BBC stars wages made public

[Guest]

The property comment is very true.

BBC programmes on property often involve couples who are down grading or moving to the country side , they are often quoted as only having a budget of five or six hundred grand to spend and must be frugal in their hunt for a house.

 

This reminds me of the Times newspaper property pages that only seem to discuss million pound moves.

 

Some thing wrong some where

 

One BBC property show I can think of straight off the top of my head is Homes Under The Hammer, which mostly features people with modest budgets buying properties at auction.

[Car Boot 10]

You can't really blame the BBC for paying as little as they can get away with (regardless of gender).

 

But we can place the blame squarely and fairly on the BBC for using public money (all of it forced from people under threat of criminal sanctions without any thought or care as to their ability to pay) to discriminate against women and ethnic minorities by paying them considerably less than their white male counterparts for doing the same work.

 

The BBC is truly disgusting.

[tinfoilhat 11]

But we can place the blame squarely and fairly on the BBC for using public money (all of it forced from people under threat of criminal sanctions without any thought or care as to their ability to pay) to discriminate against women and ethnic minorities by paying them considerably less than their white male counterparts for doing the same work.

 

The BBC is truly disgusting.

 

Not all of them though, not by a distance. The really big earners have the big high profile spots. Now you could quite rightly point the finger and ask why all of radio 2 daytime slots are by white middle aged men, or why radio 1 (today at least) only has one woman dj throughout the day (I don't even know if she's a regular or filling in) - 20 years ago there was two.

 

Some of the differences are shocking, but others, well it's the subjective world of entertainment. You could watch a passable U2 tribute for next to nothing, the real thing would cost considerably more.

[Guest makapaka]

But we can place the blame squarely and fairly on the BBC for using public money (all of it forced from people under threat of criminal sanctions without any thought or care as to their ability to pay) to discriminate against women and ethnic minorities by paying them considerably less than their white male counterparts for doing the same work.

 

The BBC is truly disgusting.

 

That's not true though is it.

 

Do you have any evidence of them discriminating against people or are you just using earnings as a measure?

 

There are lots of reasons people are paid differently - particularly in entertainment - it doesn't mean that they are actively discriminating against people.

[Magilla 510]

But we can place the blame squarely and fairly on the BBC for using public money (all of it forced from people under threat of criminal sanctions without any thought or care as to their ability to pay) to discriminate against women and ethnic minorities by paying them considerably less than their white male counterparts for doing the same work.

 

Oh, they're actively discriminating now... nah, utter nonsense.

 

The BBC is truly disgusting.

 

Not as disgusting as your half truth, hysterical, woe is me posts

 

There are lots of reasons people are paid differently - particularly in entertainment - it doesn't mean that they are actively discriminating against people.

 

Quite! All the "Top Talent" at the BBC is employed on an individual contract on a self employed basis.

You could just as easily argue that those on lower pay are just not very good at negotiating a better deal for themselves.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Magilla

[Car Boot 10]

Oh, they're actively discriminating now... nah, utter nonsense.

 

Both female and male BBC employee's would disagree with you. The BBC has undoubtedly been pursuing an active policy of sex discrimination on pay for years. High-profile BBC women were told that the pay gap didn’t exist and were encouraged to keep quiet.

 

The BBC could face millions of pounds in damages if just a few women bring successful equal pay claims against the corporation. The ultra-secretive BBC has not been telling the truth about this issue for years. BBC management need to be brought before a court and forced to tell the truth.

 

The BBC has no compunction about bringing people on very low incomes (the majority of them women and single mothers) before a court to force them to pay for the BBC.

[Harrystottle 10]

The Equal Pay act came in about 1970. People were supposed to get the same money for doing the same job.

 

Huw Edwards is on up to £599,999 pa. Sophie Raworth is on up to £199,999. Emily Maitlis is on less than £150,000.

 

All of them are newsreaders and as far as I can see the Beeb are in breach of the act and have been for years.

[silentP 10]

One BBC property show I can think of straight off the top of my head is Homes Under The Hammer, which mostly features people with modest budgets buying properties at auction.

 

..this is true, only a sprinkling of buyers have a portfolio of buying and selling or renting and the places they buy are often grotty little dives. I think the people with the half Mill budget are more interested in the brag anyway.

[Magilla 510]

The Equal Pay act came in about 1970. People were supposed to get the same money for doing the same job.

 

The act has exceptions, differing pay levels could be related to length of service (for example), not necessarily anything nefarious.

 

Have you ever had a job where that was the case, regardless of gender. I haven't. Everywhere I've worked wages are negotiated, people doing the same job were never on the same money.

 

Huw Edwards is on up to £599,999 pa. Sophie Raworth is on up to £199,999. Emily Maitlis is on less than £150,000.

 

All of them are newsreaders and as far as I can see the Beeb are in breach of the act and have been for years.

 

But are they all *just* newsreaders? Their roles may actually differ significantly.

 

Regardless, maybe we should just let everyone find out what everyone earns to get rid of this disparity, like Norway:-

 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/apr/11/when-it-comes-to-tax-transparency-norway-leads-the-field

 

I'd be for it.

[Car Boot 10]

Regardless, maybe we should just let everyone find out what everyone earns to get rid of this disparity, like Norway:-

 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/apr/11/when-it-comes-to-tax-transparency-norway-leads-the-field

 

I'd be for it.

 

Good for you.

 

But the ultra-secretive BBC opposes almost any form of transparency when it comes to how it spends public money.

 

The BBC is far from being any sort of good role model for the 21st Century, with its 'do as we say, not do as we do' mentality which permeates its every pore.

[petemcewan 27]

I do believe that the BBC is obliged -under the the terms of the PSED- to have a set of objectives, as to how it will attempt to achieve gender pay equality.

Edited July 25, 2017 by petemcewan

[Magilla 510]

Good for you.

 

Wouldn't you? Why not?

 

But the ultra-secretive BBC opposes almost any form of transparency when it comes to how it spends public money.

 

Entirely untrue:-

 

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/reports/pdf/bbc-annualreport-201617.pdf

 

The BBC is far from being any sort of good role model for the 21st Century, with its 'do as we say, not do as we do' mentality which permeates its every pore.

 

94% of the adult population use BBC services each week, they can't be going that far wrong.

 

So, out of interest, which broadcasters do you think *are* a good role model for the 21st Century?

Edited July 25, 2017 by Magilla