BBC pay cuts

Reading a bit on the BBC it seems that male presenters may be asked to take a pay cut to appease the tofu weavers getting the sandals in a mess over the fact men get paid more than women. Would you take a pay cut to appease this sort of thing? There are women in our dept on the same money as blokes and play the "I’m a woman’ line when it suits them and get away with doing things.

I was amazed that Claudia Winkleman was on £450K+, she has to be one of the least talented bod on TV.

I though it was poor that the BBC was forced into disclosing who gets paid what because it is publicly funded. Frankly I think ALL public sector bodies should publish lists of everyone getting salaries of more that £70K (include any ‘perks’ they get and add a value to that) and open that to full and proper scrutiny. We are constantly being told that the public sector has no money and I am sure there are many in gilt-edged roles effectively getting money for old rope. Our company has gone through 2 processes whereby they look at the management structure they would need if they were starting again. It has resulted each time in several manager and supervisor posts going or taking on more responsibilities. Our dept had 3 managers and has had one for the last 7 years and supervisors from 7 to 3. I think many parts of the [ublic sector should go through this process. I’ve got mates who work for the council, hospitals and schools and say there are lots of people in jobs that could be lost and no one would notice.

1 Like

“Gender pay gap”.


Meanwhile in the military, women get the same pay for doing less work.

I have to say that the figures seem fair - much as I don’t really care for Chris Evans, he provides a lot of air time and is very well-known; whereas Winkleman to my knowledge has far less air time and whilst being a vaguely likeable sort is probably much more easily replacable.

Simialrly, I can’t think of a racial minority person on the BBC who is anywhere near as well-known as the likes of Graham Norton or John Humphries.

If they really want to compare it needs to be like-for-like - does Krishnan Guru Murphy get paid roughly the same as Jon Snow (perhaps slightly less based om experience)? Does Sabine Schmitz get paid the same as Eddie Jordan for Top Gear?

How much does Trevor McDonald get?

I don’t think he has a regular TV job at the moment?

Since my first real job with BEA in 1969 until I retired, My pay has always been:

a) The same as a woman doing the same job.

b) Published in the public domain.

I don’t see the problem, what you get paid should not be a secret. Even the Queen’s pay is published.

I can see that some broadcasters are worth more than others, but am astonished that the IDIOT gets two million.

1 Like

I don’t think anyone should know. Why should they? Why make a big deal about it.

All it proves is who is smart enough to negotiate a decent contract and who’s stupid to take any offering.

All in the name of that mythical gender pay gap. It’s just the long bony socialist fingers tightening it’s grip.
1984 is the future.

But if the BBC can afford to pay that bunch of talentless doorknobs that obscene amount of money, then they can do away with that god awful TV license.

I fail to see how anyone can call a gender pay gap mythical when presented with the evidence like this story.

The simple fact is that across the world women are paid less for doing the same job as men because they’re female. In the UK this is supposedly illegal but still happens.

I’m also astounded that anyone would be against equal pay (actually, I’m not astounded that most* of the previous posters are. But then they usual spout drivel from the dark ages anyway).

*with some exceptions.

I’m all in favour of equal pay, but that’s based on the work you do. If you work on a more valuable programme you will get paid more than those who work on less valuable programmes. The most valuable programmes on the BBC are Match of the Day and Top Gear as such the presenters of both are likely to earn the most money. That’s not sexism it’s business. Now to expect those presenters to take a pay cut for political reasons is just bad business and will cost the BBC valuable talent which will leave for the private sector.


There’s plenty of evidence out there to prove it’s not real.

However I will give you, that the correct answer is yes and no. Depending on what evidence you look at.

The short answer is the younger age demograph don’t have pay disparity, the disparity comes from older ages - 40ish If I remember correctly.

And looking at TV presenters pay doesn’t prove anything. Some bring in more money than others. It’s a straw man.

You want women paid equal for the same work? What about the Armed Forces? Females get same pay, expected to work at a lesser standard?
Female tennis players have equal prize money yet do less work?

I want equal pay, so why can’t male pornography actors be paid equal to their female counter parts?

1 Like

And much more importantly why is my TV license being spent on these doorknobs?

Especially considering they received funding from the EU, during the run up to the referendum as well, and under the Treason and Felony Act 1848, it is illegal to
" “move or stir” any foreigner to invade the United Kingdom or any other country belonging to the Queen."

The Bias Broadcasting Corporation can suck my plums.

In the case of the BBC they don’t do the same job. Is reading the news the same as presenting a radio programme or hosting a quiz show etc etc. Even then if it is a popular show it will come down largely to the presenter / front man/woman and they can demand more money. I listen to Ken Bruce at work (more so it’s on in the background) and I’m not as enthused when he’s not the presenter. I used to listen to Mark and Lard on R1 and stopped listening when they stopped presenting. The same can be said of many other TV and radio programmes and many people do likewise.

The other thing that has been missed in the instance of the BBC is that the vast majority are not employed in the same sense as all / many of us employed are and not have a catch all like “whatever management requests” clause, but will have agents who will go to the BBC and say if you want x to do y then it will cost this, if you the BBC then say we want them to q and s and t the agent will say that will cost this on top and if the BBC want them as they bring in listeners / viewers they can demand more.
I do think that some of the chavvie phone vote “talent” / celebrity doing things shows they could have anyone presenting them and people would watch them, frankly I can’t stand them, years of watching Opportunity Knocks when I was kid put me off this type of programmes.

