BBC stars wages made public

[Car Boot 10]

Entirely untrue:-

 

If the BBC is so transparent, and willing to inform us how it spends the public money which is forced from the BBC tv Licence Fee payer, perhaps the BBC would provide answers to some reasonable questions?

 

1. How much is 'Top Gear' host Matt LeBlanc paid? BBC insiders claim he is paid £millions. Why does the BBC refuse to reveal how much he is paid?

 

2. How much does Mary Berry ('Bake Off') get paid for her BBC work?

 

3. How much money does the BBC pay Sir David Attenborough for his work?

 

4. David Dimbleby, Chairman of 'Question Time' and numerous general election and budget specials Anchor, is paid HOW MUCH by the BBC? The BBC believes that the BBC TV licence fee payer has no right to know this information.

 

Public money, forced from the BBC TV licence fee payer under threat of a home invasion, large fine and imprisonment, is being used to commission programmes but the BBC refuses to reveal how that money is being spent.

 

If the BBC is so committed to transparency, why has it fought tooth and nail to hide how it spends public money?

 

---------- Post added 26-07-2017 at 13:39 ----------

 

The BBC is exploiting a loophole in the regulations to keep secret from BBC TV licence fee-payers the salaries of many of its so-called 'stars'.

 

In future years, very few if any of the BBC 'talent' will have their pay revealed publicly. The BBC's committment to transparency is wafer thin.

 

The Beeb is seething because it has been forced by the government to reveal stars pay - but only in bands. The BBC is seeking to ensure that this situation (where its committment to equal pay has been exposed as a sham) does not occur again.

[sgtkate 10]

If the BBC is so transparent, and willing to inform us how it spends the public money which is forced from the BBC tv Licence Fee payer, perhaps the BBC would provide answers to some reasonable questions?

 

1. How much is 'Top Gear' host Matt LeBlanc paid? BBC insiders claim he is paid £millions. Why does the BBC refuse to reveal how much he is paid?

 

2. How much does Mary Berry ('Bake Off') get paid for her BBC work?

 

3. How much money does the BBC pay Sir David Attenborough for his work?

 

4. David Dimbleby, Chairman of 'Question Time' and numerous general election and budget specials Anchor, is paid HOW MUCH by the BBC? The BBC believes that the BBC TV licence fee payer has no right to know this information.

 

Public money, forced from the BBC TV licence fee payer under threat of a home invasion, large fine and imprisonment, is being used to commission programmes but the BBC refuses to reveal how that money is being spent.

 

If the BBC is so committed to transparency, why has it fought tooth and nail to hide how it spends public money?

 

Are you aware that the BBC has a profit-making commercial arm? This makes, sells and broadcasts shows all over the world. It is not funded by UK taxpayers but by subscribers and advertisers in other countries. It is a private organisation much like your bank. This BBC Worldwide company is paying Matt LeBlanc presumably because Top Gear makes some much money by being sold aboard that it runs out of it's commercial arm and NOT the taxpayer supported BBC UK. If you can't even understand how the BBC works on a basic level then you really aren't qualified to have a go at them.

 

Why would we have a right to know individual salaries? Do you have a right to know the salaries of staff at Tesco just because you buy shopping there? Or a more direct example, do you have the right to know what the catering assistants earn at the Houses Of Parliament because our taxes pay for them? You really do have a chip on your shoulder.

 

However, I do much prefer the Norwegian idea where all salaries are published and known.

 

The BBC is 'seething' as you put it, because it actually pays less than the going rate paid by other broadcasters. As such, other broadcasters are in a strong position to be able to tempt BBC 'talent' away from the BBC as it now knows EXACTLY how much to offer them. Just because something is paid for by taxpayers does not give us a right to see every single line in the expenses sheet. As much as it hurts me to say it, we have to accept that we pay our taxes and have to hope that people who know what they are doing use them wisely, otherwise what is the point of the civil service at all?

Edited July 26, 2017 by sgtkate

[ukdobby 224]

Kate Adie said in todays press the BBC may too much money to idiotic celebs,pity she didn't name any.

[Car Boot 10]

Are you aware that the BBC has a profit-making commercial arm? This makes, sells and broadcasts shows all over the world. It is not funded by UK taxpayers but by subscribers and advertisers in other countries. It is a private organisation much like your bank. This BBC Worldwide company is paying Matt LeBlanc presumably because Top Gear makes some much money by being sold aboard that it runs out of it's commercial arm and NOT the taxpayer supported BBC UK. If you can't even understand how the BBC works on a basic level then you really aren't qualified to have a go at them.

 

If public money is being used to commission a programme then the public should have a right to know how and where that money is spent. The BBC has stated that 'Top Gear' is not EXCLUSIVELY paid for by the BBC TV licence fee, as 'Top Gear' is only partly paid for by BBC Worldwide. Public money is being used to produce 'Top Gear' - which the BBC does not deny.

 

Why would we have a right to know individual salaries? Do you have a right to know the salaries of staff at Tesco just because you buy shopping there? Or a more direct example, do you have the right to know what the catering assistants earn at the Houses Of Parliament because our taxes pay for them? You really do have a chip on your shoulder.

