State organisations' profligacy

We know the taxpayer funded BBC pays Jonathan Ross and Graham Norton millions of pounds to host the sort of programmes which could perfectly easily be on commercial channels.

Graham Norton's business partner denies they are paid too much.

I say it’s the opposite; they are not paid enough.

Remember, the entire TV industry is based squarely on the shoulders of a very few talented people with special skills and with longevity. I say cutting their pay is a major mistake.

Let them see what they are worth to ITV.

Actually they are being paid more than their headline fees already. We knew the BBC paid their production companies to make the shows (on BBC premises). Now The Sunday Times tells us that Ross picks up fees when his shows are sold abroad - most of them seemingly the BBC's own overseas channels. Moyles even got paid extra when he broadcast his own jingles on his Radio 1 show.

Junior BBC presenters - apparently on a mere £100k - are complaining they may have to take a pay cut when their contracts are renegotiated. That's how contracts work, boys and girls. Not apparently for senior functionaries. Director General Mark Thompson had a package worth £816,000 last year, while his deputy, Mark Byford, took home £513,000. Director of vision Jana Bennett collected £536,000 in salary, bonus, expenses and pension contributions.

Scorpion used to be a supporter of the BBC but its snooty arrogance has become unforgivable, both financially and in its politically correct agenda.

Meanwhile BBC journalists are taking money from NHS organisations - and doubtless others - to chair their events. The Mail reports "critics claim that the broadcasters risk compromising their impartiality by taking money from the very organisations they are supposed to scrutinise for the BBC".

The BBC loftily says

It is for the BBC to be the interpreter of its own rules and no evidence has been put forward to suggest any of the people mentioned have done anything which could compromise our impartiality.

No hint there then that acceptability to taxpayers might be a consideration. What an agreeable spot planet BBC must be.

But the biggest story here is not about the BBC. We know they're haughty and wasteful. It's the exposure of waste in the NHS.

Which BBC journalists are scandalously conniving in.

Taxpayer funded bodies don't need to pay celebrities to chair their conferences. They must have plenty of employees who can do it for nothing. Taxpayer funded bodies should have austerity in their DNA.

But probably the visible profligacy is the tip of the iceberg: it shows us their mindset.

The ministerial merrygoround swings too fast for any minister to stay on board long enough to grip this waste. Though what a fascinating task it would be.

These bodies' spending should be published on the web. If the celebs don't like it, don't rifle our money.

Meanwhile, the government should say that any more such spending will be deducted from the pay of the organisation's chief executive. And when the BBC is complicit, that will apply to Mark Thompson too.