BBC stars' pay to be revealed

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:15 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:"Naive!?"

Scrapping something that should go to subscription means you have the CHOICE whether to pay or not. Over 75s would still have the choice.

You stick to believing that the BBC is "funded on socialist principles!!!!!!!!!"

The BBC has reported on the pay squueze on the public sector. As a publicly funded body, there's no pay squeeze at the BBC is there!!!!

Ok then, not naive, a bit thick. If less people 'choose' to pay for something then the cost for everyone else goes up. That being the case there's a likelihood that people who can currently afford the licence fee won't be able to afford the subscription fees. They'll have NO CHOICE but the Dutch the BBC. But i expect you'll ignore that the same way you ignored my point about those over 75 having to pay to watch the BBC, if they have enough money to make that choice, who currently get it for free.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:17 pm

TheFamilyCat wrote:And now you're agreeing with Jeremy Corbyn. Are you unwell?

I'm fine! I'm off today!

Just using Corbyn as an example.....

quoonbeatz · Post by **quoonbeatz** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:21 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote: The BBC has reported on the pay squueze on the public sector. As a publicly funded body, there's no pay squeeze at the BBC is there!!!!

yes, bbc staff are subject to the 1% public sector pay cap.

spending on talent is also down by a 3rd.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:21 pm

Can I choose not to pay my taxes towards the army? Soldiers are all knobs, and I'm paying them out of my wage.

It's not fair that I have to pay for them when I don't choose to use their services.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:25 pm

martin_p wrote:Ok then, not naive, a bit thick. If less people 'choose' to pay for something then the cost for everyone else goes up. That being the case there's a likelihood that people who can currently afford the licence fee won't be able to afford the subscription fees. They'll have NO CHOICE but the Dutch the BBC. But i expect you'll ignore that the same way you ignored my point about those over 75 having to pay to watch the BBC, if they have enough money to make that choice, who currently get it for free.

So you've now been reduced to calling people "thick"

Over 75s don't pay for a licence.

If it's scrapped, they would not pay for something that's been scrapped.

Why do you not think people should be able to choose to pay or not pay for something?

Do you still believe the BBC is funded on "socialist principles"

Yes!?

Try convincing the guy in minimum wage or zero hours contracts who facing a 1000 quid fine for repeated non payment of the tv licence tax

lucs86 · Post by **lucs86** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:28 pm

Interesting to read about this guy after just reading a load of Ringo
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... capitalism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:36 pm

quoonbeatz wrote:yes, bbc staff are subject to the 1% public sector pay cap.

spending on talent is also down by a 3rd.

A BBC insider said there was “real annoyance” among staff that it comes after pay increases of more than £150,000 for senior managers, revealed by the Guardian, two weeks ago.

Among those to benefit was the BBC’s chief technology officer, Matthew Postgate, who got a rise of £70,000 taking his pay to £302,000.

A recent FOI revealed the BBC paid a total of £1,171,866 in car allowances to 216 individuals, of which 206 were Senior Managers and 10 who are now no longer senior management staff but have retained the perk, in the year to 31 March.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:40 pm

I'm not a huge fan of the license fee, but equally I'm not convinced there is a better way to fund and safeguard the future funding of the BBC. If you open it up to advertisers you lose it's unique selling point - impartiality. If you just fund it from general taxation the Tories would shut it down at the earliest opportunity. It is a regressive form of taxation, but ultimately I believe it's better than the alternative of not having a BBC and losing the only genuinely impartial source of news this country has.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:43 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:A recent FOI revealed the BBC paid a total of £1,171,866 in car allowances to 216 individuals, of which 206 were Senior Managers and 10 who are now no longer senior management staff but have retained the perk, in the year to 31 March.

As car allowances for senior staff members go, that is not excessive. Not in the slightest.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:51 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:So you've now been reduced to calling people "thick"

Over 75s don't pay for a licence.

If it's scrapped, they would not pay for something that's been scrapped.

Why do you not think people should be able to choose to pay or not pay for something?

Do you still believe the BBC is funded on "socialist principles"

Yes!?

Try convincing the guy in minimum wage or zero hours contracts who facing a 1000 quid fine for repeated non payment of the tv licence tax

So the BBC will be giving free subscriptions away to the over 75s (like Sky, BT and Virgin don't) rather than just withdrawing their tv service then? If you make it s commercial organisation it'll provide services on that basis, no freebees.

quoonbeatz · Post by **quoonbeatz** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:53 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:A BBC insider said there was “real annoyance” among staff that it comes after pay increases of more than £150,000 for senior managers, revealed by the Guardian, two weeks ago.

