Yentob is 68, well past BBC retirement age, and I can't see any special case for him staying on. His departure will fund several ''free'' TV licences (in fact his expenses will as well).
Yentob is 68, well past BBC retirement age, and I can't see any special case for him staying on. His departure will fund several ''free'' TV licences (in fact his expenses will as well).
You realise he will have to be replaced, probably by someone of similar stature and expense...
A perfect opportunity to close the post as no-one knows what he does in any case so his departure is unlikely to affect the running of the BBC.
Correction: You don't know what he does, and you can't be arsed to look it up.
Nobody stays in a post for 9 years, during major cutbacks, without having a defined job role.
In fact here's the BBC Trust page with all his roles and responsibilities. And having looked at his most recent expenses, there's doesn't seem to be anything questionable on them. Just because he has a lot of expenses, doesn't mean he's doing anything illicit.
When the deputy DG Mark Byford left his post wasn't filled and the departure of the No 2 person in the whole organisation had no visible effect on the running of the BBC.
When the deputy DG Mark Byford left his post wasn't filled and the departure of the No 2 person in the whole organisation had no visible effect on the running of the BBC.
Chances are his roles were reassigned to other senior members of staff, like Yentob. You can only do that so many times before stress to starts to show.
I really don't understand who's cornflakes Yentob pissed in, to get this kind of silly, generally baseless, hatred.
Yentob is 68, well past BBC retirement age, and I can't see any special case for him staying on. His departure will fund several ''free'' TV licences (in fact his expenses will as well).
Does the BBC have a "BBC retirement age"? Compulsory retirement at 65 was abolished in 2011. And anyone can carry on working past the State Pension Age (currently 65 bfor men, to rise to 66 in 2020).
So at 68, Yentob could not even be described as well past State Pension Age!
Chances are his roles were reassigned to other senior members of staff, like Yentob. You can only do that so many times before stress to starts to show.
I really don't understand who's cornflakes Yentob pissed in, to get this kind of silly, generally baseless, hatred.
Hmm..
You've got to try to separate "hatred" (your word, but not uncommon on DS when someone doesn't like a particular stance) from "criticism."
As I've said, Yentob has had a chequered past and is no stranger to expenses criticism.
The points I raised are quite valid.
His "role" is so, "airy fairy" there must be plenty of talented people on a level below his that are quite capable of performing their jobs. If you think about it, his "responsibilities" were shoved in above a level of many other people. One of the problems of the BBC is that there has always been several highly paid "suits" with jobs that don't occur in some other networks. The on-cost m is that these positions will "necessarily" require some well paid support staff, to do a lot of the work. It's a form of "empire building," many companies in the private sector are quick to recognise and dismantle.
His "job" or "jobs" were created to "ease the blow" of being dropped from running BBC1.
I'd suggest that when he does finally retire, his job will disappear completely.
As I said before, I hope he retires early enough to enjoy that huge long-service pension pot he's accumulated in a lifetime of working for the BBC.
Mr Yentob, an executive and presenter, is drawing three separate incomes from the Corporation including his pension, it was claimed.
It's a dodge frequently used in the public sector to 'retire' for a day and then be re-hired.
That's right, so I'll re-phrase it, "Why doesn't he just go?"
Part of the problem with "Imagine" is that he just likes appearing on the TV., even if his physical presence in many of the programmes, is totally unnecessary.
I see from Wikipedia that some years ago Yentob was reprimanded for ''faking'' interviews for Imagine (presumably inserting himself into an interview done by someone else).A lesser mortal would probably have been sacked. As Doghouse has said there is absolutely no reason for Yentob to ''top and tail'' these bought-in programmes as he does not demonstrate any particular expertise in the subjects.
I see from Wikipedia that some years ago Yentob was reprimanded for ''faking'' interviews for Imagine (presumably inserting himself into an interview done by someone else).A lesser mortal would probably have been sacked.
At the BBC you Fail upwards. The more you don't give a F***, the more promotions you get. Similar to Peter Gibbons in the movie Office Space.
