BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.

Subject: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 03:04 AM

So the cat is out of the paper bag as it were.

Our media presenters are pocketing millions in wages, most of it taxpayers money to parrot their biased views over the airwaves.

Do they deserve it? At the moment they are attempting to deflect the issue by bringing up "gender equality", but the real obscenity is the amount being paid to people who simply haven't a clue what they are talking about......they are experts at posturing.

I have said for years that the news and entertainment media is rotten to the core and now we see a large part of the reason....they are the last group who want to rock the boat.    Hypocrites!

Contrast their pay with those working in care homes, nurses, folks on zero hours contracts, etc.   Are they worth the money? Could they do the jobs that these poorly paid workers are forced to do?

Is their on air input worth one penny more than a Care Home skivvy?


What do you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 03:22 AM

Ake, are you talking about the media presenters who work for years in local stations, hoping some day to make it to the national stage? How much do the local folks earn, and how much for the ones who are nationally known? In the U.S., most newscasters work for minimal wages in small markets. A very few make it onto national broadcasts.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 03:54 AM

No, this is about the BBC top presenters and 'personalities'. Chris Evans for example earns £2 million, and Gary Lineker (Football presenter) nearly the same. The issue, as akenaton says, has been 'clouded' by calls for equality for female presenters, but it's really about the obscene amounts these people earn, paid for out of the public's Licence Fee.

My husband works from 2pm until 9pm cleaning endless toilets and scrubbing floors in a secondary school for just over £7 an hour. A little lad appears in our village in a wheelie-bin team every Wednesday. He spends 8hrs a day, 5 days a week, lugging heavy bins to the lorry, sweating cobs. He earns even less (it's age-related)

I find 'popular' TV appallingly dumbed-down and inane. I suppose these high-earners are found to be entrancing by the majority of viewers, and evening entertainment is of course a major part of people's lives.
But is anyone on this earth worth two million pounds a year? Nah.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 04:06 AM

Just to clarify, my husband's 'minimum wage' is £7.50 an hour ($9.75).

The wheelie bin lad earns £5.60 an hour ($7.28).

Chris Evans earns £2m a year (about $2600000)

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 04:18 AM

Supply and demand.

It is debatable whether they are worth the figures they are paid (but some football players are paid the same for a couple of weeks). But if they're doing the job, and they are offered that level of pay, should they turn it down?
Would anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: pdq
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 04:29 AM

Megyn Kelly was offerd $20 million per year to stay with Fox.

She move to NBC where she gets between $16 and $20 million.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: DaveRo
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 04:38 AM

Joe: He talking about the UK Conservative party's attempt to reduce the British population's trust in the BBC in persuance of their ultimate goal of privatising it. Theresa May has mandated the BBC's publishing all salaries over £150K (~$200K) pa triggering predictable outrage from the Conservative-supporting press. And some valid concerns like the fact that women are being paid much less than men.

FWIW I find Evans' salary unjustifiable when compared to care workers too, but this initiative by the government was not made in pursuit of equality. The BBC employ 'stars' like him because the readers if those same Conservative-supporting papers like him.

The licence fee method of funding is only fair if the BBC caters for the whole population. The government's strategy is to get rid of such popular programmes from the BBC so the they can claim that 'ordinary hard-working people' don't watch BBC programmes, so the licence fee is not fair.

Meanwhile Murdoch - he of Fox news - has got his employee Gove - arch-Brexiter and avowed Trump admirer - into May's cabinet as Environment Secretary. (At least, she didn't deny it when specifically asked in Parliament.)

Full disclosure: I listen to huge amounts of the BBC's classical radio station, Radio 3, who sponsor the Proms, and which is funded by the TV license fee. So I want these popular TV shows - which I don't watch, to continue. If that means paying Evan a lot, so be it.

Humphries is overpaid, though ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Stu
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 06:40 AM

They're not worth it, and it's worth listening to Jeremy Vine yesterday when the Welsh miner phoned in. I stopped listening ages ago because of Vine's tory/establishment bias, whatever integrity he had went when he refused to answer that question.

These people live in a bubble inside the M25. They, slebs and stars, our politicans, the 1%, the rest of the media, our 'captains of industry' all are removed from the real world. Outside of London they live in their own little bubbles.

All we have to remember is they do not give a shit about any of us, we need to look after ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: banjoman
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 06:43 AM

Could not put it any better than senofou. This society has all its priorities mixed up. Look at the speech made by the new leader of Kensington council last night. There is no way she can understand the plight of those people from Grenfell , yet I bet a lot of those on the BBC list live in that area

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 07:13 AM

You have to remember just how partial this picture is. The BBC buys a lot of shows from production companies, and since public money is paying for that, logic suggests the fees paid to those companies' stars should also be revealed. Just because there is an intermediary does not stop it being public money that is being spent.



