radio 4 presenter reported to be on about three times david camerons money is this ok or is it taking the licence fee payers for a ride?
Eddie Mair On £425000
1 of 3
Originally Posted by sharesboy16:
“radio 4 presenter reported to be on about three times david camerons money is this ok or is it taking the licence fee payers for a ride?”
“radio 4 presenter reported to be on about three times david camerons money is this ok or is it taking the licence fee payers for a ride?”
This is a Daily Mail story, you have virtually quoted them too
I do not believe a number of things
1 - That the PM only takes home his PM salary.
2 - That Eddie Mair is on that much. Even the Mail says "it is reported" yet those figures have not been published ? So where have they got this from
3 - A single word of it
If the Daily Mail said my name was Darren I would still check my underpants to make sure. The Daily Mail hate the BBC as much as they hate non Brits.
Originally Posted by sharesboy16:
“radio 4 presenter reported to be on about three times david camerons money is this ok or is it taking the licence fee payers for a ride?”
“radio 4 presenter reported to be on about three times david camerons money is this ok or is it taking the licence fee payers for a ride?”
'Is reported' so a blog that no one has heard of, has taken a guess or just made up a figure. They actual use the other classic phrase 'a well placed source'.
He's certainly one of the best presenters - concise, no hesitation, umms, errs or y'knows, thinks things through before speaking, seldom interrupts etc.
If true, £425k would certainly be a bit excessive.
But the Daily Fail reports that the BBC spent £208,000 million (sic) on 'talent' last year so you can't always believe what you read !
If true, £425k would certainly be a bit excessive.
But the Daily Fail reports that the BBC spent £208,000 million (sic) on 'talent' last year so you can't always believe what you read !
Originally Posted by sharesboy16:
“radio 4 presenter reported to be on about three times david camerons money is this ok or is it taking the licence fee payers for a ride?”
“radio 4 presenter reported to be on about three times david camerons money is this ok or is it taking the licence fee payers for a ride?”
Wasn't Chris Tarrant reported to be on millions by the time he left Capital? And that was in 20th century money.
Originally Posted by Isambard Brunel:
“Wasn't Chris Tarrant reported to be on millions by the time he left Capital? And that was in 20th century money.”
“Wasn't Chris Tarrant reported to be on millions by the time he left Capital? And that was in 20th century money.”
That's a bit different.
Capital doesn't bombard people with letters threatening to send the boys round, drag them through the courts and even send some to jail if they don't pay up because they prefer other broadcasters' programmes.
Originally Posted by Gerry1:
“That's a bit different.
Capital doesn't bombard people with letters threatening to send the boys round, drag them through the courts and even send some to jail if they don't pay up because they prefer other broadcasters' programmes.”
“That's a bit different.
Capital doesn't bombard people with letters threatening to send the boys round, drag them through the courts and even send some to jail if they don't pay up because they prefer other broadcasters' programmes.”
Capital - no.
Capita - yes.
Originally Posted by Gerry1:
“That's a bit different.
Capital doesn't bombard people with letters threatening to send the boys round, drag them through the courts and even send some to jail if they don't pay up because they prefer other broadcasters' programmes.”
“That's a bit different.
Capital doesn't bombard people with letters threatening to send the boys round, drag them through the courts and even send some to jail if they don't pay up because they prefer other broadcasters' programmes.”
Nor does the BBC!
It's reported Steve Wright is on £440k a year. I wouldn't be surprised most of them at Radio 2 are on about that amount. Ex Radio 1 DJs were on good money plus outside work.
Originally Posted by Bandspread199:
“Nor does the BBC!”
“Nor does the BBC!”
Effectively it does.
The BBC is required to issue TV Licences and collect the licence fee under the Communications Act 2003, and it outsources the majority of the administration of TV Licensing to Capita Business Services Ltd (‘Capita’).
Originally Posted by sharesboy16:
“radio 4 presenter reported to be on about three times david camerons money is this ok or is it taking the licence fee payers for a ride?”
