What a pig's ear the BBC is making over equal pay for female staff. The left wing bias of virtually all its staff, but particularly the males demonstrated here in all its hypocrisy.

The answer, after all, is simple,

For Example:

Presently Gary Lineker is paid, according to the broadcaster themselves, around £1.75 million. Sue Barker from the same source, earns circa £350 thousand- Total £2,100,000. A hell of a lot of money for two presenters.

Therefore pay them about £1,050,000 each from now on and do this all the way through Auntie with all the staff employed.

The women are getting greedy, they demand back pay for years (from us all let's not forget, a nasty sniff of licence fee increase here). What tosh! They agreed to the contracts and they have been well paid for the last many years. The men have the chance to gain a little bit of credibility back. Lineker is always busy on Twitter explaining how we should take social responsibility and do this and that to save the world. Well, now he and others of his views can still be paid over half a million a year and be fair to their female colleagues at the same time. They should be leaping like salmon at the opportunity.

Will we see backsliding?

We will see. I fear backsliding and weasel words - it's my contract, I agreed to this.

The BBC popularity will suffer. Raise pay for the women but not at my expense. Terrible for the women, but what can I do? They will sound just like the Walrus from the poem by Lewis Carroll.

"I weep for you", the Walrus said "I deeply sympathise,"

With sobs and tears, he sorted out those (Oysters he and the Carpenter were about to eat) of the largest size,

Holding a pocket handkerchief before his streaming eyes.

It so easy to virtue signal and cry tears when the issue being pontificated on has no immediate effect on you, a different story perhaps, when you may have to make a sacrifice for the common good.

The BBC should be allowed no more taxpayers money for this mess they have created. It was always wrong to pay men and women differently for doing pretty much the same job.

It is true to say it happens elsewhere but rarely using public money or by an organisation so keen on portraying the value of ethical behaviour.

But then they should need no more public money. Just so long as their well-paid staff don't prove to be too greedy and do demonstrate a trace of the beliefs they shout loudly that they stand for. If not it is yet more proof, for those who need it, that the licence fee should be consigned to history and another significant step in making sure it happens.