How/where are you going to get these 1,000,000 email addresses?!
That's a different issue, and I was exaggerating a tad ...
The deck is stacked against independent candidates anyway: : few independents can afford to lose the ~£40k spending limits. Restricting 'free' methods such as emails might make it even harder for independents to get their voices heard.
Re- BBC salaries. Whilst I am not really into sport at all and do not personally dislike Gary Lineker, I simply cannot understand why the BBC sees it as appropriate to pay him £2million per annum of licence-payers' money. He has never been a naturally talented broadcaster unlike - say - David Dimbleby or Paxman, and I find it difficult to believe that people tune into a BBC channel on account of his appearing there. When he first became Match of the Day anchorman back in 1996 he was utterly dreadful, and significant resources were used to train him up. Whilst he has improved over the years , even today he is no better than'adequate '- well short of the likes of Des Lynam and David Coleman. Why on earth hasthe BBC effectively wasted so much money on him when there were - and are - others more naturally skilled to do the job and who would willingly do so for a fraction of what he is paid?
Gary Lineker benefited from the move -- I was going to say fad but it has survived two decades -- to using ex-players as pundits, across sports and broadcasters, as the older non-playing broadcasters retired.
Almost all football presenters are journalists not ex players. Lineker is the only one I can think of
I don't follow football, and I can only name two presenters: Linekar and Kamara (?sp) (*). Both ex footballers.
(*) I know him from adverts outside the village's bookies, and from Ninja Warrior.
Kamara co presents a show, that's true. But there are dozens of football shows and the majority aren't presented by ex players, who are normally pundits
Re- BBC salaries. Whilst I am not really into sport at all and do not personally dislike Gary Lineker, I simply cannot understand why the BBC sees it as appropriate to pay him £2million per annum of licence-payers' money. He has never been a naturally talented broadcaster unlike - say - David Dimbleby or Paxman, and I find it difficult to believe that people tune into a BBC channel on account of his appearing there. When he first became Match of the Day anchorman back in 1996 he was utterly dreadful, and significant resources were used to train him up. Whilst he has improved over the years , even today he is no better than'adequate '- well short of the likes of Des Lynam and David Coleman. Why on earth hasthe BBC effectively wasted so much money on him when there were - and are - others more naturally skilled to do the job and who would willingly do so for a fraction of what he is paid?
Gary Lineker benefited from the move -- I was going to say fad but it has survived two decades -- to using ex-players as pundits, across sports and broadcasters, as the older non-playing broadcasters retired.
Almost all football presenters are journalists not ex players. Lineker is the only one I can think of
The thing with Lineker as well is I don't think he is really in touch with modern football tactics and training.
Yes of course he still hangs out and talks with players, but you listen to say Gary Neville who is still very much up with the latest theories and has all the modern coaching badges etc, and it feels like you are comparing to people's experiences of internet via dial-up vs fibre.
Watching BBC "analysis" of football I feel like I am losing IQ points compared to Sky's. But then watching ITVs, I feel like I might have totally lost my mind.
Sky's MNF is fantastic, one of my fav things on TV. I like MOTD but it's v old fashioned in comparison, & Lineker far too partisan as the anchor
How/where are you going to get these 1,000,000 email addresses?!
That's a different issue, and I was exaggerating a tad ...
The deck is stacked against independent candidates anyway: : few independents can afford to lose the ~£40k spending limits. Restricting 'free' methods such as emails might make it even harder for independents to get their voices heard.
My point was that doing the campaigning you were suggesting isn't actually all free - it involves a lot of hard work and time (for which money or particular talent might offer some possible shortcuts) to get the sort of information and skills you will need to make a success of it. Making a good YouTube video isn't free, neither necessarily is getting people to watch it. At the least you need some good equipment and expertise.
Re- BBC salaries. Whilst I am not really into sport at all and do not personally dislike Gary Lineker, I simply cannot understand why the BBC sees it as appropriate to pay him £2million per annum of licence-payers' money. He has never been a naturally talented broadcaster unlike - say - David Dimbleby or Paxman, and I find it difficult to believe that people tune into a BBC channel on account of his appearing there. When he first became Match of the Day anchorman back in 1996 he was utterly dreadful, and significant resources were used to train him up. Whilst he has improved over the years , even today he is no better than'adequate '- well short of the likes of Des Lynam and David Coleman. Why on earth hasthe BBC effectively wasted so much money on him when there were - and are - others more naturally skilled to do the job and who would willingly do so for a fraction of what he is paid?
Gary Lineker benefited from the move -- I was going to say fad but it has survived two decades -- to using ex-players as pundits, across sports and broadcasters, as the older non-playing broadcasters retired.
Almost all football presenters are journalists not ex players. Lineker is the only one I can think of
I don't follow football, and I can only name two presenters: Linekar and Kamara (?sp) (*). Both ex footballers.
