BBC Senior Managers from Minority Backgrounds Earn More Than Peers, Data Shows

[Social Media]

 

Recent figures from the BBC’s annual report reveal that senior managers from minority backgrounds, including ethnic minorities, women, LGBT individuals, and disabled staff, receive higher salaries than their counterparts. This revelation has sparked criticism, with some arguing that the broadcaster, despite its commitment to equal pay, is now overseeing what has been called "reverse pay gaps."  

 

The BBC’s 2021-2023 "diverse leadership" targets aimed for 50 percent of senior roles to be occupied by women, at least 20 percent by black, Asian, or minority ethnic staff, and 12 percent by disabled individuals. Data from the latest report, cited by *The Telegraph*, indicates that LGBT senior managers earn 15.6 percent more than those who do not identify as such.

 

Senior leaders from black, Asian, and other ethnic minority backgrounds earn a median 12.6 percent more than their white colleagues. Disabled senior managers receive an 8.4 percent higher salary than non-disabled peers, while female bosses in top roles earn 5.7 percent more than male counterparts.  

 

Elliot Keck of the TaxPayers’ Alliance criticized these findings, telling *The Telegraph*, "Licence fee payers will be dismayed by these reverse pay gaps. Auntie’s obsession with diversity, equality, and inclusion has resulted in the very discrimination that it was supposed to protect against. The BBC needs to foster a culture of meritocracy, not one of virtue-signalling."  

 

A BBC source responded by noting that these pay gaps were specific to senior management and not reflected in the broader workforce. A spokesperson for the broadcaster defended its hiring and compensation practices, stating, "The BBC is committed to fair and equal pay for all, and all appointments are made on merit.

 

An external Equal Pay Audit recently concluded that there was no evidence of systemic bias in our pay approach or policies. We continue to monitor our pay gaps closely and do expect to see small fluctuations year-on-year, and we’d advise against the selective use of figures."

 

Based on a report by Daily Mail  2025-03-13

 

Related Topics:

BBC Chairman Calls for More Working-Class Northerners to Balance Liberal Bias

BBC Chairman Proposes Higher Fees for Wealthier Households

 

 

 

[BritManToo]

White heterosexual men are second class citizens in the UK!

[quake]

The BBC is a joke now days.

It should be closed down.

[Gsxrnz]

So, their policy is to max out at no more than 18% white male management, and short pay them at that. An excellent business strategy that explains why William Hartnell and Jon Pertwee et al are now spinning in their graves. 

[JonnyF]

No surprise. Reflects the anti white racism so prevalent in modern Britain. 

[The Old Bull]

6 hours ago, BritManToo said:

White heterosexual men are second class citizens in the UK!

Same in Canada where the HR drones all dream of finding a one legged black francophone lesbian, so they can tick all the boxes.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

 

This is why so many men wear a frock and designer stubble when they attend an interview at the BBC …. this once great corporation has become an asylum of gender indeterminate left wing nut-jobs.

 

 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

11 minutes ago, The Old Bull said:

Same in Canada where the HR drones all dream of finding a one legged black francophone lesbian, so they can tick all the boxes.

 

The BBC has got hundreds of those  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

 

[WDSmart]

I would have expected this to be the other way around, but if the sample size was large enough, there should be no significant difference in salary based on race, ethnicity, gender, age, etc... 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

18 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I would have expected this to be the other way around

 

Which indicates that you know nothing whatsoever about what has been happening at the BBC for the last thirty years …. DEI before it was ever heard of.

 

 

[WDSmart]

18 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

38 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I would have expected this to be the other way around

 

Which indicates that you know nothing whatsoever about what has been happening at the BBC for the last thirty years …. DEI before it was ever heard of.

I'm all for DEI, but yes, I don't know that much about what's been happening at the BBC. I'm a US citizen and a CNN watcher.

But, even if the BBC has been practicing DEI "for the last thirty years," salaries between different races, national origins, genders, etc., shouldn't be different. If what you say is true, then the percentage of minorities would be more than it was historically, but it would now be approximately the same as the general population. And the salaries paid should be the same for the same type of worker regardless of their race, national origin, gender, etc... The only reason to pay an individual more than their peers is if results are better than theirs.

