'Austerity' at the BBC

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Damien

Yes but for the most part I don't think that is a feature of the BBC.

Which is the point I have been trying to make all along.

These stories are unique, which is why they make the headlines. Actually, no. They make the headlines only because the BBC-hating papers like the Daily Wail want to make a big thing about them.

There was a story a few years ago about the OTT expenses that BBC executives were on. When it was investigated (as all these things seem to have to be) it found that the expenses were really nothing out of the ordinary at all. It was just a big number overall.

In fact, that sounds eerily familiar

The last Director General was, by most accounts, a talented and capable man but was caught out by the crisis. He didn't really do anything too wrong until he claimed he hadn't read the papers about the Lord McAlpine scandal.

Exactly. He was hounded out by the anti-BBC press.

---------- Post added at 19:43 ---------- Previous post was at 19:42 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I'm sorry but someone at that level in the BBC should be more on the ball.I'm sorry that he was in over his head but we need people of better calibre.We need more Rieths

No-one could have survived the pressure he was put under by the anti-BBC press.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

No-one could have survived the pressure he was put under by the anti-BBC press.

To reply in your vain.

Your statement is moot as it is completely un-provable.

Irrelevant posts removed. What happens on other forums isnt our concern.

[Sirius]

Just been having another read of this in light of some posts in this thread.

http://www.ealinggazette.co.uk/ealin...4767-32496587/
Here's a quote from it

The probe also comes after parliament's Public Accounts Committee criticised the BBC's use of licence fee payers' money as "cavalier" and "out of line with public expectations".

[Osem]

I'd certainly agree that some of their spending is cavalier... and out of line with public expectations.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Osem

I'd certainly agree that some of their spending is cavalier... and out of line with public expectations.

The argument by some is "the others do it and the BBC is in line with them" In other words if the others can get away with it why not the BBC. the difference is the others don't get a hand out from the tax payer each year

[carlwaring]

It's not a matter of "getting away with it" though. And "public expectations" is also completely irrelevant. I don't "expect" the NHS to waste £12bn on a computer system that doesn't work. But they did and there's nothing anyone can do about it now.

I'm sure the "public expects" everyone else to pay as much tax as possible but, of course, they wouldn't take any and all legal steps available to them to pay as little as possible, would they?

---------- Post added at 11:12 ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

The argument by some is "the others do it and the BBC is in line with them" In other words if the others can get away with it why not the BBC. the difference is the others don't get a hand out from the tax payer each year

So the NHS doesn't get a "hand out" via our taxes? Weird. Coulda sworn they did

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

So the NHS doesn't get a "hand out" via our taxes? Weird. Coulda sworn they did

The NHS is needed in my opinion more than a Corporation who in my opinion thinks its have a god given right to waste its yearly hand out and i hope this will now been seen to be true via the present investigation.

I do also feel the NHS has to be investigated if they are wasting public money

Originally Posted by carlwaring

So the NHS doesn't get a "hand out" via our taxes? Weird. Coulda sworn they did

What is it with you and the NHS ,we are talking about the BBC and other media providers ,comparing salaries,bonuses and pay offs ,nothing whatsoever to do with the NHS .The others that Sirius mentioned are media providers such as Sky and ITV they are private enterprises and can pay what they like the BBC is not and must pay what is deemed reasonable and must be accountable to the tax payer

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by marty

What is it with you and the NHS ,we are talking about the BBC and other media providers ,comparing salaries,bonuses and pay offs ,nothing whatsoever to do with the NHS .The others that Sirius mentioned are media providers such as Sky and ITV they are private enterprises and can pay what they like the BBC is not and must pay what is deemed reasonable and must be accountable to the tax payer

Its the only argument he has put forward, the NHS does it so that means the BBC can do it

The likes of Sky and Itv do not have the benefit of a yearly tax handout and have to ensure they are profitable or they go bust.

Originally Posted by Sirius

The argument by some is "the others do it and the BBC is in line with them" In other words if the others can get away with it why not the BBC. the difference is the others don't get a hand out from the tax payer each year

It's not that. It's the fact that if other companies are paying more than the BBC will be staffed by people unable to command those wages elsewhere. In theory the tier below the best. It's hard to quantify exactly but you can say for the sure that the talented staff would go where the higher wages are. That isn't a efficient use of money from the tax payer..

