All this talk of cost-cutting with BBC and Dr Who actually started off years ago e.g. how many viewers knew that K9 was actually a bitch?

I'd be interested to know if the 'big names' on the letter are also in favour of smaller female names earning the same as they do (whether small names get raises or the big names get cuts)? After all, they are doing the same job. The nature of the beast (as in football and all of the entertainment industry) is you are paid what you can convince the employer you're worth - normally a function of what they think you will bring in in terms of viewer figures. I'm not necessarily against the BBC (as effectively a nationalised employer) paying a flat rate instead, but that would mean the big names are more likely to go elsewhere for the cash (again that's fine, most of these are just presenters and I'd have no objection to 'unknowns' presenting BBC programs)

Oh the irony.

If that is true then Peter Capaldi's agent can't be doing a very good job as Dr Who is one of the biggest earners for the BBC as it's sold to many countries yet it's star only earns half what one of the long time actors in Casualty earns

The question I think is somewhere between the two. A lot of presenters probably are 'overly competitively paid', after all and I don't think those questions are properly addressed. Is Gary Lineker value for money, or could you find better, for less (the answer is yes, and yes, and probably without a major impact on MOTD viewing figures).

I don't think there is too much cost analysis going on here, and maybe that presenters have become seen as being the product, rather than the show, which in turn has an impact on creative product.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

No where near as bad, if you ask me, but then why do I get paid more than a nurse, its all to do with supply and demand and the BBC is probably a bit risk shy after s**ting the bed with the replacement of Top Gear.

Maybe the problem of the BBC is not using more presenters, and instead relying on the 'image of celebrities' to sell product, rather than the quality of the product.

I means seriously, how is Phillip Schofield commanding a top wage, when his star was eclipsed by a f**king glove puppet (at his height of celebrity).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]