Not really bothered what BBC employees earn. What gives me the hump is having to pay for a service that I don't use. Should either show adverts or make it a subscription channel. Would be interesting to see how many people would sign up.
The commercial companies do not want the BBC to take adverts because the BBC would corner the market.
You pay for ITV, Sky, etc. whether you use them or not by buying anything that's advertised on those channels. The point about paying for the BBC out of public funds is that it does a job for the public good, and it promotes Britain's position in the world. There are lots of places where the local media is in the hands of the state and the people listen to the BBC for real, unbiased, news.
I think the BBC should opt out of the auctions for 'top talent'. If sky want to pay Lineker £1.75m a year, despite him being a great presenter, I'm sure the BBC could find somebody who can do a decent job for less. There are a few with potential and when they get good enough to be poached, find somebody else.
Where they should be paying top dollar is where the performer/presenter is making them money. I gave the old Top Gear example earlier. I think the BBC would be fresher and better for developing its talent and replacing it when it moves on.
I think the BBC should opt out of the auctions for 'top talent'. If sky want to pay Lineker £1.75m a year, despite him being a great presenter, I'm sure the BBC could find somebody who can do a decent job for less. There are a few with potential and when they get good enough to be poached, find somebody else.
Where they should be paying top dollar is where the performer/presenter is making them money. I gave the old Top Gear example earlier. I think the BBC would be fresher and better for developing its talent and replacing it when it moves on.
Think Dan Walker would be a good replacement for Lineker
I think the BBC should opt out of the auctions for 'top talent'. If sky want to pay Lineker £1.75m a year, despite him being a great presenter, I'm sure the BBC could find somebody who can do a decent job for less. There are a few with potential and when they get good enough to be poached, find somebody else.
Where they should be paying top dollar is where the performer/presenter is making them money. I gave the old Top Gear example earlier. I think the BBC would be fresher and better for developing its talent and replacing it when it moves on.
This sounds remarkably like KM's vision for Charlton. So the BBC can boast at having the presenters that go on to present on Sky or ITV.
Maybe we should, after all, be happy getting to watch the Premier League stars of the future at The Valley.
Or maybe those that are running the BBC want to make the best programs and have the best actors, producers, presenters etc.
I do understand and your view Muttley and don't disagree with it but I can see why those in the BBC wouldn't agree with it.
How the hell is Chris Evans worth at least 2.2 million a year. Graham Norton 900k. Ridiculous waste of money.
Chris Evans is one of the most irritating men on the planet. How the fuck is he worth even a tenth of that amount.
Graham norton is a fantastic broadcaster, I'd say 900k is cheap for some one like him who can do it on tv, on the radio and in print (although for the telegraph)
A few weeks ago my mrs gave me a lift to the station as i had a business meeting in portsmouth. Its a 20 minute drive. She listens to radio 2 when she's not working, as she likes vine and wright. We caught the first 20 minutes of evans radio show. In all that time he never played one song, but decided that the listener would be thrilled to know what he did over the weekend, i.e go for a curry Saturday night. Total self indulgence crap, and you are paying over 2 million for that crap.
But he held your attention for 20 minutes. Maybe you enjoyed his chat but cant quite bring yourself to admit to that. Most people would switch to another station, stick their Spotify on or turn the tunes off rather than suffer a programme they clearly weren't enjoying. Or maybe your wife doesn't want to listen to you.
He didn't hold my attention as I talk to my wife assume you don't with yours....as you obviously didn't read my post properly she listens to it .....I don't.
You assume what you like. I assumed the , "We caught the first 20 minutes" , was you as well as your wife listening and you did manage a summary of those 20 minutes but I stand corrected, thanks Chippster.
My pleasure always happy to correct someone..often do it.
No, no the pleasure is all mine. To be "corrected " on CL by the debating genius that is Chippy has made my life complete.
I believe that the BBC is still one of the jewels in this nation's crown. The equivalent of half a pint of beer per week for the incredible quality of current affairs, history and comedy (Except Mrs Brown's Boys obvs) is worth it.
Can I have a job please? I am happy to accept considerably less than the going rate.
You don't have to pay the licence there is no way they can access your property to get the evidence they require to prove your watching tv
Fuck the licence
one day the politicians will work out that there's a huge global market of Brits abroad who would happily pay 2 times the license fee for a digital card, you know, like the one you probably pay Sky for. That should make up the money lost to people like you who steal content and then present their thieving as some kind of crusade for "freedom".
