It has always caused us a certain amount of amusement that the luvvies, those engaged in one of the most ruthlessly free market occupations in the country, are generally lefties. If they bring in the paying audience they get showered with riches, if they don't then they're working for nothing in off-off-whatever-the-name-of- the-theatre-district-is shows. There are also their comments upon matters economic to consider as well - that they're good at reading someone elses' words seems not to give them any great insight into the subject they then comment upon.
Dame Julie Walters has called for women to be paid the same as men for doing “the same bloody job”.
As the BBC pledges to tackle the gender divide, Dame Julie said the entertainment industry has been underpaying women for decades.
“It’s good that we’re talking about it. It should be out there,” the actress said. Male actors have been “earning more money. Why? It’s the same bloody job!”
What actually is the same job? Acting? That would rather mean that Julie Walters should have been getting the same amount as Tom Felton in those movies, wouldn't it? Something which we would hazard a guess at the Famed Dame not having got.
At which point, wouldn't it be interesting to see the payslips for the next production she is in. Why are different actors getting different amounts if it is all just the same job?