that are left are not only write and present bulletins for multiple regions on TV and multiple local radio stations, but are often feature reporters for local news as well. Like much of BBC local a great deal of effort is made to hide just how much of a shoestring it's being run on. This week South Today have been using a Radio Solent newsreader as holiday cover weather presenter as more and more everyone has to multitask.
Hmm..
Seems to be a step in the right direction.
Not before time.
I was unaware you were privy to the contract details of every BBC employee. Most of us are only aware of the ones where the extraordinary leaving payments are dragged out of the BBC under the FOIA.
The point I was making that for every salaried employee at the BBC there will be an on-cost. Or did you think they're all on "zero hours?" No, I didn't either.
If you think the number of weather presenters are necessary (remember someone posted that they only started with two, with many times the number of viewers) then that's fine by me, but it won't change my opinion.
I was unaware you spoke for most of us. Good to know most people think the BBC are moving in the right direction.
I love this idea that however many people you start with is the absolute maximum you will ever need. According to my RE lessons when I were a lad God started with Adam, but then really messed up doubling that to Eve. And it's got a lot worse since then!
I haven't said that, on a personal level, I like it, nor that I dislike it.
Ah, that must have been in infamous Bill Foggitt whose month-by-month predictions for the year were printed in the Daily Mirror at teh start of each year - my Dad used to cut them out for reference, and very often those predictions were very wide of the mark, with only a few months being anywhere near correct. Of course, when his prediction for a hoy July proved correct, we thought that he was a genius, but used to forget the other 11 months where he was wrong.
A bit like the off-kilter weather stories from Nathan Rao in the Express.
I wasn't aware of that. Only know of Derek Brockway, Sue Charles (both Welsh) and Behnaz Akhgar (born Iran moved to Wales aged 10). Have I missed someone?
So why are you still bangin' on about it?
Oh yes! This is DS, so you can.
I didn't use the words "recent times" in the first place, you did. I'm pretty sure at some times newsreaders have given the forecast in some bulletins more recently than the sixties, but what's so important about that?
My point was, is still and will always be, until someone may get a grip of it, there's too many weather presenters.
You can think what you like about anything on TV, why should I mind?
Err..
I don't think I've suggested I spoke for you.
The BBC is no different from many companies, it's all about "empire building" for some.
The bigger your "empire" the more cash you can demand.
You must have the "right people" and more of them and you have to pay them what they're worth.
Of course that'll mean you must be worth more yourself and so it goes on.
When cash is not a problem, then the control isn't always there.
Trouble with the BBC is the control of the cash has been historically weak.
Viewers are the ones who are paying for it.
As I said, over the years it's become "The Weather Show!"
"With a cast of thousands" (don't take that too literally), far from necessary, given the accuracy of the forecasts on occasions and the multiple ways anyone can find out about the weather now, even with something as simple as just punching your post code into a computer.
Secondly, you are also "bangin' on about it" in your own inimitable style, and it makes me smile that you will always attempt to have the final word, often with one "clever" putdown.
Anyway, this is only a messageboard (as you say in your posts)
I didn't use the words "recent times" in the first place, you did.[/quote]I didn't say that you did use those exact word. But you did allude to them by posting
In the days when (our) money wasn't a problem for the BBC (compared with the recent increasingly revealed cavalier attitude they've been shown to have taken to the control of it), the newsreaders read the forecast over a couple of maps. That was good enough for most viewers.
(Not every use of quotation marks indicates a direct and attributable quote, as I am sure you are aware).
In the days when (our) money wasn't a problem for the BBC (compared with the recent increasingly revealed cavalier attitude they've been shown to have taken to the control of it), the newsreaders read the forecast over a couple of maps. That was good enough for most viewers.
(Not every use of quotation marks indicates a direct and attributable quote, as I am sure you are aware).[/QUOTE]
Err..
"Call me picky" but the first mention of "recent times" was yours. post #17
But really I can't be assed.
Further exchanges on this subject would be too tiresome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Gallagher_(weather_forecaster)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeley_Donovan
Paul Hudson covers 2 BBC TV regions and 5 BBC local radio stations
Lisa Gallagher covers 3 TV regions - does not say how many local radio stations
BBC integrated local news on TV and radio years ago, so presents have to cover both.
Often the local TV anchor also has a daytime showon BBC local radio.
