Did you read this report in the Telegraph concerning the news the BBC has spent more than £8million making just 20 members of staff redundant? Wow, lucky they have unique funding otherwise 400k redundancy per redundancy might seem a tad extravagant?
IN THE MONEY…
Bookmark the permalink.
This is what I put on the Telegraph site:
Something doesn’t add up here: I thought all these highly paid people who “worked” for the BBC weren’t technically employees so they could avoid paying their fair share of tax. So if they are not employed by the BBC, why are the BBC giving them any redundancy package at all?
Basically the taxpayer is being fleeced by these people in every single way. And they have the cheek to constantly whinge about bankers. Hypocrites the lot of them.
Cf. with the post ‘Derbyshire’ below.
That’s a lot, although it includes pension luabilities too i assume. I read a similar article a few months ago in the Telegraph and Mail, for which the Mail has issued a retraction.
http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/mail-clarifies-inaccurate-article-about.html?m=1
Not sure if b-BBC covered this one at the time?
‘Not sure if b-BBC covered this one at the time?’
You are asking if anyone on a free, independent, real day-job resourced blog… ‘covered’ a retraction in an MSM rag… in trying to make a point, when this blog is about the BBC, who it appears cannot admit even the smallest % of a mistake up through complaints to ECU & Trust, and if it does it’s via Newswatch at dawn on weekend to atone for top of hour howlers.
And they say good comedy is dead.
I do like the notion of BBC pension lullabies though, as they must sleep sound in their beds with all that public money flooding in even when no fingers of graft are being lifted, other than those of a Capita thug to knock at various doors of an evening.
And it’s not like the £4Bpa, multi-thousand payrolled staff BBC would ever go hell for leather after any perceived competitive medium or tribal foe if the mood took and mob called, and then hit ‘watertight oversight’ or ‘moving on’ if the lynchin’ wasn’t a righteous kill after all.
Your mission Jim, should you choose to accept it, is to highlight actual errors, and not make you or the BBC look dafter than you and they already are by barrel scrapes of this magnitude highlighting what the BBC gets up to, or not, in comparison.
The standard of service you seem to be asking for will cost you £145.50 pa, Jim.
Well said Guest Who.
Any prospect of you going with the general direction of travel with us all Jim, rather than being an aimless controversist?
No amount of ball bearings and grease guns will convince me that the truth is more nuanced that we think. We KNOW what the f***`in Beeb are up to, and it is not our job to provide caveats, smokescreens, red herrings or anything…all the BBC have to do is cut the perpetual political smarm, the partial lies and rewrites of cultural histories…and then we`d be open handed and not feel perpetually used and lied to.
You`re very plausible Jim…but surely Salford is a scandal…as is the Olympics…as is Livingstone, Straw, UNITE and all the rest of `em…
I have noticed that there are few new programmes I want to watch, things of interest seem to be repeats. I do wonder if repeats are for the BBC’s older audience and that the majority of money for new programmes goes to the BBC3 audience.
Great thing about BBC repeats is that those of us in the grip of advancing Alztheimers don’t ever recall having seen them before. Must save the bBC a fortune!
Supplementary:
“BBC spends £277m on pay-offs for staff as 20 executives walk away with £8m between them. ”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2131149/BBC-spends-277m-pay-offs-staff-20-executives-walk-away-8m-them.html#ixzz1sNYzkErg
You wonder what BBC clauses there are to prevent their re-employment, as is standard in most public sector organisations. Many senior staff I have seen made redundant come back within a short space of time as “consultants” whilst still pocketing their “redundancy”, which begs the question why they were not redeployed rather than made redundant. Love to see the names and posts with the pay off., and see where they are in six months time.