OT: No Austerity in the BBC!

Jul 19, 2017 182 Replies
Saved reading

Well no. Its rather unfortunate that Evans is top of the list given his unpopularity with a lot of people; along with the fact that the value he generates in terms of audiences isn't immediately obvious to a lot of people. However the fact is that where anything digital is concerned - in terms of computer programs or TV programmes all of which could be broadly categorised as software there's a general expection among some people at least that this should all be free. While they might not go into a computer store or HMV and walk out with a box containing software, or a few DVD's they have no compunction in downloading the stuff for free given the chance.

Moreover claims by refusniks that they never ever watch BBC programming is quite simply a lie.

So basically this whole argument, encouraged by the likes of Murdoch, The Mail, and the Telegraph an the BBC's enemies in general is mainly designed to appeal to free-loaders and pathological liars. .

Demanding total transparency where talent is concerned is simply revealing commercially sensitive information to your competitors in a situation where they're not similarly handicapped.

And of course there's "total transparency" over ?2.2 million which makes the front page of every Newspaper, and "total transparency" concerning ?6 billion spent on destroyers which don't seem to actually work,

formatting link

And ?14.3 billion on two defective new aircraft carriers

The deployment of new Royal Navy aircraft carriers could face further delays as a result of limited crew numbers and complex technical problems, the spending watchdog has warned.

The current cost estimates for both carriers, as well as the Lockheed Martin F-35B jets that will fly off them, come to ?14.3bn, the NAO said, although the report says currency fluctuations could see the figure rise.

formatting link

So as a result of total transparency we know that ?20.3 billion of our "public money has been flushed straight down the toilet, but nobody seems all that bothered.

Of course the fact that Rupert Murdoch isn't pitching to launch an alternative Royal Navy has absolutely nothing to do with it.

michael adams

...

You might look at the real cost of the licence compared to say 10 years ago. It has actually fallen. Now look at a Sky subscription.

I think we can all agree that they are overpaid.

You can see live action or highlights of all F1 races on C4.

He's not worth it. No presenter is.

They don't need their standard of living.

Or, as these things always are, pure jealousy:

"It's really unfair I'm not paid a vast amount of money for something."

I don't understand why the plebs in this country are unable to accept that other people may get paid more. It's always the same: "bankers, personalities & CEOs earn vast amounts of money - it's not right, it should be banned, I'm oppressed, blah blah blah." So what?

I'll let the cretins into a secret:

There is nothing in this country stopping you earning £200k+ a year.

Nothing at all.

You are free to make as much money as you like.

Simply obscene amounts.

You want millions? No worries. The GDP of this country will cover that

1000-fold.

All you need to do is this:

Either a) come up with a really good idea and capitalise on it or b) be reasonably good at something in an area where salaries are high.

That's how it works. No-one is going to stop you apart from yourself.

Simple.

or (c) get yourself on telly.

Owain

You could try. But remember for every one who makes a decent living out of appearing on TV there are dozens of wannabes who don't. And even more who might have a short lived success. And those often spend their big earnings on high living and end up worse off than before they started.

Maybe for some it is.

But why should they get paid more ?

Who've cost this country a foirtune with dodgy deals now why should that ge t millions in bonus for getting it wrong ? . They tell you no one else can do their job and you';ll noice few of them have any quaifications other tha n who they brown-nose.

You're generlising too much.

There's plenty why aren't you earnign 200k+.

Really ... so why isnlt everyone doing it. Not every ginger is earning 2 million.

You mean sell arms to countires that supoort terrorism how many of us could be in a postion to do that ?

Maybe.

Good question. There's far too big a gap between the highest and lowest paid in an organisation. No-one has come up with a good reason for this huge gap.

Quite. They are really parasites.

Not everyone can earn this much.

One name I noticed on the list right down at ?200 -249 k is Adam Woodyatt who plays Ian Beale in "Eastenders." I haven't watched it for decades as its simply so depressing. But being an actor in any kind of soap must be draining. 3 episodes a week, having to learn your lines and always at the mercy of scriptwriters who could turn you into a hate figure at the drop of a pen. Then if you play away, misbehave on holiday or get up to just anything naughty the tabloids will be all over you like a rash. Following you around wherever you go. While all the while possibly playing one of the most depressing characters going for the past 30 years. And all for ?200 k a year.

michael adams

...

Isn;t that what makes it funny ;-0

It's 4 per week and he doesn't seem to act in anything else (that I've seen anyway) unlike some like Lacey Turner, stacey, who's been in quite a few things.

Even if you haven't been on the show for years, and I guess being recongnis ed limits your privacy.

I wonder if I could live with it.

It's quite interesting to look at a soap etc of a few years ago and see just how many of the actors are still around. The Bill is quite a good example - perhaps most of them have disappeared without trace. ;-) Far better to work behind the scenes. You don't tend to go out of fashion there.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required