Saying they make no admission of liability is not the same as saying they think he had no case. That is what you claimed and everyone, rightly, laughed. It is standard boilerplate that every company will put in every agreement. Just as your car insurer will make an offer after an accident with "without admitting liability" in the offer,
C4 clearly knew he had a case. That's why they did a deal. If they knew for certain he had no case they'd have told him to get stuffed or offer peanuts.
No, the document was to darn difficult to deal with. I did offer it to every MP on the Culture Committee, but none were interested, as I expected. They'd done their bit of getting good headlines by pretending to be outraged.
C4 played it cute. First refusing my FOIA, hiring a firm of specialist media lawyers and a barrister to try and convince me I has no case under the Act (I was tempted to make a FOIA asking how much all that legal advice cost them) then relenting and sending me the information 48 hours before a Tribunal heard the case. That way they avoided their inevitable defeat being placed on the ICO site, where all could see it, and the setting of a precedent.
No, the document was to darn difficult to deal with. I did offer it to every MP on the Culture Committee, but none were interested, as I expected. They'd done their bit of getting good headlines by pretending to be outraged.
C4 played it cute. First refusing my FOIA, hiring a firm of specialist media lawyers and a barrister to try and convince me I has no case under the Act (I was tempted to make a FOIA asking how much all that legal advice cost them) then relenting and sending me the information 48 hours before a Tribunal heard the case. That way they avoided their inevitable defeat being placed on the ICO site, where all could see it, and the setting of a precedent.
I accept you're not going to respond to the DTI report, as it factually contradicts you.
I thought I did in post #221?
And you're not going to answer my question because you can't come up with a plausible reason why a factory worker should get compensation if he is forced out of a job but a BBC exec shouldn't.
As for the DTI report, it also says things like the compensation being written into the original employment contract was actually an idea put forward by a government report. They know that an exec who is forced out will sue, and has valid reasons to do so, so they said "put it in the original contract", like a pre-nup for execs.
It also says they should be "capped" at six months of salary. How many BBC payoffs were above that and how many below?
And you're not going to answer my question because you can't come up with a plausible reason why a factory worker should get compensation if he is forced out of a job but a BBC exec shouldn't.
As for the DTI report, it also says things like the compensation being written into the original employment contract was actually an idea put forward by a government report. They know that an exec who is forced out will sue, and has valid reasons to do so, so they said "put it in the original contract", like a pre-nup for execs.
It also says they should be "capped" at six months of salary. How many BBC payoffs were above that and how many below?
Yes, and they said contracts were drawn up to guarantee a departing exec a 'monumental bung'. Contracts aren't acts of nature, like bad weather.
Some people are making a link between executives and non-executives as regards ability to do the job.
While, say, a camera-operator can either do a job or not do a job; it's a different matter for an executive.
It's only ever an opinion that a person is performing well in an executive position.
In fact, a person is hired for an executive roll purely on the basis of opinion (as for their ability to do the job)
So such a person really has no cause to complain if opinion changes to become that they have no ability to do the job.
Of course, such people will proclaim it as FACT that they can do the job but they would be wrong to do so.
Indeed. The argument that it's hard to say when an exec has failed is rubbish! Just look at how easy they find it to say an exec has been a success, and so deserves a pay rise, bigger bonus, more share options. If it's so easy to see success, then it can't be hard to see failure.
No, the document was to darn difficult to deal with. I did offer it to every MP on the Culture Committee, but none were interested, as I expected. They'd done their bit of getting good headlines by pretending to be outraged.
.
No it wasnt difficult at all. It just didnt say what you think it said, which is why you didnt upload it. The quotes you did post, which ironically I presume you thought were the most convincing bits, proved thast you didnt understand.
CH4 saying " they make no admission of liability" is not the same as saying they think he had no case.
You have then misrepresented this statement as " C4 are adamant Duncan had no case for unfair dismissal", which is obviously nonsense.
The MPs ignored you because you clearly dont understand the situation and it was just another time wasting "outraged from xxx" letter which I suspect they get quite a lot of.
