BBC salaries are not the revelation we should be focusing on

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

The BBC salaries need to be put into perspective (Getty)

Impeccable timing by the Government again by announcing changes to retirement age on the same day as the BBC releases the salary of its top earners.

All media outlets seem to have led on the BBC story, which sadly will affect less of the population than the changes to retirement age. Shame everyone's discussing TV licence fee value for money rather than that of national insurance contributions.

N Priestley
Lancaster

I hope, probably forlornly, that the disclosure of the earnings of some BBC presenters will finally end the misconception that the BBC is inefficient and wastes money. Many of the presenters front programmes that are sold across the world through BBC Worldwide producing an income of many millions of pounds – Doctor Who, for example.

It is also worth noting that many of the critics of BBC salaries actually earn far more than the people they criticise for far less work. Many of the named presenters work across the network on both television and radio bringing enjoyable and informative programmes to a wide range of viewers and listeners.

Objectors to the BBC licence fee should note the range of TV and radio stations available, as well as those available digitally and through iPlayer and remember that although the non-subscription, commercial channels are free at the point of use they are actually paid for by viewers through the advertisers passing on their costs to consumers in high prices paid in the shops for their products.

No commercial channel comes anywhere close to the range and quality of the BBC’s output or value for money and no commercial channel wants to compete with the BBC.

Dr Nick Winstone-Cooper
​Bridgend

So now we know that the BBC is asserting that it is in favour of transparency, as it is dragged kicking and screaming to reveal the salaries of its highest paid employees.

We must make of this what we will, but what it does demonstrate is the shift away from paying the salaries that a particular job warrants, to seeing who can be hired and for how much. Those with the most clout are obviously calling all the shots, and we get to pay for it.

The most effective way to curb the practise is for us to simply switch off; although I for one would miss John Humphrys’s acerbic wit.

The practice of paying such disparate salaries is well established within many organisations. When advertising posts it is now common practice to ask candidates to state what salary they require rather than stating what the role in question warrants.

Whilst we all want to earn as much as possible, I find this focus on income distasteful. Many of the BBC’s listeners and viewers would just like to take home enough to feed and clothe their families and provide a roof over their heads.

Linda Piggott-Vijeh
Chard

It would appear that it isn't just the Tory leader who is out of touch with reality. If Jeremy Corbyn makes good on his promise to cut BBC pay when Netflix has just announced its has topped 100 million subscribers (and growing) it will spell the end for public service broadcasting in the UK.

Culturally we need the BBC. It is part of what makes us British and provides vital social cohesion. Paying market rates for stars protects this vital national asset from a highly competitive commercial environment.

Mark Grey
London WC2

Isn't is strange that our political leader demanded that the BBC reveal the names of their employees who earn more than £150,000 as they were paid for by the public through the TV licence, yet fought tooth and nail to prevent their own expenses from being made public?

Ken Twiss
Cleveland