Pig in the trough or reasonable demand

[AronSearle]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ntwistle-said-450000-payoff-wasnt-enough.html


Here is my view.

The guy was in the job for a few months, how many people have been in a job for that time period, are then considered to be fully “settled in”. Yet the BBC, an organisation that hires tens of thousands of people, with dozens of channels, thousands of programmes, and this guy is held responsible for its mistakes?

Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it. The BBC’s problems are longstanding inter cultural issues, this guy was hired on a contract, and it’s clear he was unfairly dismissed (even if he is a complete bell end, you can’t judge him from 2 months in the job).

He’s never going to get another such job being held up as the scapegoat, and will have to put up with public derision, would you be asking for a year’s salary?


I think the real joke is the BBC spending so much of license payers money on inflated management wages, oh, do carry on paying your license fee, after all watching adverts is so terrible!

 

[joe-90]

The guy before him was on double that. The BBC employs 200 people earning more than the PM. NO PUBLIC WORKER SHOULD EARN MORE THAN THE MAN AT THE TOP.

 

[joinerjohn]

To be fair, the buck has to stop somewhere and George Entwistle, was up there at the top. There's no one higher than him. The sign outside his office should have said. "The Buck Stops Here."
Whether he was wrongly dismissed or not, do you think it was worth more than £450,000 for him losing his job? Do you think he's now incapable of getting another job?
Personally, I'd have paid him a months salary, nothing more,,,
Ohh but,,, hang on,, WE (the tv licence paying public) are paying him quite handsomely.Not that we have a say in the matter.

 

[AronSearle]

Whether he was wrongly dismissed or not, do you think it was worth more than £450,000 for him losing his job?

Well, I have doubts paying anyone over 100k really makes them any better at the job.

But the BBC did offer him a multi hundred thousand pound salary, and if he is wrongly dismissed, he can rightfully sue for lost earnings.

The same laws that allow him to do that allow you to do that as protection against unfair dismissal.

Do you think he's now incapable of getting another job?

Another job, yes.

Another high paying job in the media, hmmm, he will be considered tainted.

This could cost him over his working life career more than his payout.

(Again I have doubts about such high pay, and certainly don't believe it should happen in the public sector).



What I am saying is by making him a scapegoat, you don't deal with the real issues.


His replacement will be offered just as high a salary, hundreds of other BBC execs will continue to earn +130k salaries (Joe is right).

"lessons will be learnt", and the BBC will carry on with it's usual "impartiality" and modus operandi.

 

[peterperfection]

BBC DECISIONS ARE EASY

Know why ???.

OPM

you all know what OPM is- dont you ?.

 

[conny]

BBC DECISIONS ARE EASY

Know why ???.

OPM

you all know what OPM is- dont you ?.

No. So enlighten me. I speak the English language, not acronyms.

 

[empip]

He had to take the 'bullet' and was paid handsomely for that.

Perhaps the inquisitor here was on the money.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20518301

-0-

 

[peterperfection]

BBC DECISIONS ARE EASY

Know why ???.

OPM

you all know what OPM is- dont you ?.

No. So enlighten me. I speak the English language, not acronyms.

Other Peoples Money.

 

[joinerjohn]

.

"lessons will be learnt", and the BBC will carry on with it's usual "impartiality" and modus operandi.

Now then, you'll accuse them of unbiased reporting next.