A bunch of smug London based media types arrange to make sure that another bunch of smug London based media types get far more money than they deserve, primarily for running an organization responsible for making mainly dreary programmes. It really isn't surprising BBC employees seem so pleased with themselves.
Read your own post again. BBC fan ? so it isn't just down to employees of the BBC.
Read which post exactly?
Please highlight the apparent smugness in my post.
Is it that surprising that a media organisation attracts media types as employees? And is it that surprising that a large media organisation based primarily in London attracts London-based employees?
This small intervention from yourself is hardly helping move this thread on though.
That is a very serious allegation for you to make on a public forum, please give details of this internal corruption.
And perhaps you should pass any evidence onto the Police and the BBC Trust, who would be rather interested.
Otherwise, once again just empty words from you.
Read what I said "Unless this situation is clarified very soon"
In other words, the BBC can clarify what has been said & prove that they are NOT corrupted or dishonest regarding this subject. The ball is in their court.
Read what I said "Unless this situation is clarified very soon"
In other words, the BBC can clarify what has been said & prove that they are NOT corrupted or dishonest regarding this subject. The ball is in their court.
The ball is also in Mark Thompson's court, who, might I remind you, has yet to give evidence to the PAC due to work commitments. He is now due 9th September (the same day that Patten and Lucy Adams have been recalled). So far we have had what I would call arse-covering diplomacy across both sides of the Atlantic.
Please highlight the apparent smugness in my post.
This small intervention from yourself is hardly helping move this thread on though.
I apologise, snide might have more accurate. None of your rather unpleasant personal put downs detract from the deep and persistent problems which afflict the BBC.
The ball is also in Mark Thompson's court, who, might I remind you, has yet to give evidence to the PAC due to work commitments. He is now due 9th September (the same day that Patten and Lucy Adams have been recalled).
Good, you have your finger much better placed on the BBC pulse than I have, thanks for bringing me up to speed.
I apologise, snide might have more accurate. None of your rather unpleasant personal put downs detract from the deep and persistent problems which afflict the BBC.
Unpleasant personal put downs? Not meant to be so, therefore apologies if they came across that way.
I added a late edit there:
Is it that surprising that a media organisation attracts media types as employees? And is it that surprising that a large media organisation based primarily in London attracts London-based employees?
Well, is it that surprising? I don't think that it is. Do you?
I apologise, snide might have more accurate. None of your rather unpleasant personal put downs detract from the deep and persistent problems which afflict the BBC.
Good, you have your finger much better placed on the BBC pulse than I have, thanks for bringing me up to speed.
No problem, having access to, or knowledge of the latest developments helps to engender a better discussion (devoid of false claims or assumptions).
The former director general of the BBC, Mark Thompson, will appear before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) on 9 September to answer questions about BBC executive pay-offs.
BBC Trust chairman Lord Patten and BBC director general Tony Hall were questioned last week by MPs over £25m paid to 150 outgoing executives.
Several BBC witnesses who gave evidence will be recalled, said a PAC spokesman.
They include Lord Patten and BBC HR director Lucy Adams.
Mr Thompson, who now works for the New York Times, did not attend the committee on 10 July.
Others appearing in September are BBC Trustee Anthony Fry, former trust chairman Sir Michael Lyons and a former senior independent director, Marcus Agius.
The evidence from Marcus Agius should be interesting.
It puzzled me why the non execs were not called to the PAC in the first place .. It is them not the trust who have the responsibility ,,,,
How Can a select committee be so ignorant of a royal charter.
The PAC let Terry Burns off lightly on David Abrahams salary being greater than Tony Halls ,,, and DA gets a bonus ....
It puzzled me why the non execs were not called to the PAC in the first place .. It is them not the trust who have the responsibility ,,,,
How Can a select committee be so ignorant of a royal charter.
Their ignorance regarding the purpose of the Trust as per the Charter (and why exec pay was separate) was astonishing - when Patten politely reminded them, it was the one moment that I admired him.
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.
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.
Here's a clue. Ex Labour Minister James Purnell is now in a highly paid job at the BBC. MP's on the PAC won't want to sabotage their chance of being invited, like Mr Purnell, to join the corporate gravy train.
