Operation Yewtree

[colin25]

Originally Posted by Osem

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.

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

Happens in public service often

[Osem]

Originally Posted by colin25

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

Happens in public service often

No, no, no!!!

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...

[colin25]

Originally Posted by Osem

No, no, no!!!

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...

lol, thanks..I need the laugh

Originally Posted by Osem

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.

Simple.Anyone who is bad at the job gets shoved upwards..Happens in ALL institutions.

[nomadking]

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. 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.

[Mick Fisher]

Originally Posted by martyh

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

I don't see why we should pay when Entwhistle walks away with a half mill for cacking it all up.

Patten and Entwhistle should be made to pay out of their own pockets. They can better afford it than the cash strapped License subscribers.

[AZIMUTH]

Originally Posted by Stuart

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.

ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZ

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

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. 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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by AZIMUTH

ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZ

Nice...

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

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...

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?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

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?

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.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

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.

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.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I am not saying anything, and people are talking about me - good isn't it. Before people start to criticise over this sick man, Unless you have been abused some people will not know what they are suffering.

When this happens to you, it marks you for life, it took me seven years to explain to my wife about it, and not everything, so its good she doesn't read these comments.

Ph's groom you with everything such as JS did with his victims, and by the time they strike you will think it perfectly normal.
The biggest rouble there is at the moment is that when names appear ie like Schofield did, it will get covered up quite quickly, it can happen anywhere and normally you will know who they are, before they strike.

When it happened to me l was naive and young- i am now nearly 61 and this sort of sickness is still going on - everyone can stop it, but it will go underground.

I remember the days when you could not go into a toilet when some sick git will look under the door and then throw something underneath.
Even today - l WILL NOT stand next to my kids in the loo if we are out, and when l do stand in front of a urinal l have to be close up to it, thats how it effects me.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.

ultimately that responsibility lies with the dg, he won't be the only one to lose their job over this though. Do you think the report would've gone out if anyone had contacted his lordship and he'd told them he'd never been to Wrexham.

Yeah the Director General probably had to take the fall. You could let him off the fact that Newsnight broadcast the story in the first place. He couldn't be seen to have tried to exert pressure on the news division and had the story been true he probably could not to be seen censoring another story about a suspected child abuser.

However the answer that finish him when he said he was unaware that Newsnight had named a senior Tory. That was amazing. A week after the broadcast when the issue had blown up in the week and he was unaware? How could he? It was on news programs, the newspapers and all over the BBC.

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.

I think that sums up part of the problem ,too many editors ,managers and no one knows who's job it was to inform a man who should have known all about it ,even if it meant watching sky news or ITN .