(*) I know him from adverts outside the village's bookies, and from Ninja Warrior.
Kamara co presents a show, that's true. But there are dozens of football shows and the majority aren't presented by ex players, who are normally pundits
Fair enough- football isn't exactly my forte. But thinking about it, isn't Shearer one as well?
(I find it quite sad that football's preeminence in the media means I can name even one presenter, despite disliking the sport).
Re- BBC salaries. Whilst I am not really into sport at all and do not personally dislike Gary Lineker, I simply cannot understand why the BBC sees it as appropriate to pay him £2million per annum of licence-payers' money. He has never been a naturally talented broadcaster unlike - say - David Dimbleby or Paxman, and I find it difficult to believe that people tune into a BBC channel on account of his appearing there. When he first became Match of the Day anchorman back in 1996 he was utterly dreadful, and significant resources were used to train him up. Whilst he has improved over the years , even today he is no better than'adequate '- well short of the likes of Des Lynam and David Coleman. Why on earth hasthe BBC effectively wasted so much money on him when there were - and are - others more naturally skilled to do the job and who would willingly do so for a fraction of what he is paid?
Gary Lineker benefited from the move -- I was going to say fad but it has survived two decades -- to using ex-players as pundits, across sports and broadcasters, as the older non-playing broadcasters retired.
Almost all football presenters are journalists not ex players. Lineker is the only one I can think of
I don't follow football, and I can only name two presenters: Linekar and Kamara (?sp) (*). Both ex footballers.
(*) I know him from adverts outside the village's bookies, and from Ninja Warrior.
Kamara co presents a show, that's true. But there are dozens of football shows and the majority aren't presented by ex players, who are normally pundits
Fair enough- football isn't exactly my forte. But thinking about it, isn't Shearer one as well?
(I find it quite sad that football's preeminence in the media means I can name even one presenter, despite disliking the sport).
Shearer is a pundit on MOTD, but doesn't present a show. All football shows have ex players as pundits, but almost all are presented by a journalist
How/where are you going to get these 1,000,000 email addresses?!
That's a different issue, and I was exaggerating a tad ...
The deck is stacked against independent candidates anyway: : few independents can afford to lose the ~£40k spending limits. Restricting 'free' methods such as emails might make it even harder for independents to get their voices heard.
My point was that doing the campaigning you were suggesting isn't actually all free - it involves a lot of hard work and time (for which money or particular talent might offer some possible shortcuts) to get the sort of information and skills you will need to make a success of it. Making a good YouTube video isn't free, neither necessarily is getting people to watch it. At the least you need some good equipment and expertise.
But that's the same for everything! Being a good candidate costs money; developing h skills to get selected by a party can cost. If you pay for your video or tweets to gain prominence, those costs should be declared (as I think they are atm (*)). But that should not mean unpaid-for services should be restricted, as long as all candidates have reasonable access to the same services.
Staffing costs should, of course, be included in the costs.
(*) I might be wrong, but I believe that's the case.
Looking at those salaries it's the Marr one that stands out for me. If I were Neil or Kuensberg I'd be furious!
I actually thought most of the salaries would be higher tbh... Thought there would be many more in the £1m+ bracket.
Of the top 15 I have heard of 10 of them.
Can't say I am that bothered really. I just don't think Marr is worth double Neil or Kuensberg. Neil has plenty of other interests so I suspect his BBC income is not his principal one, but Kuensberg would have every right to feel very aggrieved. Her problem is where else she might go instead. But that applies to Marr too, of course.
Re- BBC salaries. Whilst I am not really into sport at all and do not personally dislike Gary Lineker, I simply cannot understand why the BBC sees it as appropriate to pay him £2million per annum of licence-payers' money. He has never been a naturally talented broadcaster unlike - say - David Dimbleby or Paxman, and I find it difficult to believe that people tune into a BBC channel on account of his appearing there. When he first became Match of the Day anchorman back in 1996 he was utterly dreadful, and significant resources were used to train him up. Whilst he has improved over the years , even today he is no better than'adequate '- well short of the likes of Des Lynam and David Coleman. Why on earth hasthe BBC effectively wasted so much money on him when there were - and are - others more naturally skilled to do the job and who would willingly do so for a fraction of what he is paid?
Gary Lineker benefited from the move -- I was going to say fad but it has survived two decades -- to using ex-players as pundits, across sports and broadcasters, as the older non-playing broadcasters retired.
Almost all football presenters are journalists not ex players. Lineker is the only one I can think of
I don't follow football, and I can only name two presenters: Linekar and Kamara (?sp) (*). Both ex footballers.
(*) I know him from adverts outside the village's bookies, and from Ninja Warrior.
Kamara co presents a show, that's true. But there are dozens of football shows and the majority aren't presented by ex players, who are normally pundits
Fair enough- football isn't exactly my forte. But thinking about it, isn't Shearer one as well?