My understanding of DEI is that it is applied to hiring, not compensation.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

24 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I'm all for DEI

 

So you prefer candidates to be selected for the minority status of their ethnicity, religion, or gender preference, rather than their ability and qualifications; righto, exactly why the Democrats got flushed down the gurgler in your own country, n'est-ce pas ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

 

[dinsdale]

No surprise. The tax payer funded BBC is affected by the woke agenda mind virus madness.

[WDSmart]

19 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

So you prefer candidates to be selected for the minority status of their ethnicity, religion, or gender preference, rather than their ability and qualifications; righto, exactly why the Democrats got flushed down the gurgler in your own country, n'est-ce pas ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

 

Yes, I support DEI. I prefer the candidate's minority status be taken into consideration when hiring, with the goal of creating a more DEI workforce. 

I wouldn't categorize the Democrat's candidate in the recent US presidential election as being "flushed down the gurgler." Harris only lost the general election by 2.5% of the vote, and the majorities in both the House and Senate are both very, very slim. I do acknowledge that the plurality of the voters and citizens of the US are probably against DEI, but they are also a plurality of Whites, so being in favor of DEI would not be in their favor. But that is what DEI is all about - correcting the results of biased hiring practices by reversing the bias, at least for a short amount of time, until the makeup of the workforce mirrors that of the population. 

[Baht Simpson]

10 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

 

*The Telegraph*, indicates that LGBT senior managers earn 15.6 percent more than those who do not identify as such.

 

 

 

 

Useless figure. It depends on so many factors. Are the jobs exactly the same or do they have extra requirements and demands? Is there a performance element? Have the higher paid ones performed better? Have different targets been met? Is there any seniority in service that is reflected in pay? Do the figures incude bonuses? Do they all work the same hours? Are they all new DEI hires or were some existing hires?

 

Without knowing the details relating to the jobs it's difficult to comment And 15.6% isn't a massive difference. Not all senior managers across departments are going  to have the same pay packages.

 

It's also noticeable that of the top 11 presenters at the BBC one is black and one is gay. And all but one are white. 

[Baht Simpson]

And another thing. Lol

 

Gays are 15.6% more fabulous than straights so they should get paid more. ✨

[rough diamond]

36 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

No surprise. The tax payer funded BBC is affected by the woke agenda mind virus madness.

The BBC is not taxpayer funded. 

The BBC is primarily funded by the annual television license fee paid by UK households. The BBC also receives funding from commercial subsidiaries and donations

[dinsdale]

2 minutes ago, rough diamond said:

The BBC is not taxpayer funded. 

The BBC is primarily funded by the annual television license fee paid by UK households. The BBC also receives funding from commercial subsidiaries and donations

Householders are taxpayers so taxpayers fund the BBC. Yes it's a charge and not drawn from the tax pool but my OP said tax payer funded and this holds true no matter your interpretation.

[rough diamond]

4 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Householders are taxpayers so taxpayers fund the BBC. Yes it's a charge and not drawn from the tax pool but my OP said tax payer funded and this holds true no matter your interpretation.

Not all householders are taxpayers.

Not all taxpayers pay either.

Just use the correct term which is the "BBC Licence Fee".

https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/licencefee

[dinsdale]

2 minutes ago, rough diamond said:

Not all householders are taxpayers.

Not all taxpayers pay either.

Just use the correct term which is the "BBC License Fee".

I said the BBC is tax payer funded. This is not incorrect. Tax payers buy licenses and the money from these licenses are the majority part of funding for the BBC hence tax payers are the majority funders of the BBC hence the BBC is tax payer funded as I originally said.

[blaze master]

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

I would have expected this to be the other way around, but if the sample size was large enough, there should be no significant difference in salary based on race, ethnicity, gender, age, etc... 

 

Of course you would expect it the other way around. No surprise there. However you are dead wrong. Which is no surprise either. 

 

How does this predicament fit into your socialism narrative.I guess all animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others.