Among those to benefit was the BBC’s chief technology officer, Matthew Postgate, who got a rise of £70,000 taking his pay to £302,000.

A recent FOI revealed the BBC paid a total of £1,171,866 in car allowances to 216 individuals, of which 206 were Senior Managers and 10 who are now no longer senior management staff but have retained the perk, in the year to 31 March.

what, you're telling me the people at the top of an organisation are faring better than the people at the bottom?

i am truly amazed.

timshorts · Post by **timshorts** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:00 pm

HelloHiGoodbye wrote: The BBC is as impartial at it gets

I disagree too. It's not that I'm bothered if it's a bit lefty or not. I can make up my own mind on that sort of thing. However, it's completely OTT on the jingoistic scale. For example, sometimes the "Headlines" on the F1 text service has 5 "headlines" all with the word "Hamilton" in them. "Hamilton loses pet cat" would take priority over anything important about, say, Stoffel van Doorne.

It assumes that because he's British that he is all that anyone interested in F1 is interested in. Half the teams are British, but s od that. We all love Hamilton. The radio bulletin reports quite happily: "Hamilton starts 1st on the grid, Jensen Button 10th and Jolyon Palmer 14th". Why are we supposed to care more about Jolyon Palmer more than Kimi Raikonnen?

Well I don't. Like I suspect a lot of football fans that have an interest in F1, I support a team, not the individual players. If he drove a Force India, (imo the "Burnley" of F1) I'd want him to win. Otherwise, I hope he crashes on the first lap and takes out Vettel and a couple of Williams with him.

Same with Tennis and golf. The best thing that can happen in a tennis tournament is that Murray gets knocked out quickly, so we don't have to put up with all the BBC's brown-nosing him. Similarly, I'm happy when England get knocked out of a football tournament - not because I hate them because I support Wales (I don't. I'm sort of ambivalent about their football team but hate the English Rugby team of course), but because if I am watching Netherlands v Korea, I don't want half of the half-time coverage to be about Rooney, Beckham's metatarsal, and whether Gerrard was better than Lampard (no he wasn't), but I'd rather hear about something the Dutch or Korean football.

I'd have a lot more respect for the BBC if it did report totally impartially. It just doesn't. Try Euronews for a bit and you'll easily spot the difference.

BabylonClaret · Post by **BabylonClaret** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:04 pm

Sutton-Claret wrote:Using what criteria?

Examples - A male presenter such as Andrew Marr / Paxman would be better at grilling an MP than a female presenter. A female presenter would be more suited to presenting a daytime chat show. These are just my views[/quote]

Are you Theresa May?

scouseclaret · Post by **scouseclaret** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:09 pm

Haven't read through this whole thread, but I doubt I'm the first to say "Alan Shearer? £400k??!!"

You can argue the toss over what broadcasting "talent" deserves to be paid, but here's someone being remunerated on the basis of his talent for doing his previous job, not his current one!

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:27 pm

timshorts wrote:I disagree too. It's not that I'm bothered if it's a bit lefty or not. I can make up my own mind on that sort of thing. However, it's completely OTT on the jingoistic scale. For example, sometimes the "Headlines" on the F1 text service has 5 "headlines" all with the word "Hamilton" in them. "Hamilton loses pet cat" would take priority over anything important about, say, Stoffel van Doorne.

It assumes that because he's British that he is all that anyone interested in F1 is interested in. Half the teams are British, but s od that. We all love Hamilton. The radio bulletin reports quite happily: "Hamilton starts 1st on the grid, Jensen Button 10th and Jolyon Palmer 14th". Why are we supposed to care more about Jolyon Palmer more than Kimi Raikonnen?

Well I don't. Like I suspect a lot of football fans that have an interest in F1, I support a team, not the individual players. If he drove a Force India, (imo the "Burnley" of F1) I'd want him to win. Otherwise, I hope he crashes on the first lap and takes out Vettel and a couple of Williams with him.

Same with Tennis and golf. The best thing that can happen in a tennis tournament is that Murray gets knocked out quickly, so we don't have to put up with all the BBC's brown-nosing him. Similarly, I'm happy when England get knocked out of a football tournament - not because I hate them because I support Wales (I don't. I'm sort of ambivalent about their football team but hate the English Rugby team of course), but because if I am watching Netherlands v Korea, I don't want half of the half-time coverage to be about Rooney, Beckham's metatarsal, and whether Gerrard was better than Lampard (no he wasn't), but I'd rather hear about something the Dutch or Korean football.

I'd have a lot more respect for the BBC if it did report totally impartially. It just doesn't. Try Euronews for a bit and you'll easily spot the difference.

