the things they like that the BBC produces as if that somehow justifies those who don't like them being required by law to pay for them.
Odd sort of an argument, that.
the things they like that the BBC produces as if that somehow justifies those who don't like them being required by law to pay for them.
Odd sort of an argument, that.
There are also a great many leftists claiming that the disclosure of salaries is a right wing plot to undermine the national treasure that is the BBC. Don't these people usually bang on and on about how biased the BBC is against the left?Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Also, aren't these the same people always clamouring for caps to be applied to the 'obscene' pay of employees of private companies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
Yes. Apparently Gary Lineker isn't a 'Fat Cat' because refugees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
I think the main objection is that the salaries aren't being revealed anonymously. Just seems a little mean-spirited.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
I think what I particularly object to about Lineker is that he's never struck me as being particularly good at what he does. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
Mind you, I always fast forward through his bits on MoTD
They are employees of a corporation funded by mandatory public taxation. Why on earth should they be anonymous?Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
I'm not particularly fussed, but I can see the argument that, given that I have no right to opt out of paying towards Gary Lineker's salary, I have a right to know what he earns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
But not everyone who works for the BBC is going to be 'outed' in the same way - just its stars. How is that fair?Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
I agree that's rather arbitrary, but they are - we must assume - the best paid people in the organisation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
Also, it's not an argument against their salaries being revealed, it's an argument in favour of everyone in the BBC's salary being revealed.
Of course, the only upshot of this will be that female stars will have their salaries increased to achieve parity with the male stars and we the licence fee payers will be no better off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
But their salaries could be revealed unanimously and we would still know everything we need to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
This is simply a case of trying to shame high earners and is something I'd have thought you would ordinarily oppose.
Oh God, someone's going to find a person of colour being paid less than someone else in a minute :-(Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
I'm shocked to see that Andrew Neill is only on £200k. He's the only decent journalist left in the place.
Yeah, but he gets graveyard slots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
It's not shaming, it's allowing the public to see and assess how their money is being spent. I would argue that a publicly-funded institution has no business keeping this sort of information private.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
BUT I'M NOT SAYING IT SHOULD BE KEPT PRIVATE :banghead:Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Rise up, sc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
Troll the self-****ting ****er on Twitter.
I know I will...
If you shout at my friend again I'll put one on you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
But anonymous revelations would simply mean that the public aren't able to know how their money is being spent. We would simply know that it is being spent, but not how. For instance, we now know that Nick Knowles (?) is paid 50-150K more than the BBC's political editor. That is bizarre, spendthrift and is something we simply wouldn't know if these revelations were anonymous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
No, the salaries could be revealed in a way that exposed such discrepancies with full transparency while remaining anonymous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
There is already the Gender Pay Gap Reporting legislation for that, mQuote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
But there can be no full transparency with anonymity. The public cannot make any judgement on the wisdom of how their money is being spent without knowing precisely who it is being spent on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
If you reveal that an anonymous TV figure is being paid that much more than the BBC's political editor, I would probably shrug and assume it is some big name or other and assume that they're probably worth it. When I find out it's Nick Knowles, however, my sense of grievance is piqued because he is a relatively minor personality who clearly has a shït-hot agent.
We also find out that the 2 One Show presenters are on different salaries for doing the same job.... you need to know who gets what imoQuote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Nobody seems to mind a bit of mean-spiritedness though, do they? Perhaps it depends if you get it coming, rather than going, as it were.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92