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

I'm all for DEI, but yes, I don't know that much about what's been happening at the BBC. I'm a US citizen and a CNN watcher.

But, even if the BBC has been practicing DEI "for the last thirty years," salaries between different races, national origins, genders, etc., shouldn't be different. If what you say is true, then the percentage of minorities would be more than it was historically, but it would now be approximately the same as the general population. And the salaries paid should be the same for the same type of worker regardless of their race, national origin, gender, etc... The only reason to pay an individual more than their peers is if results are better than theirs.

My understanding of DEI is that it is applied to hiring, not compensation.

 

Your understanding seems to be at level zero on all the issues you mentioned.

 

Not surprising for a proud CNN watcher.

 

 

[blaze master]

 

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

My understanding of DEI is that it is applied to hiring, not compensation.

 

And yet again you would be wrong. Or did the thread not make that clear enough when it presented the facts to you. 

[WDSmart]

9 minutes ago, blaze master said:

 

Of course you would expect it the other way around. No surprise there. However you are dead wrong. Which is no surprise either. 

 

How does this predicament fit into your socialism narrative.I guess all animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others.

This "perdicament" doesn't fit into my "socialism narrative." In true socialism, there would be no salaries. Everyone would contribute to society the best they can, and society would, in turn, provide for their needs the best it could. Yes, all citizens would be equal. As far as other animals, unfortunately, that probably would not be the case, but that's not a condition of socialism. That's more of a condition of recognizing all living beings' equality. Humans certainly don't do that and are not likely to, ever. 

[dinsdale]

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

I'm all for DEI, but yes, I don't know that much about what's been happening at the BBC. I'm a US citizen and a CNN watcher.

But, even if the BBC has been practicing DEI "for the last thirty years," salaries between different races, national origins, genders, etc., shouldn't be different. If what you say is true, then the percentage of minorities would be more than it was historically, but it would now be approximately the same as the general population. And the salaries paid should be the same for the same type of worker regardless of their race, national origin, gender, etc... The only reason to pay an individual more than their peers is if results are better than theirs.

My understanding of DEI is that it is applied to hiring, not compensation.

Maybe who should look at Dr. Who as an example of the woke mind virus present in the BBC. Talk about ruining a franchise just to appease a minority radical woke left ideology.

[WDSmart]

10 minutes ago, blaze master said:

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

My understanding of DEI is that it is applied to hiring, not compensation.

 

And yet again you would be wrong. Or did the thread not make that clear enough when it presented the facts to you. 

My understanding of anything is my understanding. Reading other's opinions in some thread or forum does not necessarily change my understanding.

[blaze master]

Just now, WDSmart said:

My understanding of anything is my understanding. Reading other's opinions in some thread or forum does not necessarily change my understanding.

 

Kamala ? Is that you ?

[blaze master]

3 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Yes, all citizens would be equal. As far as other animals, unfortunately, that probably would not be the case, but that's not a condition of socialism. That's more of a condition of recognizing all living beings' equality. Humans certainly don't do that and are not likely to, ever

 

Who would decide this equal state ?  You know I wasn't talking about animals in the literal sense right ? It's a quote from a very famous writer. 

[dinsdale]

2 minutes ago, rough diamond said:

What a pedantic pr!ck!

 

Mate if you want to talk about being a pedantic pr!ck! it was you who said it's not tax payer funded and that it's funded by license fees. I'm sorry that the logic of my argument was too much for you and to get you triggered into an ad hominem attack. Settle down and think before you post. All I said is the BBC is tax payer funded. It is tax payer funded. Nowhere in my OP did I say it was funded through taxation.

[WDSmart]

3 minutes ago, blaze master said:

 

Who would decide this equal state ?  You know I wasn't talking about animals in the literal sense right ? It's a quote from a very famous writer. 

In socialism, all citizens are equal. No further decision on that is necessary. That's what socialism is all about.

No, I did not know you were not talking about animals when you talked about animals. Silly me! It doesn't matter where a quote you use comes from, but it would be nice if you'd identify the author when using a quote. Anyway, humans think they're the only important animal on this planet, and use all other animals in any way they want to.