“radio 4 presenter reported to be on about three times david camerons money is this ok or is it taking the licence fee payers for a ride?”
The prime minister's package is worth about £650k per annum.
In fact, once he leaves / is booted out of office he'll be guaranteed another £200k per annum for life.
Not bad!
So it's ok, he's paid somewhat less.
Originally Posted by mfr:
“The prime minister's package is worth about £650k per annum.”
“The prime minister's package is worth about £650k per annum.”
The Parliament UK site states that the combined ministerial and parliamentary salary of the Prime Minister is £143,462 at April 2016. This figure includes the parliamentary salary of £74,962.
I'm sure most of them would still do it for half the money! I don't believe that anyone would turn down almost half a million pounds a year if someone is silly enough to pay them it.
I can fully understand steve allen picking up near £500000 for his global job as the money is generated by rich companies paying megabucks for adverts but the bbc is surely a different animal and should be paying considerably less what are they going to do when the licence is scrapped in the very near future?
Originally Posted by sharesboy16:
“I can fully understand steve allen picking up near £500000 for his global job as the money is generated by rich companies paying megabucks for adverts but the bbc is surely a different animal and should be paying considerably less what are they going to do when the licence is scrapped in the very near future?”
“I can fully understand steve allen picking up near £500000 for his global job as the money is generated by rich companies paying megabucks for adverts but the bbc is surely a different animal and should be paying considerably less what are they going to do when the licence is scrapped in the very near future?”
Get funding some other way presumably!
wasnot john whittingdales original plan to make the bbc disclose anyone on 150k then watered down to 450k I wonder who had a word with him to change his mind? WHITE PAPER WHITEWASH I THINK
A BBC spokesman said [450k] was a "wild exaggeration".
A few years ago it was rumoured that Alan Brazil was on about £300k. I'm surprised Eddie Mair hasn't asked for a rise.
Originally Posted by sharesboy16:
“I can fully understand steve allen picking up near £500000 for his global job as the money is generated by rich companies paying megabucks for adverts but the bbc is surely a different animal and should be paying considerably less”
“I can fully understand steve allen picking up near £500000 for his global job as the money is generated by rich companies paying megabucks for adverts but the bbc is surely a different animal and should be paying considerably less”
If people were paid proportionate to how much money they bring in, Tesco check-out staff would earn more than brain surgeons.
It's probably fair to say that it's a little more complicated than that.
Originally Posted by The_Moth:
“A few years ago it was rumoured that Alan Brazil was on about £300k. I'm surprised Eddie Mair hasn't asked for a rise.”
“A few years ago it was rumoured that Alan Brazil was on about £300k. I'm surprised Eddie Mair hasn't asked for a rise.”
When you work for the BBC, you should expect as it's funded by the licence fee for there to be lower salaries than in the public sector, the same with the NHS, which is tax payer funded for the public good. That is very different to the private sector where companies are not restricted or under scrutiny by the public or parliament for what they pay.
Strange isnt it?
People will whine and whinge and bluster about what is paid or claimed to be paid to BBC people wether 'staff' or 'personal employment contracts' or how outrageous it is to pay about 40p a day for everyhting they get ad-free from the BBC and its wide range of high quality services of all kinds. (Would 40p pay for a bar of american-degraded 'chocolate' or a poke of chips?)
YET we dont hear a dickeybird from them about the £7million approx EACH &nt and Deck were reportedly paid this past year or what the 'hosts' of certain 'talent' (sic) shows etc on ITV 'earn' ?
Where do they think THAT money comes from?
All those nice 'commercial radio & TV' people's megabucks come from the advertising budgets of products & services we ALL pay heavily for when any such product/service is bought; EVEN IF we NEVER personally buy it all that money is paid for by the enduser.
And how many of the critics of the BBC pay their subs to the Murd*ch empire's channels and others etc and STILL get bombarded with ads when they watch?
Also how many of the criticisers watch all those freeview and sat channels stuffed with choppedup repeats of old BBC-created programmes plastered with ads for crap?