Maybe the clue as to why they do this is in the first "B" of BBC.

LoveCurryPies · Post by **LoveCurryPies** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:35 pm

BabylonClaret wrote:A male presenter such as Andrew Marr / Paxman would be better at GRILLING an MP than a female presenter.

They should employ my wife!!

RocketLawnChair · Post by **RocketLawnChair** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:48 pm

timshorts wrote:I disagree too. It's not that I'm bothered if it's a bit lefty or not. I can make up my own mind on that sort of thing. However, it's completely OTT on the jingoistic scale. For example, sometimes the "Headlines" on the F1 text service has 5 "headlines" all with the word "Hamilton" in them. "Hamilton loses pet cat" would take priority over anything important about, say, Stoffel van Doorne.

It assumes that because he's British that he is all that anyone interested in F1 is interested in. Half the teams are British, but s od that. We all love Hamilton. The radio bulletin reports quite happily: "Hamilton starts 1st on the grid, Jensen Button 10th and Jolyon Palmer 14th". Why are we supposed to care more about Jolyon Palmer more than Kimi Raikonnen?

Well I don't. Like I suspect a lot of football fans that have an interest in F1, I support a team, not the individual players. If he drove a Force India, (imo the "Burnley" of F1) I'd want him to win. Otherwise, I hope he crashes on the first lap and takes out Vettel and a couple of Williams with him.

Same with Tennis and golf. The best thing that can happen in a tennis tournament is that Murray gets knocked out quickly, so we don't have to put up with all the BBC's brown-nosing him. Similarly, I'm happy when England get knocked out of a football tournament - not because I hate them because I support Wales (I don't. I'm sort of ambivalent about their football team but hate the English Rugby team of course), but because if I am watching Netherlands v Korea, I don't want half of the half-time coverage to be about Rooney, Beckham's metatarsal, and whether Gerrard was better than Lampard (no he wasn't), but I'd rather hear about something the Dutch or Korean football.

I'd have a lot more respect for the BBC if it did report totally impartially. It just doesn't. Try Euronews for a bit and you'll easily spot the difference.

Perhaps it is not to you're liking but at least they focus on the all of Britain with their sport coverage, Talksport think we all only like Arsenal and West Ham.

Braindead · Post by **Braindead** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:19 pm

At the end of the day it comes down to this: if you watch or listen to the BBC regularly then the licence fee is justifiable, if like me you don't, then it isn't.
I hardly ever watch anything on any of the BBC channels aside from MOTD, I generally prefer Sky for sports coverage and updates on news etc so I resent being forced to pay for a service I do not use.

Saxoman · Post by **Saxoman** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:37 pm

Chris Evans highest paid? He's a pact with the devil that prik.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:39 pm

quoonbeatz wrote:what, you're telling me the people at the top of an organisation are faring better than the people at the bottom?

i am truly amazed.

You should be.

According to Martin p , the BBC is funded on " socialist principles" comrade

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:02 pm

HelloHiGoodbye wrote:A lot of the criticism - I feel - comes from people perceiving "being on tv" and making TV as an easy thing to do. It's not and it isn't. Gary Lineker is the best at what he does. Graham Norton - again, the best at what he does. Both could earn more elsewhere. But they don't. They work for the BBC because those initials mean something.

Gary Lineker presents on BT Sport in addition to his BBC gig,Graham Norton has his fingers in many other pies they are not holistic BBC stalwarts.

ElectroClaret · Post by **ElectroClaret** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:05 pm

DCWat wrote:True enough but if the license fee was scrapped, so too presumably would be the rules around requiring one.

A very good point, DC. Scrapping the LF would mean a rethink about most things.

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:32 pm

An interesting debate with Ringo and Co sporting their usual hard-ons over it.
I think we need our MPs to reveal and publish all their earnings and, while they are at it, tackle the male/female MP imbalance.
After all, we all have to "subscribe" to them irrespective of their views or talent.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Ever thought for a moment Ringo?

FTFY

Commy · Post by **Commy** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:07 pm

How come it goes up with the rate of inflation when wages aren't doing?

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:15 pm

Commy wrote:How come it goes up with the rate of inflation when wages aren't doing?

Erm...because that's how inflation works? You could say the same thing about the price of a tin of beans.

HelloHiGoodbye · Post by **HelloHiGoodbye** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:36 pm

tiger76 wrote:Gary Lineker presents on BT Sport in addition to his BBC gig,Graham Norton has his fingers in many other pies they are not holistic BBC stalwarts.

