The BBC's 'massive' salaries ...

[Drummond]

The BBC was ordered to publicise the wages it pays the 'stars' in its employment. They produced an account of this information today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40653383


Chris Evans has topped the list of the BBC's best-paid stars.

He made between £2.2m and £2.25m in 2016/2017, while Claudia Winkleman is the highest-paid female celebrity, earning between £450,000 and £500,000.

About two-thirds of stars earning more than £150,000 are male, compared to one-third female, according to the BBC annual report.
Director general Tony Hall said there was "more to do" on gender and diversity.

"On gender and diversity, the BBC is more diverse than the broadcasting industry and the Civil Service," he said.

"We've made progress, but we recognise there is more to do and we are pushing further and faster than any other broadcaster."

The large salaries has earned the BBC much criticism (after all, the public is forced to pay for them, from a licence fee !). What 'amused' me especially was what I just heard (on BBC Radio 4's lunchtime news programme) given as a justification. The commentator claimed (I think I'm quoting this at least fairly accurately) that the BBC was 'vital to the culture and life of Britain'.

What astonishing arrogance ... the BBC actually thinks it's VITAL to the fabric of our society .... so, then, if the BBC ever suffers large cutbacks, or is closed entirely, UK society will fall apart - we'll all be 'doomed' ..... ??!!

-- Thoughts, reactions, anyone ?

-- Laughter, maybe .... ??

[SMTA]

The BBC was ordered to publicise the wages it pays the 'stars' in its employment. They produced an account of this information today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40653383



The large salaries has earned the BBC much criticism (after all, the public is forced to pay for them, from a licence fee !). What 'amused' me especially was what I just heard (on BBC Radio 4's lunchtime news programme) given as a justification. The commentator claimed (I think I'm quoting this at least fairly accurately) that the BBC was 'vital to the culture and life of Britain'.

What astonishing arrogance ... the BBC actually thinks it's VITAL to the fabric of our society .... so, then, if the BBC ever suffers large cutbacks, or is closed entirely, UK society will fall apart - we'll all be 'doomed' ..... ??!!

-- Thoughts, reactions, anyone ?

-- Laughter, maybe .... ??
How is this such a big issue when there are hundreds of millions spent on the royal family each year?

[darin]

That's sorta misleading....150k in/around London is NOT a lot of money. Using a simple tax calculator, 150k in the UK would be about £90,176.48 take home.

Living on £90k in a place like London where the median rent price could be £1500/month...that's approaching £20,000/year in lodging.



With regard to the Gender and Pay and stuff...

I don't give a shit. it's GOOD to pay the person who gets the best return-on-investment for the company :)

[Drummond]

That's sorta misleading....150k in/around London is NOT a lot of money. Using a simple tax calculator, 150k in the UK would be about £90,176.48 take home.

Living on £90k in a place like London where the median rent price could be £1500/month...that's approaching £20,000/year in lodging.



With regard to the Gender and Pay and stuff...

I don't give a shit. it's GOOD to pay the person who gets the best return-on-investment for the company :)

Good points, and accurate ones. The cost of living in London is phenomenal these days ...

I think the chief cause of complaint, though, would be the top earners' rate of pay -- who, after all, get their pay from a licence fee which, by law, UK citizens HAVE to pay. It's reasonable to expect, if you're forced to pay such a tax, to see it paid in the 'best' way possible (.. though what constitutes 'best' is obviously open to interpretation ..).

I also agree on the gender issue. You pay a presenter according to ability ... as well as availability ! I'd be willing to bet that more women would earn more if they were able to prove their worth, instead of expecting political correctness regimes to 'carry' them ...

[Drummond]

How is this such a big issue when there are hundreds of millions spent on the royal family each year?

Oh dear. You're anti-Royalist ? Does that, by any chance, stem from Socialist sensibilities ?

Regardless of whether or not it does ... the Royal Family truly IS a part of the British Establishment. The BBC merely (delusionally) thinks it is.