---------- Post added at 11:41 ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

What is it with you and the NHS ,we are talking about the BBC and other media providers ,comparing salaries,bonuses and pay offs ,nothing whatsoever to do with the NHS .The others that Sirius mentioned are media providers such as Sky and ITV they are private enterprises and can pay what they like the BBC is not and must pay what is deemed reasonable and must be accountable to the tax payer

Deemed reasonable by whom? Surely reasonable is the industry standard. You're not going to get away with trying to pay less than that and expect the BBC to be effective.

As far as i can see the problem isn't the wage ,if that is on a par with other media companies like Sky then fine so be it ,however when those execs leave to go to one of those companies or get sacked the payoffs received are obscene and in no way encourage a good job from the execs ,in fact why should they bother when getting sacked from the BBC ,in the words of one politician,"is like winning the lottery" ,they don't need to do a good job when they are set up for life should they be sacked or leave to a more lucrative post at another company

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Sirius

The NHS is needed in my opinion more than a Corporation who in my opinion thinks its have a god given right to waste its yearly hand out and i hope this will now been seen to be true via the present investigation.

And we all are welcome to our opinions However, as I have already saif, this current investigation, in my opinion, just be another waste of money when it is found that they aren't, actually, doing anything wrong.

---------- Post added at 12:09 ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

What is it with you and the NHS...

It's called an analogy; or a comparison. They are (whether you think so or not) both public services paid for out of taxes of some description.

we are talking about the BBC and other media providers

No. Just the BBC.

The others that Sirius mentioned are media providers such as Sky and ITV they are private enterprises and can pay what they like the BBC is not and must pay what is deemed reasonable and must be accountable to the tax payer

And they are. Hence this investigation. We'll see what happens.

---------- Post added at 12:12 ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

Its the only argument he has put forward, the NHS does it so that means the BBC can do it

Wow! Way to completely miss my point as I have never actually said specifically that.

The likes of Sky and Itv do not have the benefit of a yearly tax handout and have to ensure they are profitable or they go bust.

My comparisons are and only ever have been with other public sector services.

So another one who doesn't seem to actually read my posts and links therein

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by martyh

As far as i can see the problem isn't the wage ,if that is on a par with other media companies like Sky then fine so be it ,however when those execs leave to go to one of those companies or get sacked the payoffs received are obscene and in no way encourage a good job from the execs ,in fact why should they bother when getting sacked from the BBC ,in the words of one politician,"is like winning the lottery" ,they don't need to do a good job when they are set up for life should they be sacked or leave to a more lucrative post at another company

I wish i could get sacked and then demand a big payout, But as far as the BBC goes and there massive payouts don't worry the tax payer will fund it from the BBC's handout they get free each year.

However i feel its typical of this country and the BBC to reward failure in this way with a big payout.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Damien

Deemed reasonable by whom? Surely reasonable is the industry standard. You're not going to get away with trying to pay less than that and expect the BBC to be effective.

Exactly. This is the same public who will complain about something to Newswatch or POV which, when explained by the BBC is actually perfectly logical and common sense.

---------- Post added at 12:16 ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

however when those execs leave to go to one of those companies or get sacked the payoffs received are obscene and in no way encourage a good job from the execs ,in fact why should they bother when getting sacked from the BBC ,in the words of one politician,"is like winning the lottery" ,they don't need to do a good job when they are set up for life should they be sacked or leave to a more lucrative post at another company

And, as one of my previous posts has shown, such comments would be very hypocritical given some other recent public sector pay-offs. (See below!)

Originally Posted by Sirius

I wish i could get sacked and then demand a big payout..

Then go try getting a job as a Council Leader then.

http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/Ex-counc...ail/story.html

KENT County Council's former managing director Katherine Kerswell walked away with a £420,000 redundancy payoff after just 18 months of work, it has been confirmed.

http://www.greatyarmouthmercury.co.u...ents_1_1679206

“HYPOCRITE” Tory politicians offered a top council boss a six-figure payoff then criticised Labour for doing the same, it has been claimed.

Richard Packham, managing director of Great Yarmouth Borough Council, could receive a £136,000 severance package if he decides to walk away from the authority - which must find £10m of savings in the next three years.