 

You are not comparing like with like. Tesco is not paid for by a compulsory poll tax on the UK public. The BBC is. Tesco, or the catering assistants at the Houses of Commons, do not threaten me with a home visit, large fine and criminal record if I do not wish to consume their products. You seem confused by the fact the BBC is largely funded by forced public money, but behaves as if it is an extremely secretive private company.

 

However, I do much prefer the Norwegian idea where all salaries are published and known.

 

The BBC is 'seething' as you put it, because it actually pays less than the going rate paid by other broadcasters. As such, other broadcasters are in a strong position to be able to tempt BBC 'talent' away from the BBC as it now knows EXACTLY how much to offer them. Just because something is paid for by taxpayers does not give us a right to see every single line in the expenses sheet. As much as it hurts me to say it, we have to accept that we pay our taxes and have to hope that people who know what they are doing use them wisely, otherwise what is the point of the civil service at all?

 

Only a tiny minority of BBC talent could get paid more money elsewhere. It pays far more than the 'going rate'. (Jonathan Ross - BBC salary £6 million per year. ITV salary £1.5 million per year).

 

The reason the BBC is seething is because it has been forced to reveal (in bands) what it pays some of its 'talent', and that it pays women and ethnic minorities far less that white males for the same work.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Car Boot

[sgtkate 10]

You are not comparing like with like. Tesco is not paid for by a compulsory poll tax on the UK public. The BBC is. Tesco, or the catering assistants at the Houses of Commons, do not threaten me with a home visit, large fine and criminal record if I do not wish to consume their products. You seem confused by the fact the BBC is largely funded by forced public money, but behaves as if it is an extremely secretive private company.

 

 

Try being self-employed and not paying your taxes and see where you end up...the BBC should be subject to the SAME transparency standards as the government and not more.

[Magilla 510]

If the BBC is so transparent, and willing to inform us how it spends the public money which is forced from the BBC tv Licence Fee payer, perhaps the BBC would provide answers to some reasonable questions?

 

1. How much is 'Top Gear' host Matt LeBlanc paid? BBC insiders claim he is paid £millions. Why does the BBC refuse to reveal how much he is paid?

 

Top Gear is sold throughout the world as part of the BBC's commercial arm BBC Worldwide, they pay the majority of his salary. His pay from the public purse (if any) isn't enough to require publication.

 

2. How much does Mary Berry ('Bake Off') get paid for her BBC work?

 

Mary Berry does not work for the BBC, rather an independant production company.

 

3. How much money does the BBC pay Sir David Attenborough for his work?

 

Again, he's paid via the BBC's commercial arm, no public money.

 

4. David Dimbleby, Chairman of 'Question Time' and numerous general election and budget specials Anchor, is paid HOW MUCH by the BBC? The BBC believes that the BBC TV licence fee payer has no right to know this information.

 

Question Time is made by an independant production company. His pay direct from the public purse isn't enough to require publication.

 

Public money, forced from the BBC TV licence fee payer under threat of a home invasion, large fine and imprisonment, is being used to commission programmes but the BBC refuses to reveal how that money is being spent.

 

Their accounts are published.

 

If the BBC is so committed to transparency, why has it fought tooth and nail to hide how it spends public money?

 

They fought to keep salaries confidential for a number of perfectly valid reasons, echoed by the commercial broadcasters:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/26/itv-chairman-says-it-will-never-reveal-how-much-it-pays-its-stars

 

The BBC is exploiting a loophole in the regulations to keep secret from BBC TV licence fee-payers the salaries of many of its so-called 'stars'.

 

Nonsense.

 

In future years, very few if any of the BBC 'talent' will have their pay revealed publicly. The BBC's committment to transparency is wafer thin.

 

The Beeb is seething because it has been forced by the government to reveal stars pay - but only in bands. The BBC is seeking to ensure that this situation (where its committment to equal pay has been exposed as a sham) does not occur again.

 

Seething, lol

 

The BBC was forced to outsource production to independant producers by the government, not choice. Private companies are under no obligation to reveal pay.

 

---------- Post added 26-07-2017 at 20:03 ----------

 

Only a tiny minority of BBC talent could get paid more money elsewhere.

 

Only a tiny minority are paid enough to have their salaries published

 

It pays far more than the 'going rate'.

 

Since the "going rate" elsewhere is largely confidential, you can't say that with any confidence.

 

I suspect you're wrong:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/News/business/news/bbc-pay-compare-itv-sky-top-stars-highest-earners-salaries-sexism-gender-pay-gap-a7849106.html

 

(Jonathan Ross - BBC salary £6 million per year. ITV salary £1.5 million per year).

 

A complete misrepresentation (as usual):

 

Ross did 3 shows for the BBC on an exclusive contract. Friday Night, Film 2010 and his Radio Show. 40 weeks per year.

 

Your £1.5m at ITV was for one show for 10 weeks per year plus a Christmas special. ITV were effectively paying around 3 times what the BBC were if you scale that up by number of shows * number of weeks on air when Ross worked for the BBC.