Besides ... it's not as though the money is wasted. The Royal Family has long since been good for our economy .. when it comes to foreign diplomacy and greater ties with other nations who also have Royal Families, for example. They're also excellent for domestic tourism revenues.

Try standing outside Buckingham Palace. There are tourists there on a daily basis, for whom just being outside their residence is a valued tourist opportunity -- and, yes, some are Americans ....

[CSM]

Oh dear. You're anti-Royalist ? Does that, by any chance, stem from Socialist sensibilities ?

Regardless of whether or not it does ... the Royal Family truly IS a part of the British Establishment. The BBC merely (delusionally) thinks it is.

Besides ... it's not as though the money is wasted. The Royal Family has long since been good for our economy .. when it comes to foreign diplomacy and greater ties with other nations who also have Royal Families, for example. They're also excellent for domestic tourism revenues.

Try standing outside Buckingham Palace. There are tourists there on a daily basis, for whom just being outside their residence is a valued tourist opportunity -- and, yes, some are Americans ....

Pretty sure the Americans are there to gloat... just sayin...

[SMTA]

Oh dear. You're anti-Royalist ? Does that, by any chance, stem from Socialist sensibilities ?

Regardless of whether or not it does ... the Royal Family truly IS a part of the British Establishment. The BBC merely (delusionally) thinks it is.

Besides ... it's not as though the money is wasted. The Royal Family has long since been good for our economy .. when it comes to foreign diplomacy and greater ties with other nations who also have Royal Families, for example. They're also excellent for domestic tourism revenues.

Try standing outside Buckingham Palace. There are tourists there on a daily basis, for whom just being outside their residence is a valued tourist opportunity -- and, yes, some are Americans ....
All I did was ask a reasonable question.
Your hyperbole assumptions are ridiculous.

[Abbey Marie]

Oh dear. You're anti-Royalist ? Does that, by any chance, stem from Socialist sensibilities ?

Regardless of whether or not it does ... the Royal Family truly IS a part of the British Establishment. The BBC merely (delusionally) thinks it is.

Besides ... it's not as though the money is wasted. The Royal Family has long since been good for our economy .. when it comes to foreign diplomacy and greater ties with other nations who also have Royal Families, for example. They're also excellent for domestic tourism revenues.

Try standing outside Buckingham Palace. There are tourists there on a daily basis, for whom just being outside their residence is a valued tourist opportunity -- and, yes, some are Americans ....


From the the little bit I've read so far from SMTA, he is clearly not Socialist.

[SMTA]

From the the little bit I've read so far from SMTA, he is clearly not Socialist.
You are correct.
Many people these days grasp desperately at labels to throw on everybody and everything.
I find this to be done mainly by folks who cling to all of the tenants of a very specific discipline, blindly following the exact platform without any individual thought.
Nothing in this world is ever black and white, and people especially do not fit well into conveniently labeled boxes.

[hjmick]

Oh dear. You're anti-Royalist ? Does that, by any chance, stem from Socialist sensibilities ?

Regardless of whether or not it does ... the Royal Family truly IS a part of the British Establishment. The BBC merely (delusionally) thinks it is.

Besides ... it's not as though the money is wasted. The Royal Family has long since been good for our economy .. when it comes to foreign diplomacy and greater ties with other nations who also have Royal Families, for example. They're also excellent for domestic tourism revenues.

Try standing outside Buckingham Palace. There are tourists there on a daily basis, for whom just being outside their residence is a valued tourist opportunity -- and, yes, some are Americans ....



Kate Middleton... er... Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge.

'Nuf said.

[Drummond]

Pretty sure the Americans are there to gloat... just sayin...

Well, I've walked amongst them. I saw no evidence at all of gloating.

[Drummond]

You are correct.
Many people these days grasp desperately at labels to throw on everybody and everything.
I find this to be done mainly by folks who cling to all of the tenants of a very specific discipline, blindly following the exact platform without any individual thought.
Nothing in this world is ever black and white, and people especially do not fit well into conveniently labeled boxes.

