If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
BBC fat cat bosses - justified or sack the lot?
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
My views on the robbing filth who run the BBC are well known, so I won't repeat them, but can any of the pro-BBC posters on here justify the following?
If you can't justify this, how on earth can you justify the BBC sending people to prison if they don't cough up for these greedy scum?
- 443 senior managers earn more than £100,000
- 39 earn more than £200,000
- The fat cat bosses have demanded an inflation-busting TV tax increase to pay for the BBC
- ...whilst awarding themselved a 16% pay rise
- ...and sacking thousands of hard-working journalists
- ...and awarding below-inflation pay rises of less than 2% to the ones who are left
- The fat cat bosses cost the BBC about £100million a year, equivalent to the TV Tax revenue from nearly a million TV taxpayers, or equivalent to over a fiver off everyone's TV tax bill
If you can't justify this, how on earth can you justify the BBC sending people to prison if they don't cough up for these greedy scum?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
the BBC have over 23,000 employees- so 443 senior managers don't seem that many
Here's a nice link for you ..
http://www.hoovers.com/bbc/--ID__51031,period__A--/free-co-fin-income.xhtml?ID=51031&period=A&which=income¤cy=7
but i dont see how the beeb can justify this
the beeb managers are robbing scum
The DG of the BBC gets paid nearly four times as much as the Prime Minister, for crying out loud. Justify that. And the Prime Minister is the head of the Government, who employ a damn sight more than 23,000 people.
Nobody at the BBC should be on more than £100,000 a year- and that includes the "talent".
And if the government was competing with the likes of Barclays, Tesco, and all other big businesses for the Prime Minister, then they would be paying him a salary in the millions plus bonuses, which is exactly the situation the BBC find themselves in.
Two things.
1. The BBC are paying more than commercial television in many areas, which is why the BBC is putting many commercial operators out of business (especially local commercial radio and children's TV).
2. The two things do not follow. The BBC has no need to compete with commercial TV in terms of salary. It doesn't happen in any other field (the head of my charity earns much less than he would in the commercial sector) and the BBC needs to use my money more wisely. The only people who seem to think the BBC needs to pay more to keep management are the management who are awarding themselves pay rises eight times bigger than the awards given to their staff.
If the programme makers stick with the BBC despite a below-inflation pay rise, why should the management be any different? I don't see someone like Yentob ever leaving the BBC, do you? And so what if he does?
The size of the salary is directly relevant in any field where the income is from taxation. If MPs are slated for earning £60,000 plus expenses, why are the BBC bigwigs allowed to get away with earning four times as much with impunity?
I think that says more about how low the PM's pay is more then anything else.
Simple solution is lets get rid of the TV License - give the BBC 10 years count down to get it's act together ...
Having said that the BBC is a key player in pushing forward new technology throughout the industry such as the BBC iPlayer and the new FeeSat TV system
Which might prove to be a cheaper alternative to being held to ransom by Sky TV
http://www.freesat.co.uk/
Does anyone else think the BBC with its public service broadcasting is now pretty irrelevent then? I mean, "Bonekickers"? Seriously? Jonathan Ross with his unresearched winging-it interviews? Reality television?
Supposedly that "Criminal Justice" program the other week is going to be the best drama of the year that the BBC provides, if we're to believe the critics. It was okay, enjoyable enough but pretty dire if judged on that scale, especially if put next to dramas from America. In an age when the internet and cable/Sky television gives loads of people much greater access to great American television, and better British TV of the past on the likes of UKGold, while the BBC provides next to no new interesting comedy or drama, so that when a mediocre offering like "Criminal Justice" comes along it's touted as genius just because that's all there is, what are we paying the license fee for?
