SO16_Saint Posted 10 November, 2012 Share Posted 10 November, 2012 BBC Director General has stepped down. Public Scapegoat IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 10 November, 2012 Share Posted 10 November, 2012 BBC Director General has stepped down. Public Scapegoat edit. Spot on bridgey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 10 November, 2012 Share Posted 10 November, 2012 Very sad for the poor bloke. Would the head of a private media organisation have faced the same vitriol I wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 10 November, 2012 Share Posted 10 November, 2012 Very sad for the poor bloke. Would the head of a private media organisation have faced the same vitriol I wonder. Nah....everyone adores Rupert Murdoch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirleysfc Posted 10 November, 2012 Share Posted 10 November, 2012 Nah....everyone adores Rupert Murdoch... Would he step-down in the face of such criticism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 10 November, 2012 Share Posted 10 November, 2012 Would he step-down in the face of such criticism? Would he 'eck as like (say this in Jack Duckworth voice) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swannymere Posted 10 November, 2012 Share Posted 10 November, 2012 Is it me or are the media the only people who care about what Newsnight did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 10 November, 2012 Share Posted 10 November, 2012 Newspaper editors have done worse in recent times and kept their jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 10 November, 2012 Share Posted 10 November, 2012 What a load of rubbish. And I see the Murdoch press really have it in for the BBC over this one. At least the BBC have had the integrity and honesty to own up to their mistakes publicly. I still maintain that the BBC's journalism is among the best and most trustworthy around, even after this one mistake. Just look at the way the BBC is reporting itself at the moment if you think they are biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpbury Posted 11 November, 2012 Share Posted 11 November, 2012 Gives him more time to work with Roger Daltrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 11 November, 2012 Share Posted 11 November, 2012 An inept leader. It is breathtaking that people think a buffoon like that should be be in charge of the BBC. As for the nonsense that it would not have happened in the private sector, no it wouldn't, he would have been gone before the 2nd gaff. Too often the top people in public office hang on when they should be got rid of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 11 November, 2012 Share Posted 11 November, 2012 What a load of rubbish. And I see the Murdoch press really have it in for the BBC over this one. At least the BBC have had the integrity and honesty to own up to their mistakes publicly. I still maintain that the BBC's journalism is among the best and most trustworthy around, even after this one mistake. Just look at the way the BBC is reporting itself at the moment if you think they are biased. you talk so much crap..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 11 November, 2012 Share Posted 11 November, 2012 What a load of rubbish. And I see the Murdoch press really have it in for the BBC over this one. At least the BBC have had the integrity and honesty to own up to their mistakes publicly. I still maintain that the BBC's journalism is among the best and most trustworthy around, even after this one mistake. Just look at the way the BBC is reporting itself at the moment if you think they are biased. One mistake?????? Put the Xmas ratings over exposing one of their massive stars that they had heartfelt tributes already in the schedules. Entwistle was told that they were investgating Saville, yet (according to him) didn't ask what it was about. Now there's the BBC Journo's (among the best and most trustworthy in the world) not even checking a picture before accusing someone of child abuse. I realise the BBC is a relegion to you leftie's but Entwistle has been shown up to be out of his depth whilst deeling with these issues, and the BBC jouno's, rather than being the best in the world have been shown up as amateurs. And you expect the "Murdoch press" to just sit back,let the BBC accuse an innocent man using taxpayers money and say nothing? If this was The Times or Sky News lefties everywhere would be calling for judge led enquiries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 11 November, 2012 Share Posted 11 November, 2012 (edited) One mistake?????? Put the Xmas ratings over exposing one of their massive stars that they had heartfelt tributes already in the schedules. Entwistle was told that they were investgating Saville, yet (according to him) didn't ask what it was about. Now there's the BBC Journo's (among the best and most trustworthy in the world) not even checking a picture before accusing someone of child abuse. I realise the BBC is a relegion to you leftie's but Entwistle has been shown up to be out of his depth whilst deeling with these issues, and the BBC jouno's, rather than being the best in