andygardener Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 "He" did not "give". The BBC paid, presumably in consideration of the recipient releasing legal rights. Thanks for pointing that out Jeffrey. Otherwise people reading my post would clearly have formed the impression that Patten got hundreds of thousands of pounds of his own money out of the bank and handed it over the Entwistle in a motorway service station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Thanks for pointing that out Jeffrey. Otherwise people reading my post would clearly have formed the impression that Patten got hundreds of thousands of pounds of his own money out of the bank and handed it over the Entwistle in a motorway service station. Stranger things have happened! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted December 20, 2012 Author Share Posted December 20, 2012 Oh come on I doubt even the most corrupt of bank managers never intended to ruin the banking system or bring countries to their knees, and it's really not in their best interests to rob people of their jobs. And as for "they're all criminals", I'd love to see you try and get that one stood up in court. ---------- Post added 20-12-2012 at 17:14 ---------- There's no way he can be aware of every minute of television the BBC broadcast while he was head of BBC Vision. He's not been shown to have had any say in either the commission of the Savile tribute or the canning of the investigation. I don't know, but I would imagine it's a pretty standard clause in all jobs at that level, as the chances of someone walking straight into another equivalent job are pretty slim. The BBC's executive pay used to be based on civil servant principles, but in the 90s they had to increase pay and conditions in order to attract people from the commercial broadcasters. They still rely on being "The BBC" to encourage people to work for them for less than they could otherwise get. Unfortunately for the BBC, the other broadcasters don't have to release all the gory details about their pay and conditions are the first sight of a FoI request, so it's very easy to spin stories about how overpayed people are, without comparing what they get to what the equivalents get in the commercial sector. Bankers: If it wasn't corruption it must have been incompetence. They couldn't care less about people's jobs, all they care about is profits and bonuses. There are endless cases of criminality and compliance, what about Libor? Other stronger countries put their bankers in jail, we give them knighthoods. BBC: George Entwhistle's timing was unfortunate, with all the flack flying he was probably glad to be out of it. I reckon anyone with reasonable experience and intelligence could do the job - Offer it at a fraction of the salary and they'd be inundated with applicants from the BBC workforce and still probably get someone capable of doing the job well. In no Universe is this situation moral, fair, or sustainable, everybody knows it, and you are looking increasingly isolated in trying to defend your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 If this is true, then why do the BBC accept such weak contracts for their staff? Gets paid for 12 months after he gets sacked? Surely they should be able to terminate the contract with no payout in cases where there has been gross misconduct? Would this kind of contract be normal at Sky or ITV? In what way could you suggest that he committed gross misconduct? ---------- Post added 20-12-2012 at 18:05 ---------- He was in charge of TV when they aired that sickening Saville Christmas tribute & suppressed the Newsnight report. What's the point of being in charge if you don't know or control what happens below you, surely that's a sackable offence in itself? No, he wasn't... Why comment on a topic when you don't even know the basic facts. I wasn't talking about the specific pay amounts, more the "12 months payout for getting sacked" clause that cyclone mentioned. It's not unusual at that level, although I don't really know why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I think you'll find the PM's salary is around £100k less than that. maybe so. But he also gets two properties to live in, a fleet of staff, cars+drivers, huge allowances and riders and most importantly (unlike nearly any other public funded job in the world) the freedom to become involved with as many consultancy, advisory, publication and appearance "jobs" with unlimited earnings as they like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 George Entwhistle ex of the BBC, (public body therefore our money,) gets a half million pound payoff for 54 days incompetant work, new guy taking over the bank of England to get £650,000 (twice what Mervyn King got) + benefits like a £250,000 housing allowance, MPs get 5% rise.... Rubbing people's nose in the austerity poo don't you think? Do i sense a touch of Jealously ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 It's funded by a tax. The government sets the level of that tax. It might have some degree of independence from the government, but that only seems to reduce their accountability. Effectively they're still part of the government, the government controls how much money they can receive from tax revenue, even if it doesn't go through the treasury & there isn't a minister directly responsible. So you admit you were wrong then but lack the decency to concede this in explicit terms. ---------- Post added 20-12-2012 at 22:33 ---------- It depends where you draw the divisions. I would say lower ruling. He is not upper ruling because it is dirty new money. To be in the ruling class you need to inherit power through a peerage or similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted December 20, 2012 Author Share Posted December 20, 2012 Do i sense a touch of Jealously ? Not at all. I have a job, a few savings, no dependants, and can absorb a bit of austerity. A lot of people can't. I think the gap between rich and poor is now sufficiently large and unfair to engender the disgust it deserves. That's not jelousy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Not at all. I have a job, a few savings, no dependants, and can absorb a bit of austerity. A lot of people can't. I think the gap between rich and poor is now sufficiently large and unfair to engender the disgust it deserves. That's not jelousy. Dont get me wrong, ive always been in favour of scrapping the license fee altogether ,as its nothing more than a stealth tax on the British public, but this bloke was clever enough to negotiate a contract with the BBC which included a large pay off if he was sacked/resigned. You have to hand it to him for being clever enough to do that to make sure he walked away with his pockets full of cash. Cant fault him for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted December 21, 2012 Author Share Posted December 21, 2012 Dont get me wrong, ive always been in favour of scrapping the license fee altogether ,as its nothing more than a stealth tax on the British public, but this bloke was clever enough to negotiate a contract with the BBC which included a large pay off if he was sacked/resigned. You have to hand it to him for being clever enough to do that to make sure he walked away with his pockets full of cash. Cant fault him for that. But you can fault the people who negotiated the contract for the BBC who were obviously not up to the job or had no care for the licence fee payer. They too will probably be exceedingly well paid for doing a job badly. When are we going to be rid of this bulls--t that tries to justify paying oodles of our money out 'So that we get the best people.' It's nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.