Again that's an issue of what you consider the role of the BBC to be. Charities aren't generally in direct competition with private companies in the same way the BBC is. They tend to offer a sort of subordinate role, filling in all of the gaps that commercial operators miss. If you see a role for the BBC in this area (science, arts, education, faith, kids TV, etc) then that's fair enough. And you will always, and do get talented people who do that. There are plenty of extremely talented people, for example, who will refuse to work in TV altogether, and will only work on films. People queue up to work in wildlife documentaries. No writer wants to work on Eastenders, even if it pays more. In the creative areas, people do what they enjoy doing, rather than being lured by salaries. But the BBC structured as it is today as a major TV company operating in direct competition with commericial operators has to be structured in largely the same way in terms of pay. Charities get the staff because there will always be some people who won't be motivated by money. But to try and run a massive company in a competitive area against commercial operators would be suicide. And incidentally, the BBC are a huge commerical operator worldwide now.
And the fact is that they've got results. The digital switchover, internet TV, DVD sales, commercial selling of their products abroad have all been extremely successful. So the question isn't whether they're worth the salary, because they clearly are imo, the question is whether they should be doing the job in the first place.
Oh I agree, I think it's largely shite. I think Channel 4 have been better for years. And American TV dramas are just at a different level to most of Britain's stuff. Because they put the money into it, incidentally. The Sopranos wasn't made on a shoestring budget. But I think it proves that commercial doesn't mean crap. But I think it does mean that it's a more limited range of programming. But I don't care. I watch films for the good stuff.
The BBC should not be using tax money to distort a commercial market, and that's the long and the short of it.
The BBC doesn't pay "competitive" salaries- it pays higher salaries than commercial broadcasters because it has a reliable income stream. When you consider the list of defectors to the BBC, particularly in terms of "talent", the only logical conclusion is that people are moving to the BBC because they pay better. I'm pretty sure Graham Norton didn't move to the BBC to present cheapo reality TV with that gurning retard LLoyd Webber. The same is true in strategy and management, where the BBC are actually poaching their bosses from channel 4 and ITV.
To compare, a local newsreader in Yorkshire moved to the BBC from ITV because they increased her salary about five-fold, if rumours are to be believed. She now gets half a million quid for presenting Look North, for crying out loud. It's the same throughout the business.
Public service broadcasting should be about producing programmes that wouldn't get made otherwise. Faith programmes, local radio, schools programming, that sort of thing. The rest of it should be provided by the commercial sector. That means turning the BBC into a commercial provider.
What we have now is the equivalent of Tesco being allowed to charge everyone a fiver for shopping at the corner shop, or Odeon being allowed to charge everyone a fiver for going to the independent cinema down the street. It is disgraceful that the BBC is allowed to act in the way it does.
As for how good the management is, one thing they can't do is keep to a budget. BBCi was 20% over budget, the BBC Trust costs £12 million a year to run, and budgets are blown everywhere. There's no financial prudence because the BBC can always come and ask for more money from us mugs who have to pay the TV Tax. There's no financial responsibility because the taxpayers will bail them out. And if we don't we go to prison, without passing go and without collecting £200. And that's before we even move into the lack of editorial honesty, what with the fraudulent editing in The Queen and repeated fraud in telephone phone polls.
The BBC behaves reprehensibly because the way it is funded means it can get away with what it wants. So what if the BBCi budget went £20m over, someone else will pay for it. If it wants to be commercial it can be funded commercially and take commercial risks. If it doesn't want to be commercial it can stop trying to compete and it can stop wanking away £100 million of my money on overpaid underworked jumped up greedy fat cat cunts.
I think it's the same all over now though, people who get degrees generally will go into a job they could have done without the degree and been trained to do, but wouldn't have got an interview without the degree. Madness.
When I was born my mother went into labour whilst watching Wogan on telly. She stayed at home until the end of the programme before she went to the hospital! / Random aside/
I agree that we shouldn't be paying for the BBC, but if you accept the BBC as it currently is, then there is no argument to be made for the case that the staff are overpaid.
Chris Moyles is only getting 630K!
To be perfectly frank, I think someone in your field and with your experience has absolutely no idea how much salary is justified for these roles.
You have no commerical experience, let alone TV/broadcasting.
The markets demand the salary in line with what they can get.
Do you think they pay people more for the fun of it ?
And on top of that, as we discussed a million times before, the money comes down to accountability and responsibility.