(I find it quite sad that football's preeminence in the media means I can name even one presenter, despite disliking the sport).
Shearer is a pundit on MOTD, but doesn't present a show. All football shows have ex players as pundits, but almost all are presented by a journalist
I'll bow to your superior knowledge. However the differentiation between 'presenter' and 'pundit'' appears to be irrelevant when considering their pay?
Re- BBC salaries. Whilst I am not really into sport at all and do not personally dislike Gary Lineker, I simply cannot understand why the BBC sees it as appropriate to pay him £2million per annum of licence-payers' money. He has never been a naturally talented broadcaster unlike - say - David Dimbleby or Paxman, and I find it difficult to believe that people tune into a BBC channel on account of his appearing there. When he first became Match of the Day anchorman back in 1996 he was utterly dreadful, and significant resources were used to train him up. Whilst he has improved over the years , even today he is no better than'adequate '- well short of the likes of Des Lynam and David Coleman. Why on earth hasthe BBC effectively wasted so much money on him when there were - and are - others more naturally skilled to do the job and who would willingly do so for a fraction of what he is paid?
Gary Lineker benefited from the move -- I was going to say fad but it has survived two decades -- to using ex-players as pundits, across sports and broadcasters, as the older non-playing broadcasters retired.
Almost all football presenters are journalists not ex players. Lineker is the only one I can think of
I don't follow football, and I can only name two presenters: Linekar and Kamara (?sp) (*). Both ex footballers.
(*) I know him from adverts outside the village's bookies, and from Ninja Warrior.
Kamara co presents a show, that's true. But there are dozens of football shows and the majority aren't presented by ex players, who are normally pundits
Fair enough- football isn't exactly my forte. But thinking about it, isn't Shearer one as well?
(I find it quite sad that football's preeminence in the media means I can name even one presenter, despite disliking the sport).
Shearer is a pundit on MOTD, but doesn't present a show. All football shows have ex players as pundits, but almost all are presented by a journalist
I'll bow to your superior knowledge. However the differentiation between 'presenter' and 'pundit'' appears to be irrelevant when considering their pay?
I think the pundits are more important. I would like to see Mark Chapman get promotion to the main MotD as he asks good questions and doesn't let the pundits get away with the usual bland answers which is what you get with Alan Shearer (£400k per year, really?).
Re- BBC salaries. Whilst I am not really into sport at all and do not personally dislike Gary Lineker, I simply cannot understand why the BBC sees it as appropriate to pay him £2million per annum of licence-payers' money. He has never been a naturally talented broadcaster unlike - say - David Dimbleby or Paxman, and I find it difficult to believe that people tune into a BBC channel on account of his appearing there. When he first became Match of the Day anchorman back in 1996 he was utterly dreadful, and significant resources were used to train him up. Whilst he has improved over the years , even today he is no better than'adequate '- well short of the likes of Des Lynam and David Coleman. Why on earth hasthe BBC effectively wasted so much money on him when there were - and are - others more naturally skilled to do the job and who would willingly do so for a fraction of what he is paid?
Gary Lineker benefited from the move -- I was going to say fad but it has survived two decades -- to using ex-players as pundits, across sports and broadcasters, as the older non-playing broadcasters retired.
Almost all football presenters are journalists not ex players. Lineker is the only one I can think of
Bob Wilson did some presenting back in the day and I always thought he was very good.
Women don't count. One of them doesn't anyway, if you can only see two.
More likely that Carlotta has never heard of Alex Jones (which is understandable, since I have only knowingly watched the utterly tedious One Show once, myself).
Maybe obscure but highly paid celebs shouldn't be allowed to have gender neutral names...
There are also some high-profile female absentees from the list. Emily Maitlis, the newsreader, Sarah Montague, the presenter of the Today programme on Radio 4, and Louise Minchin, who presents BBC Breakfast, do not earn more than £150,000 a year according to the disclosure.
Looking at those salaries it's the Marr one that stands out for me. If I were Neil or Kuensberg I'd be furious!
What stands out for me is the salary of the right wing shock jock of the Today programme. 5th in the list and by some margin the highest of any of in BBC News. The Daily Mail may not have disclosed the salaries of its highest paid employees today, but its radio broadcasting offshoot has.
Women don't count. One of them doesn't anyway, if you can only see two.
More likely that Carlotta has never heard of Alex Jones (which is understandable, since I have only knowingly watched the utterly tedious One Show once, myself).
Guilty as charged! But I shall eschew DeccrepitJohnL's sexist snides - typical of a man! ;-)
Women don't count. One of them doesn't anyway, if you can only see two.
More likely that Carlotta has never heard of Alex Jones (which is understandable, since I have only knowingly watched the utterly tedious One Show once, myself).
Maybe obscure but highly paid celebs shouldn't be allowed to have gender neutral names...
Well to be fair to Carlotta a 12/3 men to women ratio is hardly anything for the BBC to be proud of.
