In the money
Sir: I failed to appreciate the point of Auberon Waugh's dotty column (Another voice, 16 April) rejoicing in the 'exposure' of my revered colleague Paul Halloran in the Sunday Times as an alleged participant in 'bogus arms deals'. However, one among Waugh's many curious assertions deserves to be chal- lenged — namely, his complaint that by the end of his labours as a diarist in Private Eye in 1986 'my wages were just nudging the £5,000 mark'. 0 shameless ingrate! The bibulous Waugh has conveniently forgot- ten that for approximately 10 years be- tween 1976 and 1986 he, like other Eye stalwarts, was paid an annual bonus which worked out at double pay for six months of the year. In addition to this he was provided with an office in Soho as well as free use of telephones and motorcycle couriers to deliver copy to his myriad other employers.
The Eye's scale of remuneration to Waugh for a fortnightly column (not to mention substantial royalties from the book versions of his diary) seem munifi- cent when compared to the miserly policy of his own wretched magazine the Literary Review (proprietor: Naim A ttal ah) . Evidently, as I can testify from my own experience, Waugh considers the sum of £25 to be adequate remuneration for a 2,000-word plus book review.
Christopher Silvester
Previous page
