|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jul 20, 2017 11:17:38 GMT
Lineker thinks it's funny.. Ive just had my twatter account frozen after sending Lineker a message saying along the lines of 'you've wrecked your England legend status in my eyes by being such a money grabbing cunt ' Don't worry, he seems to do a lot of that. |
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Jul 20, 2017 11:18:28 GMT
Lineker thinks it's funny.. |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jul 20, 2017 11:33:47 GMT
I'm not a big fan but Burley seems to sum it up succinctly.... I'm not sure what the beef here is? Is it that the salaries are too high or Is it that women should be allowed to pick up the same high salaries as the men. I rather suspect (but I may be wrong) the female professionals in this industry beef is the latter. They want to be as highly (and unjustly) rewarded as their male counterparts. All swilling at the tough together but equally. The clip isn't a particularly good one but the BBC chap makes some pretty poor excuses for why there is a gender pay gap and what they'll do about it. Wark asked him something like, 'Either reduce men's pay and give it to women, or increase women's pay'. He said he "didn't want to negotiate on air". |
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Jul 20, 2017 12:07:34 GMT
While we all scrap over who should and shouldn't be paid this and that.....take a minute to look at the bigger picture! www.independent.co.uk/voices/bbc-salaries-figures-paid-chris-evans-alan-shearer-laura-keunssberg-privatisation-right-wing-agenda-a7848841.html"the Government’s decision to force the BBC to reveal how much it pays its top stars is an ideological attack on the world’s greatest broadcaster, and the fire is being fuelled by a right-wing media with a vested interest in its privatisation. The main aim behind these figures is not to bring about reform of sexist pay rates at the BBC or to safeguard licence-fee payers’ money. It’s much more about trying to destroy one of the last great “nationalised” bodies in Britain." |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jul 20, 2017 14:52:16 GMT
I'm not sure what the beef here is? Is it that the salaries are too high or Is it that women should be allowed to pick up the same high salaries as the men. I rather suspect (but I may be wrong) the female professionals in this industry beef is the latter. They want to be as highly (and unjustly) rewarded as their male counterparts. All swilling at the tough together but equally. The clip isn't a particularly good one but the BBC chap makes some pretty poor excuses for why there is a gender pay gap and what they'll do about it. Wark asked him something like, 'Either reduce men's pay and give it to women, or increase women's pay'. He said he "didn't want to negotiate on air". yeah - I got that. He was useless. But you're saying what I'm thinking, that in the bubble world of the BBC, Wark's objection is women should feed equally at the pig trough with the men. Fair enough on one level. But not I suspect what most folk outside the world of the BBC think. |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jul 20, 2017 15:27:00 GMT
The clip isn't a particularly good one but the BBC chap makes some pretty poor excuses for why there is a gender pay gap and what they'll do about it. Wark asked him something like, 'Either reduce men's pay and give it to women, or increase women's pay'. He said he "didn't want to negotiate on air". yeah - I got that. He was useless. But you're saying what I'm thinking, that in the bubble world of the BBC, Wark's objection is women should feed equally at the pig trough with the men. Fair enough on one level. But not I suspect what most folk outside the world of the BBC think. I'm not sure what Wark's feelings are. She asked some pretty straight forward questions and the BBC guy just mumbled something about 'value for the viewers' to which Burley tweeted "Bollocks". The feeling I get is that the women probably are pissed off for being under paid but Burley's response was aimed at the poor excuses to why this is happening not so much the difference in pay per se. |
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Jul 20, 2017 15:31:28 GMT
While we all scrap over who should and shouldn't be paid this and that.....take a minute to look at the bigger picture! www.independent.co.uk/voices/bbc-salaries-figures-paid-chris-evans-alan-shearer-laura-keunssberg-privatisation-right-wing-agenda-a7848841.html"the Government’s decision to force the BBC to reveal how much it pays its top stars is an ideological attack on the world’s greatest broadcaster, and the fire is being fuelled by a right-wing media with a vested interest in its privatisation. The main aim behind these figures is not to bring about reform of sexist pay rates at the BBC or to safeguard licence-fee payers’ money. It’s much more about trying to destroy one of the last great “nationalised” bodies in Britain." Good. There's nothing 'great' about this paedo-harbouring club. It needs to go. |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jul 20, 2017 16:11:32 GMT
Whilst it's hard not to be astounded by some of the salaries on offer, the obvious gender bias and noting the political element driven by two major newspaper groups the bigger question for me is what do people want the BBC to be or do?
Should it just be some dire Albanian like publicly owned channel putting on out of syndication Norman Wisdom films, bone dry news output and dated public information films?