And if you was looking at the top ten highest earners it's even worse with a 9/1 ratio....
And we can assume when Bruce Forsyth was still doing SCD (only four years ago) the entire top ten would've been all men!
Looking at those salaries it's the Marr one that stands out for me. If I were Neil or Kuensberg I'd be furious!
I actually thought most of the salaries would be higher tbh... Thought there would be many more in the £1m+ bracket.
Of the top 15 I have heard of 10 of them.
Can't say I am that bothered really. I just don't think Marr is worth double Neil or Kuensberg. Neil has plenty of other interests so I suspect his BBC income is not his principal one, but Kuensberg would have every right to feel very aggrieved. Her problem is where else she might go instead. But that applies to Marr too, of course.
Marr has been around a lot longer (though there's no real reason that should make him worth more).
Women don't count. One of them doesn't anyway, if you can only see two.
More likely that Carlotta has never heard of Alex Jones (which is understandable, since I have only knowingly watched the utterly tedious One Show once, myself).
Maybe obscure but highly paid celebs shouldn't be allowed to have gender neutral names...
Looking at those salaries it's the Marr one that stands out for me. If I were Neil or Kuensberg I'd be furious!
I actually thought most of the salaries would be higher tbh... Thought there would be many more in the £1m+ bracket.
Of the top 15 I have heard of 10 of them.
Can't say I am that bothered really. I just don't think Marr is worth double Neil or Kuensberg. Neil has plenty of other interests so I suspect his BBC income is not his principal one, but Kuensberg would have every right to feel very aggrieved. Her problem is where else she might go instead. But that applies to Marr too, of course.
It probably is justified on its own terms. The Andrew Marr Show is the one programme that anyone interested in politics tunes into. It's also the programme that politicians care about getting onto. Andrew Neil does interesting stuff but it's lower profile. Kuensberg doesn't run her own show.
Re- BBC salaries. Whilst I am not really into sport at all and do not personally dislike Gary Lineker, I simply cannot understand why the BBC sees it as appropriate to pay him £2million per annum of licence-payers' money. He has never been a naturally talented broadcaster unlike - say - David Dimbleby or Paxman, and I find it difficult to believe that people tune into a BBC channel on account of his appearing there. When he first became Match of the Day anchorman back in 1996 he was utterly dreadful, and significant resources were used to train him up. Whilst he has improved over the years , even today he is no better than'adequate '- well short of the likes of Des Lynam and David Coleman. Why on earth hasthe BBC effectively wasted so much money on him when there were - and are - others more naturally skilled to do the job and who would willingly do so for a fraction of what he is paid?
Gary Lineker benefited from the move -- I was going to say fad but it has survived two decades -- to using ex-players as pundits, across sports and broadcasters, as the older non-playing broadcasters retired.
Almost all football presenters are journalists not ex players. Lineker is the only one I can think of
I don't follow football, and I can only name two presenters: Linekar and Kamara (?sp) (*). Both ex footballers.
(*) I know him from adverts outside the village's bookies, and from Ninja Warrior.
Kamara co presents a show, that's true. But there are dozens of football shows and the majority aren't presented by ex players, who are normally pundits
Fair enough- football isn't exactly my forte. But thinking about it, isn't Shearer one as well?
(I find it quite sad that football's preeminence in the media means I can name even one presenter, despite disliking the sport).
Shearer is a pundit on MOTD, but doesn't present a show. All football shows have ex players as pundits, but almost all are presented by a journalist
I'll bow to your superior knowledge. However the differentiation between 'presenter' and 'pundit'' appears to be irrelevant when considering their pay?
Well most presenters would be on a fraction of Lineker wage for doing the same job. Lineker doesn't really offer expert opinion, that's not his job, so I would've thought he is vastly overpaid in comparison to link men on other football shows. Basically you don't need to be an ex footballer or a big name to present but you do to be a pundit (although that may change soon)
I've been calling for randomised checks into various parts of the electoral system. Not necessarily for prosecutions, but to attempt to discern the scale of any issues, if they exist. I'm amazed it's not already done.
Personation has to be fairly low-scale. Although it could just about feasibly have swung a handful of seats at the last GE, I see that as unlikely. What concerns me are more widespread forms of electoral fraud, and fortunately our current system makes that rather difficult.
Electoral law needs to be updated to reflect today's technology, rather than have parties exploit loopholes to breach spending limits or broadcasting restrictions.
"Electoral law needs to be updated to reflect today's technology"
What changes would you want?
Party election broadcasts are strictly controlled. Party election videos on Youtube or Facebook are not. Candidates can send one message free through the post -- but as many as they like via email. That is the sort of thing I am getting at. Electoral law needs to updated, even if the new law is that parties can do whatever they like.
I wonder if it would be more desirable to set a per voter spending limit?
eg, £5 per individual voter, max. Across all channels. Facebook, post etc. Force spending/micro-targeting disclosure from the tech companies as well as candidates/parties.