But as DaveRo suggests, that does not fit with the agenda of those who want to get rid of the BBC. They do not want the story to be diluted by it turning out these private companies are also paying their stars significant fees. I have no idea what the fees are, but I would hazard that "Quite Interesting Limited" pays substantial fees to its hosts. And it would be equally revealing whether Sandi Toksvig is being paid the same as Stephen Fry was.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 07:32 AM

Joe Offer adds a layer of proportion to this. It is a very small minority of top dogs getting these huge paypackets. The BBC can't advertise so it makes money by making excellent programmes, especially dramas, which it can sell. The licence fee makes up the rest. It is incredibly good value for money in my opinion. I'm a bit of a football fan and I pay five quid a month for Sky Sports mobile and another five quid a month for BT Sport mobile. Mrs Steve buys the subs for me as permanent birthday and Christmas presents. That's £120 per annum to watch maybe thirty or forty football matches. That isn't much less than the licence fee, which we both benefit from, unlike the sports subs. Like Dave above, I'm one of the tiny minority of licence fee payers who cherish Radio 3, which I have on for far more hours in the day than the telly, with which I have a very limited transaction. As I read yesterday, Chris Evans presented Top Gear, a huge money-spinner for the Beeb. Claudia Winkleman presents Strictly Come Dancing, a format exported around the world which earns the Beeb a fortune. Etcetera. I can't justify those huge salaries but the BBC is forced to operate in a capitalistic world. In every other big corporation the top people are paid big money, otherwise they won't work for you.   It happens in multinationals and it happens, egregiously, in banking. You pay big money to get the top talent. It doesn't matter whether you or I regard Chris Evans as having any talent. That's the way it works for the BBC as a whole. It happens in commercial television too. You can whinge all you like about Chris Evans (I had to ask who he was yesterday, by the way) being paid a ton from the licence fee. But we all pay lot more for all our stuff because it's advertised on commercial telly. We taxpayers/licence fee payers/consumers pay for everything. The licence fee is just a different way of paying for stuff, that's all. Long live the Beeb. They're putting on Fidelio tomorrow evening which must cost a bomb. I suppose that if you object to Chris Evans you should object to that as well as I expect the numbers listening to Fidelio will struggle to reach six figures.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 07:36 AM

It costs everyone in UK £147 a year for the TV licence.
The most recent figures available (2015-6) indicate there are 25 million licence payers. Some pay less (over 75yrs, the blind etc) This totals about three-and-a-half billion pounds every year.

I understand that most of these greedy presenters live in central London, and accommodation etc there is extremely expensive.But as banjoman says, poor people have to live there too.

I have never understood why any human being of either sex needs massive amounts of money to live on. It's all relative anyway. How much food can one person consume? How many pairs of shoes can one wear at a time? How many cars are needed to get from A to B? Once one is adequately provided for, anything above that is greed and extravagance.

I have a personal axe to grind, as I have seen terrible things due to abject poverty in W Africa. A tiny amount of these presenters' massive salaries would literally save lives there.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Howard Jones
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 07:58 AM

The BBC is operating in a commercial market and has to pay rates which compete with what they could earn elsewhere. The commercial operators are willing to pay very high rates to attract top talent because even at these rates they will attract more income than they cost to hire. This is no different from top sports stars or top musicians. At one level they seem ridiculously overpaid, but looked at another way all they are doing is demanding a fair proportion of the vast income they generate for their employer.

If we want a public-service broadcaster it has to be able to fish in the same pond for talent as the commercial ones. That means paying what the market demands. Whilst the BBC is funded largely by public money via the licence fee, this does come only from that proportion of the population which owns a TV so while the licence fee is a tax of sorts it is at least levied on the people who are most likely to benefit from it. And as Steve says, it is incredible value for money.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 08:03 AM

But that's capitalism for you. Today's headline is a handful of Beeb personalities. They're the tip of the iceberg. It happens in football, tennis, ITV, banking and all big corporations. I think it's healthy that the Beeb has to account for itself. It isn't quite so healthy to see Daily Mailism afflicting the discussion. By the way, Paul Dacre, the Mail's editor, gets £1.5 million a year. Adrian Chiles left the Beeb because he got a far more lucrative package from ITV, £4 million versus his £200,000 at the BBC. Guess who pays for that. You do. Ant and Dec, for chrissake, get £30 million over three years at ITV. I hate them but I pay just as much for them through the stuff I buy as you do.    And so on. It ain't right but it's the world we live in, and the world is a lot bigger than just the BBC.

What seems far more relevant to me is the apparent gender pay gap that's been exposed. I think the BBC has a lot of questions to answer there, but as ever we have ensure that, in terms of equivalent work done by two people being compared, we're actually comparing like for like.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 08:04 AM

That was a response to Senoufou.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Howard Jones
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 08:53 AM

If a worker can generate a large amount of income for their employer from their efforts, why shouldn't they receive a fair share of that? Is it greedy to want a fair share of what they create, rather than have others take it? This money doesn't come out of nowhere, it is there because millions of people are willing to pay money to be entertained or informed by them.

