More money than an MP

[Huguenot]

So she makes more money than an MP, so how is that?

Expenses anyone?

[Mikecg]

With those teeth she needs all the money she can get.

[dulwichmum]

I agree. The woman should be marched to the nearest cosmetic dentist. She desserves help. I expect that she could put her new teeth on expenses...

[Mikecg]

Yes DM I think they were fired in via Catapult from 500 paces.

[Jeremy]

Apparently 92 is almost twice as much as 64.

Except it's not.

And even if it was, it's irrelevant.

[Brendan]

Yeah the bugger still earns more than me and he can?t even do maths.

[*Bob*]

If you believe that the current hoo-haa is (partly) a hypocritical media-driven feeding frenzy then it doesn't seem irrelevant to ask a member of the media - also funded by the taxpayer - how much she gets paid for reading from an autocue - as she harps on about misuse of the public purse.

I'm more shocked by the revelations about her pay than I am about a claim for a tampon.

But then I don't suppose the press will be pushing this one to the max, will they?

[AllforNun]

How is that ?

Because the Fucking BBC is a licence to print money and hide behind the bullshit that you are the world greatest living broadcaster, and that somehow you actually have BBC dna in your genes ! the fact that the british public has bank rolled you for ever is just a side issue and they, the public, should be greatful that the great and god of wimbledon, Richmond and Surbiton allow you to tune in a marvel at their greatness !

Let get the reciepts from these muppets next we will have a field day, start with thompson and his 6grand flights to LA! and his NOBU expense account, not to mention his tweed suits.

Asses !

[Jeremy]

The BBC have to pay presenters in line with competitors, for obvious reasons. Having vaguely known a couple of people who have done TV and radio work, her salary certainly does not seem disproportionate.

You can't use your base salary as justification for dodgy expense claims. (Saying that, I still firmly believe that all this expense claim stuff isn't as serious as many are making out).

[AllforNun]

"The BBC have to pay presenters in line with competitors, for obvious reasons. Having vaguely known a couple of people who have done TV and radio work, her salary certainly does not seem disproportionate. "

the problem with this is that the age old, "we have to pay market rates" is complete bullshit. The industry is a merry go round that they all spin round on, they set their own bloody rates, it is an absolute joke. These presenters would work for less than half just to get their faces on the screen.

[Sherwick]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The BBC have to pay presenters in line with

> competitors

No they don't.

> for obvious reasons.

What reasons? That the best will leave? Do all NHS doctors become private ones? Do they all try to leave Blighty and fly to the USA to become Hollywood plastic surgeons?

The best may well leave Aunty, but others will take their places. I've never even seen this woman who earns ?92k!

[Jeremy]

There was me thinking you were going to agree.

[Huguenot]

GPs earn about a 100 grand (and more if they do over 40 hrs), would they work for less?

Should they?

[Mikecg]

No, because they actually provide a service.

[*Bob*]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

her salary certainly does not seem

> disproportionate.

It seems disproportionate to me.

I'm pretty sure it would seem disproportionate to your average Joe too, but then they won't hear about it, tucked away as it is in a token fashion within the bowels of BBC online.

[Huguenot]

Strikes me Mike that you'll be playing fast and loose with 'service' there.

Clearly the presenter presents, and by dint of this service keeps us informed on the views of our politicians, and gives you stuff to talk about.

All you're really saying is that you don't apply much value to the service that presenters provide. Pretty subjective view.

I paid 30% of my taxes annually into the health service for 16 years, a shit load of money for one visit to the doctor. Conversely I watched telly for two hours a day for a hundred quid a year. Bargain.

Interesting in that context that Abe Lincoln put more store by media than he did government - by his logic the presenter should be paid more!

[Jeremy]

It's the market rates. It's what the job pays. Get over it. If the "average Joe" thinks it's too much (and that presumably anyone could do the job) why don't they give it a go themselves?

Sherwick - actually yes, doctors and nurses leaving the NHS is a problem. Particularly nurses.

[*Bob*]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

If the "average Joe" thinks it's too much

> (and that presumably anyone could do the job) why

> don't they give it a go themselves?

So - the same as with MPs then?

[Marmora Man]

So - the same as with MPs then?

I work as a volunteer on the fringes of politics and have been involved in various elections since the 1980's. There is absolutely no shortage of prospective parliamentary candidates at the current rates of pay. Indeed there is a vast over supply.

The problem is with the quality of the supply - too many end up as simple cannon fodder with no independence, authority or voice.

Does anyone believe Jaqui Smith, Harriet Harman or Phil Woolas could earn the equivalent of their ministerial salary (circa ?145,000pa with private chauffeur, and a pension based on 40ths of final salary) in "real life".

In some ways the system of the early 20th century when only those either wealthy enough or sponsored by supporters could afford to go into Parliament. At least they weren't in it for the money - and had often made a sacrifice to get there

[Jeremy]

Yes - the same with MPs. The same with any job. If you think you could do it, and fancy the salary, then give it a go. See how far you get. The majority of course will get nowhere, as they won't have the right experience, training, education, intelligence, aptitude, or drive.

I think it's a mistake to confuse arguments about base salaries with allegedly fraudulent expenses.

[Brendan]

Everyone is missing the fucking point again, from those bleating about the injustice of it all to those defending the poor MPs who should by rights be paid well enough to keep their tennis courts surfaced to a decent standard.

It?s about honesty and integrity. People in public office, in fact all people, should behave honestly and just as a matter of course not take the piss.

How much they should get paid overall is a completely different argument. You can?t use it as an excuse for selfish non public spirited behaviour.

Just because everyone does it doesn?t make it okay. It just makes everyone a cunt.

See also the banking system and the whole, ?Well who can blame them for trying to make a buck?? argument and the, ?These people are there to make money not to have a social responsibility.? dross that all the pointless bags of flesh in the industry try to use to absolve themselves.

It?s about culture not whether or not you can make culpability stick. The look out for number one, greed is good culture that proliferates gives people, from the hedge fund manager to the local dope dealer, as much social worth as the amount of swine feed you can grind out of their bones.

Fortunately there are still some decent human beings around, just not very many.

[Sherwick]

Totally agree with the following comment: "This shows the weak management of the BBC. Paying ?92K to a very average presenter of a low audience channel shows a total lack of fiscal responsibility."