As part of its efforts to counter the bite of the economic downturn, the BBC is suspending bonuses and reviewing the pay scales of its executives. It is also set to reduce the amount it spends on talent.

The BBC is making the cuts in reaction to its dominant role during the recession compared with its struggling competitors, as well as to its own financial challenges, Michael Lyons, the head of the BBC Trust, said.

“There has been considerable disquiet in recent weeks about the salaries of top BBC staff,” Lyons said.

The BBC announced this week that Worldwide revenues are in excess of 1 billion pounds, but that profits before interest, tax and exceptional charges were down to 86 million pounds from 118 million the previous year.

Now that savings have been made, where should that money be spent? The BBC says it needs to pay decent salaries to attract best talent, but do you agree? Should the licence fee be lowered?

In reaction to an independent BBC review on taste and standards commissioned after offensive comments about actor Andrew Sachs created a public outcry, the BBC Trust has said that the most offensive language should only be used in “exceptional circumstances” on BBC One between 9 and 10 p.m.

Editorial guidelines should clarify that BBC should not make programmes that “celebrate or condone gratuitous, aggressive, intrusive and humiliating behaviour,” the Trust ruled, recognizing that “licence fee payers can distinguish between comedy and satire, which they appreciate, and unjustified humiliation, of which they disapprove.”

The study, which polled 2,700 participants, finds that viewers don’t want more censorship or regulation.

“Most people value the creativity of the BBC and accept it may sometimes result in people being offended.”

What do you think? Should BBC allow swearing on air?

After a week of media frenzy, the BBC hopes it has taken action to end the crisis caused by the crude prank call made by Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand on the latter’s Radio 2 show.

Brand has quit and Jonathan Ross has been suspended after the presenters left lewd comments on the answerphone of 78-year-old “Fawlty Towers” actor Andrew Sachs. The head of Radio 2 Lesley Douglas has also resigned.

The outcome it would appear has left no one happy. Most commentators feel the BBC took far too long to act on an issue that had clearly angered the public with more than 30,000 people making a complaint.

Many newspapers feel Douglas was unjustly sacrificed, taking the rap for mistakes made by production staff she had little or nothing to do with. The Daily Mirror said she was a “big loss to weak BBC”.

What it means for the BBC is unclear. Its governing body, the BBC Trust, says lessons must be learned and editorial guidelines tightened without jeopardising creativity and “edgy” programmes.

Those like the Daily Mail, a regular critic of the broadcaster, want the corporation to go further, citing other “highly offensive” jokes, including one about the Queen, that have appeared on the BBC since the row erupted.

Others worry that fear of causing offence will make the BBC safe and irrelevant.

Did the BBC get it right? Should Ross have been sacked as an example that the BBC has lost the plot on what is acceptable or has the whole affair just been ridiculously hyped by the media?

When it was disclosed two years ago that TV and radio presenter Jonathan Ross was on an 18 million pound three-year contract, many both inside and outside the BBC reacted with dismay.

After all, wasn’t the BBC pleading for more money from the government and higher licence fees from the viewer at the time?

Comments were made in the House of Commons. But the BBC chiefs defended the salaries, without confirming the amounts.

Now a report commissioned by the BBC Trust, the independent body that sets the standards and benchmarks for the corporation, has backed the salaries, saying they are in line with the going rate.

“Some might find this surprising,” the trust’s chairman writes in the Daily Telegraph.

While acknowledging the BBC’s special funding status, he said it was working hard to keep its pay costs down.

Can the BBC afford to pay its stars up to six million pounds a year? Should it allow its pay salary to follow commercial rates, or should it concentrate on finding new talent?

Would it be a big loss for the BBC and viewers if it let stars, such as Ross, switch to other channels in search for high salaries?

Send us your comments.