For example, if Adele can fill 90000 seats at Wembley stadium at up to £100 per ticket why shouldn't she receive a substantial chunk of that? Or should she accept MU rates and see the bulk of the money go to others?

For TV presenters it is a little more difficult to apportion value, but commercial operators will know the size of the audiences they attract and the value of advertising and subscription income that can be attributed to them. The operators are businesses and wouldn't pay these sums if they didn't think it was profitable for them to do so. The BBC isn't a business in the same sense but it has to compete for the same people.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 09:40 AM

So one's worth to society is gauged by how much money one can 'generate'?

I see...

That must be why my poor tired husband and that nice sweating bin-lorry lad get a pittance for their efforts. They don't 'generate' money.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 09:43 AM

Yes.. but instead of wealth we have the satisfaction of following and fulfilling a vocation..


hah.. remember when school careers officers used to fill our heads with that bollocks before recommending working in the civil service and public sector...???

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 10:10 AM

I think we may be talking about worth to the BBC, not to society.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 10:37 AM

my favorite BBC news reader is Clive Myrie.
Last night he was tasked with presenting this story.
He was professional and solid as ever, no hint on his face how he regarded this news, no jokey quips or comments either.

As far as I can tell Clive is not on this list.......

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 11:48 AM

BBC Radio 4 is a disgrace.....dreadful political bias Humphries gets £650,000 per annum and cant even get the bloody time right, he says "end now its ten minutes to eight" by the time my feet hit the floor(two seconds flat)I realise he's an hour ahead....again.
The social content in the afternoon is beyond belief, god knows what our grand kids are going to turn out like, weird social experiments are promoted and traditional values mocked

Sen is dead on the button, these wage rates are obscene, when capitalism is finally jettisoned, people will all have to contribute in a meaningful way and incomes should be capped. No benefits for people who are able to work....and no scamming the system for workers or bosses......I have always thought that financial aspiration was the root of all our problems, we should work to contribute to society.
The media work to divide society

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 12:02 PM

.. on the other hand..

Radio 4 is an excellent stimulating thought provoking radio station..

.. apart from a lot of the smug shite 'comedy' shows and dreadful middle class wanky drama productions... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 12:18 PM

I don't wish to criticise TV and Radio programmes particularly.
Obviously, what is fascinating entertainment for some may be anathema for others. And I can see that pleasing the majority and boosting ratings is part of the task for the Beeb. I merely think as a general comment that nobody, whatever their talent or cash-generating ability, is worth a couple of million pounds a year.

One can only take some comfort in the fact that their Tax bills must be gigantic. "Bloody good an' orl!" as my lovely Norfolk neighbour would say.

My husband is taxed a small amount, as he earns just over the Personal Allowance. The young bin lad wouldn't be paying any on his deplorable pittance.
We always give him and his team as big a Christmas Box as we can manage, and some good ale, and I hand out iced cans of Coke when it's boiling hot.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 12:27 PM

Sen - as with most folks, I was aghast at the per movie fees commanded by hollywood movie stars..

I was a little more understanding when I read an article breaking down how each could be regarded as an industrial business,
employing a retinue of employees, and creative production companies out of their movie salaries..
even so, it's still an astonishing amount of £££$$$...

Now don't get me moaning on about football player's wages and transfer fees..... 😖

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 01:00 PM

We all think these people are over-paid.
It is a market, but BBC should not spend public money to support it.

If they refused to pay such fees, the market would at least fall a bit.

Would we care if shows that rely on big names were mainly found on independent stations?
They are not the shows BBC is most valued for.

Sales people have an advertising budget, and it makes no difference to prices how they spend it.
It would make a difference to the licence fee if BBC paid less.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 01:42 PM

The BBC isn't exactly operating in a commercial arena since it is heavily supported by TV license fees . It's nice if they can supplement this by sales of programmes and recordings , but they always have that guaranteed income denied to those truly operating in the commercial arena . I can't really believe that they cannot get quality presenters and make good programmes without paying these excessive salaries

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 01:46 PM

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn...

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 01:53 PM

Most valued for by whom? How is that measured? By numbers listening/watching? By that reckoning Radio 3 should be scrapped immediately and the Proms abandoned, and Chris Evans should get a lot more airtime. Radio 3 is valued by far fewer people than any other aspect of the BBC output, yet it is, to my mind, something of a cultural oasis in a desert largely consisting of cultural dross. Classic FM, to which I frequently tune, does very nicely thank you. It does it by playing only undemanding music which is often just chunks lifted out of larger works, and the output is peppered with ads. They play the same pieces so often that it's possible to get sick to death of what used to be some of your favourite pieces of music. I don't knock it though. It has its place. As I said, it's healthy that the Beeb is held to account. But there's an awful lot of opportunistic, hypocritical Beeb-knocking going on at the moment, including in this thread. Which is the whole idea. The Tories hate the BBC and want to have themselves as many opportunities as possible to brief against it. As I said, taxpayers/licence fee payers/consumers pay for everything. The licence fee is just one way of paying for stuff. There's plenty going on out there in this big capitalistic world of ours that could usefully undergo a lot more scrutiny as to value for money. Thirty million for Ant and Dec, anyone? ITV thinks so, and you pay for all that advertising that pays Ant and Dec. But you don't notice it because, well, you don't have to hand over money directly for them, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 02:02 PM

"you pay for all that advertising that pays Ant and Dec. But you don't notice it because, well, you don't have to hand over money directly for them, do you?"

errrmmmm.... one of 'em is in rehab at the moment...