Peter Levy does for Humber/ Yorks, I think Stuart White does/ did in Norfolk/ East Anglia
Over at ITV, yesterday and today Granada's weather is being done from Wales! This because their usual cover is, yes you guessed it, covering Tyne Tees & Border.
Behnaz gets bustier with each forecast.
The national weather beckons for her.
What are "gold plated pensions"?
the payments are made from cash raised from investments
Why is Doghouse right and the Trustees wrong?
And are not things like "holiday pay, sick pay, maternity pay, expenses, clothing allowances, etc.," (and even employer pension contributions) generally paid to all qualifying staff in any business, and normally legally obligated or paid under HMRC rules?
Nearly all contributory company pension funds and I'm talking about the "40/60" ones. (forty years service will provide a pension of 60% of final salary, some like I think the police are even more advantageous to the employee) have an element paid for by the employee and a greater proportion by the employer. The cash in the fund can't be touched by the BBC.
Yes, those funds will be invested and the pension will ultimately come from the return on the investments.
But the cash has to get there in the first place. They won't be taking money out of the fund to pay their contribution to it, will they?
Now if you are saying the BBC's contributions to the fund come from other non-pension related investments, it hardly matters whether they pay the employer's contribution that way, or out of the licence fee, they still have to pay them, it's just juggling with figures.
Most companies recently have had to top up their funds, to fill the "black holes" with regular additional annual payments, in some cases also increased the contributions of employees and many have closed "final salary" schemes.
I'd be surprised if the BBC hasn't had to top up theirs.
But all this is academic as my point was to highlight the additional on-costs, as well as pay, for so many "weather people."
Now can you let this go?
"Gold plated pensions" are generally referred to those which are based on final salary. Sadly for many, those sort of pensions are rapidly being phased out.
Whether this has happened at the BBC yet, I've no idea, but they will have a lot of full time employees on them, many of 'em I suspect with long service and on "big money." Details of these big pension "pots" get dragged out of the BBC under the FOIA when someone on a lot of money leaves.
These payments, they can take some as cash, some used to buy an annuity (if they have an AVC element) and some as pension, are unavoidable for any employer.
This applies to anyone in the scheme regardless of salary levels.
The announcement that the "big pay-offs will stop" only applies to what we'd call the "wedge" that's anything in addition to contractual redundancy or payments in lieu of notice. Many companies pay out more than they are legally required.
I read that the BBC say this will now be restricted to a maximum of £150,000. But if their contractual rights, due to length of service, employment contract, or redundancy entitlement is more than that, then they'll still get it, whatever it is.
A good move, for a favoured employee, is to give someone a big rise in their final year, as that's what the pension in these schemes will be based. But it's not something any company will willingly divulge.
A factor of the "gold plated" element, is that any employee on a final salary, can predict how much they'll be getting in pension at retirement, or at any date they plan to jack it in. It's not based on interest rates that apply at any time, it's a straight forward mathematical calculation after allowing for anticipated salary increases.
(It's a nice mathematical exercise on a few "bad days" at work, though it'll always work out the same!)
Any AVC element will be affected by interest rates, but only annually on the value of that year's contributions together with that on the growing pot.
And where you don't, you often post something that is open to challenge.
Err..
I "started", by saying I thought there were too many "weather people." I also said I didn't mind if you thought there weren't.
You could have left it at that.
However when Ian is off on holiday etc the forecasts are far less accurate.
Hmm..
s'pect he takes home his own pine cone and seaweed.
Sorry, but with all due respect, though it might seem like that, it's got to be a coincidence.
I didn't explain the pension correctly. In a 40/60ths pension, forty years service would earn a 2/3rds final salary pension. It's pro-rata, so twenty years service would earn twenty 60ths of final salary, etc.,
For those unaware and believe me, so many young people are, AVC refers to Additional Voluntary Contributions, you can increase your total contributions to up to 15% of your salary. The employer's contribution doesn't change.
You now have to take your AVCs as an annuity. This was a good option a decade or so ago, when annuities gave a good return, but not so much now.
I'd buy a second house instead and rent it out.
The pension situation sadly looks more bleak, the younger you are.
Not much of a "discussion" then on a public discussion forum (where the discussion is "one to many" as opposed to "one to one").
Especially when there is another point of view.
Or when there is more information that can be imparted (information that others might wish to read)
For info - 30th June 2010 (for those who are interested):
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/bbc-blames-1632bn-black-hole-as-it-slashes-pension-scheme-benefits-2013974.html
That's how the plugged the gap without using LF money