Its funny how people don't care when it is a footballer or the likes of Ant & Dec being paid millions, but when it is somebody employed by the BBC they are all that is wrong I am not saying I agree with the large salaries (far from it), but to focus that purely on the BBC staff just seems a bit hypocritical to me. I very rarely watch TV, as there is little on that interests me, but I recognise that there are those who do watch it a lot and enjoy it.
Chris Evans is the "person", for want of a better word, who thought he could make a killing out of taking on the Top Gear programme. After a few episodes he decided there was no chance of it making a come back and distanced himself from it. And he shouts his way through his radio show on radio 2 in the mornings. I just cant get enough of him.
Well, there are usually four corners to a lounge @HarryS and it's easy enough to fill the fourth one using the other three as a guideline.
I'd rather pay the licence fee than be advertised at, or watch programmes "sponsored by" which sometimes have product placements in. In any case - many programmes broadcast on BBC are the ones I like the most - they have a good range of documentaries, nature programmes, wildlife, music, history and so on. And not having pauses every 10 minutes for adverts is a massive bonus! The BBC does also not pay most staff what they could make at ITV, C4, Sky, etc - this is admin/background staff as well as the famous people. If they are paid £1 million by the BBC, they would likely be paid £5 million by a commercial company, should they choose to work there. The salaries of some famous people seem ridiculous in comparison with those whose services are needed - nurses, paramedics, doctors, firefighters, and so on.
The BBC are no different to Councils; Fire Authorities, NHS - or any other publicly funded service - each has been established by statute to do a particular job and each is funded by taxes. I object to the fact that these people are on salaries way in excess of those who manage other public services - public services which make a real difference to people's lives. Someone who spouts off on Radio 2 apparently is valued 15 times more than someone who is responsible for and manages a large public sector organisation. If the BBC goes down - so what - no one is hurt, we still get news, watch programmes etc. Public sector pay capped at 1% - so we're struggling to retain/recruit teachers; policemen; fireman etc. - and at the same time pay these peoples extortionate salaries from the same purse. Social Workers are paid around £35,000 - where's the common sense in that?
I don't disagree @clanless, but then it begs the question what function the BBC has as a public service? As far as I am concerned, all these footballers that get paid in telephone numbers is absolutely obscene, and the same goes for all of these so called 'celebrities' on Sky, ITV etc - our proper public service workers are worth way more than they are paid as far as I am concerned. The sad fact is that the people working for the BBC are seen as 'personalities/celebrities', and they would get paid more if they worked for the likes of Sky - and that is the problem, the pay is being dictated by the market.
Blimey, are they? how much does the bloke who sweeps the street get? This is going to run and run I think as nobody, not even those working for the BBC will feel they are getting a fair whack. Notice there has been an uprising among the women who work for the BBC, be intersting to see if they get a rise or the men get a pay cut.
Yet, despite pay cuts, many of the male 'stars' still work for the BBC? ITV may pay more - but the limiting factor is the number of jobs which are available - supply outstrips demand - I suspect the 'stars' would have already moved if they could of. Here's an example - Top Gear - I liked the show with Jezza presenting - I still like the show with the new presenters - I'll bet they're not receiving the same salaries? It's content all the way.
Sadly, I've worked for 30 years in local government - I've seen first hand what social workers do - you never hear about the cases where they've stepped in to protect a child from his/her abusive, drug riddled parents - because this is their 'day job'. Years of training - emotional stress - placing themselves at risk - £35k is a pittance.
just wondering who most of society would miss most, the dustman or the social worker? It's all about how you rate people, some think the sun shines out of Chris Evans rear end, others dont. I had a social worker living next door to me a few years ago, she travelled up to London every day, so the money must have been good to make the 3-4 hours travelling each day worth the effort, I'm guessing the london council she worked for paid her fare. The main thing was her family was in total chaos most of the time. But obviously she knew how others should live.
OFF TOPIC ALERT Binman - no refuse collected - all hell breaks loose in a very short period of time - most Councils now looking at monthly collection - to save money. Just as an aside, years ago I went out with the binmen for a week - thoroughly enjoyed myself - you could cut the camaraderie with a blunt knife . There's something like a 15% 'premium' for working in London - but they're finding it harder and harder to recruit Social Workers - so much so that they are brought in on a 'consultancy' basis. I've met a couple of guys in different Council's who deal with public funerals - cadaver discovered - no family - research to find family - most of them slam the 'phone down and want nothing to do with their relative. Something else that you're hard earned goes towards paying for