How would we know if he'd got so bad he was wearing a hoody and mugging old ladies...??? 😜

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 03:29 AM

The only BBC personality I'm familiar with is bill\sables, and he must have been worth every tuppence they paid him. What's bill been up to lately? He was a wonderful host when I was in England. I was hoping he'd come here to visit a few years ago, but he had to cancel that trip and I haven't heard much from him since. I got LOTS of observations from him about BBC when I stayed with him.

I know lots of US people who are addicted to BBC dramas, including my stepson. I haven't taken the time to get involved, but I buy DVDs of every BBC Earth show that comes available. I just can't get enough of their nature programs.

I do listen to a lot of BBC Radio news on our local public radio station, but I haven't come to know the different personalities on the radio programs.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 03:35 AM

Most valued for by whom? How is that measured? By numbers listening/watching?

No. Absolutely not.
Commercial stations have to go for the highest numbers.
BBC can do things that they can not.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: DaveRo
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 05:21 AM

Ratings are not unimportant to the BBC. The argument that popular shows with big-name stars can and should be left to commercial stations, apart from being patronising - "such people can put up with adverts" - undermines the justification for the licence fee. Commercial broadcasters will say that the licence fee should not be used to pay for popular programmes that they can make 'free'. It's a beguiling argument but they know that it would be the beginning of the end for the BBC. The BBC must make programmes for everyone if everyone must pay the licence fee.

Personally I think the licence fee is an anachonism, and is hard to justify. I doubt whether it'll last more than another 10 years. Whether the BBC itself would survive, and in what form, who knows.

I noticed at the top of this thread that the emergence of evidence that women were being paid far less than men, for example newsreaders who sit side-by-side, was an attempt to 'deflect' the public's concerns, or 'cloud' the issue. This is presumably the Tory press's attempt to keep their readers on the government's songsheet rather than discuss a real issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 06:36 AM

The licence fee is imposition and should be cancelled. Let the BBC rise or fall entirely on it's commercial merit. We will then see if some of the vast salaries can be justified. Hopefully the entire brainwashing edifice would collapse and that would be a little less garbage being transmitted.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 07:08 AM

Before calling for the end of the BBC licence fee it is worth checking it against the competition and a good way of doing this is to check out The Broadcasters' Audience Research Board viewing figures. This leaves out Netflix and similar, but is still a good summary.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 07:30 AM

I should say I agree, as others have said, that viewing figures are not the main part of the story. In fact good viewing figures for the BBC have often been used to argue it should not be making that programme (because people watch that instead of adverts and how can that be good for business? I exaggerate a little, but not much).

It is hard to see any commercial company funding the "Life on Earth" standard of programme becauae they are phenomenonally expensive: they often require a cameraman to sit in a remote location for a month or two on the hope of filming a few seconds of some animal. And they may not see anything at all. So few commercial companies make any animal wildlife programmes and the few that do stock to thongs that are easy to film, as far as I can tell.

And that sort argument applies to lots of other programmes.

So I see a well funded public broadcaster as essential if you want quality programmes. It does not guarantee such programmes, but not having one goes a long way to guarenteeing dross. Whether is is fundwd through a licwnce fee or taxation is a second-order question: both have there advantages and disadvantages. But very few people calling for the end of a licence fee seem to be demanding supporting it via taxation.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 07:31 AM

I thoroughly enjoy many of the Beeb's dramas, documentaries, science, nature and wildlife programmes and Watchdog-type shows. And I used to trust implicitly their News reports. (I'm not so sure about the latter nowadays). I would certainly miss the BBC channels if it folded.

I still think of that poor young bin lad. I expect he can't even afford a TV licence. Maybe his mum pays it if he lives at home.

Two million quid eh?! How much blooming money does anyone need per year??

I see today that some of the 'underpaid' women TV presenters are getting stroppy and are going to sue the Beeb. I suppose equality of pay is important.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Howard Jones
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 08:36 AM

Whether anyone needs £2m a year is of course doubtful. However if they can earn it why shouldn't they be paid it?

For example, consider a pop star who can fill a football stadium. Say 50,000 seats at £50 a ticket means ticket sales of £2.5m, for just one event. OK that's not all profit, there are costs to be taken off. However those 50,000 people have all been willing to pay to see that person perform. Why should that person not receive a significant proportion of the profit generated from the event, and in what sense are they not "worth it" if they are sole reason those tickets were sold?