Here's a clue. Ex Labour Minister James Purnell is now in a highly paid job at the BBC. MP's on the PAC won't want to sabotage their chance of being invited, like Mr Purnell, to join the corporate gravy train.
Read what I said "Unless this situation is clarified very soon"
In other words, the BBC can clarify what has been said & prove that they are NOT corrupted or dishonest regarding this subject. The ball is in their court.
That qualification does not alter the fact that you were stating as fact that the BBC is corrupt. You said "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."
The "unless" qualification applies to "prove", and what it would "prove" that the level of the BBCs corruption, not any doubt that there is corruption. The allegation is still a statement. Even without the "proof" you are still making that statement of fact.
So what evidence do you have of corruption in the BBC? And have you told the Police, the Trust or even the DCMS Select Committee?
Or are you just making stuff up with no evidence whatsoever?
The very quick and easy way I did it when I posted a redacted image of a PDF file?
Open PDF, take screenshot, paste into Paintshop, paint out what you want to obscure, save as JPG, upload to image host. Took me six minutes, and a couple of minutes of that was deciding what PDF to use.
Comments
As I do.......
And perhaps you should pass any evidence onto the Police and the BBC Trust, who would be rather interested.
Otherwise, once again just empty words from you.
Who'd have thunk it eh!
But your contribution here has been most illuminating.
I've never noticed this smugness though, how does it apparently manifest itself?
Read your own post again. BBC fan ? so it isn't just down to employees of the BBC.
Read which post exactly?
Please highlight the apparent smugness in my post.
Is it that surprising that a media organisation attracts media types as employees? And is it that surprising that a large media organisation based primarily in London attracts London-based employees?
This small intervention from yourself is hardly helping move this thread on though.
Read what I said "Unless this situation is clarified very soon"
In other words, the BBC can clarify what has been said & prove that they are NOT corrupted or dishonest regarding this subject. The ball is in their court.
I apologise, snide might have more accurate. None of your rather unpleasant personal put downs detract from the deep and persistent problems which afflict the BBC.
Good, you have your finger much better placed on the BBC pulse than I have, thanks for bringing me up to speed.
I added a late edit there:
Is it that surprising that a media organisation attracts media types as employees? And is it that surprising that a large media organisation based primarily in London attracts London-based employees?
Well, is it that surprising? I don't think that it is. Do you?
100% correct on all points onecitizen.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23333937
The evidence from Marcus Agius should be interesting.
It puzzled me why the non execs were not called to the PAC in the first place .. It is them not the trust who have the responsibility ,,,,
How Can a select committee be so ignorant of a royal charter.
The PAC let Terry Burns off lightly on David Abrahams salary being greater than Tony Halls ,,, and DA gets a bonus ....
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/paye_and_contractor_income_bands#incoming-411043
This has staff per grade , salary bands , payments to contractors and pay offs
Edit a pdf in an image editor? How?
Then become an MP.
Here's a clue. Ex Labour Minister James Purnell is now in a highly paid job at the BBC. MP's on the PAC won't want to sabotage their chance of being invited, like Mr Purnell, to join the corporate gravy train.
Quite, the usual nonsense hyperbole from Cyril. Yawn, so predictable:yawn:
Give it a rest Mrebel. We all know you are just making excuses to not upload this supposed "evidence" because you know it doesnt support your claims.
Oh no, it's all a conspiracy!
Your paranoia beggars belief.
I have absolutely no idea what on earth you are on about.
That qualification does not alter the fact that you were stating as fact that the BBC is corrupt. You said "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."
The "unless" qualification applies to "prove", and what it would "prove" that the level of the BBCs corruption, not any doubt that there is corruption. The allegation is still a statement. Even without the "proof" you are still making that statement of fact.
So what evidence do you have of corruption in the BBC? And have you told the Police, the Trust or even the DCMS Select Committee?
Or are you just making stuff up with no evidence whatsoever?
The very quick and easy way I did it when I posted a redacted image of a PDF file?
Open PDF, take screenshot, paste into Paintshop, paint out what you want to obscure, save as JPG, upload to image host. Took me six minutes, and a couple of minutes of that was deciding what PDF to use.