I think the BBC should opt out of the auctions for 'top talent'. If sky want to pay Lineker £1.75m a year, despite him being a great presenter, I'm sure the BBC could find somebody who can do a decent job for less. There are a few with potential and when they get good enough to be poached, find somebody else.
Where they should be paying top dollar is where the performer/presenter is making them money. I gave the old Top Gear example earlier. I think the BBC would be fresher and better for developing its talent and replacing it when it moves on.
This sounds remarkably like KM's vision for Charlton. So the BBC can boast at having the presenters that go on to present on Sky or ITV.
Maybe we should, after all, be happy getting to watch the Premier League stars of the future at The Valley.
Or maybe those that are running the BBC want to make the best programs and have the best actors, producers, presenters etc.
I do understand and your view Muttley and don't disagree with it but I can see why those in the BBC wouldn't agree with it.
I just need to call all the viewers idiots then and I'll be there!
BTW, wife got tickets to watch the filming of a Would I Lie to You episode last week. Very enjoyable - lasted over 1.5 hours. Quite a bit of swearing and they spend about 40 minutes at the end of the show saying we need to re-film that bit as you used the word Arse wipes Lee etc... Lots of jolity and audience interaction. Another comment -You have to say this again Lee as a fly flew past the shot - so he said again and then clapped his hands to swot the fly!
Interestingly none of the discussion here has mentioned the outstanding web sites that the BBC provide, along with the general interest, they provide as much journalism as many of the newspaper websites and the latter charge subscriptions and/or put adverts all over them.
Even down to the football updates which I suspect many of us have used in the past. I'm not aware of any huge salaries in that and it all comes from the licence fee.
Surprised anne robinson wasn't in there. A friend of mine was on the weakest link (the Scottish islands one), she said it took over 8 hours to film the show. She also said robinson was a miserable cow.
Surprised anne robinson wasn't in there. A friend of mine was on the weakest link (the Scottish islands one), she said it took over 8 hours to film the show. She also said robinson was a miserable cow.
Met her a couple of times. Very strong woman. First British female editor of a daily newspaper who sacked her after demands from the Royal household for disclosing Diana's anorexia.
Nice to know the Daily Mirror is not part of the establishment.
Interestingly none of the discussion here has mentioned the outstanding web sites that the BBC provide, along with the general interest, they provide as much journalism as many of the newspaper websites and the latter charge subscriptions and/or put adverts all over them.
Even down to the football updates which I suspect many of us have used in the past. I'm not aware of any huge salaries in that and it all comes from the licence fee.
I have to disagree on the website front. The sport section is rubbish. The golf in particular is never updated (didn't even have the scores for the Scottish open).
We're told to stand as one - but then whenever an oppportunity arises we slag the country off. Bit strange, what about bankers that are paid ridiculous sums or footballers, I think gary lineker is an attention seeking prick, but he does a good job on motd and tbh I think we have bigger things to worry about tbh, complete overreaction as usual, it's trump/putin/mays fault anyway.
Corbyn would probably have dick strawbridge presenting motd
Corbyn is more into football than any other party leader (he knows what team he supports, unlike Cameron) but don't let that fact get in the way of your tongue in cheek dig.
Corbyn is more into football than any other party leader (he knows what team he supports, unlike Cameron) but don't let that fact get in the way of your tongue in cheek dig.
i believe hes a gooner, as you pointed out was a joke/dig.
When I went to see Would I Lie to you being filmed, Ed Balls was on one of the teams. Despite beinga bit overweight, he is a more than decent footballer by the way.
Interestingly none of the discussion here has mentioned the outstanding web sites that the BBC provide, along with the general interest, they provide as much journalism as many of the newspaper websites and the latter charge subscriptions and/or put adverts all over them.
Even down to the football updates which I suspect many of us have used in the past. I'm not aware of any huge salaries in that and it all comes from the licence fee.
I have to disagree on the website front. The sport section is rubbish. The golf in particular is never updated (didn't even have the scores for the Scottish open).
The same goes for Motorsport other than F1.
Even the news section is average at best.
The pre cuts BBC website was excellent, you could click through to get in depth on loads of articles. Now it's a digest site with barely any analysis, which is a shame. It's also why I'm surprised when people accuse the BBC of bias, they don't analyse news anymore.
