geezer466 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 (edited) See the video report here where a Snotty Labour Peer teases it Out.. Is there any wonder that people hate the licence fee so much? They read from a bloody Teleprompter (which is scripted by Nu Labour Luvvies) exactly what notional skills do they bring to the job which makes them worth over 3 times average wage? No wonder this Country is so fecked up? The correction still has a long way to go yet............ Apologies Mods another thread is live..... here Please merge... Edited May 12, 2009 by geezer466 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 And what would Lord Foulkes have said if he was being interviewed on Sky News? I suppose Eamonn Holmes is on minimum wage, is he?The whole interview was just a snivelling attempt to try and intimidate the BBC into dropping the story. BBC newsreaders may or may not be overpaid (I've no idea what the market rate is), but that is completely irrelevant to our MPs troughing away at taxpayers money and then trying to blame the media for having the temerity to report the facts. +1 The BBC don't make the laws. MP's/lordshops do and they directly profited from a massive housing bubble which they helped to create. I would like to know how much some of these politicians owe to the banksters. Blair with his mortgages to the C&G I suspect is just the tip of iceberg. Some sound as though they are in up to their necks. There is more to this, than just greed. Some of it smacks of desperation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 the point is that ALL involved in government, the MSM are all highly paid, and ALL are out of touch with reality. 24K? means nothing to people earning £100K who think THEY are having a hard time....I mean, why so much noise about the 10p increase in salaries over £150K? answer: because many MSM are affected. I cannot understand why they dont employ ordinary people to read the news, and other jobs....the applications for such posts would be enormous...no need to pay the Jonathon Rosses of this world 4m, when 10,000 others could do the job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 the point is that ALL involved in government, the MSM are all highly paid, and ALL are out of touch with reality.24K? means nothing to people earning £100K who think THEY are having a hard time....I mean, why so much noise about the 10p increase in salaries over £150K? answer: because many MSM are affected. I cannot understand why they dont employ ordinary people to read the news, and other jobs....the applications for such posts would be enormous...no need to pay the Jonathon Rosses of this world 4m, when 10,000 others could do the job. The newcasters in the 1960's like Reginald Bosenquet and Robert Dougall were basically just actors reading from a script/autocue. Then they decided to replace that lot with "journalists" then I dare say the pay rates went through the roof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britney's Piers Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 BBC pay is unjustified, this leads to people WITHIN the BBC being payed wildly different amounts for doing pretty much the same job. I expect this is a source of discontent within the organization and it wouldn't take much to spark it all off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 The newcasters in the 1960's like Reginald Bosenquet and Robert Dougall were basically just actors reading from a script/autocue. Then they decided to replace that lot with "journalists" then I dare say the pay rates went through the roof. and just how many weather girls are there? are they all trained meteorologists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evictee Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Link to the video of the interview in question:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8045414.stm Oh dear! That was funny. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. "Every single call I make, I make from my own phone!". Shows how much investigative journalism she does then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBingo Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 The whole interview was just a snivelling attempt to try and intimidate the BBC into dropping the story. BBC newsreaders may or may not be overpaid (I've no idea what the market rate is), but that is completely irrelevant to our MPs troughing away at taxpayers money and then trying to blame the media for having the temerity to report the facts. Nope, its exactly the same story. The public sector is overpaid. The slightly senior ones anyway. Nurses and police officers are not. But Public sector bosses are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogs Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 (edited) and just how many weather girls are there? are they all trained meteorologists? At the Beeb yes, they are all meterologists. Or at least, they have a background in maths, physics etc. Meteorology is (arguably) an application domain for more fundamental subjects. Its funny really, the public see highly qualified technical people on TV everyday and dismiss them as fluff. And they think Carol (3rd class degree) Vorderman is 'clever'. Edited May 12, 2009 by Cogs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orsino Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 That incompetent news presenter is not worth £92k a year. Her question was far too long and she was far too rude to Lord Foulkes. The BBC's job is to ask the difficult questions and get the facts - something they have been woefully unwilling or incapable of doing for years when it comes to parliamentary abuses. It is not a news presenter's job to muster up some false indignation at a story the Daily Telegraph has revealed to the public and then start berating random politicians. Lord Foulkes was quite right to slap her down. What the BBC should be asking itself is how as a public service broadcaster, funded by the taxpayer, it has failed in its duty to its license payers to hold elected officials to account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearbullfence Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Maths not his strong point then. 2x64=128 Nor yours, it would seem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copper crutch Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 In an interview on BBC News 24, Labour peer Lord Foulkes demanded to know how much the sniping presenter (Carrie Gracie) was earning from the public purse. She disclosed her salary was £92,000 - almost 50% more than the average MP.Why on earth is an obscure news presenter on a minor digital television station earning so much money? If that's how much she is getting, how much will the main news celebs (Natasha Kaplinsky, Fiona Bruce etc) be earning? What must Anthea Turner be earning. :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirmish Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 What really annoys me is when there are dual presenters reading the news. WHY does it require two? They also have two sports news presenters on News 24. Total waste of OUR money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquid Goldfish Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 (edited) What on earth possessed her to disclose her salary. honesty? I adore Carrie Gracie by the way - plus was impressesd with her fluency in Chinese dialects last year when reporting from China Edited May 12, 2009 by newdman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 More fuel for the bbc wages fire, amazed no one has mentioned this fellow yet: Alan Yentob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 He added that BBC presenters such as John Humphrys and Jeremy Paxman were paid hundreds of thousands of pounds "to come on TV and sneer at democracy and undermine democracy...."The intention always has been to publish this. ...." So criticising and