Discussion
RedTrident said:
I'm actually fuming. I'm cancelling my tv license. Happily go to court. I'm not funding pedophile protectors.
Absolute disgrace.
That's would be funny if it wasn't so sad. How can a dead man be guilty of paedophilia if he has no defence? Sorry but lots of people jumping on the bandwagon simply to make money. Unless he confessed in writing he's innocent and there's nothing further to be achieved or done about the herd waiting in a queue for his money.Absolute disgrace.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Really?
in the BIG scheme of what the BBC does, with your money, this is a filthy drop in t'ocean.
Websites, News, Weather, Documentaries, F1, Food, Sports.
I think you are right to be angry but not thinking it through.
IMHO of course.
Saville raised loads for charity but all that's irrelevant when you consider his crimes. in the BIG scheme of what the BBC does, with your money, this is a filthy drop in t'ocean.
Websites, News, Weather, Documentaries, F1, Food, Sports.
I think you are right to be angry but not thinking it through.
IMHO of course.
The BBC regardless of all their useful features are pedophile protectors. There's no getting away from what they're trying to get away with here.
Silver993tt said:
That's would be funny if it wasn't so sad. How can a dead man be guilty of paedophilia if he has no defence? Sorry but lots of people jumping on the bandwagon fto make money. Unless he confessed in writing he's innocent and there's nothing further to be achieved in the money making witch hunt.
He's innocent. Did you really just post that? Otispunkmeyer said:
I just cant understand how no one is sacked... only one guy went out the door and he resigned on full perks. Other people were simply given new jobs in the BBC where I presume they can continue not doing their job right.
Because they have everyone by the short & curlys and they know it. They don't have anyone to answer to (that can really exert any power over them anyway).Its not like everyone can vote with their feet is it ? Ok we could all get rid of our TVs but realistically its not going to happen and they know it, so the game goes on.
There should be an opt out on the TV licence I think, if you don't want to pay you don't get access to their output.
Silver993tt said:
RedTrident said:
He's innocent. Did you really just post that?
yep because he's dead and can't put up a defence. Sorry to be have a different point of view from all the sheep that have been blinded by the meadia in the UK. Now, just follow the rest over that cliff over there ....Sadly this entire affair smacks of the Boys Club, jobs for all, trebles all round, come what may, mentality beloved of politicians and bankers. The truth is the BBC is and has for some time been too big to manage. The classic failings of public sector largesse are evident at all levels and permanently underwritten by a form of taxation. AKA the licence fee.
The BBC Trust is clearly totally unable to direct manage or indeed control the BBC in any effective way as these continuous revelations are bringing to light.
I genuinely question whether the Radio and Television entities should be combined as they currently are. I also doubt whether, given the huge change in information technology that there has been in the last 40 years, there is a real need today for a monolith of this size at all.
Like bankers and politicians today, the BBC employees have ruined the reputation of their employer at the expense of the taxpayer and found a way to protect their own personal interest and retire with massive payouts.
Seems to be the modern way.
The BBC Trust is clearly totally unable to direct manage or indeed control the BBC in any effective way as these continuous revelations are bringing to light.
I genuinely question whether the Radio and Television entities should be combined as they currently are. I also doubt whether, given the huge change in information technology that there has been in the last 40 years, there is a real need today for a monolith of this size at all.
Like bankers and politicians today, the BBC employees have ruined the reputation of their employer at the expense of the taxpayer and found a way to protect their own personal interest and retire with massive payouts.
Seems to be the modern way.
Dixie68 said:
Silver993tt said:
RedTrident said:
He's innocent. Did you really just post that?
yep because he's dead and can't put up a defence. Sorry to be have a different point of view from all the sheep that have been blinded by the meadia in the UK. Now, just follow the rest over that cliff over there ....Being dead does mean they can't be convicted, BUT that is NOT the same as being innocent.
Silver, you do hold a very bizarre view on this.
Silver993tt said:
That's would be funny if it wasn't so sad. How can a dead man be guilty of paedophilia if he has no defence? Sorry but lots of people jumping on the bandwagon simply to make money. Unless he confessed in writing he's innocent and there's nothing further to be achieved or done about the herd waiting in a queue for his money.
So they're all liars who are chasing his money and he is an innocent man because he didn't write a letter entitled 'Sorry I'm a paedo'? Riiiiiiiiiiiight............Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Crafty_ said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
I just cant understand how no one is sacked... only one guy went out the door and he resigned on full perks. Other people were simply given new jobs in the BBC where I presume they can continue not doing their job right.