Sport website has always been rubbish and full of inaccuracies past the very top level of sport, well, the premier league.
Massive supporter of the Beeb, well worth the license fee. if it became like PBS in the states it would lose the global audience and respect it commands and we would lose a vital soft power tool that is envied the world over.
I can remember long ago when the BBC was losing all its stars (Morecambe and Wise/ Bob Monkhouse? / Bruce Forsyth etc) to ITV and there was a public outcry along the lines of "why should I pay for a TV License when anyone good is on the other side".
Now I'm not saying that people will march on the streets if Lineker was poached by Channel 5, or Shearer by BT sport, but the BBC have to pay enough to retain their top stars.
Its a fine line between being seen to be overpaying 'talent' and therefore pissing off the licence payers (and the Murdochs, Desmonds, and Dacres of the world who all have their own axes to grind), and not retaining 'Stars'. You only have to look at the bloody fuss over losing Bake Off to C4.
Its a difficult line to draw, I dont think some of the people are worth it as they dont bring anything unique to a show, something you could argue Clarkson did. My other personal gripe is when you see how much some of the execs are earning.
It has to be said there is some other interesting stuff in the BBC annual report. Here are some snippets:
The BBC employs 663 people in Northern Ireland. So that's one BBC employee for every 2,000 adults. (I have a theory that there's only more "news" from NI than, say, Essex, because there are more BBC staff there searching it out rather than because there's actually anything interesting happening in Ulster. That's why we now know stuff like a DUP MLA, Edwin Poots, has addressed a gathering in County Donegal in Irish. Exciting isn't it?)
The funding deficit for the BBC pension scheme is close to £2bn. By way of comparison, they could wipe out this deficit if they shut down BBC1 TV entirely for two years. (Scary.)
While there were 96 "talents" paid in excess of £150k, there were also 95 senior managers who got in excess of £150k folding. It is staggering to learn though that there has been a 40% reduction in the number of senior managers from 540 in 2010/11 to 319 by December 2016. In the last year the BBC has dispensed with the services of 47 Heads of Department. (Why were any of these people employed in the first place?)
Auntie spent a piffling £23mn on its Symphony Orchestra and the BBC Singers. (How many violinists buy you a Lineker I wonder?)
It has to be said there is some other interesting stuff in the BBC annual report. Here are some snippets:
The BBC employs 663 people in Northern Ireland. So that's one BBC employee for every 2,000 adults. (I have a theory that there's only more "news" from NI than, say, Essex, because there are more BBC staff there searching it out rather than because there's actually anything interesting happening in Ulster. That's why we now know stuff like a DUP MLA, Edwin Poots, has addressed a gathering in County Donegal in Irish. Exciting isn't it?)
The funding deficit for the BBC pension scheme is close to £2bn. By way of comparison, they could wipe out this deficit if they shut down BBC1 TV entirely for two years. (Scary.)
While there were 96 "talents" paid in excess of £150k, there were also 95 senior managers who got in excess of £150k folding. It is staggering to learn though that there has been a 40% reduction in the number of senior managers from 540 in 2010/11 to 319 by December 2016. In the last year the BBC has dispensed with the services of 47 Heads of Department. (Why were any of these people employed in the first place?)
Auntie spent a piffling £23mn on its Symphony Orchestra and the BBC Singers. (How many violinists buy you a Lineker I wonder?)
Problem is for every violinist that makes it there's about 200 others out there who don't. Supply and demand dictates prices I guess. Not saying it's right but I know enough musicians trying to make it to know they aren't exactly in short supply, given the kinds of gigs they need to take to make ends meet.
The BBC is the finest broadcaster in the world (TV and radio), and by a huge margin. It makes the finest drama in the world, evidenced by the money it makes selling these productions globally. It also showcases the best in up and coming talent and takes risks from which most other broadcasters would run a million miles.
As another poster has said, nothing is unbiased in this world, everything is subjective - but I would argue the BBC is less subjective than most news broadcasters.
All of the above needs talent to make it work and therefore I have no issues whatsoever in employees of the beeb earning big money. Yes we can all pick certain individuals from the list who we may think is an overpaid twat, but that's personal opinion - if people turned off MOTD in their droves then Lineker would be gone tomorrow.
All of the above costs each household about three quid a week. A bargain of massive proportions. Any government of the day, of whatever colour, should be mindful of not damaging one of our shiniest jewels.