I disagree. OK ... so there are times when issues aren't straightforwardly black or white. But to say that 'nothing in this world is ever black and white' is an absurdity.

An example (albeit an extreme one) ... question ... is cannibalism wrong ?

Find me the person, or, offer an argument, who'll say that it's neither straightforwardly right or wrong ... that to 'cling to a specific discipline' with respect to its rightness, or wrongness, is a questionable act. Go on ... try it ....

Here's another one. Is genocide wrong ?

How's that 'nothing in this world is ever black and white' statement working for you now, SMTA ?

Some of us, you see, have an absolute sense of right v wrong, SMTA. We're not bigots for it ... we're not 'blind' to do so. We just maintain a sense of decency and moral fortitude, which acts as our guide.

There is a name for such people (apart from 'Christian', of course). We're called ... 'Conservative thinkers'.

I for one am not fond of fudging my responses to something I'm certain is wrong. I'll happily offer an argument illustrating my position, and invite it to be tested through debate. But I'll do so from a standpoint of a conviction in my beliefs.

I am not wrong to do so. However, if debate shows my viewpoint to be weak or indefensible, then I'll concede to my opponent.

[SMTA]

I disagree. OK ... so there are times when issues aren't straightforwardly black or white. But to say that 'nothing in this world is ever black and white' is an absurdity.

An example (albeit an extreme one) ... question ... is cannibalism wrong ?

Find me the person, or, offer an argument, who'll say that it's neither straightforwardly right or wrong ... that to 'cling to a specific discipline' with respect to its rightness, or wrongness, is a questionable act. Go on ... try it ....

Here's another one. Is genocide wrong ?

How's that 'nothing in this world is ever black and white' statement working for you now, SMTA ?

Some of us, you see, have an absolute sense of right v wrong, SMTA. We're not bigots for it ... we're not 'blind' to do so. We just maintain a sense of decency and moral fortitude, which acts as our guide.

There is a name for such people (apart from 'Christian', of course). We're called ... 'Conservative thinkers'.

I for one am not fond of fudging my responses to something I'm certain is wrong. I'll happily offer an argument illustrating my position, and invite it to be tested through debate. But I'll do so from a standpoint of a conviction in my beliefs.

I am not wrong to do so. However, if debate shows my viewpoint to be weak or indefensible, then I'll concede to my opponent.

The survivors of the 1972 Andes airplane crash had to resort to cannibalism of their friends to survive.

If there are 2 families living in our valley, and the other family begins to kill off my family members, I would retaliate.
Killing every one of the rival family in self defense of my family would be considered genocide by some, but would actually be an act of self preservation and self defense.

If the world is so absolutely black and white as you believe, then there would be no need for the courts to establish case law when questions arise that were never thought of when the laws were created.

Conservatives have no absolute hold on moral beliefs as you believe.
Your heavily skewed beliefs have blinded your assessment of others.
I have read some of your posts here, and your obvious disgust for those who do not follow your beliefs is far from any civil Christian behavior that I have seen.
Terry McVeigh was an ardent conservative, and also a murderer and domestic terrorist.
Maybe he can be your Conservative poster child.

[CSM]

Well, I've walked amongst them. I saw no evidence at all of gloating.

LOL... I suspect that many of them have no clue that there was a rebellion a few hundred years ago...

If I were there, I would be gloating!

[Drummond]

LOL... I suspect that many of them have no clue that there was a rebellion a few hundred years ago...

If I were there, I would be gloating!

You're referring to a past long since dead. We've moved on since then, I'd suggest ....

... or, in the Queen's name, maybe the UK should invade the US .... that'd be jolly ... :rolleyes:

[Drummond]

:rolleyes::rolleyes:
The survivors of the 1972 Andes airplane crash had to resort to cannibalism of their friends to survive.

