News BBC Presenter owned

[Dukat]

Courtesy of Chilly:

[12:43] <Chilly> BBC NEWS | Politics | Peer turns fire on BBC presenter



Haha, made me smile from ear to ear seeing this, great to see the media getting a taste of thier own medicine for once!

Edit: and yes, this has already been posted in general, but FHOT is like a whole other country!

 

[Everz]

Burned.. made me lol.

 

[Chronictank]

Her wage is of no concequence, she doesnt use the bbc's money (according to her) for personal matters

The MP's mentioned very much so abuse the system and use public money for personal items which they never should be able to. They are paid a wage for that sort of thing, "expenses" is the cost of doing your job not getting your garden done or even living costs.
it is enough of a liberty that we have to fund their second homes

 

[Lamp]

 

[Dukat]

Her wage is of no concequence, she doesnt use the bbc's money (according to her) for personal matters

The MP's mentioned very much so abuse the system and use public money for personal items which they never should be able to. They are paid a wage for that sort of thing, "expenses" is the cost of doing your job not getting your garden done or even living costs.
it is enough of a liberty that we have to fund their second homes

Yea, ok, so the MP's mentioned are worse, but that doesn't make it any less worse that some bint gets paid a scandalous amount of money and then turns around and talks about how the rest of us need to tighten our belts.

Yes. Abusing expenses is wrong. but that doesnt change the fact that the money these people are being paid is ridiculous and it is, essentially, coming out of our pockets in the form of tax in the same way as the MP's abused expenses did.

 

[Chronictank]

Yea, ok, so the MP's mentioned are worse, but that doesn't make it any less worse that some bint gets paid a scandalous amount of money and then turns around and talks about how the rest of us need to tighten our belts.

Yes. Abusing expenses is wrong. but that doesnt change the fact that the money these people are being paid is ridiculous and it is, essentially, coming out of our pockets in the form of tax in the same way as the MP's abused expenses did.

It's not at all the same, she is paid a wage of the percieved value of her job regardless of your opinion on it (which is a different matter entirely and a whole different discussion)

MP's are equally paid a wage which is deemed to be the value of their role, and given more than enough other benefits such as tax breaks.
However unlike the "bint" they are using additonal money intended for work for personal things

She has done nothing wrong to be quite frank, if someone offered you 80k for your job you aren't going to say "you know what, i think i will only take 30k as its more fair"

 

[pikeh]

£92k? I knew it was a lot but not that much.

But aye, shes done nothing wrong. Like she said, she makes all phonecalls from her own phone and pays for it, she dosent have her heli-pad deweeded and then claims money back for it.

 

[Ch3tan]

So the MP instead of answering her questions, used some spin and tried to attack her for doing her job? Ridiculous. She is paid that much money for doing her job, she is not claiming public funds to furnish a second home, or pay her son for some doing some phto copies.

Dukat, this is not the media getting a taste of their own medicine. She is hardly exposing a celebrity scandal, or hyping up swine flu. She is reporting on percieved corruption from the people that we allow to run the nation. That is a very different thing, and you need to see that.

As for her wage, you have to realise that her wage is probably competitive, and in relation to what other networks pay their reporters. So if she is getting the going rate for doing her job, what is the issue?

 

[Lethul]

What are the argument about?

 

[Chronictank]

What are the argument about?

Basically the MP acucsed her of having a ridiculous wage in responce to MP's using public money to pay for personal items like swimming pools, gardens etc..

Personally he just came across as a bitter muppet who tried to dodge the question rather than "giving the reporter a taste of her own medicine"

 

[Cozak]

So the MP instead of answering her questions, used some spin and tried to attack her for doing her job? Ridiculous. <snip>

Sadly, thats all MP's seem to ever do. Answer a question with a question trying to avoid it. Its worrying when the people who are supposed to be running our country cannot even answer simple questions straight up and honestly.

 

[Dukat]

bah!

 

[Chronictank]

bah!

<gives Dukat bacon flavoured ice cream for the effort>

 

[Litmus]

BBC pays Johnathon Ross £120k/week(£6m+) per year.. thats more then Ronaldo gets.

Well he did before he go busted for that radio show, not sure if its changeded now. Quite obsene amounts for appearing on TV for about 2/3 hours a week.

 

[Imgormiel]

Yea, ok, so the MP's mentioned are worse, but that doesn't make it any less worse that some bint gets paid a scandalous amount of money and then turns around and talks about how the rest of us need to tighten our belts.

Yes. Abusing expenses is wrong. but that doesnt change the fact that the money these people are being paid is ridiculous and it is, essentially, coming out of our pockets in the form of tax in the same way as the MP's abused expenses did.

Hey, living in London, that's a freaking pittance omfg I said the unimaginable Two years ago a one bedroom flat to buy was like a million quid...hence London is insane, and so are the people that live there tbh. Hence why alot of the move up north for sanity and then only realise that they aren't wanted here and they don't want our crappy wages based on 1/5 of the money for 10 times the skill... I really feel pity for those living and working in London...not

 

[Aoami]

Why is her wage unimportant?

She works for the BBC, thus is being paid with public money. She is paid £92,000 p/a, whereas an MP is paid £46,000 p/a for a much more important job.

Thusly, they need to use the current expenses system as their wages do not cover all the costs.

 

[tris-]

Does buying a helecopter pad count as an expense needed to do their job?

How about a chandelier?

 

[pikeh]

How about having their moat drained?

 

[Aoami]

They're all things Tories claimed for though, and everyone knows that they're a bunch of villianous scumbags.

 

[Chronictank]

Why is her wage unimportant?

