Think about the context, a woman is pregnant at 25 weeks and decides she no longer wants to have the baby. The government has decided she must have it and is using the law to enforce it. The state, and church, is making the decision for the woman, without any reference to the unique circumstances of individual pregnancies. Whether the decision is good or bad, it can't be deferred to a third party.

Referring to drug laws and social services implies lumping women requiring abortions in with druggies and the needy. Of course abortions are required by all classes of people which is a good reason why they should be freely available, for example only the well off in Ireland can afford to travel to Britain to have them done.

I'm happy with the range of options she has at that point and the time she had to make the decision and wouldn't consider it "oppression of women".

We are just arguing about where to draw the line on where it's acceptable for a woman to have sole control over the decision around whether to end the life of that child - you want to draw it at birth, the law draws it at 24 weeks, and I would draw it earlier than that.

I do agree with what you said about free contraception etc, which should reduce the number of difficult situations such as the one you set out above.

Also what does the church have to do with it?

You can fly from Dublin to London for less than £50, even cheaper if you get bus and boat.

Think that's a bit of a myth that only well off Irish can afford abortions.

You still have to pay for the procedure, and yes poor women do travel and yes there is the Abortion Support Network to assist some of them it's still ****ing awful that they have to.

I don't disagree that it is an awful situation to be in.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.t...inhumane-again

I don't think anyone here has said they're in favour of Irish abortion laws. For the record, my comments apply to any standard cases (i.e. not rape and no known abnormalities).

bbc pay is out

kuenssberg & neil on between 200-250k, lower than i would've guessed

vine 700k, marr 400k

chris evans 2.2m-2.5m, money well spent i'm sure everyone will agree

Apart from the obvious gender pay gap, it's quite impressive belt tightening from the BBC, surprised a lot of these aren't payed more. Obvious LOL at Chris Evans, but I'm assuming he's a decent chunk cheaper than Clarkson was last year?

Apparently that's directly from the BBC and not through production companies, although Top Gear is included:

Are these definitely total remuneration? Pretty sure Clarkson was employed by the top gear production company rather than the BBC, who shared profits from selling the show with BBC Worldwide. Hence he earned a load more money from royalties etc.

Possibly doesn't apply to any of those above though.

Joe beat me to it.

apparently graham norton owns the production company that does his show, the proceeds of which is not included in his 850k

pleased that chiles is down in the 150-200k range, obv that is 300k more than he deserves but i feared much worse

What does he actually do for the £850k then? Just radio?

he gets paid 850k for appearing on the tv show and in addition the production company - which he owns - presumably receives £x for producing the show

also eurovision, which I can imagine is a large chunk of change.

Although baids, the guardian article I quoted last page seems to suggest that it's not for the TV show at all.

oh, seems like a lot then

bluddy foreigners taking our high paying bbc jobs, where will it end

Never understood the appeal of chiles. He was awful on MoTD2 and was gobsmacked when they gave him the one show.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

It was a perfect move; from something I watch to something I would never, ever watch. Hopefully they can get mark lawrenson to co-host it with him.

I wonder how much is explained by experience/age? Winkleman is younger than anyone above her in the list. If I remember correctly, I read a meta analysis on the gender pay gap that suggested that while gender differences in pay exist, it is largely explained by lifestyle choices.

Matt Baker being paid more than Alex Jones is a pretty strong counter argument, but quite frankly they should both be satisfied to be earning more than £50k.

Would be interested in reading that if you find it somewhere Elrazor.

Okay, it wasn't a meta-analysis, it was a systematic review:

A Systematic Review of the Gender Pay Gap and Factors That Predict It

I would guess the substantial lack of consistency across methods prevents meta-analytical review of human capital (that I erroneously referred to as lifestyle choices, but they are two sides of the same coin).

The authors in their conclusion state:

Not sure about the use of the phrase "women are oftentimes punished for time away from work". That kind of persuasive language perhaps indicates a pre-existing bias that might want to be considered when interpreting the authors conclusions.

Meanwhile, no auaterity if your involved in Tory vanity projects:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ndancy-payouts

Gary Lineker is obviously overpaid as I would watch MOTD who ever was presenting it.

He's there to make it more appealing to female non-football fans. cf Jamie Redknapp.

The real question is how does Shearer justify his wages?

However, I guess even this is defendable using the human capital argument. He has 17 years experience fronting current affairs programmes compared with her 7, and also does more work on a weekly basis outside of The One Show (Countryfile). It's hard to argue he's not worth an additional 10% on that basis.

There are some utterly weird outliers in that list though. What Shearer is doing on £400k god only knows, but I guess when you apply market value into the argument as several football presenters have done today, it's partly defendable.