It has to be said there is some other interesting stuff in the BBC annual report. Here are some snippets:
The BBC employs 663 people in Northern Ireland. So that's one BBC employee for every 2,000 adults. (I have a theory that there's only more "news" from NI than, say, Essex, because there are more BBC staff there searching it out rather than because there's actually anything interesting happening in Ulster. That's why we now know stuff like a DUP MLA, Edwin Poots, has addressed a gathering in County Donegal in Irish. Exciting isn't it?)
The funding deficit for the BBC pension scheme is close to £2bn. By way of comparison, they could wipe out this deficit if they shut down BBC1 TV entirely for two years. (Scary.)
While there were 96 "talents" paid in excess of £150k, there were also 95 senior managers who got in excess of £150k folding. It is staggering to learn though that there has been a 40% reduction in the number of senior managers from 540 in 2010/11 to 319 by December 2016. In the last year the BBC has dispensed with the services of 47 Heads of Department. (Why were any of these people employed in the first place?)
Auntie spent a piffling £23mn on its Symphony Orchestra and the BBC Singers. (How many violinists buy you a Lineker I wonder?)
Problem is for every violinist that makes it there's about 200 others out there who don't. Supply and demand dictates prices I guess. Not saying it's right but I know enough musicians trying to make it to know they aren't exactly in short supply, given the kinds of gigs they need to take to make ends meet.
That is so true. To me, who is hopeless at such things, being able to play a musical instrument to such a high standard seems a special talent. But, yes, there are so many of them out there who can do it! And the hours are truly what can be described as "unsocial". A friend has recently left the BBC Singers - he is a tenor and, obviously, a good singer - but I know his money was not great for what he had to do: all the rehearsals, then the evening and weekend performances and the grind of the BBC Proms sessions. Although much more secure being a BBC wage slave than a self-employed performer. (It is though quite funny listening to him go on about Gareth Malone or watching him wince if you mention, say, Rod Stewart)
It has to be said there is some other interesting stuff in the BBC annual report. Here are some snippets:
The BBC employs 663 people in Northern Ireland. So that's one BBC employee for every 2,000 adults. (I have a theory that there's only more "news" from NI than, say, Essex, because there are more BBC staff there searching it out rather than because there's actually anything interesting happening in Ulster. That's why we now know stuff like a DUP MLA, Edwin Poots, has addressed a gathering in County Donegal in Irish. Exciting isn't it?)
The funding deficit for the BBC pension scheme is close to £2bn. By way of comparison, they could wipe out this deficit if they shut down BBC1 TV entirely for two years. (Scary.)
While there were 96 "talents" paid in excess of £150k, there were also 95 senior managers who got in excess of £150k folding. It is staggering to learn though that there has been a 40% reduction in the number of senior managers from 540 in 2010/11 to 319 by December 2016. In the last year the BBC has dispensed with the services of 47 Heads of Department. (Why were any of these people employed in the first place?)
Auntie spent a piffling £23mn on its Symphony Orchestra and the BBC Singers. (How many violinists buy you a Lineker I wonder?)
It's the difference between knowing price and value. Tories just cannot, and will not, ever, get that.
You know when you watch a TV show, and it goes all quiet and you have to turn the volume up. Then suddenly *boom*, it's deafening and the neighbours are banging on the walls (or in your case, they are sending the valet around to speak to your butler). Or it is so dark you cannot see what is going on. That's because they are trained at a film school, or talent academy by people who have never done the job. Once upon a time they all served an apprenticeship at the BBC, being taught by the best, who had been taught by the best.
A number would then go on to work for ITV or later, C4 and Sky. But the only place where you were taught the necessary skills was at the Beeb. The independent companies had neither the time, budget or inclination to do the training, it was all about your beloved bottom line.
BBC cuts have stopped that from happening for all but a few now.
How the hell is Chris Evans worth at least 2.2 million a year. Graham Norton 900k. Ridiculous waste of money.
Regardless of what you personally think of both they pull in very high listening/viewing figures. Surely that's the point?
Sums up the British viewing/listening public then. Norton isn't even funny.
Or have you considered that you just don't do humour?
Hugely entertaining presenter with a vast skill set (including humour) that makes his chat show streets ahead of anything else that's currently on tv (subjective of course).