Because they have everyone by the short & curlys and they know it. They don't have anyone to answer to (that can really exert any power over them anyway).Its not like everyone can vote with their feet is it ? Ok we could all get rid of our TVs but realistically its not going to happen and they know it, so the game goes on.
There should be an opt out on the TV licence I think, if you don't want to pay you don't get access to their output.
If you want top exec's they come with fairly full on contracts, terms, PILON clauses and such.
Patton said tonight, to get rid of him without just stuffiong money in his pocket would have been more costly
"Lord Patten, the BBC Trust chairman, testified to a parliamentary committee in the United Kingdom that he had no legal grounds to dismiss former BBC director general George Entwistle following the 'Newsnight' accusations against a former top British politician. Entwistle departed the BBC on November 11 and received a $720,000 payoff for his less than three months of service.
Patten explained to Parliament that he sought advice from legal experts before giving the green light to Entwistle's severance package. According to Patten, Entwistle demanded a full 12 months' salary, private medical coverage and legal representation in his departure. He added that lawyers suggested that if Entwistle went before a industrial tribunal, he could win an additional $128,000 on top of the $720,00, so he was attempting to save the BBC money.
"We did not have grounds for dismissal," Patton said. "We could either accept a consensual deal for 12 months, or the situation would drift on and we would find ourselves with a constructive dismissal [claim] and also an unfair dismissal."
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
"Lord Patten, the BBC Trust chairman, testified to a parliamentary committee in the United Kingdom that he had no legal grounds to dismiss former BBC director general George Entwistle following the 'Newsnight' accusations against a former top British politician. Entwistle departed the BBC on November 11 and received a $720,000 payoff for his less than three months of service.
Patten explained to Parliament that he sought advice from legal experts before giving the green light to Entwistle's severance package. According to Patten, Entwistle demanded a full 12 months' salary, private medical coverage and legal representation in his departure. He added that lawyers suggested that if Entwistle went before a industrial tribunal, he could win an additional $128,000 on top of the $720,00, so he was attempting to save the BBC money.
"We did not have grounds for dismissal," Patton said. "We could either accept a consensual deal for 12 months, or the situation would drift on and we would find ourselves with a constructive dismissal [claim] and also an unfair dismissal."
All of which neatly dodges the issue of who the fPatten explained to Parliament that he sought advice from legal experts before giving the green light to Entwistle's severance package. According to Patten, Entwistle demanded a full 12 months' salary, private medical coverage and legal representation in his departure. He added that lawyers suggested that if Entwistle went before a industrial tribunal, he could win an additional $128,000 on top of the $720,00, so he was attempting to save the BBC money.
"We did not have grounds for dismissal," Patton said. "We could either accept a consensual deal for 12 months, or the situation would drift on and we would find ourselves with a constructive dismissal [claim] and also an unfair dismissal."
k wrote the contract of employment in the first instance?! And what were they smoking? Cohibas bought by the candidate?There is clear culpability - the whole thing, as others on here say, has been set up as some big boy's club - but Patten's 'defence' is a neat, slimy means of diverting attention.
Silver993tt said:
RedTrident said:
He's innocent. Did you really just post that?
yep because he's dead and can't put up a defence. Sorry to be have a different point of view from all the sheep that have been blinded by the meadia in the UK. Now, just follow the rest over that cliff over there ....
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
TEKNOPUG said:
They clearly aren't top execs though as they prove their incompetance time and again. You may as well pay a tenth of the salary/contract, you'd have no shortage of applicants and they couldn't make a worse job of it. Just because you pay a fat contract it doesn't guarantee any level of ability. Who are these people who are offering such enormous contracts that award failure? Once again there are unaccoutable people wasting public money hand over fist.
True to an extent for sure. It is am employment marketplace however. You pay for what you get.....
s off!TEKNOPUG said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
TEKNOPUG said:
They clearly aren't top execs though as they prove their incompetance time and again. You may as well pay a tenth of the salary/contract, you'd have no shortage of applicants and they couldn't make a worse job of it. Just because you pay a fat contract it doesn't guarantee any level of ability. Who are these people who are offering such enormous contracts that award failure? Once again there are unaccoutable people wasting public money hand over fist.
True to an extent for sure. It is am employment marketplace however. You pay for what you get.....
s off!And after the probationary period, if you f
k up in sufficiently spectacular manner, you tend to get sacked, rather than re-seated at a different setting on the Mad Hatter's tea table.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff