Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35497636)

What he deserves and what he'll get are two different things and I think his resignation payment should have been the minimum required under his contract which was, IIRC, 6 months. The rest, as you say, will be based on his previous employment with the BBC but I'm wondering how a man who appeared so out of his depth when it really mattered ever rose through the ranks to DG in the first place. :confused:

Originally Posted by colin25 (Post 35497647)

Time served..and it is who you know, not what you know

Happens in public service often

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35497650)

No, no, no!!! :nono:

We all know that senior people in public service only ever get where they are through sheer hard work, dedication and professionalism, often selflessly enduring years of hardship in the process!

Nepotism, having a face that fits or the 'right' background/accent etc. have nothing whatsoever to do with it...

:D

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35497636)

What he deserves and what he'll get are two different things and I think his resignation payment should have been the minimum required under his contract which was, IIRC, 6 months. The rest, as you say, will be based on his previous employment with the BBC but I'm wondering how a man who appeared so out of his depth when it really mattered ever rose through the ranks to DG in the first place. :confused:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35497395)

The Beeb have offered to pay lord McAlpine a shed load of our money for us ,nice of them

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20348978

Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 35497396)

Yes, probably to counteract the rise in teen pregnancy, which is a seperate subject to paedophilia.

There is a general acceptance that teenagers will have sex with each other. This may or may not be morally (or even legally correct) but it is a natural part of teenagers experimenting so it will happen. As such, some doctors at least try and minimise the consequences. There are limits to this, however. A 16 year old having sex with a 14 year old would be morally dubious but a lot more acceptable than a 16 year old having sex with a nine year old.

An adult having sex with a non-legal teenager is not the same thing at all. We, as adults, have a duty to protect teenagers, not take advantage of them.

The fact is that those teenagers where in a position where the management and staff of the organisation should have protected them from abuse. Something which they failed to do, and it seems at least one DJ and one pop star did not fail to take advantage of that fact.

If you still don't think it's a bad thing that happened, I suggest you talk to any victim of sexual abuse (whether they were adult or child at the time of the offence). You'll find that the experience affects them for the rest of their lives. For the rest of their lives, they will have trouble in relationships, trouble trusting other people. They may also be prone to bouts of depression (sometimes leading to them being sectioned or killing themselves), and may become abusers themselves.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35497701)

What did he do wrong? He wasn't head of BBC News, he was head of the whole of the BBC empire ie TV progs, Radio etc. He couldn't have been expected to personally oversee EVERY news item, drama etc programme.:rolleyes: If he had been informed in advance, what should he have done that the 'lower' level managers(head of news, head of newsnight) were meant to have done already. Whether he knew about it in advance is of no real consequence.

The people providing the report were not work experience trainees, and should have been able to be trusted to do their job properly. How far should the Newsnight producers have been expected to go in effectively doing the same research as the reporters were meant to have done. You have to be able to trust senior and seasoned staff to do their job properly and without bias.

Originally Posted by AZIMUTH (Post 35497853)

:zzz:ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZ:zzz:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35497886)

You really don't think it's a problem that the top guy didn't bother watching the flagship news programme that was already being given a kicking due to a sex abuse scandal? Imo he should've been looking closely at everything coming out of their office.

---------- Post added at 20:05 ---------- Previous post was at 20:04 ----------



Nice...

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35497926)

Why should he be expected watch every news or documentary programme that the BBC produces? The report wasn't about JS. If he had watched it, what would have been the difference?

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35497936)

No one said all, when their top news programme is already under scrutiny it's fair to expect the top guy to be showing a more than passing interest in everything they're doing. The difference could've simply been him asking if any one had sought lord mcalpine's opinion on the story.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35497952)

That would have been the job of the head of newsnight or head of news section and not the job of the DG. The main failure of the report was that Messham was an unreliable witness. Even is Lord McAlpine had been contacted, what could he have done to disprove the allegations before the report went out.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35497952)

That would have been the job of the head of newsnight or head of news section and not the job of the DG. The main failure of the report was that Messham was an unreliable witness. Even is Lord McAlpine had been contacted, what could he have done to disprove the allegations before the report went out.