For TV presenters the link with the money is less direct, but they are paid these sums because they attract a large audience, which for commercial broadcasters translates directly into income. These presenters are able to demand a large share of this income because, despite appearances, there are not many who could do their job and they cannot easily be replaced. The BBC doesn't rely on audience size for its income, but if we want the BBC to make high-quality programmes it has to be able to attract and retain the best people, which means paying them what they could expect to get elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 08:54 AM

Very subjective I know, but in my experience most of the real garbage is put out by commercial channels. There are dozens of commercial channels on Freeview and the output of most is dismal. Give it a whirl on Friday or Saturday night and you'll see what I mean. OK, scrap the less-than-50p-a-day licence fee and force the Beeb to compete. You'll still be paying that money out by dint of the price increases on the stuff you'll see advertised. And the Beeb will have to dumb down to the level of the rest in order to get the ratings. Not least, adverts every ten minutes. Oh, and Radio 3 and the Proms and the BBC orchestras will probably vanish. They simply can't get the ratings. Maybe you don't care if you are a pop addict, a Chris Evans aficionado. Wow, you right-wing anti-BBC ideologues have some really great ideas for improving all our lives...

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 09:20 AM

if they didn't pay these celebrities so much - they could afford to make better programmes.
even a deeply committed lover of BBC would have to admit - theres a fair amount of old shit on the beeb. theres too much reliance on the oxbridge establishment - too much trust put in their wisdom and good taste.

its lost a lot of ground in the last few years. i think the start of it when they lost the test match - which used to unify England and indeed the Commonwealth.

there are some things our society needs to draw it together - the sport was part of that. i think in a similar war way the playwrights who wrote THe WEdnesday PLay did the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 09:27 AM

Don't these tory ideologue twats in govt and media think-tanks understand...

This is the 21st century and no one in their right minds watches adverts at all.. ever...

We have PVRs, or watch download/streaming catch-up, so can fast forward through the effin annoying ads..

And if we do watch any commercial TV in real time..
the ad breaks are for putting the kettle on, getting another bottle out the fridge, texting, or going for a pee...

We pay annual BBC TV license, monthly Sky Subscription, and annual Amazon Prime Membership..
We might even pay for the occasional months of Netflix...
That is our intelligent educated consumer choice.

The same applies for millions of other UK households, selecting various combinations of TV entertainment packages...

That is real genuine consumer / viewer diversity and freedom of choice..

It already exists, the BBC co-exists well enough in this media provision panoply..

Any right wing anti BBC campaigners can just shut up and eff off...!!! 😣

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 09:34 AM

Al - I hadn't read your post as we were writing at the same time..


Agreed.. the BBC is far from perfect.. it is always a work in progress, and colossal mistakes are made..

Perhaps usually as a result from tory appointed managers, or trying to head off and appease tory criticism and attacks...

..and the oxbridge top heavy internal culture really does still need to be addressed...

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 09:38 AM

I'd say I have quite wide-ranging and catholic tastes, and explore many of the commercial channels as well as BBC ones. I'm currently enthralled by RuPaul and the Drag Races. Amazing stuff. And I'm always dipping into the Music Channel. (I like pop music, especially and R n' B.) I quite enjoy those Police ones too (Road Wars etc) and TBN's American preachers. I like Dave because Mock The Week is repeated ad infinitum. And I was delighted with Tattoo Fixers on E4.

I can't abide Love Island or Big Brother, or BGT. And I don't watch any of the soaps on any channel.

If the Beeb folded, I'd miss Lucy Worsley, Ruth Goodman, Brian Cox, David Attenborough, Mary Beard, Monty Don, Tony Robinson and Penelope Keith, to name but a few.

I suppose each and every one of them earns a great deal...

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 09:38 AM

Delicately put, pfr...😂

The loss of sport has been tragic, but were the Beeb still paying for it the licence fee would be a lot higher and lots of footie-haters would go ballistic. Capitalism has dictated that sport is very big money. As I said, I pay almost as much as the licence fee to watch thirty or forty matches a year on my iPhone. I'm given that choice, take it or leave it. Can't blame the Beeb really. You can't have half of a bloated licence fee going on sport. Sky and BT will extract whatever football fans are prepared to pay, and in turn the big clubs get silly money... But enough of us are prepared to cough up, and that's the world we live in, and those two companies are selling a very targeted product. The Beeb has to cover everything and no-one is ever going to be completely happy. But long live the Beeb!

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 10:10 AM

hah.... just remembered...

In 1980 or 81 I wrote an essay for the very competitive application procedure
for what at that time was the prestigious Coventry Poly Communications degree.
The essay subject was concerning the values and problems of public service TV broadcasting.

That was at a time when we only had the BBC and ITV, and home video recorders were still a novelty status symbol...


btw.. how did I get on...???

Weeks prior to the interview, I was hitching down from Bradford, and decided to drop off and spend an afternoon in Coventry City Centre
to have an informal look at the Poly.