So the notion of the “gender pay gap” is a nice headline for papers to get into, but actually isn’t as simple as that.

You could say the same in sport where male footballers, cricketers etc will get more than the equivalent female player and even within many teams players don’t get all the same.

I think there needs to greater scrutiny of the public sector in terms of pay and cut the pay rates of top earners as they aren’t actually making money or have that responsibility as their equivalent in the private sector would do. I think that senior management in the armed forces, health, education. local govt and cvil service are getting money for old rope, but like it in these areas as they are never directly accountable and can hide behind ministers of state to take the fall for their shortcomings.

Spot on. At Wimbledon this year Federer played 196 games against Muguruza’s 132. 132 games is only 6 more (one set to love) than Federer would have played had he won each of his matches in straight sets. Yet they get the same money, totally absurd.

i don’t think the argument of games won at Wimbledon is a fair case to use as an argument of “equality” in pay

there are two players in the final, lets take the exam of the mens game playing the best of 5 sets.

if PlayerA wins all 6 rounds and the final in straight sets:
(6 games x 3 sets) x 7 rounds = 126 games played

if PlayerB scrapes through each set 6-4, (and looses by the same margin) as as such making each round a competition:
each game 6-4, 4-6, 6-4, 4-6, 6-4 = 26 games per match
26 games over 7 rounds = 182 games

who is more worthy of the prize as champion? PlayerA as clear winner through out the whole competition? or Player B one who had to play out of their skin to achieve greatness?

this opens up more than simply a case of gender difference and more on performance based reward yet the same argument of games played is being used.

the money for such a competition is prize money, a [b[prize[/b], as part of a game. not earnings based on an hourly rate or this example games played.

I understand the argument the ladies game by default is “less effort” for the same money, but it cannot be as clear cut as that.

I am sure there are cases in the working environment which reflect this more realistically.

Take the role of a Regular airman, lets say a Cpl, the roles are varied and many, from RAF Police, Chef, aircraft technicans, regiment gunner, nurse, PTI, Instructors, even Admin clerks
Their pay would sit within the same bracket for Cpl pay, yet the work of a PTI or admin clerk working 9-5 could be considered easy money against that of the RAF Police or chefs working long hours in shifts.
(I would be surprised if there was a Cpl in Trade A on more than a Sgt in Trade B)

But by the token of the above any sort of pay equality for men and women is complete and utter tosh. Everywhere you have the men and women doing different jobs but on the same grade/rank et al. I work with women who get the same salary as me and do less than I do, but that’s the way it is in our company and you need to put a bloody good argument forward to get re graded. We have cleaners at work and the women moan as they don’t get the same as the men, but they refuse to do certain things like shifting furniture and working at height so don’t get the same rate.

WRT to the BBC like all areas of entertainment the people they employ are represented by agents and it those agents that go in when it comes to contract time and no doubt look at many factors and say to the BBC if you want say Chris Evans you will need to pay this amount because he’s popular and adds £?? of value to the BBC, and the BBC go OK and someone who adds less value to the BBC be they male or female if their agent goes in and demands the same they’ll be told no. You can look at any football team throughout the leagues and there are people getting paid more than others because they add value in some way.

I have been moderated! Whilst I can see that the second word of my description of the guy who gets over 2 million, used to be a word that was considered rude (although not now) and it was the computer that removed that, but the first word described the colour of the guy’s hair which has also been removed by a moderator and the name changed to IDIOT. Are we going too far with political correctness?

Just to set the record straight, I don’t think he can be an idiot as he has talked the BBC into giving him a lot of money for doing not much. I still think of him as the ****** ****

The person concerned (in case the identity is in doubt) was the one who only lasted one season on Top Gear.

If you want to question moderation, please do it in private.

I have replied in PM and removed further off topic posts.

1 Like

The problem wrt TG was the BBC thought Mr Evans could be like Jezza, forgetting that TG’s popularity was because of the three presenters, their personalities, their ‘relationship’ and what each of them brought to the party. I tried watching TG in the first of the new series and gave up, after 30 minutes and haven’t bothered since, I’ve never liked Matt le Blanc. I wasn’t surprised that Chris Evans only lasted one series, as he seems to be busy with too many other things and couldn’t be as controversial as Jezza, (which is the main reason I like him) and have been able to do some of the things done on TG, like the specials, which I still enjoy watching on Dave. I’m just waiting for amazon to sell the rights to a free to air channel to watch the GT series.

As for how much he gets ‘paid’ by the BBC and others for personal appearances, I would bet his agent is smiling as well. I remember our works paying what I thought was a small fortune to Bobby George in the 80s for an exhibition darts night, but the club was packed. Some of the triple Z list of so called celebrities can command a few hundred quid for an appearance.

I looked Carrie Gracie up, after some blokes at the BBC took pay cuts because of her whining and the spineless BBC’s approach.
Look at Gracie and she did ONE thing for the BBC, the blokes in the main do more than one thing for the BBC. She should have been grateful for getting paid what she was, rather than doing the poor me act.

I’m waiting for a “gender pay gap” where a woman gets more than a bloke. it wouldn’t get covered.

1 Like