If there are 2 families living in our valley, and the other family begins to kill off my family members, I would retaliate.
Killing every one of the rival family in self defense of my family would be considered genocide by some, but would actually be an act of self preservation and self defense.

If the world is so absolutely black and white as you believe, then there would be no need for the courts to establish case law when questions arise that were never thought of when the laws were created.

Conservatives have no absolute hold on moral beliefs as you believe.
Your heavily skewed beliefs have blinded your assessment of others.
I have read some of your posts here, and your obvious disgust for those who do not follow your beliefs is far from any civil Christian behavior that I have seen.
Terry McVeigh was an ardent conservative, and also a murderer and domestic terrorist.
Maybe he can be your Conservative poster child.

I see from your post that you have no kind or charitable regard for a Conservative mindset. Yes -- there it is -- I thought I'd spotted as much. Well, if you regard my attitudes and conduct as 'far from Christian behaviour' ...well ... since you evidently share that same tendency towards intolerance, should I judge you likewise ?

... or would this be 'somehow different', in your specific case ?:rolleyes:

To the points you raise, then ...

1. Regarding the 'survivors of the 1972 Andes airplane crash' ... that's an interesting case. I've just read up on it. Seems your brief description is accurate (though you omit to make clear that the flesh eaten was of already dead people). And .. on consideration, OK, I must concede your point. People didn't die from those acts of cannibalism who weren't already dead, and resorting to cannibalism did enable survivors to remain survivors.

As thoroughly repugnant as I find all this to be ... from a purely practical standpoint, I must agree that this is a case where what happened was, arguably, defensible. Your example does show that purely black v white judgmentality can't therefore be said to apply. Accepted.

2. The hypothetical example of the '2 families' you cited wouldn't amount to genocide. Here's a definition of 'genocide' ...

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/genocide


noun1.
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

I fail to see how the killing of one single family meets the criterion expressed in that definition. If in fact it doesn't .. your example is invalid, and my previous point stands on the question of genocide. If it DOES stand ... then ... we have an example, so far an unassailable one, of where an absolute, black v white, judgment is the only one applicable.

I suggest you either concede I'm right, or, find a better example to re-attempt a refutation (you're very welcome to try). And of course, if I am right, then my overall point stands .. in certain ways, on certain issues, a black v white judgment is literally the only way to go.

Let me remind you of your own words. In your previous post, YOU said exactly this:


'nothing in this world is ever black and white'

-- Nothing ? Nothing at all ? Seriously ?

One final point. From your post, where you said ....


If the world is so absolutely black and white as you believe, then there would be no need for the courts to establish case law when questions arise that were never thought of when the laws were created.

... on the face of it, it might seem you have a fair point. I'd suggest, though, that what you're really citing is nothing more or less than a matter of attention to detail, of tightening up on a law (or omission of one previously) so that a black v white judgment IS possible in law on the matter or issue in question. No legal system is perfect, and sometimes legal precedent has to be established in order to plug a previously-existing loophole.

Think of it as equivalent, say, to a road that's suddenly developed a large hole, beyond which cars cannot travel, to complete their journeys down that road. An absolute need would exist to fix the hole and repair the road, serving an absolute need to permit uninterrupted travel. So, the repair job is done. No 'judgmental ambiguity' is, or would be, involved in any of that. Likewise, in your precedent-fixing example ... it's just a question of filling a hole where one otherwise existed ....

[SMTA]

You're referring to a past long since dead. We've moved on since then, I'd suggest ....

... or, in the Queen's name, maybe the UK should invade the US .... that'd be jolly ... :rolleyes:

It will turn out just like the first time - make sure to send tea first, again - and tax the Hell out of it.

We'll have another party on the docks.

[Drummond]

It will turn out just like the first time - make sure to send tea first, again - and tax the Hell out of it.

We'll have another party on the docks.

... yes. You're very fond of taxation, it seems.

There are many present-day Conservatives who'd think very differently on that matter. I am one, of course (.. even if I am British ..). Tax only when, and if, absolutely necessary ...