According to a report in The Guardian, BBC management are ''still looking'' for documents relating to the departure of Mark Byford (pay-off nearly £1 million). Strange how easily things get lost at the BBC:eek:
According to a report in The Guardian, BBC management are ''still looking'' for documents relating to the departure of Mark Byford (pay-off nearly £1 million). Strange how easily things get lost at the BBC:eek:
Er, not exactly as you have stated, and I quote (with the context):
Thompson issued a statement last week saying there were "inaccuracies" in the evidence given to MPs by Patten and Fry, who said there was a "disconnect" between what the then director general told them about Byford's payout, and what was revealed by a subsequent National Audit Office investigation.
The former director general said the BBC Trust was "fully informed in advance, in writing as well as orally" about Byford's severance package and that for another outgoing BBC executive, former marketing director Sharon Baylay.
Patten, speaking at the publication of the BBC's annual results on Tuesday, said the corporation had been searching "more frequently than the North Sea is trawled" for further documents relating to the Byford payoff.
My bolding & underlining, and note the context of the searches.
No it wasnt difficult at all. It just didnt say what you think it said, which is why you didnt upload it. The quotes you did post, which ironically I presume you thought were the most convincing bits, proved thast you didnt understand.
CH4 saying " they make no admission of liability" is not the same as saying they think he had no case.
You have then misrepresented this statement as " C4 are adamant Duncan had no case for unfair dismissal", which is obviously nonsense.
The MPs ignored you because you clearly dont understand the situation and it was just another time wasting "outraged from xxx" letter which I suspect they get quite a lot of.
I couldn't edit the pdf, despite having a pdf editor, so my name would have remained, which I didn't want. I don't know what they'd done to the file, but Nitro couldn't edit it.
And that still leaves the question of why didn't C4 tell the MP's this? Why did they go to such trouble, and expense (firm of media lawyers and a barrister) to keep the determination of this pay off secret?
And you'd expect the members of the Commons Culture Committee to want to know how matters reached such a state that the C4 Board wanted their CEO to leave.
I couldn't edit the pdf, despite having a pdf editor, so my name would have remained, which I didn't want. I don't know what they'd done to the file, but Nitro couldn't edit it.
And that still leaves the question of why didn't C4 tell the MP's this? Why did they go to such trouble, and expense (firm of media lawyers and a barrister) to keep the determination of this pay off secret?
And you'd expect the members of the Commons Culture Committee to want to know how matters reached such a state that the C4 Board wanted their CEO to leave.
I couldn't edit the pdf, despite having a pdf editor, so my name would have remained, which I didn't want. I don't know what they'd done to the file, but Nitro couldn't edit it.
And that still leaves the question of why didn't C4 tell the MP's this? Why did they go to such trouble, and expense (firm of media lawyers and a barrister) to keep the determination of this pay off secret?
And you'd expect the members of the Commons Culture Committee to want to know how matters reached such a state that the C4 Board wanted their CEO to leave.
At the time several people explained to you exactly how you could print the document, redact with a marker and scan/ upload.
It IS simple. You are just making excuses.
It doesnt leave any questions. CH4 told the MPs the situation, everything else is your fantasy, paranoia and desire to interpret the information to suit your dogma.
Sorry, but it's really not that unusual for boards to want to move staff on for a multitude of reasons. CH4 wanted the guy gone and it would be difficult to do so without being sued , so they settled. This info in the public domain damages CH4 reputation, especially when people such as yourself simply dont understand.
I dont see why the MPs should be particularly concerned, especially when presented with your obvious misinterpretation of the situation as a reason to delve into it.
Patten and Thompson have sure gone into blame game mode!
Yep, there is a gulf between their respective accounts, and Thompson seems to have come out fighting in order to protect his reputation (such as it was#0.
They certainly have, who will be the next to get the boot?
Patten has already said he's standing down in 2015 and not seeking a second term as chairman of the Trust. Can the BBC be the only organisation in the world where one person (Mr Keating) receives a pay-off of £375,000 and another (Mr Byford) nearly £1 million and no-one apparently knows who authorised them nor is there any proper record.
