BBC`s extravagant pay policy:

The broadcasting union, Bectu, is absolutely correct to say that it`s time "the BBC gave its low-paid production staff a pay rise", just as it is gratifying to read that a Labour government would limit public sector pay ratios to 20:1 (Morning Star, 20/07/17).

   What is absolutely clear from the corporation`s pay revelations is that the BBC has been, and still is, guilty on three accounts: profligacy, sexism and idiocy.

  The fact that it has been profligate with the licence-payers` money is obvious; rather than having a pay policy based on fairness, with no-one earning less than £20k a year, the BBC chooses to pay obscene amounts of money to its so-called "stars", who clearly should be allowed to go elsewhere, if their only objective in life is to acquire wealth. If the market really rules, why pay John Humphrys so much, when his only radio alternative employer is commercial, with limited audience and influence?

 The pay policy is sexist: twice as many men appear in the list of top earners as women; paying women less when they clearly do the same job is simply not on in any century, let alone this one!

 The idiocy comes with the pay for the sports presenters and experts. People tune in to watch the sport. Will they not watch Wimbledon if John McEnroe isn`t on? Do we watch Match of the Day in our millions to listen to the presenter tell us which match we will watch next, or is it because we really want to learn from the "expert" comments from men who played the game years ago? Of course not.

    In fact, would people stop watching "Match of the Day",  if there was no presenter or punditry, and instead, the highlights of each match simply followed one another, without the "expert" opinion? At least, that way would provide more football action, and the millions saved by the BBC could be spent on new programmes, new talent,  and increasing the pay for those at the bottom struggling to makje a living, and without whom, there would be no programmes at all!