I see from Wikipedia that some years ago Yentob was reprimanded for ''faking'' interviews for Imagine (presumably inserting himself into an interview done by someone else).A lesser mortal would probably have been sacked. As Doghouse has said there is absolutely no reason for Yentob to ''top and tail'' these bought-in programmes as he does not demonstrate any particular expertise in the subjects.
That's true, I mentioned "Noddygate" earlier in the thread.
Maybe those instances were occasions where he couldn't be assed to actually conduct the interview himself, or it didn't "need" him to fly business class to some exotic location?
To be fair, I'd be surprised if he were the only one who were possibly guilty of this.
Chances are his roles were reassigned to other senior members of staff, like Yentob. You can only do that so many times before stress to starts to show.
I really don't understand who's cornflakes Yentob pissed in, to get this kind of silly, generally baseless, hatred.
He does seem to attract a lot of vitriol from some quarters, I have also wondered who he has upset in the past.
Aren't pensions paid by the BBC Pension Scheme Trust, not the BBC?
It really doesn't matter, it all mostly comes originally from the licence fee. This will have been invested by the BBC pension fund managers.
It's likely that Yentob would have been on a 40/60th pension plan or better. The employer's contribution can vary a bit between companies. But those schemes are pretty much history now for new employees.
He could as I did with mine, make additional voluntary contributions, to bring his personal contribution up to a total of 15% of his salary, but of course not everyone could have afforded to do it.
It was a sensible strategy, for anyone who wanted to retire early.
Pension fund "pots" grew substantially during the eighties and early nineties and he will have benefited from that.
Pension funds are a bit of a waste of money now for young people. Far better to get into property and rent out a second house. It'll eventually pay off its mortgage and provide a better retirement income.
It was reported in 2009 that Yentob has a pension pot of £6.3 million which gives him an income of £216,667 per annum. It was described as one of the biggest pensions in the public sector.
It was reported in 2009 that Yentob has a pension pot of £6.3 million which gives him an income of £216,667 per annum. It was described as one of the biggest pensions in the public sector.
His advantage is of course that he's had continuous employment at the BBC (in one way or another), for 47 years. Anyone joining the BBC (and a lot of other companies) in the late sixties, on a progressively increasing high salary in continuous employment can accrue these sort of figures, particularly as he was working through periods when there was high inflation.
Correction: You don't know what he does, and you can't be arsed to look it up.
Nobody stays in a post for 9 years, during major cutbacks, without having a defined job role.
In fact here's the BBC Trust page with all his roles and responsibilities. And having looked at his most recent expenses, there's doesn't seem to be anything questionable on them. Just because he has a lot of expenses, doesn't mean he's doing anything illicit.
Mr Yentob, an executive and presenter, is drawing three separate incomes from the Corporation including his pension, it was claimed.
It's a dodge frequently used in the public sector to 'retire' for a day and then be re-hired.
"Dodge" or not, there's nothing to stop anyone doing that given the right circumstances (i.e. taking their pension early and then taking another job elsewhere or at the same employer). there's nothing to stop anyone taking their pension and then working at more that one employer either.
Of course, taking the pension early means that the original employer will cease pension contributions, and the person will have a pension pot (or final salary scheme income) lower than would have been the case had that person taken the pension later.
"Dodge" or not, there's nothing to stop anyone doing that given the right circumstances (i.e. taking their pension early and then taking another job elsewhere or at the same employer). there's nothing to stop anyone taking their pension and then working at more that one employer either.
By 'right circumstances', I presume you mean senior enough for the employer or trustees to allow it?
Of course, taking the pension early means that the original employer will cease pension contributions.
I must check later to see if that's the case for Botney.
By 'right circumstances', I presume you mean senior enough for the employer or trustees to allow it?
I must check later to see if that's the case for Botney.
Or simply you've reached the age that was agreed when you took out the pension.
I know a fair few people in private industry, and some in the civil service who have done similar over the years.
Some pushed tor retire as cost saving exercises in companies, only to be hired back a few months later when the company realised that it needed the knowledge and experience those expensive old hands had (as the new much lower cost hires either have never encountered the systems in use, or only encountered them in training with no real world experience).
Your pension says you can retire at say 65 with full pension after say 35 years.
Or you can retire at say 60 with 80% with 30 years in.