She works for the BBC, thus is being paid with public money. She is paid £92,000 p/a, whereas an MP is paid £46,000 p/a for a much more important job.

Thusly, they need to use the current expenses system as their wages do not cover all the costs.

Because she is being paid a competative rate for her job, welcome to capitalism. If the BBC didnt pay that much for her (which they deem she is worth obviously) she would go elsewhere, your personal opinion on how "ridiculous" it is doesn't really make the slightest bit of difference to this fact.
She is not spending a single penny of public money for personal expenses, that is HER money because it is her wage the same as everyone else.
How would you like it if you were told you have to do the same job for half the pay because someone earning less than you was whining it wasn't fair?

£46k is more than enough to live on, most people get nowhere near that much so saying their wages do not cover all the costs is complete crap. Their work expences are rightly paid by their work place they shouldn't get a single penny for personal use from their work budget.
The only argument being a second (not a third or 4th abroad) home due to media exposure which they arguable need.

This is nothing short of legalised theft, the same thing MP's in this country point the accusing finger at politicians and leaders abroad for.

 

[Bugz]

Because she is being paid a competative rate for her job, welcome to capitalism. If the BBC didnt pay that much for her (which they deem she is worth obviously) she would go elsewhere, your personal opinion on how "ridiculous" it is doesn't really make the slightest bit of difference to this fact.
She is not spending a single penny of public money for personal expenses, that is HER money because it is her wage the same as everyone else.
How would you like it if you were told you have to do the same job for half the pay because someone earning less than you was whining it wasn't fair?

£46k is more than enough to live on, most people get nowhere near that much so saying their wages do not cover all the costs is complete crap. Their work expences are rightly paid by their work place they shouldn't get a single penny for personal use from their work budget.
The only argument being a second (not a third or 4th abroad) home due to media exposure which they arguable need.

This is nothing short of legalised theft, the same thing MP's in this country point the accusing finger at politicians and leaders abroad for.

Out of curiousity (as I do agree with the vast majority of what you've written):

what would be your stance if, instead of expenses, all politicians wages were bumped to 92k and the reporter had hers (and those similair) dropped to 46k? I'm curious because expenses are being misused, and it is outrageous, but if a public server reporter can have 92k, why don't we then increase politicians to 92k? That way, they won't need to claim on expenses. The thing is though, that extra 46k or so will go on the same stuff the expenses go on.

I dunno what I'm trying to say really: as much as I'm disgusted with the expenses, the MP makes a fair point.

 

[Raven]

Because an MP should not be an MP for the money or the position, they should do it because it is the right thing to do. Most are only doing it for themselves and to either gain business contacts or for self gratification.

 

[Bugz]

So why we do not bump doctors' wage down to 20,000 a year by that logic? They should just be in the profession to help people?

 

[Chronictank]

Out of curiousity (as I do agree with the vast majority of what you've written):

what would be your stance if, instead of expenses, all politicians wages were bumped to 92k and the reporter had hers (and those similair) dropped to 46k? I'm curious because expenses are being misused, and it is outrageous, but if a public server reporter can have 92k, why don't we then increase politicians to 92k? That way, they won't need to claim on expenses. The thing is though, that extra 46k or so will go on the same stuff the expenses go on.

I dunno what I'm trying to say really: as much as I'm disgusted with the expenses, the MP makes a fair point.

If their wages were raised to 92k AND they had to pay every expense involving their work
This includes things from flights and travel to stationary as well as any domestic allowances like second homes.
In addition they should be brought on the par with everyone else so they pay council tax, parking and everything else the rest of us have to pay which gets waivered for politicians

If they did all of that i would have no problem with it
The problem is that it is not practical, not only in the business sense but the selfish leeches will just avoid their duties because they dont want to spend money so would be in a worse situation than we are in now

Lets be very clear on one thing, their wage is 46k or whatever it was
The rest is business expenses it is NOT an additonal allowance on top of their wage
they have no right to be claiming it for personal use in the first place.

Its like you taking your allowances from work and spending them yourself on a holiday, if they weren't in government they would be getting run through the courts for theft/fired

 

[Cadelin]

I think we need to get some facts straight:

An MPs basic wage is (from April 1st 2008) £63,291. You obviously get more if you have more responsibilities. The average amount claimed last year in expenses was £135,000 which is tax free. (If it was taxed they would have to pay £54 000) Information taken from here.

So if we converted this into a "normal" wage, an average back bencher would be getting the equivalent wage of £250 000 (more now as I haven't taken into account the 50% higher tax rate). They also get additional benefits if they lose their seat etc.

 

[Lamp]

Because she is being paid a competative rate for her job

Spot on.

 

[Lucius]

So why we do not bump doctors' wage down to 20,000 a year by that logic? They should just be in the profession to help people?

Were you using that as an example of the flaws in the poster's arguement or do you genuinely believe that? I hope it is not the latter.

 

[Bugz]

I'm just trying to find the logic and 'beliefs' people work from.

I find it hard to have a personal opinion on matters related to labour markets as I'm an economist - I think everyone is right & everyone is wrong

 

[gohan]

why is every1 blaming the mp's they all claimed within the rules


dont blame the playa blame the game





or are you honestly telling me that all you angels wouldnt claim for whateva you could get if it was part of your job bonuses i fuckign would id use every penny buying things i don't need jsut cos i can

 

[Lucius]

I'm just trying to find the logic and 'beliefs' people work from.

I find it hard to have a personal opinion on matters related to labour markets as I'm an economist - I think everyone is right & everyone is wrong

A brilliant mind like yours should not be wasted on something as trivial as the economy.