Mr hard worker at the bottom could be a lazy shite or a really hard working bloke, but if he cocks up, odds are not many people will even notice. Not the same at the top.
What would you do if you were offered that kind of money one day out of interest? Give it all to charity and keep your 30K or so ?
She actually is - around £480,000 per year I remember reading at the tine.
The situation will never be to everyone's satisfaction. If the BBC employed second rate writers and producers and let all its journos and entertainers go, its output would be shit and its critics would wonder why should be paying a licence for programmes nobody likes.
And if the BBC is forced to pay top money to keep them in- so commercial channels don't simply wave their chequebooks and collect already famous and fully formed professionals, many of which were trained and formed at the BBC for years- then people complain it spends too much money on them.
As far as the BBC's enemies are concerned it can't do no good, and it will happily switch to one argument from another (i.e. either its ouput it's shit, or it is expensive) to suit their demonisation of the corporation.
Me, I think it is not only the very best TV and radio broadcaster in the world, but a national instution that should be protected just like our best treasures and monuments are. Not to mention a news website that trounces all other and is a constant source for just about eveyone on the net, including, ironically, most of its enemies.
Of course, the BBC should be accountable and we must keep tabs on it so money is not wasted. But at present I don't see anything broken at all. Though it will be soon if we continue to cut its budget to appease the formidable lobby that is set against it.
the solution is simple - don't pay / watch tv, most of it is pointless trash and the rest of it you can download or find other news sources, bbc.co.uk is still free afaik....
The BBC does not do State propaganda.
And regarding bbc.co.uk, it might be free to use but it is most definitely not free to run. Nor are the countless radio stations. All of which are enjoyed by most people, including those who oppose the licence fee.
It'd be nothing short of a tragedy if it has to take for the licence fee to be abolished and the BBC to descend to ITV and Sky levels for people to appreciate how good the BBC is and how many things it does besides television.
The place to praise or criticise is in-depth reports or current affairs programmes, and the BBC has never been afraid of doing so. Furthermore the BBC is not afraid to grill members of the government and subject them to very harsh interviews- for instance on Newsnight or the Today programme on Radio 4. On that the BBC is miles better than the likes of ITV or Sky News, and as good as Channel 4.
I have never noticed any instances of blatant or apparent bias towards the governement from the BBC. The contrary is probably true, which strictly speaking is not good either because there should be no bias. But there is no evidence of government control or favoritism on the BBC that I've ever seen- only smearing and tired cliches from some clueless rightwingers, who invariably fail to produce any proof about their claims when challenged.
Incidentally, if you think the BBC is not critical of the government's foreign policy you should tell the S*n. According to them the BBC lives for nothing else...
there's a difference between neutrality and dodging uncomfortable stories full stop, something the bbc is very good at doing. i don't read the sun but given the concentration of media ownership their criticism of the bbc probably actually helps to broaden popular support for the bbc, and legitimise the perception of them as an impartial institution amongst the intellectual middle class, people like yourself for example. me well i was always taught if something seems too good to be true it usually is.
As JsT says, a smudge under half a million to read the local news.
Not sure who's in cloud cuckoo land, but it isn't me.
I think I do, seeing as I'm the one who's fucking paying for it.
What accountability? What responsibility?
I can't vote with my feet by only watching ITV because that's a criminal offence. I can't vote out the DG. I can't veto Moyles' pay (hell, he only earns 25 times more than I do, poor thing), I have precisely no say in what happens at the BBC. They are accountable to nobody.
If I don't like ITV I turn over. They lose advertising revenue. If I don't like Sky I cancel my subscription and they lose my money. What option do I have with the BBC? I can't refuse to pay them or else I'll go to prison, and whilst I hate the robbing cunts, I don't hate them that much.
The BBC is a national institution and a asset to the nation. It is tough if you don't like it and yet are forced to pay for it- but not more tough than for those who don't like museums, sports, and thousands of other things that are considered vital to the cultural and/or social wellbeing of a nation, and yet have to pay to sustain them. Such is life, such is the society we live in.