Every £ above the limit gets double fined by the electoral commission, or something, up to a hard limit where the candidate goes straight to jail and the election gets rerun.
The future problem, I suspect, is likely to be DIY-supporter campaigns. Politically engaged people - rather than donating to campaigns - paying somewhere between a few pounds and a few thousand pounds to plug their favorite/homemade pro/anti candidate videos on FB etc.
So Lineker gets 1.75 million for showing us some highlights he didn't cut himself and chatting about analysis other lesser paid people have done with some footballers with amusing regional accents? Bargain. I mean his expertise is so well used............ I guess MOTD anchor really is the TV equivalent of being a goal hanger.
So Lineker gets 1.75 million for showing us some highlights he didn't cut himself and chatting about analysis other lesser paid people have done with some footballers with amusing regional accents? Bargain. I mean his expertise is so well used............ I guess MOTD anchor really is the TV equivalent of being a goal hanger.
Perhaps Lineker is more important than we think. It used to be that MotD was the only way you could watch football (other than going to the stadium). It did not matter who presented the programme as it had a captive audience. Now almost every match is televised, so presentation and punditry are more important in luring viewers to MotD.
So Lineker gets 1.75 million for showing us some highlights he didn't cut himself and chatting about analysis other lesser paid people have done with some footballers with amusing regional accents? Bargain. I mean his expertise is so well used............ I guess MOTD anchor really is the TV equivalent of being a goal hanger.
Perhaps Lineker is more important than we think. It used to be that MotD was the only way you could watch football (other than going to the stadium). It did not matter who presented the programme as it had a captive audience. Now almost every match is televised, so presentation and punditry are more important in luring viewers to MotD.
Yes but I object to him coining it in on the back of other people's expertise and analysis. He doesn't watch the games and work out who's running the hard yards etc himself. Its seven figures for being a pretty boy. Should be noted that for Saturday 3pm kick offs MOTD or Sky's highlight package are still the only legal way to see games.
So Lineker gets 1.75 million for showing us some highlights he didn't cut himself and chatting about analysis other lesser paid people have done with some footballers with amusing regional accents? Bargain. I mean his expertise is so well used............ I guess MOTD anchor really is the TV equivalent of being a goal hanger.
Perhaps Lineker is more important than we think. It used to be that MotD was the only way you could watch football (other than going to the stadium). It did not matter who presented the programme as it had a captive audience. Now almost every match is televised, so presentation and punditry are more important in luring viewers to MotD.
Unless you watch an illegal stream, the show Linekar presents is mostly untelevised games.
So Lineker gets 1.75 million for showing us some highlights he didn't cut himself and chatting about analysis other lesser paid people have done with some footballers with amusing regional accents? Bargain. I mean his expertise is so well used............ I guess MOTD anchor really is the TV equivalent of being a goal hanger.
Perhaps Lineker is more important than we think. It used to be that MotD was the only way you could watch football (other than going to the stadium). It did not matter who presented the programme as it had a captive audience. Now almost every match is televised, so presentation and punditry are more important in luring viewers to MotD.
If the match is good people will watch. Des Lynam or Lineker it does not matter. They are just smooth linkmen and not irreplaceable. Lineker no doubt likes his BBC profile to keep him in the papers and to earn more from Walkers. Does he justify £1.8m? Of course not
There are a multitude of sports presenters earning far less. Mark Pougatch is very good and I can think of 4 or 5 on Sky (SSN churns them out!). The truth is Lineker will host about 6 or 7 live matches a season outside of the majour tournaments. Lucky him.
I've been calling for randomised checks into various parts of the electoral system. Not necessarily for prosecutions, but to attempt to discern the scale of any issues, if they exist. I'm amazed it's not already done.
Personation has to be fairly low-scale. Although it could just about feasibly have swung a handful of seats at the last GE, I see that as unlikely. What concerns me are more widespread forms of electoral fraud, and fortunately our current system makes that rather difficult.
Electoral law needs to be updated to reflect today's technology, rather than have parties exploit loopholes to breach spending limits or broadcasting restrictions.
"Electoral law needs to be updated to reflect today's technology"
What changes would you want?
Party election broadcasts are strictly controlled. Party election videos on Youtube or Facebook are not. Candidates can send one message free through the post -- but as many as they like via email. That is the sort of thing I am getting at. Electoral law needs to updated, even if the new law is that parties can do whatever they like.
I wonder if it would be more desirable to set a per voter spending limit?
eg, £5 per individual voter, max. Across all channels. Facebook, post etc. Force spending/micro-targeting disclosure from the tech companies as well as candidates/parties.
Every £ above the limit gets double fined by the electoral commission, or something, up to a hard limit where the candidate goes straight to jail and the election gets rerun.