the world have been shown up as amateurs. And you expect the "Murdoch press" to just sit back,let the BBC accuse an innocent man using taxpayers money and say nothing? If this was The Times or Sky News lefties everywhere would be calling for judge led enquiries. I think the reason why they didn't broadcast the Jimmy Saville allegations is clear now after this current disaster. You have to have investigated thoroughly and know for 100%. It sounds like everyone suspected Jimmy Saville, but you need proof, not just suspicions. Remember, it wasn't just the BBC who failed to properly identify him for what he was. Those in the Murdoch press have made many many more mistakes down the years than the BBC, who I still trust over the likes of the Sun. And do you really think the likes of the Sun would have publicly investigated and laid itself out like the BBC is now. Part of the reason Entwhistle is going is because he was shown up in an interview with a BBC employee... and just look at the BBC news front page, or the panarama programme on the BBC and I could go on and on. Edited 11 November, 2012 by Saintandy666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 11 November, 2012 Share Posted 11 November, 2012 I think the reason why they didn't broadcast the Jimmy Saville allegations is clear now after this current disaster. You have to have investigated thoroughly and know for 100%. It sounds like everyone suspected Jimmy Saville, but you need proof, not just suspicions. Remember, it wasn't just the BBC who failed to properly identify him for what he was. The current disaster was brought about because they didn't investigate throughly and it was shody journalism. The Saville one was investigated correctly and broadcast by ITV and as far as we know by the intial Newsnight team. Questions are rightly asked as to why it wasn't followed up by Newsnight and whether the fact that the BBC had tribute programmes ready to go as part of their Xmas schedules, had anything to do with the decision. Trying to link not broadcasting the Saville one with the shody poor job done on the second one is ********. I'm sure ITV asked the question "are you sure your abuser was Jimmy Savillie" and even "do you know what Saville looked like". The BBC rushed ahead with what they thought was their perfect story. Top Thatcher era Tory and the chance to make up for ballsing up the Saville story. Just a shame for them that it was untrue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 11 November, 2012 Share Posted 11 November, 2012 The current disaster was brought about because they didn't investigate throughly and it was shody journalism. The Saville one was investigated correctly and broadcast by ITV and as far as we know by the intial Newsnight team. Questions are rightly asked as to why it wasn't followed up by Newsnight and whether the fact that the BBC had tribute programmes ready to go as part of their Xmas schedules, had anything to do with the decision. Trying to link not broadcasting the Saville one with the shody poor job done on the second one is ********. I'm sure ITV asked the question "are you sure your abuser was Jimmy Savillie" and even "do you know what Saville looked like". The BBC rushed ahead with what they thought was their perfect story. Top Thatcher era Tory and the chance to make up for ballsing up the Saville story. Just a shame for them that it was untrue. Thankyou for replying to one third of my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 11 November, 2012 Share Posted 11 November, 2012 Entwistle's downfall was sealed by an interview on Radio 4 yesterday when John Humphries (his own employee) tore him apart. When the phone-hacking scandal broke, all News International did was to lie and try to deceive. Why didn't The Times do an in-depth investigation from inside the organisation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manji Posted 11 November, 2012 Share Posted 11 November, 2012 I expected by this week the press would have been full of the names of the dodgy coppers , politicians etc thay have been involved in child abuse. Instead the press is full of Murdoch supported BBC baiting. It proves to me we do not live in a democracy.The establishment are doing a superb job of muddying the water so joe public forgets what the main issue is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 11 November, 2012 Share Posted 11 November, 2012 I expected by this week the press would have been full of the names of the dodgy coppers , politicians etc thay have been involved in child abuse. Instead the press is full of Murdoch supported BBC baiting. It proves to me we do not live in a democracy.s. Living in a democracy means having a free Press and also having quaint customs like innocent until proven guilty. Why would you want us to become the type of country that names people in it's press as peado's and sex offenders without a shrewd of evidence. Perhaps you could name one of the wonderful democratic countries where peado' are named in the press on the basis of rumours. I bet their libel lawyers are wealthy. You can't beat a good old witch trial....