questioning some MPs for defrauding taxpayers is "sneering at democracy" and "undermining democracy". If that's the case then democracy really needs to get it's act together as it seems to have lost its way. And why did they try to prevent publication when "the intention always has been to publish this" and why all the fuss and then the threatening of "the mole" if it was "always" their intention to publish. They just can't help twisting things and it's a pity that the interview was allowed to be diverted onto the issue of BBC salaries which is a separate although important matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolfonz Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 You are surprised some people in the media earn big wages for doing s0d all? This has been going on for many many years, real journalists have been sidelined (they are too expensive) investigative journalism is expensive, dangerous (in terms of libel) and may turn up nothing. Far better to replace with half wits like Littlejohn, Toynbee etc or news presenters who read out wire snaps and pretend it is `breaking news`... The past editors of the Sun, Mirror, NoTW, Star, People have all earned buckets of cash, Rebbekah Wade at £500k/year and all presided over huge circulation losses... Tom Glocer head of Thompson Reuters earned £11mn last year and put a wage and external hire freeze on the company...check out his personal web site... Meanwhile journalists have seen their wages stagnant for 20 years... Wise up folks...when market forces (including the BBC who bought into it all under Birt) dominate journalism all you will get is infotainment... The best media is the FT/Economist/New Scientist...whatever your politics... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBingo Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 At the Beeb yes, they are all meterologists.Or at least, they have a background in maths, physics etc. Meteorology is (arguably) an application domain for more fundamental subjects. Its funny really, the public see highly qualified technical people on TV everyday and dismiss them as fluff. And they think Carol (3rd class degree) Vorderman is 'clever'. And how clever you are to scoff. Another one is that Einstein chap, dropped out of school and flunked the entrance exam to a university. What a blithering idiot lol lol lol. Either that or she is a better mind than you ever hope to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
symo Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 End the license. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Ray Valentine Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 At the Beeb yes, they are all meterologists.Or at least, they have a background in maths, physics etc. Meteorology is (arguably) an application domain for more fundamental subjects. Its funny really, the public see highly qualified technical people on TV everyday and dismiss them as fluff. And they think Carol (3rd class degree) Vorderman is 'clever'. So what. Does the bbc need so many meterologists? Would two be enough? Is there not an independent body that does weather reports that the bbc could pay a small fee to use their information? Do they need to present the weather at all? Why not just have the newsreader quickly state the expected weather at the end of a broadcast instead of turning to another presenter to do the same job. It's blolocks. The weather presenters are picked for their ability to present, not their ability as meterologists. Do the bbc need so many sports presenters?? What a fuggin' gravy train that is! How many wealthy footballers do they need to pay a small fortune to sit their for 10 minutes a week and spout stuff about a match that just about any punter could see for themselves? Stand up Alan Hansen and Mark Lawrenson et al! I'd love to know how much these smug chancers are being paid to do nothing but watch football all year round - not to mention the great holidays they have when they are unnecessarily flown overseas to cover tournaments. The BBC is a disgrace. A lumbering gravy train of a 'news' organisation with no integrity whatsoever. If people knew about many of the things knowingly covered up by them many of these celebrity journos would end up in jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AuntJess Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 So what. Does the bbc need so many meterologists? Would two be enough? Is there not an independent body that does weather reports that the bbc could pay a small fee to use their information? Do they need to present the weather at all? Why not just have the newsreader quickly state the expected weather at the end of a broadcast instead of turning to another presenter to do the same job. It's blolocks.The weather presenters are picked for their ability to present, not their ability as meterologists. Do the bbc need so many sports presenters?? What a fuggin' gravy train that is! How many wealthy footballers do they need to pay a small fortune to sit their for 10 minutes a week and spout stuff about a match that just about any punter could see for themselves? Stand up Alan Hansen and Mark Lawrenson et al! I'd love to know how much these smug chancers are being paid to do nothing but watch football all year round - not to mention the great holidays they have when they are unnecessarily flown overseas to cover tournaments. The BBC is a disgrace. A lumbering gravy train of a 'news' organisation with no integrity whatsoever. If people knew about many of the things knowingly covered up by them many of these celebrity journos would end up in jail. It might be worth it if the bUggers got the weather right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spivT Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 she'd have to be on that channel readin the autocue 24-hours a bloody day to even come close to justifiying 92k a year. I'm glad she's been honest, hopefully we'll get a root and branch review, and uncover some other obscene pay levels for non-entities in auntie pravda. For a start i'd like to know how much the pair presenting that property ramp yesterday are on ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spivT Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 sport is a huge gravy train at the bbc. I mean, how much do they pay parrot to be the gap toothed lump on the sofa during the world championship snooker coverage ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richc Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 In an interview on BBC News 24, Labour peer Lord Foulkes demanded to know how much the sniping presenter (Carrie Gracie) was earning from the public purse. She disclosed her salary was £92,000 - almost 50% more than the average MP.Why on earth is an obscure news presenter on a minor digital television station earning so much money? If that's how much she is getting, how much will the main news celebs (Natasha Kaplinsky, Fiona Bruce etc) be earning? According to the amount of Local Housing Allowance set by the Department of Work and Pensions, a family with 4 children in central London needs 108,000 pounds a year to provide an acceptable level of housing, i.e. a pre-tax income of about 175,000 pounds a year. By that reasoning, I'd say the news presenters at the BBC are being underpaid and exploited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE BALD MAN Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 According to the amount of Local Housing Allowance set by the Department of Work and Pensions, a family with 4 children in central London needs 108,000 pounds a year to provide an acceptable level of housing, i.e. a pre-tax income of about 175,000 pounds a year. By that reasoning, I'd say the news presenters at the BBC are being underpaid and exploited. This is becasue of the madness of HPI. We have lived beyond our means for the last 10 years as a country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.