OT: No Austerity in the BBC!

Well, two things. Making what a 'performer' earns public knowledge means a competitor broadcaster knows where to pitch any offer to poach one.

And other BBC performers (like the less than equally paid females) might demand a rise.

Other than satisfying curiosity, I don't know what good making these earnings public knowledge does. Except to give the BBC hating press something to whinge about.

Not really - it wasn't an expensive programme to make in terms of cost per hour. The building with the sets was owned, and most of the locations cheap and close by. It had just run its time.

That was a problem long before the end. ;-)

Oh, indeed. But in terms of the regulars, many aren't seen at all now.

So? Let them be poached. There is *not* an infinite number of broadcasters out there.

So? *If* they are worth a rise, they'll get it. If not, it's a case of STFU or GTFO.

Well, being a socialist k*****ad, you only demand to know the ins and outs of big business/tories/any other non-socialist entity.

Surely any decent head-hunter would work this out anyway?

People 'demand' rises all the time. Knowing someone else's salary is not in my view a strong bargaining tool. Pay depends on supply and demand in the relevant employment market. Are you saying that Virgin Trains staff could successfully demand a rise if they found out how much Richard Branson earns?

Depends on whether you believe in freedom of information, I suppose.

Please don't tell me you really are this naive.

Every week in the House of Commons when sitting, usually when its almost empty possibly with some big event happening elsewhere, a Govt spokesman will stand up in the House of Commons and give a verbal answer to a Freedom of Information request or will deposit a written answer in the House of Commons Library.

So Hurrah, the truth is finally out there !

Except of course it's not. Quite possibly the only people interested in the answer were the MP who asked the question, his constituent and maybe his friends and family. So how is anyone else ever going to find out about it ?

If its about local Govt quite possibly the constituent could tell his local paper, who might print it; except nobody reads local papers any more. Or possibly if they're lucky it might get national coverage in the pages of "Private Eye".

In fact every fortnight the pages of "Private Eye" are filled with revelations of all sorts. When the M.D column started, Phil Hammond who also happened to be a local G.P immediately started writing about the Bristol Heart Scandal. Around 10 times as many babies and young children were dying during surgery as compared with elsewhere, This was regularly written about for 7 years before anything happened.

What you don't seem to understand is you can have all the Freedom of Information you like, but you'll never find out about any of it, unless you've got hours to waste in the HoC Library and elsewhere; unless that is, its in someone's interests to tell you.

The first question you should always ask when "given" any piece of information, rather than finding it out for yourself, is "why" is this person telling me this ?

I'm sorry to sound preachy but I thought this stuff was obvious to anyone.

In the case of the tabloid press and the media in general, which is largely driven nowadays by the levels to which Murdoch and the Mail will stoop and who have always regarded the BBC as a threat, the answer should be obvious.

Whereas as I explained in my other post, which you appear to have completely misunderstood, the fact that we have freedom of information, in this case as regards money spent on warships, is of little benefit if no newspapers are interested in banging on about the fact that we've just flushed ?10 billion plus of taxpayers money, our money, down the toilet.

michael adams

...

Right. So Joe Smarm is earning ?400k a year fronting some programme or other, on an independent channel.

He appeals to some other channel, channel 29 who employ a "head-hunter".

So the head hunter goes up to Joe Smarm's agent and says channel 29 are interested in signing your client Mr Smarm, So how much is he earning at present ?

So the agent tells him straight out -

"at present he's earning ?400k a year".

(Whereas had Joe Smarm being appearing on the Beeb everyone would already know what he earns. Whereas an agent is free to quote any figure he likes - he's under no legal obligation to tell the truth except when signing contracts.)

So have I got this right ?

So another graduate of the "Bert" Academy of Theatrical Management by the looks of things.

michael adams

...

The BBC just published a list of 100 individuals - their highest paid talent.

What have "bands" got to do with anything ?

michael adams

...

by asking the specific question under their FoI rights

tim

hopefully the bbc have learned that lesson from this exercise

tim

That's what the constituent already did.

Did you not understand what was written above ?

It's how that information is disemminated afterwards, or not as the case may be, that's the problem.

And where all the wooly headed idealists soon come crashing to Earth.

In most cases "nobody else is interested". Or even if they were few if any editors of Newspapers or TV News channels are interested enough to feature that item.

That's the "problem". Now do you undertand ?

michael adams

...

no they didn't

what was written about was a question to/from an MP

your FoI rights are exercisable against any government body and the response comes back to you in writing

No-one stands up in the house and gives it to you.

tim

All you've got is some information on payments. Missing is those where a third party is involved.

So what have you sold 20,000 of with £100 profit?

But I'm an optimist ;-)

Unfortunately you're probably right there.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

They already know through the performers agent

Strong management would tell them where to go.

Shown how weak and chaotic the BBC management is. Also shows up the possibilities of tax avoidance. Isn't that something you socialists care about?

In article , michael adams writes

What you mean is no-one is interested in your whinging s*it.

In article , michael adams writes

I'm pleased to see I obviously get under your skin a bit.

Having once been in recruitment I am well aware of how agents work.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

I see the former producer is up for trying to hire a hit-man to kill off his partner. Obviously the ridiculous final story lines got to him.

The individual's salary is not shown. It shows a salary *between* a figure and a second figure generally £50k higher. I interpret this as a series of pay bands with certain individuals contained within each band, in this case named.

I know in some organisations the bands are shown with just the number of staff within each band.

That's all I was saying.

The competition will have a fair idea what a person is earning but will not know the exact salary. It's a compromise.