In last week’s Telegraph Neil Midgley wrote a piece headed ‘BBC’s £12,000 for lawyers to help keep pay secret.’
The BBC Trust used Baker and McKenzie, an international law firm, to stop the National Audit Office disclosing figures that would allow ‘those in the know’ to make an approximate calculation of individual BBC staff’s paypackets. We’re going to know this soon anyway aren’t we?
I wonder how much more of the licence fee the BBC spends on suppressing things in addition to the hundreds of thousands forked out so far to bury the Balen report?
Another article by Neil Midgley in the Telegraph online concerns Jeremy Hunt and Sir Michael Lyons of the BBC Trust.
Before he became culture secretary and had the power to do so, Jeremy Hunt wanted to abolish the BBC Trust. Now that he has, he’s gone all soft and settled for changing the name a bit, from “The BBC Trust,” to the “Licence Fee Payers’ Trust”. He hopes that, and inserting a non-executive chairman onto Mark Thompson’s executive board, should be enough to address the troubles at the BBC.
Nobody has explained what specific changes Jeremy Hunt is after, apart from that the BBC Trust, or the Licence Fee Payers’ Trust, should be seen to be at arms length from the BBC.
However, as Sir Michael Lyons has secured a promise that the members of the new Licence Fee Payers’ Trust will still be the same old ex BBC members of the BBC Trust, the only way much change is going to happen is when, next year, Sir Michael’s term of Office comes up for renewal, and whether Jeremy Hunt replaces him with someone with very much longer arms.
It looks as though we’ll end up with the same ex BBC staff virtually investigating themselves, and at best giving themselves a token slap on the wrist once in a while.
Everyone agrees that the BBC is bloated, and needs to shrink. But it’s the bias, I’m afraid, that needs to be recognised and sorted out.
Related post in the Coffee House:
If the BBC won’t cut costs, then Hunt must
Ex-Beeboid, Rod Liddle has:
“The BBC needs to understand why it’s here”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/rodliddle/6123368/the-bbc-needs-to-understand-why-its-here.thtml
Just another public schoolboy who has not lived in the real world. Hunt is no different than the Labour stooge he succeded. Another graduate from the Blair school, say one thing in public and then do the opposite, hoping no one notices.
I do belive that our friend Martin will be disapointed with the direction the government is going with regard to the BBC, but I did warn that they were no different than the greedy champagne socialists whom they replaced.
The Telegraph are really digging at everyone’s favourite broadcaster these days. Their own website for example loses out because of the quality of bbc.co.uk/news (in terms of everything except bias, obviously).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/7873590/A-25-per-cent-cut-would-concentrate-BBC-minds.html
SJ
I suppose the ‘Telegraph’ could say about the Beeboids’ self-righteous support for the misuse of British licence-payers’ money on global websites that the BBC undermines fair competition. Oh, it did, in 2008:
“The BBC undermines fair competition”
Link to above:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/alexsingleton/4019201/The_BBC_undermines_fair_competition/
The coalition had two choices. Firstly, to give the BBC a good shakeup and transform it into a less biased organisation, or alternatively to transform it from a New Labour propaganda tool to a coalition propaganda tool. What we are now seeing appears to be the start of the second choice.
I must be getting old and jaded because not only am I not surprised, but I’m ashamed to admit I’m not too upset either.
As we have to pay the licence fee. All the BBC accounts down to the smallest detail should be published for all to see. The refusal by the BBC is just another indication of the contemp they hold for the British public. The coalition should pass a bill forcing them to do this and put a cap on what it can pay people. They should freeze the licence for 5 years as that would be quickest way to start sorting the Labour supporting BBC out.
Twitter feeds can through up some interesting sequences.
This morning I first had in this context-lite bit of rallying the troops:
r4today “The whole idea of stars in the #BBC is against the public interest” – Charles Moore. Do you agree?
Rather ironically, it was followed by this…
MailOnline BBC taken on more staff and hiked pay as recession is ignored http://bit.ly/955pz2
Now, which aspect might one expect to get played up and which part ignored by our objective national broadcaster, who seems to view conflict of interest as almost a reporting guide than caution.
The BBC is a relentless champion of that “envy of the world” (just like the BBC!!) — the NHS.
The organization that doesn’t collapse tomorrow because it STEALS doctors and nurses from impoverished 3rd world countries.
(Yes, that’s REALLY moral, isn’t it! Thieving from your poverty stricken brown neighbours)…
Anyway I digress, my point is that part of the BBC remuneration packet is PRIVATE HEALTHCARE… but it NEVER mentions it in its ads.
It says “industry competitive” — which is code for PRIVATE HEALTHCARE.
Never expected anything else from this bunch, they have no more honour than Brown had. Cameron will not touch the BBC, they will be allowed to go on in the old way, anti democratic, socialist, EU lovers, yeah, alright then, just like Cameron. Get rid of the old boss, welcome the new boss, just like the old boss. Didn’t the USSR use a similar system.
This article by Janet Daley is worth reading. “The BBC Has Forgotten What it is For”