Donate SIGN UP

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

Avatar Image
Gromit | 00:31 Mon 12th Nov 2012 | News
47 Answers
Shome mishtake shurely??
Gravatar

Answers

41 to 47 of 47rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Parkinson's Law applies to the BBC, judging from the comments of Paxman and Dimbleby about management. Parkinson thought that managers want subordinates, not rivals and that managers make work for each other. Hence, the number of lesser managers increases with time and yet they all appear to be fully employed, so busy in fact that more managers, more subordinates, are taken on to take the apparent extra workload.

In the BBC it is evident that there must be several 'suits' who are more directly responsible, being closer to events and answerable for each decision, than Entwistle was and there are many who are entirely unnecessary.If, as seems possible but unlikely, these lesser figures are held responsible and removed over this affair and are not replaced, the saving to the public will be far greater than the expense in paying Entwistle twice the leaving salary than he was strictly entitled to; an overpayment made to encourage him to go amicably, no doubt.
Anybody here who has worked in the BBC?

The question - How many people (levels) between the most junior floor job and Chris Patten?

For a world-efficient oil company, the answer is 10 to 11 (from the floor of the refinery or oil platform to the Group Chairman). In fact, at the time of the Texas refinery disaster, (and just before the Gulf incident), BP were at 14, which says oodles about the messages flowing up an organisation and the mattress below hardly bouncing when the top jumps.

I shall ask the question of a scriptwriter friend of mine who used to work there and feedback......
"Because in these cases, ichkeria, you double and treble check things before you spout off, "

They didn't "spout off" though, did they.
Mind you it would have been interesting if they HAD shown him a picture. I wonder what he would have said. All those years gone by and he never saw a picture of McAlpine, wasn't even interested in looking? That stretches my credulity to the limit.
Chris Bryant labour MP, just on the radio "Quite frankly, my constituants don't care about all this nonsense. As long as the BBC give good coverage of the Olympics and the football, that's all they care about".
I honestly wish he wish he was Conservative, talking about his plebs like that. What a gift.
Ich: do you like sveik.
"Ich: do you like sveik. "

With apologies to everyone for the off-topic diversion: yes! Wonderful book, such a shame it was never finished!
He had been there many years and was on a good salary for a top job. He was on 6 months notice so had to be paid at least that. This would have been a negotiated settlement. Rather than a long drawn out wrangle it means they can move on and still require him to take part in the enquiries.
ichkeria, I wouldn't guarantee that you'd want to go looking at pictures of people who abused you, it'd only reopen the wounds. He thought he knew who it was; he was wrong, because he'd been misinformed, but it wasn't something he would have thought to check. I find that plausible enough.

41 to 47 of 47rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3

Do you know the answer?

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

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.