I found the area so overwhelmingly depressing I gave up on it and went to Bristol Poly instead..

.. where I met the mrs...

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 10:24 AM

..and research for that essay was reading books from a IPPublic Library.. no internet for mass access back then...

RIP Public Libraries under Tory domination.. next the BBC...???

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 10:28 AM

sod my piss poor proof reading...

but it merits repetition...

Public Libraries

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 11:41 AM

Well said Big Al......I was always a WP fan.

The problem is, the writers had something real to say and there was always a solution....a vision for the future.

Now everyone really knows that were fooked, but no one will admit it, even to themselves.

Where are all the writers? Where are the David Mercers, the Alan Bleasdales, Jim Allen, Simon Gray?

Is it that we simply don't believe the vision any longer.......or is it that we don't want to believe it.?

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 12:02 PM

Ake - Ken Loach is still active and potent.. though obviously denigrated and despised as much as he is revered...

There is a new generation of socially alert & aware film makers,
but the independent movie sector is so under funded and fragmented,
we never hear about most of them...

The BBC in it's golden age of social realism drama was a great unifying platform for progressive talent with something to say
and worth listening to...

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 05:17 PM

That's some thing we do agree upon rocker, though I mistrust the word "progressive".
I still watch and listen to Loach, but even he has lost something, there is a world weariness about him, trapped within left wing politics......unity is the new revolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Shakey
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 05:31 PM

Yes bring back the test matches

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 05:40 PM

Is that really you Shakey!!    Good to see you.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Shakey
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 05:42 PM

Yes, ten years since i was here but my old login still worked

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 06:34 PM

Good man!...a lot of water under the bridge since you left, hope you stick around, the opposition here is pitiful nowadays.... :0)

Only problem is...I think we may have ended up on the same side. :0(

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Iains
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 05:21 AM

Time to clean out the augean stables.
I expect strict political neutrality from a publicly funded service.


http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/07/20/bbcs-top-earners-opposed-brexit-and-controlling-migration/

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 06:07 AM

Well that would be Robinson and Kuenssberg gone then. Anyway opposing brexit is not a sign of political bias. Its a sign of being able to analyse the consequences of things.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 07:14 AM

Some brexiteers will not be happy until there are public show trials leading to at least humiliation and exile or ideally televised executions.... 😜

That's the BBC they'd prefer to watch...

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 07:17 AM

Ah yes, Iains, Breitbart, aka Trump Pravda, beacon of fake news enlightenment! 😂😂😂 Have you no shame at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 07:24 AM

damn.. Breitbart !!!!!

should have used that donotlink.it link service Jack recently alerted us to... I feel defiled... 😰

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Shakey
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 09:03 AM

I've seen truth in the Guardian and the Telegraph, I've seen nonsense in both too. Just sayin'

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 11:11 AM

Perhaps - but that's not the case with Breibart- its 100% bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 11:42 AM

Nothing's 100% bullshit Greg.....even YOU.   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: MikeL2
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 11:44 AM

Hi Steve

<" 20 Jul 17 - 07:32 AM ">

I agree with what you SAY.

I think the BeeB generally provide a great service.

They have to pay for the best people.

Like you I have both Sky and BT Sport.


Great value for me as my son gets it for me - FREE.

I see Liverpool just won the Asia Cup .

Cheers

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Shakey
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 12:10 PM

"I see Liverpool just won the Asia Cup ."

Was that the ladies under 15 competition?

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 12:14 PM

I think presenter's income should be capped at say £150,000 per annum, but wait till you hear the outcry if that comes about.

It won't be just the men who will be complaining, the girls want parity, but not a lowering of male wage rates to achieve it.

The real obscenity is the amount some of these "celebs" are taking home.   Cut their wages by half and see if they walk away.....there are loads of people who could do their job for a fraction of the pay allocated to them

Somebody mentioned Ant and Dec   how difficult or entertaining is their contribution to UK TV?
The sleazy git who presents Big Brother, what does he do for UK culture?

Cut their wages and see how much we need them.....not!

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Shakey
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 12:17 PM

Greg, Milo is a self publicist of the first order and could start a fight in an empty room but he also makes good points here and there. Although I don't think I would get on with him personally I have much more time for him than the people who no-platform him and close down debate.

We need Breitbart just like we need the Guardian (if anyone quotes me on needing the Guardian I will declare I was hacked)

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 12:21 PM

We need Breitbart

We need breibart like we need second assholes, bubonic plague or a dose of clap.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Shakey
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 12:36 PM

You only need a second asshole if you're full of shit, personally I just like to get many different views.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Shakey
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 12:39 PM

It's "Breitbart" by the by the by. (gotta love alliteration)

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 01:33 PM

Which of the lies, distortions and half-truths do you find muost informative?

And thanks for calling out my typo.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Shakey
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 01:36 PM

Are we talking about Breitbart or the Guardian?

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Shakey
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 01:43 PM

I wouldn't go to Breitbart or, for example, the Canary unless someone pointed to a particular article.