The future problem, I suspect, is likely to be DIY-supporter campaigns. Politically engaged people - rather than donating to campaigns - paying somewhere between a few pounds and a few thousand pounds to plug their favorite/homemade pro/anti candidate videos on FB etc.
Should that be controlled/regulated? I dunno.
You've highlighted the obvious flaws in such regulation.
I realise the BBC is getting a lot of criticism today but can I congratulate them on the Monty Python parody last night - it was brilliant.
Set in the Dales, it reminded me a lot of the Sam Peckinpah sketch that the Pythons did..
Over-the-top emoting ... tick
The man were gay or paedo ... tick
The small heroine had super powers ... double tick. Although instead of using a Klingon nerve grip on the teenager, I thought a kick in the bollocks would be just as effective.
The effete Southerner, as camp as a row of tents, didn't really need to wear a cravat, but he did misunderstand the local inhabitants satisfactorily ... tick
Heroine has two Dads ... tick.
Pig-shit thick local farmer stumbles into pub to garble out some vital clues ... tick
Predictability ... double tick. I worked out that the guilty secret wouldn't be a lesbian affair as it would be neither guilty nor need to be a secret.
It could only be those evil men again. I think it was one of the two Dads, but I did get confused there. And the villain ran off for no apparent reason to lead gritty, pregnant heroine (along with cuckolded and useless male partner) to the kidnapped girl before being summarily dispatched by aforementioned heroine (also suffering from vomiting intermittently).
Finally, heroine has commitment issues, all fault of those evil man again .. tick. And as for those police procedures? I expected Mickey Mouse to amble past.
So Lineker gets 1.75 million for showing us some highlights he didn't cut himself and chatting about analysis other lesser paid people have done with some footballers with amusing regional accents? Bargain. I mean his expertise is so well used............ I guess MOTD anchor really is the TV equivalent of being a goal hanger.
Perhaps Lineker is more important than we think. It used to be that MotD was the only way you could watch football (other than going to the stadium). It did not matter who presented the programme as it had a captive audience. Now almost every match is televised, so presentation and punditry are more important in luring viewers to MotD.
Linekar is to BBC what Botham is to sky. An iconic name. We know he has a market, he also does BT Sport. For many others, it is easier said than done. Vanessa Feltz at whatever she is paid ?
I am against this outing, BTW. I would have had the number of people, male and female, in bands.
Everyone thought Graham Norton earned £2m. He earns a measly £850k. Not even worth talking about.
Laura Kuenssberg is a bargain at half the salary of Fiona Bruce.
You misread about Norton. He pays his chat show fee through his production company. He is worth every penny. Hard to say Lineker, Evans, Feltz, Grimshaw, Mohamed, Yentob and Nolan are.
The public have a right to know where their money goes.
They are spending a lot of money and building a decent squad.
I was looking at this the other day, but presumably the Europa League odds should allow for the fact that eight teams will drop out of the Champions League group stage? So for the current teams in the competition, the total probability should be a good deal below 100%. I bet that isn't the case.
They are spending a lot of money and building a decent squad.
I was looking at this the other day, but presumably the Europa League odds should allow for the fact that eight teams will drop out of the Champions League group stage? So for the current teams in the competition, the total probability should be a good deal below 100%. I bet that isn't the case.
You are right, after all painfully for me, Sevilla were one of the Champions League rejects in the 2015/16 Europa League.
I was also thinking about Everton for this tournament, they are 25/1.
But I don't see how this transparency harms them particularly. If anything it might take the sting out of much of the criticism.
Indeed. And clearly there IS a big problem in terms of the disparity and unfairness of men/women pay so if this transparency helps to bring equality for women at the BBC it can only be a good thing.
I am against this outing, BTW. I would have had the number of people, male and female, in bands.
Everyone thought Graham Norton earned £2m. He earns a measly £850k. Not even worth talking about.
Laura Kuenssberg is a bargain at half the salary of Fiona Bruce.
You misread about Norton. He pays his chat show fee through his production company. He is worth every penny. Hard to say Lineker, Evans, Feltz, Grimshaw, Mohamed, Yentob and Nolan are.
The public have a right to know where their money goes.
Doesn't Chris Evans get more Radio 2 listeners than Terry Wogan used to? He's not my cup of tea but Evans has a long record of doing something right.
Winkelman earning half a million for being the source of the zombie apocalypse and saying keep dancing once a week is a classic.
It does look like she's a bit overpaid to me... But If she wasn't there the entire top ten would be all men... In 2017.
Bruce and Jones are in there but yes there is a horrible disparity on display. They are all overpaid though, it's an overpaid industry like pro sports, films, music etc Vastly disproportionate income compared to what they add.
They are spending a lot of money and building a decent squad.
I was looking at this the other day, but presumably the Europa League odds should allow for the fact that eight teams will drop out of the Champions League group stage? So for the current teams in the competition, the total probability should be a good deal below 100%. I bet that isn't the case.