Patten has already said he's standing down in 2015 and not seeking a second term as chairman of the Trust. Can the BBC be the only organisation in the world where one person (Mr Keating) receives a pay-off of £375,000 and another (Mr Byford) nearly £1 million and no-one apparently knows who authorised them nor is there any proper record.
And why are the MP's not obtaining full & truthful answers to these critical questions, either?
Unless this situation is clarified very soon, it will prove for once & all for all licence payers, the BBC's internal corruption is very deep rooted.
And why are the MP's not obtaining full & truthful answers to these critical questions, either?
Unless this situation is clarified very soon, it will prove for once & all for all licence payers, the BBC's internal corruption is very deep rooted.
I suspect it is incompetence not corruption, or rather covering your own a*** when you realise you're in it up to your neck.Either Thompson told the Trust or he didn't, there are no other scenarios. And who wrote the cheques, they must know that.Anyhow BBC pay rise next month for virtually everyone despite union opposition, trebles all round:D
I suspect it is incompetence not corruption, or rather covering your own a*** when you realise you're in it up to your neck.Either Thompson told the Trust or he didn't, there are no other scenarios. And who wrote the cheques, they must know that.Anyhow BBC pay rise next month for virtually everyone despite union opposition, trebles all round:D
Incompetence or corruption, are both equally unaceptable in these highly paid executives - sense & honesty are a minumum requirement in virtually every branch of employment - even MPs:D
Incompetence or corruption, are both equally unaceptable in these highly paid executives - sense & honesty are a minumum requirement in virtually every branch of employment - even MPs:D
We must credit Mr Keating then who had the sense and honesty to repay the money because he couldn't understand why he'd received it as he'd resigned to go to another job - sounds like excellent management material but, alas, no longer in the BBC.
We must credit Mr Keating then who had the sense and honesty to repay the money because he couldn't understand why he'd received it as he'd resigned to go to another job - sounds like excellent management material but, alas, no longer in the BBC.
Yes, I can only agree 100% with you there FTV, it does make a welcome change.
We must credit Mr Keating then who had the sense and honesty to repay the money because he couldn't understand why he'd received it as he'd resigned to go to another job .
That is incorrect, as that's not the reason that he gave - from the Guardian report that I posted much earlier:
The NAO said Keating "had no knowledge" of the internal process that led to the payout and had subsequently paid it back.
"The individual has since written to the BBC stating that they would not wish to benefit from a payment that could not be demonstrated to be fully and appropriately authorised," said the NAO.
"The individual enclosed with the letter a cheque for the net severance payment they received."
In a letter sent by Keating to BBC director general Tony Hall explaining his decision to return the money, he said: "You will understand that as a matter of principle I would never wish to benefit from a payment that could not be demonstrated to have been fully and appropriately authorised."
Comments
Why didn't they tell the Cullture Committee that?
No, the document was to darn difficult to deal with. I did offer it to every MP on the Culture Committee, but none were interested, as I expected. They'd done their bit of getting good headlines by pretending to be outraged.
C4 played it cute. First refusing my FOIA, hiring a firm of specialist media lawyers and a barrister to try and convince me I has no case under the Act (I was tempted to make a FOIA asking how much all that legal advice cost them) then relenting and sending me the information 48 hours before a Tribunal heard the case. That way they avoided their inevitable defeat being placed on the ICO site, where all could see it, and the setting of a precedent.
Posting an edited PDF is "too difficult"?
Lets try.
Edit: Six minutes.
I thought I did in post #221?
And you're not going to answer my question because you can't come up with a plausible reason why a factory worker should get compensation if he is forced out of a job but a BBC exec shouldn't.
As for the DTI report, it also says things like the compensation being written into the original employment contract was actually an idea put forward by a government report. They know that an exec who is forced out will sue, and has valid reasons to do so, so they said "put it in the original contract", like a pre-nup for execs.
It also says they should be "capped" at six months of salary. How many BBC payoffs were above that and how many below?
While, say, a camera-operator can either do a job or not do a job; it's a different matter for an executive.
It's only ever an opinion that a person is performing well in an executive position.
In fact, a person is hired for an executive roll purely on the basis of opinion (as for their ability to do the job)
So such a person really has no cause to complain if opinion changes to become that they have no ability to do the job.