Even so, they serve a function, in the past it would have been chip paper, not sure what it is these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Shakey
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 01:59 PM

and did you notice that I didn't call out your type this time

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 02:32 PM

So, Ake, would that cap on presenters' income apply to Eamonn Holmes? Kay Burley? Gary Neville?

In my view there is one clear way to address the issue of excessive pay and the upper end, and that is through the top rate tax rate.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 03:55 PM

Aye it's you right enuff Shakey......gaun yersell!! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Iains
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 03:59 PM

Typical shaw behaviour. Cannot argue with the message so belittle the messenger. Pathetic behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 04:03 PM

Inanes - tut.. tut... you so forgetful of your own identical behaviour in not so distant threads...???

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 04:04 PM

David the tax system for the rich is as full of holes as Greg's arse. I bet most of them don't even pay standard rate, when the accountants tidy things up.

There will come a time when earnings will be capped for everyone, everything digitalised, cash phased out, status weighed by contribution.....not money.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 04:53 PM

I was shocked what the interrupter and chief Bill O'Reilly made.
His golden parachute was 25 million to not 'work'

I would not work for half of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Iains
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 05:44 PM

Just for Greg F as he does not like my previous link. Now read carefully Greg. It is the content that is critical not the method by which it is conveyed to you.
I suppose if RT sent you a message saying they were going to drop a bomb on your head you would ignore that as well, because RT is outside your comfort zone. Trying to converse with you would try the patience of a saint.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/yes-we-are-biased-on-religion-and-politics-admit-bbc-executives-7088133.html

and here is a wonderful quote from the comments section of an article discussing bbc bias:
"You cannot address this without firing nearly all who work at the BBC. This as the BBC only seems to employ "Guardian Think", politically correct, climate alarmist, feminist, innumerate, chip on the shoulder, art graduates and magic money tree economists."
An apt summation of all that is wrong with the BBC.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 05:51 PM

"and did you notice that I didn't call out your type this time"

And we don't call out your lack of initial capital and question mark or the fact that you misspelled "typo," all in a one-liner. An approach such as yours is best avoided by the semi-literate, I find.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Iains
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 06:26 PM

Time for your cocoa stevie chunder, you are babbling.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 06:28 PM

Just for Greg F as he does not like my previous link.

I've nothing against your previous link, Inanes - its YOU I don't like.

So bugger off, like a good lad.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 06:54 PM

He's trolling on three threads at once. I think we should ignore him completely.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Iains
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 04:04 AM

"I think we should ignore him completely."
What an excellent idea chunder boy. Please take the rest of your pathetic weasels away with you as well. Then the rest of us could revert to intelligent conversation, without the constant distraction of babbling halfwits.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 06:49 AM

I bagsy "Pathetic Weasels" for a punk rock band name..

..and "Babbling Halfwits" for an acoustic folk ensemble... 😜

btw.. how far would you have to revert...
surely an impossible distance for you in one brief lifetime.... 🙄


Listening to BBC Radio 4 might help stimulate your intelligence and social awareness...

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 07:09 AM

And they wonder why 90% of former members of Mudcat have fucked off.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 07:13 AM

Clare Balding is getting her knickers in a twist over this pay disparity...

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


Left wing or right wing - we are united in our common dislike of most TV celebrities..

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 07:30 AM

I'm very fond of Clare Balding.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 07:35 AM

It's healthy that the BBC has to account for its celebrity pay and gender pay disparity. It would be equally healthy if the same could happen for all big (and not so big) corporations. What is not healthy is the way this is turning into a Tory Beeb-bashing fest. That was clearly the idea and we shouldn't fall for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 07:43 AM

Hopefully the new female Dr Who will sort all this out...

..and then go on to vanquish an enemy even more heartless and evil than the Daleks and Cybermen combined... The Tories...!!! 😱

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Stu
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 07:55 AM

"climate alarmist"

Dickhead.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 10:08 AM

That's Trumphead, Stu.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 12:58 PM

"
Left wing or right wing - we are united in our common dislike of most TV celebrities.."......Well said Rocker, again I agree.

Disappointed again in Mr Corbyn, who was "in like Flynn" to the wage equality argument. It's beginning to look like he is just another self serving politician, Backing all the female presenters who want parity by raising their wages to the level of Mr Humphries and Mr Evans.
My view is that parity is a good thing providing wages are brought down to achieve it. I don't think our female presenters would care for that sort of parity.....they are just greedy fuckers like the males.    Equality is only a word to them....a very useful word.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 01:35 PM

..at the moment it's the divide and rule phase of the tory attack on the beeb..

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 01:52 PM

Rather the British version of the Trumpistas complaints about "fake news". Beeb's reporting doesn't jube with their "alternative facts".

