Huge percentage of BBC staff in top-paying jobs that were privately educated revealed
The news will increase claims of elitism at the broadcaster.
Only seven per cent of Brits have a private education, but 32 per cent of BBC roles with a salary of £150,000 or more are occupied by those who do.
And just 6.8 per cent of jobs there with pay of under £30,000 are taken by the privately educated.
Social mobility expert Prof Lee Elliot Major said: 'The BBC's disproportionate representation of privately educated individuals in its highest-paying roles starkly illustrates the persistent class barriers in British society.
'The BBC was founded to serve the whole nation — yet we have a public institution that looks and sounds out of step with the lives of the people it is intended to serve and represent.
'It isn't healthy when the most powerful roles come from the same small slice of society.
"It means news organisations are fishing in a narrow talent pool, missing out on the perspectives of people from different backgrounds.'
The BBC said: 'We're doing more than ever to bring people to the BBC from all backgrounds.'
In 2023, an Ofcom report said low-income audiences found the Beeb too 'politically correct'.
Breakfast legend returns to BBC daytime for the first time four years after quitting sofa
1
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
17 minutes ago
- The Sun
BBC's refusal to properly describe Hamas stems from its institutional anti-Israel bias
Beeb's bias EVEN after a run of avoidable scandals, senior BBC execs still don't get it. Yesterday they were dancing on the head of a pin over accepted editorial breaches in its Gaza documentary. 2 Viewers weren't told of any links between a 13-year-old Palestinian child narrator and his Hamas father. But in a video to all staff, the BBC claims the dad was only a member of the 'political wing'. Except it is British government policy that no such distinction exists. And to normal people outside Auntie's bubble, Hamas members are ALL terrorists. The BBC's refusal to properly describe those responsible for the October 7 massacre stems from its seemingly unending institutional anti-Israel bias. Viewers deserve the truth, not squirming excuses. Prevent what? THE Government's anti-terror Prevent strategy already focuses too much on tackling far-right terrorism — despite Islamists posing a greater threat. Now a report says it is also failing to deal with suspects fixated on violence because their views don't fit into any recognised terror ideology. 2 Southport monster Axel Rudakubana had repeatedly searched online for shootings, terror attacks and Gaza war videos. But despite three referrals, Prevent did nothing because he wasn't deemed a terrorist. Three little girls died. Ali Harbi Ali, who murdered MP David Amess, was let go after one session and described as a 'great person.' Those obsessed with extreme violence shouldn't need an ideological label attached to them before they're stopped. The clue to Prevent's role is in its name. Keep It Down WE hope the Chancellor took note of the fact that the painful inflation spike was caused in part by rising fuel prices. It's why Rachel Reeves should rule out any idea of ending the fuel duty freeze. That would only clobber the hard-working people the Government insists it wants to protect. The Sun's 15-year Keep It Down campaign has saved Brits almost £100billion which has been ploughed back into the economy by grateful motorists. Helping drivers also helps to drive growth, Chancellor. Whip round WE welcome Keir Starmer getting tough and suspending self-indulgent leftie MP s. It's just a pity he didn't act before their fantasy student politics derailed welfare reforms and cost the country £5billion. That dithering means we all now face paying more tax.
