Today host "incandescent with rage"

[roj]

The cure is to level these nobodies down. There would be loads of people willing to do the “job” for a fraction of the coin.

Only a handful of presenters are genuinely talented revenue pullers. Most are easily replaceable also-rans.

Mark Lawrenson likes this post

 

[bluethrunthru]

As was established in the 'Gender Neutral Language' thread, gender is just a social construct, therefore the gender pay-gap doesn't exist. How dare Sarah Montague assume the gender of her co-hosts, she should be fired immediately

I agree - if the point she was trying to make was gender inequality maybe she should have considered her sisters on an average £27k pa

 

[East Level 2]

I'm confused. The original post states:
"Turns out Sarah Montague was a bit pissed off to find she was being paid "only " £133,000 pa to co-host the Today programme on Radio 4. She found out when she didn't appear on the BBC's " employee's paid over £150k pa " list like her three ( male ) co-hosts did."
That implies she didn't know what she was being paid; how the *&^% is that possible?
Or does she present several programmes for the Beeb and didn't know the pay element from Today?

 

[bluethrunthru]

I'm confused. The original post states:
"Turns out Sarah Montague was a bit pissed off to find she was being paid "only " £133,000 pa to co-host the Today programme on Radio 4. She found out when she didn't appear on the BBC's " employee's paid over £150k pa " list like her three ( male ) co-hosts did."
That implies she didn't know what she was being paid; how the *&^% is that possible?
Or does she present several programmes for the Beeb and didn't know the pay element from Today?

She presented the Today programme along with 3 others in rotation. Her issue was that she got paid less than the other 3 and only found out because the BBC had to publish details of salaries paid to any employee in excess of £150k and she was the only one not on the list. As one co-host was also female I suppose gender pay gap is tough to argue - its just sour grapes that she was the lowest paid. My issue with it is that when the average womens pay is £27k pa her outrage at only getting £133k pa is a bloody cheek and by giving the interview and making her complaint public she just doesn't seem to get it at all.

 

[aguerrrroooooooooooo]

Fine - I absolutely agree - but non payers get no access to BBC progs repeated on other channels like Gold or Yesterday because they opted out of contributing to their making. As the BBC were made to syphon off license money to set up DAB non contributors should not have DAB access either. These are all things you don't want so shouldn't miss anyway.

You don't think they made money selling the rights away to Dave and gold though?
Once you sell your product to other companies why should they still be entitled to a licence fee to watch those programs on those channels?
That logic says you should have to pay a licence fee if you want to buy doctor who on DVD

 

[bluethrunthru]

You don't think they made money selling the rights away to Dave and gold though?
Once you sell your product to other companies why should they still be entitled to a licence fee to watch those programs on those channels?
That logic says you should have to pay a licence fee if you want to buy doctor who on DVD

They don't exist without the license fee - thats what pays to make them. It means the BBC can make the stuff that fails as well as succeeds - ITV don't have that luxury hence the shite they mostly put out - everything had to have Ant and Dec in it so that it would succeed.

 

[aguerrrroooooooooooo]

They don't exist without the license fee - thats what pays to make them. It means the BBC can make the stuff that fails as well as succeeds - ITV don't have that luxury hence the shite they mostly put out - everything had to have Ant and Dec in it so that it would succeed.

Why should people pay a licence fee for non BBC content though? Why should someone have to pay money to the BBC so they can watch PL football when BBC have absolutely nothing to do with the production of it?
If they charged the licence fee just for BBC content it would be on it's knees within months

 

[bluethrunthru]

Why should people pay a licence fee for non BBC content though? Why should someone have to pay money to the BBC so they can watch PL football when BBC have absolutely nothing to do with the production of it?
If they charged the licence fee just for BBC content it would be on it's knees within months

well once you and I get our way - you can stop paying the fee as you won't be getting BBC content and all will be well.

 

[aguerrrroooooooooooo]

well once you and I get our way - you can stop paying the fee as you won't be getting BBC content and all will be well.

Fine with me, BBC don't put out anything that I'm particularly bothered about losing

 

[Magicpole]

If any BBC executives are looking in, I am a man and will gladly work for £100,000 a year to present a programme.

I will even bring my own coffee and biscuits and I promise not to shag anyone, or call them treacle.