Total Visits

Saturday, 5 August 2017

THE SCANDAL OF BBC WAGES – THE REAL STORY


THE SCANDAL OF BBC WAGES – THE REAL STORY IS NOT THE INEQUALITY BUT THE EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF REMUNERATION TAKEN FROM TAXPAYERS FUNDS


I have read with amazement the mainstream media’s coverage of the BBC’s pay scandal which in its obsession with politically correct equality seems to have missed the main common sense point.


It should be remembered that the BBC exists primarily on a so-called syndicated tax. This is the “Licence Fee” which forces us all to pay the BBC £147 for the right to use a television whether we watch the BBC or not.


Any of us that do not pay the “Licence Fee” can be prosecuted and potentially sent to prison.


It is also worth remembering that everyone of those whose taxpayer funded pay has just been revealed is being paid more than the Prime Minister (who is currently paid p.a. £150,402)!


So now we all know where so much of our money goes!


It seems that it is being paid to people whose contribution to any serious public interest benefit (which you might expect from a taxpayer funded entity) is often extremely questionable.


It is also interesting to consider what these now revealed salaries show about the BBC's bias. Almost all their top names are Leftist Remainers! In fact the only one who isn’t, that I have noticed so far, is Andrew Neil.


I ask you:-

1. Whether Chris Evans, with his declared pay of £2.2m (14,966 times the licence fee!), or Graham Norton, with his declared pay of £850,000 (5,783 times the licence fee), are doing anything socially useful that is worth such a huge amount of taxpayer money?


2. Also whether even the supposedly more serious “public interest” broadcasting personnel, such as Huw Edwards (£600,000), Eddie Mair (£425,000) are worth anything like the money they are being paid?


In the circumstances I wonder if I would be alone in suggesting that far from raising any of the BBC’s women’s salaries, what should be done is to reduce the salaries of all those relevant employees of the BBC so that none gets more than the Prime Minister?


Further I would say that as regards all positions that are taxpayer funded – that is right across the UK State – all their pay should be subject to a maximum figure of what the Prime Minister gets, unless there is a specific reason justifying the exception (such as the need to recruit a particular person whose salary has to exceed the Prime Minister for reasons of competition with other potential employers).

Given the general lack of talent amongst senior UK State employees, and the UK’s various quangos, I would doubt whether that condition would often be met!

Who would agree?

8 comments:

  1. '. . . all positions that are taxpayer funded - that is right across the UK state - all their pay should be subject to a maximum figure of what the Prime Minister gets . . '

    Is this in the English Democrats' manifesto? If not it should be!

    SW
    South Somerset

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am a fan of the BBC. I don't watch much television, but nearly all of what I do watch is BBC output. I consider the equivalent of just over £12 per month to be excellent value for money - buying me top-quality uninterrupted programming.
    As for salaries, I don't think Chris Evans is worth 2.2 Nectar points but there is a concept known as "the going rate". BBC presenters are, on the whole, like its programmes top-quality and have to be paid the going rate.
    I have a suspicion that BBC detractors are satellite of cable subscribers who resent paying the licence-fee on top of their exorbitant subscriptions (which help to pay footballers six times what the aforementioned Mr Evans gets!).
    As for bias, like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder. A right-leaning individual will perceive a left-wing bias, whilst a left-leaning one will perceive a right-wing bias.
    Long live the licence fee!
    Clive
    Weston-super-Mare.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice trolling Clive

      Delete
  3. the talk about pay inequality was just a BBC smokescreen to deflect attention from the real issue of excessive public sector salaries.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What is as infuriating as the pay that is detailed is not knowing the income of those paid through production companies and the like, and the proportions of the staff who are paid more than £100K. I suspect the latter number is more significant and shocking than the former.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think that the prime minister's pay is about £400,000 and that Dave Cameron nobly waived it as he did not need it - nice eh? However, I remember that the chief executive of our County Council in the impoverished north was paid way in excess of what she was worth and her successor was made to accept less. Bearing in mind that we have had our bus service taken away, this was a bit rich. On Look North the other evening, we were informed that London has received £53b more than the North. If we had equal pay-outs then we could have a bus service and get our old folks' home back. I agree with the BBC, never listen to nor want to listen to Chris Evans and Graham Norton is a funny Irish man of which there are probably plenty more. Shocked to hear that Huw Edwards is getting so much for just reading the news as well.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You ask "Who would agree?" I seems only one person. I wrote a longish comment contesting the views presented above which has not been published. (Censorship?) I am a loyal BBC watcher and listener and I consider the licence fee to be excellent value. In the light of the lack of response to your post, could it be time to reconsider the anti-BBC amendment to the Manifesto which was passed a couple of years ago and at least do some market research on the subject?
    Clive.
    Weston-super-Mare.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clive, I am still grateful for the excellent documentaries that the BBC produces for BBC2 and BBC4. However, Channels 4 and 5 are also able to produce equally worthwhile material.

      But I do not consider BBC News to be impartial. The BBC was quick to label the driver of the car in Charlottesville as a "Neo-Nazi". There is evidence around that this may have been a false flag attack and that - according to Christopher Bollyn the author of the Solving of 9/11 - every one of the terror attacks in Europe has been such, as with 9/11 itself. This is why Trump has been so ambivalent, he probably knows exactly what George Soros and the CIA are up to. And by the way, George Washington's face will soon have to be removed from US bank notes because he not only owned slaves but sent gangs out to recapture escaped slaves. And perhaps David Cameron should be made to hand back the money which his family received as compensation when Britain abolished slavery.

      I witnessed the left-wing mob pulling down a statue of a confederate soldier in North Carolina. As she kicked it when it was down, a young lady leftist screamed "the revolution has begun" or some such thing. And we all know that George Soros is funding that revolution which is aimed at the Death of White America and white everywhere else.

      I fail to understand this term "white supremacist". As has been said, the Israelis must then be termed Zionist supremacists, the Chinese and Japanese yellow supramacists etc. White supremacism is a term which embraces so-caled white nationalism and the so-called Alt Right. White nationalism is just a last ditch attempt to preserve countries which are ethnically and culturally European in the same way as the Indian sub-continent is brown nationalist and China yellow nationalist. But it is now becoming obvious to all that the agenda of those who seek world domination is the end of all white countries and their transformation into the kind of melting pot of which the EU has symbols plastered everywhere. What is happening in America and coming to Europe next is a fight for ethnic and cultural survival. A recent poll found that 43 pc of Britons expect a "white supremacist" rally here soon with a further 30 plus pc expecting one in the next 10 to 20 years. As Europeans drift towards minority status in their own countries, as is happening in the US, this is to be expected. Meanwhile our police are actively tracking down "neo nazis" here who might be planning attacks on Muslims.

      Any suggestion that the current multicultural narrative might be against human nature and unworkable and an act of sheer naive folly leading to mass conflict and bloodshed will shortly be illegal and anybody arguing such a case will be subject to the full weight of the law as the whole of the West becomes a Marxist police state with only support for George Soros's revolution being permitted and any backlash against it being dealt with in the usual fascist fashion. I smiled when Theresa May said we must fight fascism when it is the George Soros's left who are the violent fascist brownshirts who will not allow any form of free speech arguing against what they are engaged in.

      Delete