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsk Posted 12 November, 2012 Share Posted 12 November, 2012 I would like to volunteer to be the BBC's Director-General for 55 days for 450k. I also seriously believe I would do a better job than Entwistle did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manji Posted 12 November, 2012 Share Posted 12 November, 2012 Living in a democracy means having a free Press and also having quaint customs like innocent until proven guilty. Why would you want us to become the type of country that names people in it's press as peado's and sex offenders without a shrewd of evidence. Perhaps you could name one of the wonderful democratic countries where peado' are named in the press on the basis of rumours. I bet their libel lawyers are wealthy. You can't beat a good old witch trial....... Youre missing the point. The focus in the media has moved completely away from investigating what went on and who was involved. Into a establishment attack on press freedom especially the BBC. Youre already using one of the the deflection phrases "witch trial". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 12 November, 2012 Share Posted 12 November, 2012 I would like to volunteer to be the BBC's Director-General for 55 days for 450k. I also seriously believe I would do a better job than Entwistle did. Whilst not wishing to defend him or the BBC for his undistinguished 55 days, I think you'll find that his pension was based on his 23 years service rather than just the last 2 months !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 12 November, 2012 Share Posted 12 November, 2012 Whilst not wishing to defend him or the BBC for his undistinguished 55 days, I think you'll find that his pension was based on his 23 years service rather than just the last 2 months !! Incredible pension Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 12 November, 2012 Share Posted 12 November, 2012 Incredible pension The £450K was a year's salary. No doubt he contributed to his pension over 23 years, as is the norm although, of course, there are some public servants who contribute nothing towards their pensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 12 November, 2012 Share Posted 12 November, 2012 http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9768000/9768610.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 12 November, 2012 Share Posted 12 November, 2012 Fed up with all the hand wringing and self flagellation by the BBC at the moment. Doe eyed presenter dropping the tone of thier voice when talking about the problems within various parts of the Beeb, looking terribly contrite as yet another piece on the internal strife bores me rigid. Entwistle obviously hasn't got the backbone to see this through, so had no choice to go. There is also too much ineptitude at decision making level within some areas of the corporation when it comes to what to and what not to air. IMHO the Beeb are only guilty of incompetence and this needs to be dealt with swiftly, by someone with a spine (difficult to find in the BBC), but they way they go on about their own problems you'd think they were all personally guilty of child abuse. Today i heard a piece of R4 about whether the public had lost "trust" in the BBC. FFS, I wish they'd stop feeling sorry for themselves, sort out their own internal issues with a few sackings and concentrate on the real victims of this sorry story - those who'd been abused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 12 November, 2012 Share Posted 12 November, 2012 Fed up with all the hand wringing and self flagellation by the BBC at the moment. Doe eyed presenter dropping the tone of thier voice when talking about the problems within various parts of the Beeb, looking terribly contrite as yet another piece on the internal strife bores me rigid. Entwistle obviously hasn't got the backbone to see this through, so had no choice to go. There is also too much ineptitude at decision making level within some areas of the corporation when it comes to what to and what not to air. IMHO the Beeb are only guilty of incompetence and this needs to be dealt with swiftly, by someone with a spine (difficult to find in the BBC), but they way they go on about their own problems you'd think they were all personally guilty of child abuse. Today i heard a piece of R4 about whether the public had lost "trust" in the BBC. FFS, I wish they'd stop feeling sorry for themselves, sort out their own internal issues with a few sackings and concentrate on the real victims of this sorry story - those who'd been abused. I think they are keen to be seen to be investigating themselves and being accountable. I agree with you that the core of the agenda should move on to the victims of child abuse(who are now forgotten), but the likes of the Mail and the Sun will not let that happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 12 November, 2012 Share Posted 12 November, 2012 Whilst not wishing to defend him or the BBC for his undistinguished 55 days, I think you'll find that his pension was based on his 23 years service rather than just the last 2 months !! My apologies, I got that one wrong ! It seems that the £450k was a golden handshake after he resigned and nothing to do with his pension entitlements ! In this case it is a nonsense and he should not be paid ! If anybody else were to voluntarily leave their post they would get nothing, quite different to redundancy or early retirement ! Sorry for my part in confusing the issue ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 12 November, 2012 Share Posted 12 November, 2012 It's shocking how much his pay-off was, I've always defended the BBC but what a obscene waste of tax payers money. And people wonder why the country is skint! