The BBC gender pay gap

[Ken L]

I haven't laughed so much in ages.

How many of the six female "stars" used in this article can you name without scrolling down and reading the names?

I got just one - and recognised two more once I read the names.

I'm still clueless on the other three.

 

By contrast, I'd have recognised the top three earning blokes instantly, I wouldn't have got Jeremy vine and I'd have eventually got the two newsreaders (John Humphreys and Huw Edwards) after a bit of brain racking.

[John S]

Got three of them straight off. Of the other three, heard of one, never heard of the other two. So, what do the BBC do? Raise the salaries of female stars? Lower the salaries for male stars (and risk losing them to other networks)? They'll have to do something now it's all come out, but will it mean that we, the viewers who pay for our TV licences, get value for our money*?

 

*I doubt it.

[ayjay]

I didn't know Alex Jones' name: recognised her face, but I don't watch anything she's on. I could name the others.

 

They're getting far too much money for what they do - women included.

 

Make it a max of £50k per year and they won't be short of applicants............and if that means losing Chris Evans - GOOD!

[Ken L]

Not me, I haven't had a TV licence for years.

I got Claire Balding right away and then recognised Sue Barker and Victoria Derbyshire as I read the article.

I may or may not have worked them out if I hadn't read the names.

 

The highest paid woman was Winkleman who I associate with rendering "Film" unwatchable before she left. She apparently presents strictly come dancing as well as doing a few other odds and ends and that three months work reportedly makes her most of her half a million quid a year. Nice work if you can get it.

[Martin56]

Time the BBC were forced into doing adverts & then the TV Licence fee could be abolished.

[Ken L]

I've no real problem with the notion of a state broadcaster but the BBC massively overreaches itself with a dozen or so TV channels, more than 60 radio stations, internet services, international services etc, most of which have no business being publicly funded.

 

I'm not a fan of the licence fee because if you are going to fund a state broadcaster, a licence fee is a very inefficient way of doing it. If we have to have the BBC, fund it through primary taxation and pay the staff as what they are - civil servants.

 

Strangely, I'm not a fan of advertising on the BBC. If we accept that it is an organ of government, then it doesn't really do to have it in bed with advertisers.

[ayjay]

Time the BBC were forced into doing adverts

 

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

 

I need something ad-free to watch now and again, everything else is a serial in ten minute segments which I soon get sick of and turn off.

[Ken L]

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

 

I need something ad-free to watch now and again, everything else is a serial in ten minute segments which I soon get sick of and turn off.

Netflix?

[chesters1]

 

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

 

I need something ad-free to watch now and again, everything else is a serial in ten minute segments which I soon get sick of and turn off.

Showbox? Youtube ,filmone? Cloud tv ?,plenty out there

What i disagree with is it should be scrambled half the world can watch it absolutely free! And more annoyingly is theres a few bbc channels we cannot see ,bbc world (the channel that tells johny foreigner where we are so they can pop over for tea)for one isnt on the Astra satellite group so unless you have a motorised system you wont see it on satellite ,i think theres a scrambled one on freesat as well not available without getting a freesat box ! Why not a bbc satellite card that gets you every bbc made program anywhere with your licence? Its bad enough bugger all comes down our arial in the summer and only 4 programs in the rain!

 

Do people actually pay for netflix or sky?

Edited July 23, 2017 by chesters1

[Andy_1984]

I didnt get a single one, then seen sue barkers name, still couldnt tell you what one it is.