Only gripe I have with the BBC is they stopped their short wave broadcasts to North America.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 02:23 PM

my mind goes back to the time the beeb got rid of its golden boy Simon Dee...
there are so many of these golden boys these days.

there was a feeling at the time that Dee's big sin was that he had come up by the pirate stations and was guilty of some sort of hubris before the right wing creeps at the top.

it was really symptomatic of a whole disengagement of the beeb with society. Folk music programmes that totally missed out on the acts that filled folk clubs. Country Music programmes that would never dream of playing any of the acts that played the miners welfares and wmc's up and down the land.

to make your mark nationally - you had to somehow ingratiate yourself with the edifice that was the beeb. the possible rewards were staggering - you became a Wogan, a Parkinson, A John Peel, a Noel Edmonds. Ubiquitous, influential, and splendidly isolated from life as lived by millions of British people...

and the pay off is gasps of surprise when the Brexit vote gets counted.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: JHW
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 07:24 AM

No use anyone writing to the BBC about anything. From the DG down they're a bunch of tossers.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 08:03 PM

Jim Vance the anchor of NBC news in the local market here in DC died today after broadcasting 50 years. He was the sentinel of calm and cool in the midst of calamity in DC over the last 5 decades.
He will be deeply missed by people who knew he remained honest to himself and the audience first without any network editor spin.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 02:09 AM

Divine Justice?......Emily Maitlass interviewing two critics of President Donal John on the White House lawn......the heavens opened and torrential rain came down......they kept going with the leading questions and dubious whining replies until their lovely designer clothes were soaking as the torrent became a deluge they were actually shouting to make themselves audible.

Finally the film froze with huge drips hanging from their noses....that was worth our license fee twice over.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 05:17 AM

It would be nice if you could learn how to spell Emiliy's surname and Trump's first name. And do you expect interviewers to appear as scruffs? Maybe they could show up in donkey jackets. Yeah, that would give the gutter press something to get all gleeful about. There is a precedent. Do you ever actually think before you post? The tabloid brain ensures that their targets can never win. You have a tabloid brain. And there's an unintentional compliment embedded in there somewhere, but I'll leave it for now.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 05:19 AM

It would have been nice had I checked "Emily" there with my reading glasses on. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 06:05 AM

Thats a bit of a hagiography of Simon Dee, Big Al, I know its bad to speak ill of the dead but he was largely the author of his own misfortunes. He joined the BBC from Radio Caroline to ge into TV. He then played the BBC off against ITV in order to satisfy his salary demands (which were large by todays standards when you take inflation into account). He then went back to Radio Caroline to campaign against the BBC. He even supported Radio Caroline when they supported the Conservative party! Then he did a stint in Pentonville for non payment of rates.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 02:42 PM

my main memory of him was that he had a teatime programme with all the best bands on.

one time i remember he filled the water jug with vodka, Roger Moore was the victim, he took a long draught, then jumped up as though he had been struck by lightning.

the rumour was that Dee was a piss head. i was quite sorry when he was fired.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Shakey
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 07:25 AM

Hundreds of IT roles at the BBC are to be offshored to cheaper wage locations, under a £560m contract renewal coming into force with its incumbent outsourcing giant Atos.

If they're going to act like a multi-national then they should be financed like one and the licence should be scrapped.

For the record I'm not in favour of either.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 01:27 PM

I am able to analyze the consequence of current events.

Brexiteers and Trumpeteers seem to take pleasure from analizing their fetish fascist feelings.

Its called having their head up their ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 05:09 AM

my fascist fetish feelings, up me bum....

i don't know what you're talking about Don, but I'm not arguing. You give the party, I'll be there! sounds like no end of fun!

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: MikeofNorthumbria
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 07:44 AM

After reading right through this correspondence with increasing frustration, I did a word-search for 'Agent'. Not one mention came up, so I'll put one in.

AGENT: a person employed by stars (and by most other folk in showbiz) to arrange their gigs and negotiate pay for same.

Presumably all these performers have agents? Presumably these agents negotiate with the BBC and agree a contract which binds the 'star' to do certain things in exchange for a certain sum of money? And if the BBC's offer isn't acceptable, won't the agent offer their client's services to another broadcaster, in hopes of getting a better deal?

So, are these allegedly extravagant (and allegedly gender-biassed) pay deals not simply the result of a free market in talent?

Meanwhile, on the other side of the great divide, there are technicians, office staff, cleaners and canteen workers who have standard pay scales. They don't have agents, they have unions. And further down the ladder there are the interns, who have neither agents nor unions, and consequently have to live on hope (and their parents' generosity). What all these lesser folk have in common is that their pay is negotiated from a position of weakness, whereas the pay of 'stars' is negotiated from a position of strength.

In the world we live in, the word "fair" does not apply to pay negotiations. The star who thinks he or she is not being paid 'fairly' should consider getting a more effective agent agent.   The ordinary wage-earner who thinks he or she is not being paid fairly needs to join a union.

This whole gender pay-gap issue is a distraction, designed to divert attention from the efforts of Murdoch and his supporters inside the government to destroy the BBC altogether. I hope they fail ...

Wassail!