Should 'talent' be forced to work for less than they could get in the private sector meaning the BBC would just get second rate 'talent'?
Should they scale back the natural history department and the massively expensive but undeniably brilliant Attenborough programmes (yes I know these make money on the BBC's commercial worldwide arm) but the point still remains in who is the arbiter of what quality and value is.
Or should we simply abolish it and consume all of our information and entertainment from a select few billionaire moguls with massive agendas to see through?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Jul 20, 2017 16:16:30 GMT
the massively expensive but undeniably brilliant Attenborough programmes They're the only thing the BBC has been worth watching for since they gave up the rights to Royal Ascot half-a-dozen years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by rat on Jul 20, 2017 17:24:46 GMT
Whilst it's hard not to be astounded by some of the salaries on offer, the obvious gender bias and noting the political element driven by two major newspaper groups the bigger question for me is what do people want the BBC to be or do? Should it just be some dire Albanian like publicly owned channel putting on out of syndication Norman Wisdom films, bone dry news output and dated public information films? Should 'talent' be forced to work for less than they could get in the private sector meaning the BBC would just get second rate 'talent'? Should they scale back the natural history department and the massively expensive but undeniably brilliant Attenborough programmes (yes I know these make money on the BBC's commercial worldwide arm) but the point still remains in who is the arbiter of what quality and value is. Or should we simply abolish it and consume all of our information and entertainment from a select few billionaire moguls with massive agendas to see through? Sadly Momo, this sort of reasoned debate will never come under discussion on the Oatcake as it stands. That's because it's been overrun by a handful of hateful Dacre Trolls over the last 24 months. It's a shame.  |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jul 20, 2017 20:35:53 GMT
Even the Government, sorry DUP, are not happy 
|
|
|
|
Post by penkvillepotter on Jul 20, 2017 20:45:25 GMT
That's fine, the Government will pay it for them, they're into them balls deep anyway, another push won't make a difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jul 21, 2017 12:53:41 GMT
And the dissmanteling of the bbc continues all for the torys to repay Murdock 10 female presenters 'set to sue public broadcaster over gender pay gap' link |
|
|
|
Post by rat on Jul 21, 2017 12:58:11 GMT
While we all scrap over who should and shouldn't be paid this and that.....take a minute to look at the bigger picture! www.independent.co.uk/voices/bbc-salaries-figures-paid-chris-evans-alan-shearer-laura-keunssberg-privatisation-right-wing-agenda-a7848841.html"the Government’s decision to force the BBC to reveal how much it pays its top stars is an ideological attack on the world’s greatest broadcaster, and the fire is being fuelled by a right-wing media with a vested interest in its privatisation. The main aim behind these figures is not to bring about reform of sexist pay rates at the BBC or to safeguard licence-fee payers’ money. It’s much more about trying to destroy one of the last great “nationalised” bodies in Britain." Good. There's nothing 'great' about this paedo-harbouring club. It needs to go. There are 22,000 decent hard working folks at the BBC, and you have just managed to insult them all.  |
|
|
|
Post by rat on Jul 21, 2017 13:00:31 GMT
And the dissmanteling of the bbc continues all for the torys to repay Murdock 10 female presenters 'set to sue public broadcaster over gender pay gap' linkThis one is personal for that vile, decrepit, liver spotted, reptile. |
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jul 21, 2017 13:19:26 GMT
And the dissmanteling of the bbc continues all for the torys to repay Murdock 10 female presenters 'set to sue public broadcaster over gender pay gap' linkThis one is personal for that vile, decrepit, liver spotted, reptile. That's no way to talk about roger he's far worse |
|
|
|
Post by rat on Jul 21, 2017 13:35:10 GMT
This one is personal for that vile, decrepit, liver spotted, reptile. That's no way to talk about roger he's far worse I actually think i'd rather go for an extended weekend break to Prague with Roger than sit down anyway near that old c**t. And no Roger, that's not an offer before your little tail starts wagging |
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jul 21, 2017 13:45:41 GMT
That's no way to talk about roger he's far worse I actually think i'd rather go for an extended weekend break to Prague with Roger than sit down anyway near that old c**t. And no Roger, that's not an offer before your little tail starts wagging  |
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Jul 21, 2017 16:13:13 GMT
None of the fuckers should be on more than £100.000 a year, if they can't afford to live on £2.000 a week, tough fucking titty.
