There seem to be an awful lot of BBC employees on Twitter this morning listing all

[Burney]

But not everyone who works for the BBC is going to be 'outed' in the same way - just its stars. How is that fair?

I agree that's rather arbitrary, but they are - we must assume - the best paid people in the organisation.

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.

[Monty92]

I agree that's rather arbitrary, but they are - we must assume - the best paid people in the organisation.

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.

But their salaries could be revealed unanimously and we would still know everything we need to know.

This is simply a case of trying to shame high earners and is something I'd have thought you would ordinarily oppose.

[Burney]

But their salaries could be revealed unanimously and we would still know everything we need to know.

This is simply a case of trying to shame high earners and is something I'd have thought you would ordinarily oppose.

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.

[Monty92]

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.

BUT I'M NOT SAYING IT SHOULD BE KEPT PRIVATE

[Sir C]

BUT I'M NOT SAYING IT SHOULD BE KEPT PRIVATE

If you shout at my friend again I'll put one on you.

[Burney]

BUT I'M NOT SAYING IT SHOULD BE KEEP PRIVATE

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.

[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.

No, the salaries could be revealed in a way that exposed such discrepancies with full transparency while remaining anonymous.

[IUFG]

No, the salaries could be delineated in a way that exposed such discrepancies with full transparency while remaining anonymous.

There is already the Gender Pay Gap Reporting legislation for that, m

[Burney]

No, the salaries could be revealed in a way that exposed such discrepancies with full transparency while remaining anonymous.

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.

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.