"In addition". What's your point? The fact they're working for the BBC and earning less for the privilege is only a good thing for the viewer.

jlup1980 · Post by **jlup1980** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:38 pm

There's a whole load of drivel on this thread. My take on it is these are people working in the entertainment business and they get paid, on the whole, for their popularity.

Some people hate Chris Evans and Graham Norton but there's a hell of a lot more think they're great. The Breakfast Show on Radio 2 and Norton's chat show are consistently good in my opinion.

Lineker is the most intriguing one. He's a decent presenter these days but whether that justifies his salary compared to Graham Norton I don't know.

There's a big hoo haa about female presenters that I want to get behind, but then you read what Claudia Winkleman earns and immediately you understand why they earn less. If she's the leading lady at the BBC there's something wrong!

Good luck to them though. We support football and the salaries are vastly bigger than these BBC ones so it almost feels hypocritical to get your knickers in a twist.

Also the licence fee is what it is. The adverts on sky and itv have driven me away from watching anything other than sport live on those channels. I watch dramas via Amazon or Netflix these days, or on the beeb if something catches my eye. I have no issue paying it out, it's hardly extortionate when compared to Sky!

FulledgeClaret · Post by **FulledgeClaret** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:56 pm

I have no problem with being charged a licence fee as the BBC do make some good content. I would be fine as would most with the fee being capped or cut and other revenue streams explored you don't need adverts disrupting programmes to increase revenue, product placement or programme sponsorship could well see income increased while cutting the cost to the end user.

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:04 pm

The BBC already use product placement just watch an Eastenders episode,one of the reasons people are annoyed with the beeb may be things like this,
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/ ... -tony-hall" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FulledgeClaret · Post by **FulledgeClaret** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:31 pm

tiger76 wrote:The BBC already use product placement just watch an Eastenders episode,one of the reasons people are annoyed with the beeb may be things like this,
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/ ... -tony-hall" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No thanks, I would prefer to chew my own arm off than reach for the remote to put Eastenders on.

LaLigaClaret · Post by **LaLigaClaret** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:00 pm

People seem to have completely missed the point about pay on the BBC.

These "so called" stars work for a national broadcasting company which receives the Licence fee regardless of whether you watch them or not. The BBC because it receives the equivalent of taxpayers money does NOT have to be competitive with commercial broadcasters. If every "star" walked from the BBC they could and would ALL be replaced by any number of people who would chew their own leg off to receive 20% of current salary levels.

Is anyone's life suddenly cast into a suicidal pit of despair if Gary Lineker is pushed off to another broadcaster ? Would you throw yourself off a bridge if Jeremy Vine is no longer seen on the BBC ? Its preposterous. Remember its the publics money there taking because the public has no choice but to pay it.

The most ridiculous example of all is Chris Evans. Why is he paid anything remotely at the level he is receiving. He works on radio, FFS it doesn't matter what radio station he goes to you can still listen to him because radio isn't on subscription you just tune your dial or listen in on the internet.

Frankly I don't give a shiny shite where any of them go just as long as they are at the BBC their pay should be capped at a much lower level. If they leave, so what ! All this will speed up the day that the BBC will lose its licence fee and has to go subscription or a pay to view model. When that happens I bet the numbers of people watching the BBC will halve overnight.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:34 pm

The BBC also sells a lot of programmes. One of the reasons that Clarkson, etc earned so much was that Top Gear earned huge amounts of revenue for the BBC with the overseas sales.

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:15 pm

Nobody should be forced to pay this fee and watch it in the age of streaming. I would gladly do without it as I do with Sky having been robbed by them for years.

ablueclaret · Post by **ablueclaret** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:38 pm

How much are they paying and why do they want to be revealed?

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:46 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:Can I choose not to pay my taxes towards the army? Soldiers are all knobs, and I'm paying them out of my wage.

It's not fair that I have to pay for them when I don't choose to use their services.

You're going to need more than a tin hat on if a squaddie misunderstands that post

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:50 pm

Is chewing a limb off going to be the new craze?
Its been mentioned on here twice and I just want to make sure I'm ahead of the curve.

ClaretEngineer · Post by **ClaretEngineer** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:10 pm

Sidney1st wrote:Is chewing a limb off going to be the new craze?
Its been mentioned on here twice and I just want to make sure I'm ahead of the curve.