You are right, after all painfully for me, Sevilla were one of the Champions League rejects in the 2015/16 Europa League.
I was also thinking about Everton for this tournament, they are 25/1.
I think laying Man City for the title at 2-1 is value. Chelsea won at a canter last year, United will be stronger. City will have a new unproven in prem keeper.
They are spending a lot of money and building a decent squad.
I was looking at this the other day, but presumably the Europa League odds should allow for the fact that eight teams will drop out of the Champions League group stage? So for the current teams in the competition, the total probability should be a good deal below 100%. I bet that isn't the case.
You are right, after all painfully for me, Sevilla were one of the Champions League rejects in the 2015/16 Europa League.
I was also thinking about Everton for this tournament, they are 25/1.
To be fair, the top 20 teams in the market are bet to 55%, so an allowance is made for the late entrants.
So Lineker gets 1.75 million for showing us some highlights he didn't cut himself and chatting about analysis other lesser paid people have done with some footballers with amusing regional accents? Bargain. I mean his expertise is so well used............ I guess MOTD anchor really is the TV equivalent of being a goal hanger.
Perhaps Lineker is more important than we think. It used to be that MotD was the only way you could watch football (other than going to the stadium). It did not matter who presented the programme as it had a captive audience. Now almost every match is televised, so presentation and punditry are more important in luring viewers to MotD.
Unless you watch an illegal stream, the show Linekar presents is mostly untelevised games.
MOTD is always good as a format to pick out the highlights and contrversies. I watch it even when having been at the match. Often the perceived highlights are quite different, showing the power of perception and editing.
Why the fuss over the BBC - local authorities and the civil service have had to publish salary details of staff earning over £60k for years now. People can withhold their names but the post title is published.
The BBC is a publicly funded body like them - met by a tax on switching on a tv just once a year which is a poll tax which hits the poor hardest.
Why shouldn't we know the ridiculous sums they pay for mediocre presenters like Lineker for their limited football coverage.
They are spending a lot of money and building a decent squad.
I was looking at this the other day, but presumably the Europa League odds should allow for the fact that eight teams will drop out of the Champions League group stage? So for the current teams in the competition, the total probability should be a good deal below 100%. I bet that isn't the case.
You are right, after all painfully for me, Sevilla were one of the Champions League rejects in the 2015/16 Europa League.
I was also thinking about Everton for this tournament, they are 25/1.
To be fair, the top 20 teams in the market are bet to 55%, so an allowance is made for the late entrants.
Fair enough, that actually seems like quite a lot to allocate to the drop outs.
They are spending a lot of money and building a decent squad.
I was looking at this the other day, but presumably the Europa League odds should allow for the fact that eight teams will drop out of the Champions League group stage? So for the current teams in the competition, the total probability should be a good deal below 100%. I bet that isn't the case.
You are right, after all painfully for me, Sevilla were one of the Champions League rejects in the 2015/16 Europa League.
I was also thinking about Everton for this tournament, they are 25/1.
To be fair, the top 20 teams in the market are bet to 55%, so an allowance is made for the late entrants.
Fair enough, that actually seems like quite a lot to allocate to the drop outs.
Comments
The deck is stacked against independent candidates anyway: : few independents can afford to lose the ~£40k spending limits. Restricting 'free' methods such as emails might make it even harder for independents to get their voices heard.
These are the names of the stars in the top ten salary bands revealed in the annual report.
1. Chris Evans £2.2m - £2.25m
2. Gary Lineker £1.75m - £1.8m
3. Graham Norton £850,0000 - £899,999
4. Jeremy Vine £700,000 - £749,999
5. John Humphrys £600,000 - £649,999
6. Huw Edwards £550,000 - £599,999
7. Steve Wright £500,000 - £549,999
= 8. Claudia Winkleman £450,000 - £499,999
= 8. Matt Baker £450,000 - £499,999
= 9. Nicky Campbell £400,000 - £449,999
= 9. Andrew Marr £400,000 - £449,999
= 9. Stephen Nolan £400,000 - £449,999
= 9. Alan Shearer £400,000 - £449,999
=9. Alex Jones £400,000 - £449,000
10. Fiona Bruce £350,000 - £399,999
15 individuals. 13 men, 2 women.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/live/2017/jul/19/bbc-publishes-salaries-of-highest-earning-stars-live-updates
9. Alex Jones - Who knew spreading fake news on the internet paid so well...oh not that Alex Jones...
Of the top 15 I have heard of 10 of them.
(I find it quite sad that football's preeminence in the media means I can name even one presenter, despite disliking the sport).
Huw Edwards is a waste of space and the first to go out of that list IMHO. He is just paid to waffle about nothing when nothing is happening.
He is never off the BBC screen with Daily Politics, Sunday Politics and This Week plus interviewing.
Presumably he gets paid via a company.
CORRECTION. He is on the list at £200 - 250,000
Staffing costs should, of course, be included in the costs.