|
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Jul 21, 2017 17:29:25 GMT
Shearers wage of 450k is much more reasonable when Louise Minchin doesnt even earn £150k a year for getting up at 4Am and presenting a 3 hour morning show for 4 days a week? I think Shearer's pay is fooking obscene for what he does, I would have thought something like £2k for one MOTD was more than enough MCEnroe gets £200k for a fortnight at Wimbledon |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jul 22, 2017 5:55:55 GMT
when Louise Minchin doesnt even earn £150k a year for getting up at 4Am and presenting a 3 hour morning show for 4 days a week? I think Shearer's pay is fooking obscene for what he does, I would have thought something like £2k for one MOTD was more than enough MCEnroe gets £200k for a fortnight at Wimbledon   |
|
|
|
Post by rat on Jul 22, 2017 6:05:46 GMT
when Louise Minchin doesnt even earn £150k a year for getting up at 4Am and presenting a 3 hour morning show for 4 days a week? I think Shearer's pay is fooking obscene for what he does, I would have thought something like £2k for one MOTD was more than enough MCEnroe gets £200k for a fortnight at Wimbledon John McEnroe is a legend and he's exactly the right kind of talent you need as a key BBC pundit for the Wimbledon fortnight. Shearer doing his negative shit on MoTD is a joke. |
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Jul 22, 2017 7:04:24 GMT
MCEnroe gets £200k for a fortnight at Wimbledon John McEnroe is a legend and he's exactly the right kind of talent you need as a key BBC pundit for the Wimbledon fortnight. Shearer doing his negative shit on MoTD is a joke. Shearer was a legend too , it doesn't make them great pundits |
|
|
|
Post by rat on Jul 22, 2017 7:11:17 GMT
John McEnroe is a legend and he's exactly the right kind of talent you need as a key BBC pundit for the Wimbledon fortnight. Shearer doing his negative shit on MoTD is a joke. Shearer was a legend too , it doesn't make them great pundits John McEnroe is a legend AND a great pundit. Shearer isn't really a legend outside of goals scored and he's an awful pundit. |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jul 22, 2017 7:12:56 GMT
John McEnroe is a legend and he's exactly the right kind of talent you need as a key BBC pundit for the Wimbledon fortnight. Shearer doing his negative shit on MoTD is a joke. Shearer was a legend too , it doesn't make them great pundits a lot of younger people who go to wimbledon werent alive when Mcenroe was playing, b£100k a week is a fookin obscene use of licence payers money |
|
|
|
Post by rat on Jul 22, 2017 8:14:17 GMT
Shearer was a legend too , it doesn't make them great pundits a lot of younger people who go to wimbledon werent alive when Mcenroe was playing, b£100k a week is a fookin obscene use of licence payers money Have you ever been? Younger people are definitely in the minority, my little pigeon. |
|
|
|
Post by santy on Jul 22, 2017 8:23:59 GMT
Is there some hidden mantra that you can't be considered a real tory prime minister unless you've privatised something? Cameron got Royal Mail, and since the battering May got in the polls she isn't feeling brave enough to be the one who finally does the NHS so she's going for something similar like the BBC?
Odds are some are getting more money from the BBC, because they could've gotten the same elsewhere. I imagine the only reason Lineker is paid as much as he is, is because Sky Sports or BT sports wouldn't mind him fronting one of their main shows. Sky would probably drop him straight into the Carragher/Neville set-up, or use him to replace Stelling. Would it really seem that unreasonable that perhaps if/when Stelling does go, whoever replaces him also seems some of the others like Phil Thompson phased out and perhaps replaced by someone like Alan Shearer.
No matter what happens, the BBC will never go, its name is too powerful a brand, too recognised across the world to ever be worth canning for anyone. Instead, if its privatised its much better to take it over to further your own commercial goals. Royal Mail was somewhat similar, I'm pretty sure quite a few rival companies now own shares in Royal Mail, such as FedEx, TNT etc.
We are running out of things to privatise though, some of the main burdens must be roads and childrens education. Maybe if we just start auctioning off street by street, and then you have to pay some kind of fee to your street owner if your house happens to be on that street. Some streets could be really prestigious, or if your house is on a really busy street that could perhaps do with being widened the charge for you to have your house on it could soar massively and of course that bit of land you live on, and your whole house becomes worthless.
|
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jul 22, 2017 10:18:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jul 22, 2017 11:12:35 GMT
staggering, for one night and a couple of days work looking at that list, John Humphreys at 73 years old earns £600k PA, I can't recall seeing him on much on the TV these days, does he do radio 4 or something? |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jul 22, 2017 12:17:22 GMT
staggering, for one night and a couple of days work looking at that list, John Humphreys at 73 years old earns £600k PA, I can't recall seeing him on much on the TV these days, does he do radio 4 or something? Today programme on Radio 4 early morning, shares that with Nick Robinson and others and Mastermind. Just imagine the pensions these lot are going to get after they pack it in  |
|