Take all that material away and "500 channels and nothing on" would soon be reaility.
Just like the NHS, we should all think ourselves damm fortunate to have the Beeb, warts and all, because the alternative is unthinkable.
People will whine and whinge and bluster about what is paid or claimed to be paid to BBC people wether 'staff' or 'personal employment contracts' or how outrageous it is to pay about 40p a day for everyhting they get ad-free from the BBC and its wide range of high quality services of all kinds. (Would 40p pay for a bar of american-degraded 'chocolate' or a poke of chips?)
YET we dont hear a dickeybird from them about the £7million approx EACH &nt and Deck were reportedly paid this past year or what the 'hosts' of certain 'talent' (sic) shows etc on ITV 'earn' ?
Where do they think THAT money comes from?
All those nice 'commercial radio & TV' people's megabucks come from the advertising budgets of products & services we ALL pay heavily for when any such product/service is bought; EVEN IF we NEVER personally buy it all that money is paid for by the enduser.
And how many of the critics of the BBC pay their subs to the Murd*ch empire's channels and others etc and STILL get bombarded with ads when they watch?
Also how many of the criticisers watch all those freeview and sat channels stuffed with choppedup repeats of old BBC-created programmes plastered with ads for crap?
Take all that material away and "500 channels and nothing on" would soon be reaility.
Just like the NHS, we should all think ourselves damm fortunate to have the Beeb, warts and all, because the alternative is unthinkable.
Neither a public sector organisation nor a private company "should" pay its employees more than it has to in order to attract and maintain the talent it requires to operate. Where private and public sectors are competing for the same talent then, all other things being equal, they are going to have to pay roughly the same amount. If you don't then the good people (very often) go after the money. This is a factor in the NHS, HMRC, and schools, as well as broadcasting.
Back in the day, there was an argument that a public sector employee had greater job security, pension benefits, status of the job, the honours system etc that to some extent compensated for the additional insecurity and demands of operating in the private sector. I think it's questionable whether those differentials exist today - and (desperately trying to get back on topic
)in this particular case where some of the individuals concerned will be freelance or contractors to the BBC, the point is even more dubious.
And FWIW, I work in the private sector.
Back in the day, there was an argument that a public sector employee had greater job security, pension benefits, status of the job, the honours system etc that to some extent compensated for the additional insecurity and demands of operating in the private sector. I think it's questionable whether those differentials exist today - and (desperately trying to get back on topic
)in this particular case where some of the individuals concerned will be freelance or contractors to the BBC, the point is even more dubious.And FWIW, I work in the private sector.
Originally Posted by Thine Wonk:
“When you work for the BBC, you should expect as it's funded by the licence fee for there to be lower salaries than in the public sector, the same with the NHS, which is tax payer funded for the public good. That is very different to the private sector where companies are not restricted or under scrutiny by the public or parliament for what they pay.”
“When you work for the BBC, you should expect as it's funded by the licence fee for there to be lower salaries than in the public sector, the same with the NHS, which is tax payer funded for the public good. That is very different to the private sector where companies are not restricted or under scrutiny by the public or parliament for what they pay.”
BBC salaries have always been lower than in the commercial sector, at one time that was compensated by better job security but that is no longer the case.
Originally Posted by Thine Wonk:
“When you work for the BBC, you should expect as it's funded by the licence fee for there to be lower salaries than in the public sector”
“When you work for the BBC, you should expect as it's funded by the licence fee for there to be lower salaries than in the public sector”
Did you mean 'private' ?
Originally Posted by sharesboy16:
“I can fully understand steve allen picking up near £500000 for his global job as the money is generated by rich companies paying megabucks for adverts but the bbc is surely a different animal and should be paying considerably less what are they going to do when the licence is scrapped in the very near future?”
“I can fully understand steve allen picking up near £500000 for his global job as the money is generated by rich companies paying megabucks for adverts but the bbc is surely a different animal and should be paying considerably less what are they going to do when the licence is scrapped in the very near future?”
Define "very near future"?
1 of 3