You retire at 60 (or your employer suggests you retire early - if you retire early it costs them less), and then go do another job, or take a few months off and get bored and reapply for a new position.
IIRC it's often in the employers interests to get people with older style pensions to retire early, especially if they're expecting that person to keep going up the ladder and they're on a final salary linked scheme, as it costs less to do that.
It's one of the reasons so many companies offer older staff early retirement, then almost immediately hire some of them back as contractors or part time in a differently defined role.
By 'right circumstances', I presume you mean senior enough for the employer or trustees to allow it?
Well certainly the employer has to be happy with it in order to take on the proposed employee. Other circumstances which apply to people are those surrounding opportunity (there has to be a post available and the person has to have experience/qualifications for that post for example). Of course, senior employees at most companies will receive better terms & conditions than those lower down the scale, all the more so for senior execs (who will most likely have negotiated individual terms with the employer). Just because these terms & conditions (and therefore later opportunities) are not open to other employees should not mean that they should not be given at all. Unless of course you wish to follow a purely Socialist agenda.
I must check later to see if that's the case for Botney.
Unless there is a clause in the contract which means that the employer continues with contributions for a period of time, or makes a one-off contribution as a lump sum. that aside, it would be normal for contributions to cease upon termination of employment.
... a dodge frequently used in the public sector to 'retire' for a day and then be re-hired.
It can and is used in all forms of industry ... Particularly with final salary pensions and staff close to retirement age ...
And with the BBC and public service retirement age set at 60 ..
It seems not unreasonable to claim your pension at that age.
In fact until about 20 years ago most BBC staff retired on a discounted pension before 60 .
Well certainly the employer has to be happy with it in order to take on the proposed employee.
No, I mean allow the employee to start dipping into their pension early and rehiring them.
Unless of course you wish to follow a purely Socialist agenda.
Well, that would be Botney and the Bbc. Champagne socialism at it's finest. See C4 and denial that the chairman is in any way responsible or accountable, and it's all the fault of the nasty government for not giving them more money. This sounds familiar, but then there is a Charter review in progress. Other people's jobs and budgets must be cut to spare the executive..
.. it would be normal for contributions to cease upon termination of employment.
Comments
You realise he will have to be replaced, probably by someone of similar stature and expense...
A perfect opportunity to close the post as no-one knows what he does in any case so his departure is unlikely to affect the running of the BBC.
Correction: You don't know what he does, and you can't be arsed to look it up.
Nobody stays in a post for 9 years, during major cutbacks, without having a defined job role.
In fact here's the BBC Trust page with all his roles and responsibilities. And having looked at his most recent expenses, there's doesn't seem to be anything questionable on them. Just because he has a lot of expenses, doesn't mean he's doing anything illicit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/corporate2/insidethebbc/managementstructure/biographies/yentob_alan
Chances are his roles were reassigned to other senior members of staff, like Yentob. You can only do that so many times before stress to starts to show.
I really don't understand who's cornflakes Yentob pissed in, to get this kind of silly, generally baseless, hatred.
So at 68, Yentob could not even be described as well past State Pension Age!
Hmm..
You've got to try to separate "hatred" (your word, but not uncommon on DS when someone doesn't like a particular stance) from "criticism."
As I've said, Yentob has had a chequered past and is no stranger to expenses criticism.
The points I raised are quite valid.
His "role" is so, "airy fairy" there must be plenty of talented people on a level below his that are quite capable of performing their jobs. If you think about it, his "responsibilities" were shoved in above a level of many other people. One of the problems of the BBC is that there has always been several highly paid "suits" with jobs that don't occur in some other networks. The on-cost m is that these positions will "necessarily" require some well paid support staff, to do a lot of the work. It's a form of "empire building," many companies in the private sector are quick to recognise and dismantle.
His "job" or "jobs" were created to "ease the blow" of being dropped from running BBC1.
I'd suggest that when he does finally retire, his job will disappear completely.
As I said before, I hope he retires early enough to enjoy that huge long-service pension pot he's accumulated in a lifetime of working for the BBC.
No such luck. He needs to resign, or preferably be fired first..