Comments
You pay for ITV, Sky, etc. whether you use them or not by buying anything that's advertised on those channels. The point about paying for the BBC out of public funds is that it does a job for the public good, and it promotes Britain's position in the world. There are lots of places where the local media is in the hands of the state and the people listen to the BBC for real, unbiased, news.
Where they should be paying top dollar is where the performer/presenter is making them money. I gave the old Top Gear example earlier. I think the BBC would be fresher and better for developing its talent and replacing it when it moves on.
Fuck the licence
Maybe we should, after all, be happy getting to watch the Premier League stars of the future at The Valley.
Or maybe those that are running the BBC want to make the best programs and have the best actors, producers, presenters etc.
I do understand and your view Muttley and don't disagree with it but I can see why those in the BBC wouldn't agree with it.
Can I have a job please? I am happy to accept considerably less than the going rate.
Sorry. Gotta be said.
Even down to the football updates which I suspect many of us have used in the past. I'm not aware of any huge salaries in that and it all comes from the licence fee.
Nice to know the Daily Mirror is not part of the establishment.
The same goes for Motorsport other than F1.
Even the news section is average at best.
Corbyn would probably have dick strawbridge presenting motd
Sport website has always been rubbish and full of inaccuracies past the very top level of sport, well, the premier league.
Massive supporter of the Beeb, well worth the license fee. if it became like PBS in the states it would lose the global audience and respect it commands and we would lose a vital soft power tool that is envied the world over.
Now I'm not saying that people will march on the streets if Lineker was poached by Channel 5, or Shearer by BT sport, but the BBC have to pay enough to retain their top stars.
Its a fine line between being seen to be overpaying 'talent' and therefore pissing off the licence payers (and the Murdochs, Desmonds, and Dacres of the world who all have their own axes to grind), and not retaining 'Stars'. You only have to look at the bloody fuss over losing Bake Off to C4.
Its a difficult line to draw, I dont think some of the people are worth it as they dont bring anything unique to a show, something you could argue Clarkson did. My other personal gripe is when you see how much some of the execs are earning.
The BBC employs 663 people in Northern Ireland. So that's one BBC employee for every 2,000 adults. (I have a theory that there's only more "news" from NI than, say, Essex, because there are more BBC staff there searching it out rather than because there's actually anything interesting happening in Ulster. That's why we now know stuff like a DUP MLA, Edwin Poots, has addressed a gathering in County Donegal in Irish. Exciting isn't it?)
The funding deficit for the BBC pension scheme is close to £2bn. By way of comparison, they could wipe out this deficit if they shut down BBC1 TV entirely for two years. (Scary.)
While there were 96 "talents" paid in excess of £150k, there were also 95 senior managers who got in excess of £150k folding. It is staggering to learn though that there has been a 40% reduction in the number of senior managers from 540 in 2010/11 to 319 by December 2016. In the last year the BBC has dispensed with the services of 47 Heads of Department. (Why were any of these people employed in the first place?)
Auntie spent a piffling £23mn on its Symphony Orchestra and the BBC Singers. (How many violinists buy you a Lineker I wonder?)
As another poster has said, nothing is unbiased in this world, everything is subjective - but I would argue the BBC is less subjective than most news broadcasters.
All of the above needs talent to make it work and therefore I have no issues whatsoever in employees of the beeb earning big money. Yes we can all pick certain individuals from the list who we may think is an overpaid twat, but that's personal opinion - if people turned off MOTD in their droves then Lineker would be gone tomorrow.
All of the above costs each household about three quid a week. A bargain of massive proportions. Any government of the day, of whatever colour, should be mindful of not damaging one of our shiniest jewels.
You know when you watch a TV show, and it goes all quiet and you have to turn the volume up. Then suddenly *boom*, it's deafening and the neighbours are banging on the walls (or in your case, they are sending the valet around to speak to your butler). Or it is so dark you cannot see what is going on. That's because they are trained at a film school, or talent academy by people who have never done the job. Once upon a time they all served an apprenticeship at the BBC, being taught by the best, who had been taught by the best.
A number would then go on to work for ITV or later, C4 and Sky. But the only place where you were taught the necessary skills was at the Beeb. The independent companies had neither the time, budget or inclination to do the training, it was all about your beloved bottom line.
BBC cuts have stopped that from happening for all but a few now.
Value.
Hugely entertaining presenter with a vast skill set (including humour) that makes his chat show streets ahead of anything else that's currently on tv (subjective of course).