sarahbell 1,724 Report post Posted July 23, 2017 Pay the men as little as the women. Will save lots of money for the licence payers too. And it's a 'market' so if the blokes think they can earn more elsewhere they are free to go and find out. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hopeful 2,920 Report post Posted July 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, sarahbell said: Pay the men as little as the women. Will save lots of money for the licence payers too. And it's a 'market' so if the blokes think they can earn more elsewhere they are free to go and find out. Agree, but if that's not the agenda, I'll expect the opposite 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spunko2010 3,754 Report post Posted July 23, 2017 It's a market. MARKET! Reminds me of someone on ToS... 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Libspero 816 Report post Posted July 23, 2017 Yep, completely agree. The problem is it's very hard to quantify how much a presenter is "worth", but by using this as a government mandate to push through lower cost contracts it will show who really will bother to hang around. If all the decent presenters leave and quality drops they will be able to demonstrate the government /media are wrong that the original contract rates were "about right" regardless any supposed gender bias. If not we've all saved a bit of money. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
XswampyX 2,115 Report post Posted July 23, 2017 How the So-Called BBC have managed to turn the "outrageous pay they all fucking get" into "we have to pay the women more!". Tells you all you need to know about these fucking wankers. 8 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hail the Tripod 2,513 Report post Posted July 23, 2017 26 minutes ago, XswampyX said: How the So-Called BBC have managed to turn the "outrageous pay they all fucking get" into "we have to pay the women more!". Tells you all you need to know about these fucking wankers. I think they should get rid of all presenters on over £100,000 and just interview a raft of applicants for the roles advertised at £40,000. They would get a surfeit of just as capable people. 6 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frank Hovis 7,473 Report post Posted July 23, 2017 21 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said: I think they should get rid of all presenters on over £100,000 and just interview a raft of applicants for the roles advertised at £40,000. They would get a surfeit of just as capable people. Yep. The great majority are dentikit interchangeable presenters who bring nothing special to a programme. I don't especially dislike any of them or like any of them because they are all so bland. Michael Aspel, Fiona Bruce, Eamonn Andrews, Christina Bleakly, Nick Ross all fashioned huge and lucrative careers on being as exciting as plain wallpaper. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrPin 2,452 Report post Posted July 23, 2017 How much is a footballer worth? The answer is I don't care, as I don't have to pay the Football Corporation if I only watch Cricket, and darts.. If you are in a postion with "flexible" pay grades, some will be paid more than others. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dipsy 1,313 Report post Posted July 23, 2017 Pay them by number of viewers. Aren't actors film contracts based on a % of the box office - seems reasonable way to do things. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dgul 2,741 Report post Posted July 23, 2017 There isn't really a gender pay gap in the So-Called BBC. If you look at the wider 'normal' pay range it appears to be fairly fair. However, there is a class pay gap, where people who've been to a fancy school are much more likely to be paid much more. For some reason this aspect of it doesn't seem to get much publicity. [I've decided that there isn't such a thing as a gender pay gap. There is a shyness pay gap, where shyer, less aggressive people get paid less. The 'gender pay gap' appears to be to do with the different proportions of males/females being aggressive (in general, not just towards pay), with a dollop of childcare career gap and lifestyle choice for good measure. Sure, this appears to be a nuance -- it doesn't matter why only that there is a gender-average pay difference. So lets make sure pay levels are equalised across genders. But, where are all the people shouting for the shy males? Oh, yes, forgot. They can just look after themselves, as being white and male means they've had it given to them on a plate and any deficiency in any way is entirely their own fault. And if they get paid less than the average 'shy female' as a result of the gender pay battle then tough.] 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spygirl 5,243 Report post Posted July 23, 2017 2 hours ago, Libspero said: Yep, completely agree. The problem is it's very hard to quantify how much a presenter is "worth", but by using this as a government mandate to push through lower cost contracts it will show who really will bother to hang around. If all the decent presenters leave and quality drops they will be able to demonstrate the government /media are wrong that the original contract rates were "about right" regardless any supposed gender bias. If not we've all saved a bit of money. Texttospeech software - 500. Someone to type the bews. 20k. Theres your numbers. The problem for the beeb and media companies is tgat theres so many people chasing so few jobs. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dgul 2,741 Report post Posted July 23, 2017 1 minute ago, spygirl said: Texttospeech software - 500. Someone to type the bews. 20k. Theres your numbers. The problem for the beeb and media companies is tgat theres so many people chasing so few jobs. Just so long as it isn't you typing the bews. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spygirl 5,243 Report post Posted July 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, dgul said: Just so long as it isn't you typing the bews. Youre all bastards. My news typing will be like Sussanah reed - dirty up for it milf 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cunning Plan 5,931 Report post Posted July 23, 2017 17 minutes ago, Dipsy said: Pay them by number of viewers. Aren't actors film contracts based on a % of the box office - seems reasonable way to do things. I (ahem) think they already do that. It's called Babestation. Probably about as factually accurate as the So-Called BBC anyway. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
satch 502 Report post Posted July 23, 2017 3 hours ago, Libspero said: Yep, completely agree. The problem is it's very hard to quantify how much a presenter is "worth", but by using this as a government mandate to push through lower cost contracts it will show who really will bother to hang around. If all the decent presenters leave and quality drops they will be able to demonstrate the government /media are wrong that the original contract rates were "about right" regardless any supposed gender bias. If not we've all saved a bit of money. I think Richard and Judy AKA the King and Queen of daytime TV found out how great they were when the moved to some digital channel .... and their audience did not follow them and they pulled in less than an old repeat of 'super market sweep'. Suspect it is the same with 99% of them, only exception seems to be Clarkson who when replaced by the superstar that is Chris Evans caused Top Gear ratings and viewers to plummet. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
XswampyX 2,115 Report post Posted July 23, 2017 4 hours ago, Cunning Plan said: I (ahem) think they already do that. It's called Babestation. Probably about as factually accurate as the So-Called BBC anyway. You see a lot more cunts on the So-Called BBC. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
