Today's bleating member of the liberal elite is Sarah Montague who until last year had to struggle to survive on just under £150,000. Now she gets more having switched from Today to The World at One. Please #MeToo
Montague bleats that she was "furious" when she discovered she earned less than men at the BBC. Also less than the other female presenter on Today but that is an aside. We poor saps the taxpayer might feel furious that we get sent to jail if we don't pay the license fee to pay such gargantuan wages to both men and women at the BBC, sums most of of us can only ever dream of earning.
That thought does not occur to the ridiculous Montague bleating to the Sunday Times who states:
Before the list (of staff pay) was published I had thought there might be some moral high ground from taking less of the licence fee than others. What a fool I was. I felt nothing of the sort. Instead I felt a sap. For years I had been subsidising other people’s lifestyles.
Think about that for a second, the use of the word subsidy. If Ms Montague had indeed been subsidising even more grossly overpaid men like fake news specialist Jon Sopel she would have been paying them money. But she was not. There is a subsidy here. BBC news as a whole pays way over market rates for a commodity business with no shortage of applicants. And thus it is subsidised by a poll tax levied on all of us, the license fee. We - who earn a fraction of what Ms Montague or the loathsome Sopel earn - must subsidise them both.
Montague's sense of entitlement means that she just does not appreciate that.
Worse still her journalism is lazy and unthinking - regurgitated group think. She starts her bleating thus:
Finally we are talking about pay. You can criticise the gender pay gap figures for being too crude a measure of potential discrimination and for diverting attention away from equal pay but at least it has prompted us to open up about our earnings.
Hmmmmmm. It seems some folk - notably women on six figure salaries round at the BBC - talk about nothing else and have been for many months. She says that the gender pay gap figures are "too crude a measure of potential discrimination." No, Sarah, using examples of companies such as Ryanair (branded "an offender" by the BBC) and the Crown Estate, I explian in simple language HERE why the data produced was utterly meaningless.
But lazy journalists and virtue signalling politicians used it none the less to suggest that women earned far less than men for doing the same jobs as a result of discrimination. The conclusion and indeed the underlying premise are both utterly false but the meaningless data was used - notably by BBC journalists - to argue otherwise.
If Montague is not intelligent enough to realise that then my resentment, as a license fee payer, for having to subsidise her salary grows that bit more intense.