He's already retired..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10102522/BBCs-Alan-Yentob-paid-two-salaries.html
Mr Yentob, an executive and presenter, is drawing three separate incomes from the Corporation including his pension, it was claimed.
It's a dodge frequently used in the public sector to 'retire' for a day and then be re-hired.
That's right, so I'll re-phrase it, "Why doesn't he just go?"
Part of the problem with "Imagine" is that he just likes appearing on the TV., even if his physical presence in many of the programmes, is totally unnecessary.
That's true, I mentioned "Noddygate" earlier in the thread.
Maybe those instances were occasions where he couldn't be assed to actually conduct the interview himself, or it didn't "need" him to fly business class to some exotic location?
To be fair, I'd be surprised if he were the only one who were possibly guilty of this.
Aren't pensions paid by the BBC Pension Scheme Trust, not the BBC?
He does seem to attract a lot of vitriol from some quarters, I have also wondered who he has upset in the past.
It really doesn't matter, it all mostly comes originally from the licence fee. This will have been invested by the BBC pension fund managers.
It's likely that Yentob would have been on a 40/60th pension plan or better. The employer's contribution can vary a bit between companies. But those schemes are pretty much history now for new employees.
He could as I did with mine, make additional voluntary contributions, to bring his personal contribution up to a total of 15% of his salary, but of course not everyone could have afforded to do it.
It was a sensible strategy, for anyone who wanted to retire early.
Pension fund "pots" grew substantially during the eighties and early nineties and he will have benefited from that.
Pension funds are a bit of a waste of money now for young people. Far better to get into property and rent out a second house. It'll eventually pay off its mortgage and provide a better retirement income.
His advantage is of course that he's had continuous employment at the BBC (in one way or another), for 47 years. Anyone joining the BBC (and a lot of other companies) in the late sixties, on a progressively increasing high salary in continuous employment can accrue these sort of figures, particularly as he was working through periods when there was high inflation.
I wonder what the BBC's ''creative strategy'' is and has he ever discovered any talent we've heard of ?
Of course, taking the pension early means that the original employer will cease pension contributions, and the person will have a pension pot (or final salary scheme income) lower than would have been the case had that person taken the pension later.
By 'right circumstances', I presume you mean senior enough for the employer or trustees to allow it?
I must check later to see if that's the case for Botney.
Or simply you've reached the age that was agreed when you took out the pension.
I know a fair few people in private industry, and some in the civil service who have done similar over the years.
Some pushed tor retire as cost saving exercises in companies, only to be hired back a few months later when the company realised that it needed the knowledge and experience those expensive old hands had (as the new much lower cost hires either have never encountered the systems in use, or only encountered them in training with no real world experience).
Your pension says you can retire at say 65 with full pension after say 35 years.
Or you can retire at say 60 with 80% with 30 years in.
You retire at 60 (or your employer suggests you retire early - if you retire early it costs them less), and then go do another job, or take a few months off and get bored and reapply for a new position.
IIRC it's often in the employers interests to get people with older style pensions to retire early, especially if they're expecting that person to keep going up the ladder and they're on a final salary linked scheme, as it costs less to do that.
It's one of the reasons so many companies offer older staff early retirement, then almost immediately hire some of them back as contractors or part time in a differently defined role.
Unless there is a clause in the contract which means that the employer continues with contributions for a period of time, or makes a one-off contribution as a lump sum. that aside, it would be normal for contributions to cease upon termination of employment.
It can and is used in all forms of industry ... Particularly with final salary pensions and staff close to retirement age ...
And with the BBC and public service retirement age set at 60 ..
It seems not unreasonable to claim your pension at that age.
In fact until about 20 years ago most BBC staff retired on a discounted pension before 60 .
But there are now very few old benefits members employed...
Read all about the various BBC schemes http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/documents/handbooks
No, I mean allow the employee to start dipping into their pension early and rehiring them.
Well, that would be Botney and the Bbc. Champagne socialism at it's finest. See C4 and denial that the chairman is in any way responsible or accountable, and it's all the fault of the nasty government for not giving them more money. This sounds familiar, but then there is a Charter review in progress. Other people's jobs and budgets must be cut to spare the executive..
Or the employee starting to take their pension.