(*) I might be wrong, but I believe that's the case.
Something else that looks odd,. RE. SCD why is number two Claudia Winkleman paid more than Number one Tess Daly?
There's nothing worse than anyone breaks an embargo.
Maybe obscure but highly paid celebs shouldn't be allowed to have gender neutral names...
Cut male salaries to equal female salaries, use savings to buy back F1 rights.
[I'll believe that when I see it].
And if you was looking at the top ten highest earners it's even worse with a 9/1 ratio....
And we can assume when Bruce Forsyth was still doing SCD (only four years ago) the entire top ten would've been all men!
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/uk/fake-views-mep-daniel-hannan-says-hes-walking-english-countryside-tweets-picture-vermont-usa/amp/
The current rules clearly don't work.
I wonder if it would be more desirable to set a per voter spending limit?
eg, £5 per individual voter, max. Across all channels. Facebook, post etc. Force spending/micro-targeting disclosure from the tech companies as well as candidates/parties.
Every £ above the limit gets double fined by the electoral commission, or something, up to a hard limit where the candidate goes straight to jail and the election gets rerun.
The future problem, I suspect, is likely to be DIY-supporter campaigns. Politically engaged people - rather than donating to campaigns - paying somewhere between a few pounds and a few thousand pounds to plug their favorite/homemade pro/anti candidate videos on FB etc.
Should that be controlled/regulated? I dunno.
Bargain. I mean his expertise is so well used............ I guess MOTD anchor really is the TV equivalent of being a goal hanger.
That would be 5% of the world population, or 8% of those with access to a TV.
Or something like a quarter of those who speak English.
Top Gear was normally getting less than 10% of the UK to watch it - it's not feasible that it is similarly popular internationally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear_(2002_TV_series)#Broadcast
It was, however, phenomenally popular overseas.
I am against this outing, BTW. I would have had the number of people, male and female, in bands.
Everyone thought Graham Norton earned £2m. He earns a measly £850k. Not even worth talking about.
Laura Kuenssberg is a bargain at half the salary of Fiona Bruce.
Should be noted that for Saturday 3pm kick offs MOTD or Sky's highlight package are still the only legal way to see games.
If the match is good people will watch. Des Lynam or Lineker it does not matter. They are just smooth linkmen and not irreplaceable. Lineker no doubt likes his BBC profile to keep him in the papers and to earn more from Walkers. Does he justify £1.8m? Of course not
There are a multitude of sports presenters earning far less. Mark Pougatch is very good and I can think of 4 or 5 on Sky (SSN churns them out!). The truth is Lineker will host about 6 or 7 live matches a season outside of the majour tournaments. Lucky him.
Set in the Dales, it reminded me a lot of the Sam Peckinpah sketch that the Pythons did..
Over-the-top emoting ... tick
The man were gay or paedo ... tick
The small heroine had super powers ... double tick. Although instead of using a Klingon nerve grip on the teenager, I thought a kick in the bollocks would be just as effective.
The effete Southerner, as camp as a row of tents, didn't really need to wear a cravat, but he did misunderstand the local inhabitants satisfactorily ... tick
Heroine has two Dads ... tick.
Pig-shit thick local farmer stumbles into pub to garble out some vital clues ... tick
Predictability ... double tick. I worked out that the guilty secret wouldn't be a lesbian affair as it would be neither guilty nor need to be a secret.
It could only be those evil men again. I think it was one of the two Dads, but I did get confused there. And the villain ran off for no apparent reason to lead gritty, pregnant heroine (along with cuckolded and useless male partner) to the kidnapped girl before being summarily dispatched by aforementioned heroine (also suffering from vomiting intermittently).
Finally, heroine has commitment issues, all fault of those evil man again .. tick. And as for those police procedures? I expected Mickey Mouse to amble past.
When's the next episode?
AC Milan to win the Europa League at 12/1
They are spending a lot of money and building a decent squad.
The public have a right to know where their money goes.
This isn't the Tories this is the general public having a right to know.
I was also thinking about Everton for this tournament, they are 25/1.
Luvvies on the run.
But I don't see how this transparency harms them particularly.
If anything it might take the sting out of much of the criticism.
Vastly disproportionate income compared to what they add.
How many are in tax avoidance schemes?
Chelsea won at a canter last year, United will be stronger.
City will have a new unproven in prem keeper.
Good goal by Mahrez against WBA.
Don't decide to go for a pee immediately after chopping chillies, even if you think you've washed your hands well.
Ow ow ow ow ow.
The BBC is a publicly funded body like them - met by a tax on switching on a tv just once a year which is a poll tax which hits the poor hardest.
Why shouldn't we know the ridiculous sums they pay for mediocre presenters like Lineker for their limited football coverage.
I would imagine David Davis could live with being Sid James...
https://www.oddschecker.com/football/europa-league/winner
NEW THREAD