Daily Mail
17 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Thanks for saving us, now we'll sue you: Afghan data disaster takes bleakly predictable twist as ambulance-chasing lawyers cash in
Taxpayers face a potential £1billion bill as law firms race to cash in following the Afghan data disaster. Legal companies have begun signing up thousands of claimants who could, it is claimed, pocket up to £250,000 each in compensation. The Government admitted 100,000 Afghans had been left 'at risk of death' from the Taliban by a catastrophic leak of a database of those who had applied to the UK for sanctuary. There were fears it would be used as a 'kill list'. As exclusively discovered by the Daily Mail, but kept hidden by a super- injunction, ministers launched one of the biggest peacetime evacuations in modern British history to rescue thousands and airlift them here in secret. Last October, ministers in charge of the scheme agreed to spend £7billion, with taxpayers neither asked nor told, the High Court heard. Now the compensation bonanza could send costs soaring as law firms plan class action court cases for damages. The floodgates will also open to thousands of legal challenges on behalf of Afghans previously refused sanctuary in Britain, lawyers believe. The Mail has established Manchester-based Barings Law intends to carve off 25 per cent of the value of each successful claim and hopes to bank in excess of £100million. The huge potential bounty for the law firm is an industry standard figure and is capped under UK law. Barings has already signed up approaching 1,000 Afghans included on the database, according to a legal source. Tonight Adnan Malik, the firm's head of data protection, insisted: 'This is about more than just money. 'It is about accountability. Barings Law is giving a voice to people who have lost their homes, livelihoods and liberties as a result of this debacle.' The Ministry of Defence has vowed to 'fight hard' any compensation claims from Afghans. The data blunder happened when a British soldier accidentally emailed out a database with details of 18,800 people who had applied to a UK scheme to reward loyal Afghans who had worked with UK forces or officials and now feared reprisals from the Taliban. British military and government officials were also named on the database, which has been seen by the Mail. Today, commons defence committee chairman Tan Dhesi MP told the BBC: 'This email could be one of the most costly email blunders in history'. The Government is facing mounting pressure to explain its unprecedented super-injunction – which meant for two years Mail journalists faced jail if they breathed a word of the scandal. Prime Minister Keir Starmer was today said to be 'angry' when he discovered the programme – and the secrecy around it – on taking power. Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, meanwhile, said the whole episode 'raises significant constitutional issues' after MPs were also kept completely in the dark. Two Parliamentary probes were launched today, after the super-injunction was lifted after 683 days enabling the Daily Mail to finally reveal its astonishing exclusive story. Cloaked by the news blackout, the ministers' secret resettlement scheme has seen thousands smuggled out of Afghanistan and flown to Britain at vast cost. Every few weeks, unmarked government charter planes are landing at airports including Stansted and RAF Brize Norton packed with hundreds of Afghans. So far 18,500 Afghans whose data was breached have been flown to Britain or are on their way in taxpayer-funded jets. A total of 23,900 are earmarked for arrival. The MoD said some of them would have come anyway regardless of the data leak. But those whose personal details were breached can expect to win damages. The Mail has seen a WhatsApp message being widely circulated around Afghanistan, Pakistan and the UK encouraging people to sign up to claims against the MoD being brought by Barings. Specialists have been drawing up scales for case values, based on a claimant's whereabouts, the extent of the data breach and the threat to their lives. Mr Malik said: 'We have a long history of successfully pursuing data breach cases. This is perhaps our most significant to date. The victims have been exposed to not just financial harm, but the real threat of violence and death. 'In some cases, these threats have been tragically carried out.' He added: 'We would expect sums upwards of five figures for each person affected.' Some claims are anticipated to be substantially higher, and once the Government's costs accrued in processing the claims are included, the overall exposure to taxpayers is put at be between £500million and £1billion. Claimants can apply for compensation on the basis of a threat to their livelihood, even if they have moved to Britain. This is because they could claim they face reprisals from the Afghan community in this country. Other companies expected to join the race include Leigh Day, a firm known for helping hundreds of Afghans in other cases. The data leak also means a previous decision to turn down an Afghan's application could be appealed, which could lead to years of further legal challenges. The Mail already knows of several cases where a rejected Afghan mounted a legal challenge only for ministers to mysteriously, and suddenly, concede the case without giving a reason why – the suspicion being that the Government secretly knew that the Afghan concerned was on the dataset. Lawyers are set to mount a series of legal challenges known as Judicial Reviews. The first, they say, is likely to be against the Government's closure earlier this month of the flagship Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy without warning. They will claim the scheme was 'cynically closed' just days before the data leak was revealed – to prevent an expected 'deluge' of fresh relocation applications. Thousands have been rejected for ARAP and the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme, which has also closed. Lawyers say they will review all the rejections. A spokesman for the MoD said tonight: 'We will do everything possible to defend against any compensation claims. 'We have taken appropriate action in line with the level of risk these individuals faced. Any claims we do get, we will fight them hard.'
