OT: No Austerity in the BBC!

[Scott]

Very true and I did not suggest otherwise.

[michael adams]

So what ?

What are you going to do with this inforamtion once you've got your answer.

Write to Rupert Murdoch hoping he'll put it on the front page of the "Sun".

Write it out on a big placard and walk up and down the street in your nearest town centre carrying your placard ?

Chain yourself to some railings ?

In short: having cost your fellow taxpayers a considerable amount of money in having your curiosity satisfied, what are you "personaly" going to do with this information ?

michael adams

...

[michael adams]

No Bert. If you look closely you'll see you're responding to a reply I made to somebody else. Not to you.

You see Bert, except in exceptional circumstances such as this I never ever bother responding to your rubbish.

Entertainments officer of your local Social Club more like. Until they found out that the s**te magician, who'd been booked to appear every Friday night for the next six months, was in fact your son-in law.

michael adams

...

[Scott]

I don't know, never having worked as a head-hunter. However, it seems obvious if all that is involved is to make one phone call and ask one question there would be no need for head-hunters / recruitment consultants.

[Scott]

You obviously haven't a clue how the Freedom of Information Act works. It allows an individual to make an FOI request to a public authority and the public authority then responds direct to that individual. The House of Commons library is not involved in any way.

Questioning Ministers in Parliament has nothing to do with the Freedom of Information Act, took place centuries before the FOI Act was enacted and is governed by the rules of parliamentary procedure.

[michael adams]

And the answer is exactly the same as I gave tim - with two corrected spellings -

So what ?

What are you going to do with this information once you've got your answer.

Write to Rupert Murdoch hoping he'll put it on the front page of the "Sun".

Write it out on a big placard and walk up and down the street in your nearest town centre carrying your placard ?

Chain yourself to some railings ?

In short: having cost your fellow taxpayers a considerable amount of money in having your curiosity satisfied, what are you "personally" going to do with this information ?

michael adams

...

[michael adams]

But head-hunters and recruitment consultants are only needed in situations where the target's salary isn't already public knowledge. Where they have to find out by fair means or foul what an individual is presently being paid and whether their client is in a position to offer them more. And they may need to do this for a whole list of potential candidates. Which cuts both ways. If they suggest a candidate whose salary is already astronomical, and the client doesn't know this and makes an inferior offer then this puts the clients in the position of appearing to be cheapskates who don't pay the going rate. Which would soon get around, Hence the need for consultants.

However if Joe Bloggs is a senior manager at the BBC, and is well respected within the industry, which those in the industry won't need consultants to tell them, then once it becomes public knowledge that he's only on an annual contract and is currently being paid say 400k then this makes him a prime target for any number of TV production companies whose execs will be falling over themselves to tap him up at home, as soon as his measly salary becomes public knowledge.

Hence the commercial disadvantage to the BBC in being able to hold onto staff and talent. Once Murdoch has decided the public i.e he and Sky TV , has the right to know their salaries.

michael adams

...

[Scott]

'Considerable amount of money' - are you seriously suggesting the BBC don't know how much each of their staff is paid? I think you will find the information is needed for PAYE.

[Scott]

As you say, if the BBC did not make the salary public head-hunters would make it their business to find out. Anyone looking for a new job could 'leak' the information anyway. I'm not convinced commercial sensitivity outweighs the public interest in transparency.

[Richard]

Gather your 19999 friends. Each of you chip in £100 to my bank account and I'll tell you.

[bert]

In article , Scott writes

I can assure you it's a bit more sophisticated than the group moron seems to think.

[bert]

In article , michael adams writes

Still got under your skin.

As I've oft said and others have repeated resorting to abuse is an indication of an argument lost.

[bert]

In article , michael adams writes

Writing all this nonsense merely shows that you nothing at all about the subject matter.

They already know what they are earning.

The arrogance of lefties who think they know everything about things of which they have no experience and have the right, no the duty in their eyes to lecture the rest of us.

[JoeJoe]

...and most likely lack of intelligence.

[ARW]

Your quote "out of OUR hard-earned money of course" is incorrect.

They do not get a penny out of MY hard earned money.

[Cursitor Doom]

So much talentless riff-raff in the entertainment industry nowadays, Bert. I've just scrolled through the excellent Daily Express's BBC presenters' hall of shame and noted that Fiona Bruce is the BBC's highest-paid female "talent" - for reasons that totally escape me. Her one and only outstanding ability so far as I can see lies in her amazingly smug expression. If there were a Nobel Prize for smugness, she'd win hands- down. At least now these salaries have been leaked I can see exactly why that bitch always looks so smug, like the cat that got the cream (and she's got it alright: 350,000 pounds a years at our expense). Even that terminal thicko Micheal Adams who posts here would struggle to excuse and justify that!

[Dave Plowman (News)]

You think the talent is on PAYE?

[Richard]

In your case, place it and your head in a fairly large plastic bag.

[Richard]

Of course not. They will definitely avoid paying their dues, whilst enthusiastically pillaging the public purse.

[Scott]

If not it soon will be