Maybe it's a euphemism Sid

Pimlico_Claret · Post by **Pimlico_Claret** » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:51 pm

It is perfectly possible to watch TV without a licence, I have done for many years now. Simply place the warning letters in the bin and don't let the licence inspector into your house, they can't force entry. Job done.

mikeS · Post by **mikeS** » Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:50 am

We introduced a equal pay act in the 70s, led by Labours Barbara Castle. The BBC seems to have been missed out of the legislation somehow. Forgetting the size of the salaries, to me it's revealing that the women are paid a fraction what the men are paid. Would think the place is in meltdown over it.

claretdom · Post by **claretdom** » Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:02 am

I bet the patronising comment by Lineker regards him getting less than Chris Evans went down well with so many people working at the BBC, especially those who work more than 1 night a week for 9 months a year unless he is asked to do extra during a summer tournament every other year.

ashtonlongsider · Post by **ashtonlongsider** » Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:19 am

They'll be a public outcry if Beeb try to put up the licence fee anytime soon. I appreciate the revelation was politically motivated and has thrown up some startling figures. Much as I think Jeremy Vine is a decent broadcaster and his show throws up some interested topics, I'll find it hard to listen given the salary he's on. I think it's way, way over inflated and some on that list a lot worse than him including some I've never heard of.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:47 pm

I think its worth mentioning for those like Ringo who believe that you shouldn't have to pay anything to watch TV, that in every European country I know, you have to pay an annual license fee or tax. This is also the case as far afield as Japan.
In France its part of the Habitation Tax. Currently I think its about 115 Euros a year.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:43 pm

I posted this on the Open Golf thread, but I think it is relevant here also.

'No live coverage of the Open on the BBC again this year...[highlights programme tonight on BBC2 at 8.00pm]

Re the BBC television licence fee thread, there is a direct connection between that ]the licence fee] and the absence on the BBC of top class sport...you don't need me to spell out which live sports have largely gone missing from the BBC in recent years...I'll give you three though - Cricket, Boxing and Football...there are plenty of others.

- 'free' on the BBC for decades [for Buggger all money annually] or pay through the nose to global monopoly suppliers, whose output is then viewed by 10% of the population. Brilliant.

Some people on the other thread were actually complaining about the BBC's inability to compete for sport's broadcasting rights...it's not complicated, think about it.

***Protect and defend the BBC, or it will disappear for good and we'll look for our quality programming to the other 936 excellent channels.

Remember we have been here before...both the railways[in the past] and the NHS [ongoing] have been slowly, steadily purposely run down by cutting funding and support in real terms/per head so that both their performance and their standing deteriorates with the public. This government, and others like it previously, do not like/respect the public sector and try to diminish it at every opportunity..['salami slicing'].

The public quite rightly complain about this state of affairs, and this gets whipped up and amplified by the usual media with the usual depressing outcome....

'Yes you're right...the NHS..the BBC [delete as appropriate] are shytte and it is time we PRIVATISED them for you'....and so on ad nauseum.

There are slow, small signs that we are waking up to this nonsense.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:59 pm

I'm actually impressed someone has linked pay at the BBC right over to privatisation of the NHS

jurek · Post by **jurek** » Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:18 pm

For me the BBC is probably one of the best, if not the best TV
company/stations on the planet. It produces some great TV programmes
across a broad range of areas/subject matters.

That doesn't mean I agree with some, if not all of the salaries it pays
- be it to presenters and/or its' senior management.

Most of them are vastly overpaid in my opinion and I don't beleive any one working
for them should receive the sort of money they do.

Personally I would cap the amount any of the presenters receive to a max. of 500k
and senior managers to 250k. If they don't like that then once they've completed their contracts
then off they can go to other companies.

It's a public funded company and has provided jobs (for the boys, in particular)
for far too long even though I wouldn't wish for the licence fee to be scapped.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:29 pm

145..Thanks Sidney for that - it's not difficult though, almost anyone could have done it.

- in a nutshell [imo]....what we are witnessing is the slow break up/rundown/funding cuts/salami slicing [a bit at a time, so you don't notice] removal of these wonderful 'envy of the world' social providers [THATCHER - 'there is no such thing as society'..] from their present position right at the heart of the UK's daily functioning, to something marginal and irrelevant.

If we value these two institutions, then we must defend them...I suspect apathy will win out, as usual.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:40 pm

Labour are just as much to blame for the NHS as the Tories though.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:41 pm

Far left presenter Stephen Nolan receives a salary of between £400,000 and £449,999 a year, the corporation has revealed!!!!!

This guy does late night radio with hardly any audience.!!

A bloated plastic communist, screwing the masses ! Well done comrade!!!!

But even worse is Casualty "star" Derek Thompson. He's milking the licence fee payer for over £350,000 per year.

350 grand for pretending to be a nurse!

And REAL nurses get how much?

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:05 pm

How much would you like to see him get paid if he was far right?