Of course, such people will proclaim it as FACT that they can do the job but they would be wrong to do so.
Yes, and they said contracts were drawn up to guarantee a departing exec a 'monumental bung'. Contracts aren't acts of nature, like bad weather.
Indeed. The argument that it's hard to say when an exec has failed is rubbish! Just look at how easy they find it to say an exec has been a success, and so deserves a pay rise, bigger bonus, more share options. If it's so easy to see success, then it can't be hard to see failure.
No it wasnt difficult at all. It just didnt say what you think it said, which is why you didnt upload it. The quotes you did post, which ironically I presume you thought were the most convincing bits, proved thast you didnt understand.
CH4 saying " they make no admission of liability" is not the same as saying they think he had no case.
You have then misrepresented this statement as " C4 are adamant Duncan had no case for unfair dismissal", which is obviously nonsense.
The MPs ignored you because you clearly dont understand the situation and it was just another time wasting "outraged from xxx" letter which I suspect they get quite a lot of.
Er, not exactly as you have stated, and I quote (with the context):
My bolding & underlining, and note the context of the searches.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jul/17/bbc-lord-patten-mps-mark-thompson
Further info here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jul/11/bbc-thompson-contradicts-patten-redundancy
I couldn't edit the pdf, despite having a pdf editor, so my name would have remained, which I didn't want. I don't know what they'd done to the file, but Nitro couldn't edit it.
And that still leaves the question of why didn't C4 tell the MP's this? Why did they go to such trouble, and expense (firm of media lawyers and a barrister) to keep the determination of this pay off secret?
And you'd expect the members of the Commons Culture Committee to want to know how matters reached such a state that the C4 Board wanted their CEO to leave.
Patten and Thompson have sure gone into blame game mode!
How about this post
Even if you haven't got Paintshop or Photoshop you could use Windows Paint to censor your details.
At the time several people explained to you exactly how you could print the document, redact with a marker and scan/ upload.
It IS simple. You are just making excuses.
It doesnt leave any questions. CH4 told the MPs the situation, everything else is your fantasy, paranoia and desire to interpret the information to suit your dogma.
Sorry, but it's really not that unusual for boards to want to move staff on for a multitude of reasons. CH4 wanted the guy gone and it would be difficult to do so without being sued , so they settled. This info in the public domain damages CH4 reputation, especially when people such as yourself simply dont understand.
I dont see why the MPs should be particularly concerned, especially when presented with your obvious misinterpretation of the situation as a reason to delve into it.
They certainly have, who will be the next to get the boot?
Yep, there is a gulf between their respective accounts, and Thompson seems to have come out fighting in order to protect his reputation (such as it was#0.
Patten has already said he's standing down in 2015 and not seeking a second term as chairman of the Trust. Can the BBC be the only organisation in the world where one person (Mr Keating) receives a pay-off of £375,000 and another (Mr Byford) nearly £1 million and no-one apparently knows who authorised them nor is there any proper record.
And why are the MP's not obtaining full & truthful answers to these critical questions, either?
Unless this situation is clarified very soon, it will prove for once & all for all licence payers, the BBC's internal corruption is very deep rooted.
I suspect it is incompetence not corruption, or rather covering your own a*** when you realise you're in it up to your neck.Either Thompson told the Trust or he didn't, there are no other scenarios. And who wrote the cheques, they must know that.Anyhow BBC pay rise next month for virtually everyone despite union opposition, trebles all round:D
Incompetence or corruption, are both equally unaceptable in these highly paid executives - sense & honesty are a minumum requirement in virtually every branch of employment - even MPs:D
We must credit Mr Keating then who had the sense and honesty to repay the money because he couldn't understand why he'd received it as he'd resigned to go to another job - sounds like excellent management material but, alas, no longer in the BBC.
Yes, I can only agree 100% with you there FTV, it does make a welcome change.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jul/01/bbc-executive-returned-payoff
Coincidentally, I made a similar point on post 91, a post that you must have read as you replied straight after it (with an apparent reference to it)
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=66835709&postcount=91
That memory of yours seems to be failing again - must be the heat.