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 12 November, 2012 Share Posted 12 November, 2012 It's shocking how much his pay-off was, I've always defended the BBC but what a obscene waste of tax payers money. And people wonder why the country is skint! Perhaps if blair hadnt dragged us into a hideously expensive, pointless and self-defeating invasion, we might have a few quid more to juggle with now. This incident is peanuts in the overall scheme of things. The only reason its making the headlines is that the murdoch press are writing the headlines, and of course, they have no axe to grind and are purely disinterested bystanders with nothing to lose or gain either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 12 November, 2012 Share Posted 12 November, 2012 It seems his contract had the provision for 6 months pay in lieu of notice if he resigned, and 12 months if he was sacked. Apparently Chris Patten had to make an informed decision as to which clause applied in this case, and settled for the latter to avoid any legal / tribunal complications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 12 November, 2012 Share Posted 12 November, 2012 Perhaps if blair hadnt dragged us into a hideously expensive, pointless and self-defeating invasion, we might have a few quid more to juggle with now. This incident is peanuts in the overall scheme of things. The only reason its making the headlines is that the murdoch press are writing the headlines, and of course, they have no axe to grind and are purely disinterested bystanders with nothing to lose or gain either way. I know it in itself it is peanuts, but this sort of stupid salary and pay-off is symptomatic in today's world where people at the top doing **** jobs get paid an absolute fortune. When you think about how much a soldier earns risking his life and compare it to c*nts like this and bankers etc, the whole system is warped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 12 November, 2012 Share Posted 12 November, 2012 I know it in itself it is peanuts, but this sort of stupid salary and pay-off is symptomatic in today's world where people at the top doing **** jobs get paid an absolute fortune. When you think about how much a soldier earns risking his life and compare it to c*nts like this and bankers etc, the whole system is warped. The bloke was only in the job for seven or eight weeks AF. He didn't exactly inherit a golden legacy, Savillegate to deal with, but you're right about the salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 12 November, 2012 Share Posted 12 November, 2012 I know it in itself it is peanuts, but this sort of stupid salary and pay-off is symptomatic in today's world where people at the top doing **** jobs get paid an absolute fortune. When you think about how much a soldier earns risking his life and compare it to c*nts like this and bankers etc, the whole system is warped. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20295998 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint In Exile Posted 12 November, 2012 Share Posted 12 November, 2012 Intresting to see the Murdoch owned media outlets in the States are having a bit of a bash at ex-BBC DG Mark Thompson as he start's his new role as CEO of the New York Times, a Murdoch competitor!!! http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/thompson_staff_told_of_bbcgate_report_FIFzU2TbtUHDszMUALq45K http://online.wsj.com/article/APa66dae270bbb4bf88f3f169427c78797.html?KEYWORDS=mark+thompson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 13 November, 2012 Share Posted 13 November, 2012 Perhaps if blair hadnt dragged us into a hideously expensive, pointless and self-defeating invasion, we might have a few quid more to juggle with now. This incident is peanuts in the overall scheme of things. The only reason its making the headlines is that the murdoch press are writing the headlines, and of course, they have no axe to grind and are purely disinterested bystanders with nothing to lose or gain either way. is Harriet harperson part of this great Murdoch stich up as she was up early this morning touring media outlets question the pay off. One day I'm hoping there is gonna be a story that's not the evil Murdoch empire's fault. I thought we'd found one; much loved BBC star abusing children on BBC premises,BBC people appear to turn a blond eye,then appear to cover up story to protect Xmas schedules,then cock up and accuse innocent man,but no Murdoch still gets stick . What's. Next Peter Sutcliffe" it was the sun wot done it " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now