 

Ross' contract with ITV was not exclusive, so he was free to make other money through his production company "Hot Sauce". So in actual fact, you have no idea what his total salary was during his time under contract at ITV.

 

Also: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14732894

Edited July 26, 2017 by Magilla

[mrcharlie 10]

Try being self-employed and not paying your taxes and see where you end up...the BBC should be subject to the SAME transparency standards as the government and not more.

 

That's funny, I didn't think the self employed paid any taxes on their earnings other than what they can't hide, and their pathetic NI contributions needs to be taken into account too.

 

Just sayin'

 

I spent 8yrs being self employed, Honestly I paid hardly owt, nothing to do with me it was the accountant that cooked the books as they say. The NI for self employed is a joke and needs to be addressed. By comparison my partner back then paid a fortune each month in both tax and NI. There's little wonder the employed are cynical with those who are self employed.

They're all bent!!

Edited July 30, 2017 by mrcharlie

[samssong 10]

A leader writer in the Irish Times has been sacked or suspended for stating that Clauda Winkerman (spelling?) has got her job and big salary because she is Jewish.

 

Along with the recent Labour party's spate of comments anti semitism seems to be spreading in all corners of public life .

Let us hope that history has taught us a lesson and that steps are taken to take the perpetrators to court and jail.

[Cyclone 10]

That's funny, I didn't think the self employed paid any taxes on their earnings other than what they can't hide, and their pathetic NI contributions needs to be taken into account too.

 

Just sayin'

 

I spent 8yrs being self employed, Honestly I paid hardly owt, nothing to do with me it was the accountant that cooked the books as they say. The NI for self employed is a joke and needs to be addressed. By comparison my partner back then paid a fortune each month in both tax and NI. There's little wonder the employed are cynical with those who are self employed.

They're all bent!!

 

Unless you're paid in cash then you can't hide anything.

So you pay corporation tax on the corporate profit, you pay PAYE and NI on any salary and you pay income tax on any dividend. Oh, and VAT as well from what you're charge the client.

[Car Boot 10]

Unless you're paid in cash then you can't hide anything.

 

Decent, hard working people can't hide anything. But the BBC can. And does.

 

This week, the BBC refused to reveal under freedom of information legislation how many staff it had sent to cover Glastonbury and the costs incurred. It also refused to disclose the number of guests it hosted, including any MPs, and the cost of its hospitality at the festival.

 

The corporation insists it is ‘not obliged’ to disclose the cost to BBC TV licence fee-payers of covering the five-day festival – arguing that it is protected by ‘freedom of expression and the rights of the media’ under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

The BBC both hates and fears any kind of financial transparency and it has now reached a new low in using the Human Rights Act to avoid revealing how much public money (forced from the BBC TV licence fee payer) was spent on this extravaganza.

 

The BBC is not a publicly accountable organisation. FACT.

[Magilla 510]

Decent, hard working people can't hide anything. But the BBC can. And does.

 

This week, the BBC refused to reveal under freedom of information legislation how many staff it had sent to cover Glastonbury and the costs incurred. It also refused to disclose the number of guests it hosted, including any MPs, and the cost of its hospitality at the festival.

 

The corporation insists it is ‘not obliged’ to disclose the cost to BBC TV licence fee-payers of covering the five-day festival – arguing that it is protected by ‘freedom of expression and the rights of the media’ under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

Glastonbury is another example of where the BBC provides excellent, world class, value for money coverage.

 

Micheal Eavis has said many times that he turns down numerous higher offers from commercial broadcasters every year for the rights to the coverage, instead preferring the BBC and it's public service ideals:-

 

"All through the years, we’d have people phone us from Sky and Channel 4 – ‘Can we do it, we’ll do it better, we’ll pay you more money...’ – and I said, ‘Well, we’re not interested in the money. We want to support a national institution that benefits the whole wide world for free. OK? That’s it. Period,’ as they say!”

 

The BBC now has exclusive rights until 2022, via BBC Worldwide.

 

http://www.glastonburyfestivals.co.uk/bbc-to-take-glastonbury-to-a-global-audience/

 

Whatever the BBC pays for Glastonbury, it's well within the BBC's remit to entertain and they pay less than other broadcasters would.

 

Can't wait to hear how apoplectic you are about the BBC festival to replace Glastonbury next year:

 

http://www.nme.com/news/music/bbc-music-announce-massive-festival-to-replace-glastonbury-next-year-2115759

 

Well within the BBC's remit. As for the money, last I checked, Glastonbury makes a profit.....

 

The BBC both hates and fears any kind of financial transparency and it has now reached a new low in using the Human Rights Act to avoid revealing how much public money (forced from the BBC TV licence fee payer) was spent on this extravaganza.

 

Their rational for using the act is reasonable. Have you even bothered to look at what that is, or just parroting out what you read in a tabloid?

 

The BBC is not a publicly accountable organisation. FACT.

 

Utter nonsense...

 

Lol, I bet I can guess which paper you read, not known for it's reasonable views and rigorous fact checking.... a bit like your posts!

Edited August 2, 2017 by Magilla

[Cyclone 10]

Decent, hard working people can't hide anything. But the BBC can. And does.

 

How do you know this? Did you find something it had hidden?