54 disatrous days in post - £1.3Million serverance package.

[Gromit]

Shome mishtake shurely??

[jno]

baz: you asked how many on here would be entitled to six months dosh if they quit their jobs ?

I said: me.

You said: more fool you.

Yeah, I feel like such a fool, I should have held out for even more than I got.

[ummmm]

I think he misunderstood, jno.

[bazwillrun]

"yes you the poor plebs that are criminalised if you dont want to pay a tax to keep this dinosaur in business.
"

I took your first answer to be in reply to the above statement.

[jno]

could be.

[jno]

just to clear things up my last post was in reply to ummmm.

But I am happy to pay a licence fee to the BBC, just as I don't object to buying goods advertised on other channels who have to raise their prices to pay for all the commercials.

[bazwillrun]

If they are going to release a statement saying he resigned then they deserve all the flak they get when they then announce how much they are going to give him.

if however he was forced to resign, they should have said so and then the argument over his pay settlement is a different kettle of fish.

Yet again another example of them not knowing what they are doing.

[jno]

it was an agreed deal but under heavy political pressure.

So the negotiating was either this:

"If we give you a year's pay, will you go?"
"Okay."

or this:

"I want a year's pay or I won't go."
"Okay."

It doesn't matter who said what or at what length. They got a deal which gave both parties what they wanted, which is what negotiation is for. The politicians and Rupert Murdoch will be delighted too (except politicians of course want it all for free, as they always do).

[jake-the-peg]

Hopkirk


Hopkirk
//a responsible journalist checks the facts thoroughly before publishing. //

Agreed

In this case the facts - as I'm aware was that a victim of abuse had identified McAlpine as his abuser

That was and is a fact

A futher fact appears to be that the police gave the wrong name to the picture.

Are you suggesting that the BBC should somehow have been able to check that?

This is waht I don't get - I didn't see the program I can't see what the issue here is

Did the BBC first "Out" McAlipne based on Twitter traffic?

Did they accuse him rather than report that he had been accused?

What am I missing here?

[ichkeria]

jake-the-peg I absolutely agree with you. I also cannot see what, in relation to the Newsnight report, the BBC has done wrong. I heard it mentioned, uncontested, on the radio this morning, that the BBC had "wrongly accused" McAlpine in the report. Nonsense. And this was on Radio 4, not 5Live. The reason I sometimes raise my eyebrows at the BBC is when they appear to jump too easily to criticise themelves when they should stick to their guns more. I suspect the Newsnight report would not have been sanctioned had it not been for the canning of the Savile investigation. And now, after the big guns have come out blazing threatening to sue all and sundry they run for cover in self-castigation. Egged on by the tabloid media of course who love to have a go at the BBC whenever possible.

By the way if thetaliesin is still reading this, I like your avatar :-)

[shinymanone]

it has kept the fact that David Cameron has NOT provided ALL the e-mails (as he was requested to) between him and Rebecca brook to the levison enquiry.
political sleight of hand?

[DTCwordfan]

to Jake.

Newsnight, for "sensationalism" and viewing let it be known that they had a story on North Wales - and it slipped out beforehand that it involved a senior politician or political aide of a former Prime Minister. In went the internet hounds thinking someone like Clarke, Mandleson etc and also McAlpine came to light, there having been rumours that he was involved with Peter Morrison. The programme then revealed that it was a senior Tory; Clarke's name bounced around the net but then he is serving a current PM as we well know, the spot was off Labour, so McAlpine became chief suspect.

The unbelievable thing is that they, the Beeb, did not double check the identity with a photo and also that they didn't even attempt to interview McA, who on getting wind of it in Italy, threatened dire consequences - now going that route. The Beeb chickened on interviewing him IMO and they chickened on the first threats from him on that Friday afternoon - the programme being such a damp squib as a result, and probably just as well.........

Appalling control that I believe stems from two structural faults in the Beeb - (i) the separation of compliance and editorial responsibilities and (ii) many programmes are now put together with outside ventures (in part driven by the need to hide the costs of leading actors/newscasters/commentators) and these, apparently, are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as internal programmes on the misguided belief that such JV work will have been scrutinised by outside lawyers and the risk passed and spread.

[DTCwordfan]

and to shinymanone - as apart from being irrelevant to this thread, Cameron was asked to pass all e-mails relevant to ongoings between himself (No 10) and Rebecca's employers, i.e. Murdoch and his empire.

[jno]

the "leak" came from the boss of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, an independent outfit that had been working with the BBC on the Newsnight story, who was boasting at some sort of media industry do. It did not come from the BBC. The programme carefully did not name McAlpine.

The programme was obviously poorly made, but I can't see that it did anything illegal or immoral; it was just bad journalism. That might be a resisgnation matter for the people who worked on it, but I can't see why a direcgtor general should have to go because of it.

I think he resigned mostly because looked clueless when interviewed about it. One of his jobs was to fight the BBC's corner. That's where he failed - not in faialing to watch/listen to every minute of the BBC's vast output.

He may also have failed in not having a proper reporting system so that controversial programmes would be brought to his attention. But as I read it, there was such a system in place but the people didn't do their job. If so then they, rather than the boss, should be sacked.

[ichkeria]

Why would the BBC necessarily ask Steve Messham to identify his abuser via a photo? He'd already done that once. And who'd have thought a policeman would have given him the wrong name at the time?

[DTCwordfan]

two have gone this morning, Helen Dodds being one, head of news I believe....

[DTCwordfan]

and yes, jno, that was where the leak was from, though the Beeb were amiss in the way they were "advertising" their scoop. It drives me bloody crazy when they do this, as in many programmes, they preview some of the juiciest bits of the programme - also I detest when they use the news for their own gain, often keeping out another good story/developing theme nationally or internationally. If that changes, all for the better.

Entwistle has honourably taken the sword, however I agree it is the underlings that need to be looked at as the programme was, at best, very sloppy. A libel case by implicit pressure against them may be an interesting case in the Courts. The BIJ one is much clearer.....

[DTCwordfan]

Because in these cases, ichkeria, you double and treble check things before you spout off, - what's this going to cost in legal fees and services, never mind folk's careers? £5 mill perhaps?

[jake-the-peg]

//also I detest when they use the news for their own gain,//

Unlike say News corp?

[DTCwordfan]

Cant stand Murdoch papers etc, (even the Times) that being one of the reasons, Jake, so consistent there.

[factor-fiction]

If they'd sacked him he'd have got his notice paid which would be 6 months I understand.
If he also had to give 6 months' notice he could have given that and they'd probably have said 'go immediately but here's your 6 months' pay.
But I assume it was done by negotiation- as often happens with football managers- and a year was agreed bearing in mind they need him to do crtain things related to enquiries