Daily Mail
17 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Inflation is home-grown: Reeves has the right ambitions, but the wrong execution, says MAGGIE PAGANO
What planet is Rachel Reeves on? Just hours after the Chancellor assured her City audience at the Mansion House dinner that Labour is building a 'Britain that is better off', up pop inflation numbers showing that the country is markedly less well off than a year ago. As the latest figures from the Office of National Statistics show, the UK's inflation rate ticked up to 3.6 per cent in the year to June – nearly double the target rate – and up from 3.4 per cent in May. It's the steepest rise since January last year. Reeves can't have been doing much of her own food shopping recently, or had to handle household bills for her two homes. Otherwise she would have seen for herself that even the most basic of foods like butter and milk have been shooting up, as have energy costs, water bills and rents. As any regular shopper could have told her weeks ago, food prices have been creeping up again for some time. In June, they were 4.4 per cent higher, the third month in a row that prices have risen and the frothiest increase for 18 months. But the biggest driver behind the June price hikes compared to a year ago are rising housing costs – despite interest rate cuts – including rents which are up by 5.8 per cent. Energy costs were up by 6.8 per cent despite an overall fall in fuel prices while water bills shot up by a staggering 26 per cent. And the reason for inflation running hot again? This time energy and raw material costs can't be blamed solely on Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Donald Trump's tariffs or even the Middle East. This time businesses are being more honest – they are passing on higher costs to their customers because of the recent increase in employers' National Insurance (NI) and other tax rises. It's a home-grown problem. An own goal, if you like. In which case, you have to ask whether the Chancellor is either delusional or blind when making other equally extraordinary claims during her speech. Labour, she said, had 'restored Britain's reputation as a beacon of stability by putting the public finances back on a stable footing'. Really? Reeves is pulling our leg. Gilt yields are high, growth is risible if not grinding to a halt, demand is down, the welfare state continues to balloon and the public finances are in dire straits. Figures out today are likely to show a further shake-out in the jobs market triggered by the NI increases, confirming recent warnings by Andrew Bailey, the Bank of England Governor, that the jobs tax is leading to greater unemployment. That is why, despite the latest figures, interest rates are likely to be trimmed in August. When will the Chancellor learn that you can't deliver growth by parroting that you want it? Human endeavour doesn't work like that. If you want entrepreneurs and companies to risk their capital, they must feel confident about a brighter future – and potential rewards – rather than booking flights to Dubai. That's why her much-mooted Big Bang-style Leeds Reforms, aimed at making the 'country more active and more confident', are such a damp squib. Her ambition is the right one, but badly executed. More worryingly, these reforms may lead to another wave of dangerous light-touch regulation – just like we saw under the last Labour administration. She's right that the London Stock Exchange needs to be made more attractive for listings and that households should be encouraged to invest in equities. UK adults own the smallest amount of their wealth in investments of any G7 country at 8 per cent. But you can't order companies to list in London if they can get better valuations across the Atlantic. And you can't order savers to put their money into equities or invest in unquoted companies, however much Sid might tell you to, and certainly not order them to invest more in UK companies, without incentives. So it's not surprising that most City figures are decidedly underwhelmed by her Leeds Reforms, while the rest of us are simply bemused. It would have been much cleverer if Reeves had looked to Sweden where households invest 50 per cent of their assets in equities and investment funds, up from a third just two decades ago. And how was this achieved? First, the government abolished stamp duty on equities, then introduced investment savings accounts which attracted a small flat tax. No capital gains or dividend tax. Big, bold and simple. That's what we should do here instead of the usual fiddling around.
