A comment from Nick Robinson…..
The prime minister has not sought to impose a government enquiry on the BBC undermining the independence of the BBC Trust.
So the BBC doesn’t want an inquiry into how it runs its services…..unlike the private, commercial companies such as News International……is the BBC questioning the need for Press regulation imposed by a government inquiry then?
For months we endured the BBC reporting Leveson day in day out in gleeful schadenfreude as it saw its arch commercial and ideological rival , News International, being torn apart. And now it fights shy of any similar inquiry into its own shortcomings….of which it clearly has a few judging by the requirements of its Charter and Agreement…legally binding…..
Protocols on openness and transparency(1)Protocols must (as an aspect of how the Trust will discharge its general duty under article23(f) to ensure that the BBC observes high standards of openness and transparency.
44. Accuracy and impartiality
(1) The BBC must do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output.
(2) In applying paragraph (1), a series of programmes may be considered as a whole.
(3) The UK Public Services must not contain any output which expresses the opinion of the BBC or of its Trust or Executive Board on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting or the provision of online services.
And what of the famous BBC Trust’s independence? Maybe of government, but not of the BBC….it appointed Entwistle, and Patten is even now demanding a ‘ “thorough, radical, structural overhaul” of the BBC [which]is necessary in the wake of the resignation of the director general.’
And:
Steve Hewlett, who presents The Media Show on BBC Radio 4, has said that BBC Trust chairman Lord Patten has “taken it upon himself” to “get a grip” in the wake of the resignation of the director general.
The BBC Trust has a huge influence over the direction and running of the BBC:
The BBC Trust is the governing body of the BBC, and we make sure the BBC delivers that mission.
The Trust is responsible for approving the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. These Guidelines are the key foundation for the maintenance of high editorial standards in everything broadcast or produced by the BBC.
The Trust sets the overall strategic direction for the BBC, approves its strategy and budget and assesses its performance.
The Executive is responsible for the day-to-day delivery of the commercial strategy set by the Trust.
The BBC Trust is by no means independent of the BBC.
And yet it also is responsible for handling complaints about the BBC….a BBC that it essentially runs, not day to day but overall…..a successful criticism of the BBC is in effect a criticism of the Trust as well…hardly inspires confidence in their impartiality.
Hands up all those who think Patten is going to do anything but shuffle the deckchairs on the BBC Titanic which is listing, as always, to the left and sinking ever more quickly into irrelevance and obscurity because of its failure to actually report the real news….how many people watch Sky News rather than BBC? Quite a lot I believe.
George Patton I would trust. Chris Patten…not so much.
After all, as Norman Tebbit says, Patten has got a bit of historic BBC baggage to chuck overboard:
‘The Eurocentric Left-of-centre Guardianstas established and entrenched their monoply over its political and current affairs output.
Then, as Thatcher dominated the political scene and to the fury of those Guardianistas won not only the Falklands War to liberate the islanders from the fascist junta but three general elections, their lofty disdain for conservatives began to turn int something much nastier. It became a visceral loathing and determination to see off not only Thatcher and her friends, but to exact a revenge upon both them and her.’
John Redwood MP has his thoughts on the matter:
Do we trust the BBC Trust?
If the BBC is to continue to recruit mainly pro EU global warming hawks to its main news programmes, doesn’t the Trust have a duty to represent all the licence payers who do not agree with these viewpoints? Shouldn’t it be the voice for balance?
Isn’t it time for the Trust to demand proper journalist standards? It could ask why the BBC has spent a lot of money blocking FOI requests seeking to find out how balanced the BBC is in its approach to energy policy and global warming. [ed…And I might add, the Balen Report]
Shouldn’t the BBC news and current affairs side seek to represent the spectrum of views on big topics that characterise our democratic debate, without fear or favour?
How about 23.000 p45’s
I apologise but as a victim of BBC hoplophobia I have to admit I don’t recognise that calibre.
/humour
The BBC is a sick, wounded, dying animal whose best days are behind it.
For the sake of all concerned, put it out of its misery – put it down.. now.
I wish you were right but the BBC will emerge stronger than ever. It knows that there is no one in the Timid Tories Leadership who has the balls to attack it. It will just keep rolling out its anti British pro multiculturalism, pro left anti Tory propaganda at an even greater pace now it knows that it is untouchable.
PS I wish I had a job that after 55 days in I could resign and get over a million pounds. Oh happy days. Dear George must think its marvellous and now he has time to write his insider book defending himself and the BBC.
Oh dear.
Radio 4s “Feedback” has just asked us all to look in our lofts and cupboards for old tapes of archive recordings.
They played a young, “pre -Scouse” John Peel in his best Shrewsbury boater, telling us all about his time in California.
My suggestion?…drop them by the police station first, so you don`t find yourself in Operation Ore or its modern equivalent.
How stupid ARE the BBC?…
Heard the new DG telling us all about his passionate commitment to Radio…well, that WAS Friday…when he was Head of Radio.
Great Mr Benn world there at the Beeb…very Father Ted on his plane eh?
Bet the BBC regret they passed on Quentin Letts now for DG…reckon we need to campaign for him, or else we`ll get Russell f***in Brand!
Not stupid: very clever. Nice way to get everyone to reminisce about their favorite memories of everything the BBC does besides the news. Very, very clever.
Although the John Peel is a bit of an own goal, no?
Unless they’re looking to do some kind of sick version of the BBC Legends classical music label.
My mother remembers the Brains Trust, it was a bit like QI, but with guests Brainier and less politically correct than Stephen Fry. I would not be surprised if the Balen report was stored in the room with the telediphone cylinder recordings. If you work at the BBC, please have a look and report back to this website.
I also remember The Brains Trust – just about.
Extremely serious, hopelessly uncommercial, with no concessions whatsoever to popular taste, and, as far as I can recall (it was a long time ago), no political bias. The sort of thing a public broadcaster should be doing.
I’m told that the French are still trusted with programmes like this.
Hopefully they will be swamped by people sending in their old recordings of Jimmy Savile touching up little girls in front of the cameras, you know, the ones everybody at the BBC seems not to have noticed.
How stupid ARE the BBC?…
They are still advertising: “Children in Need” as if the Savile affair never happened. The toy character in the BBC advert appears to have only one eye, as if to say in the land of the blind paedophiles the BBC is still king.
In view of the proclivities of BBC employees and hangers-on, maybe “In Need of Children” would be as appropriate.
Good thing the Trust has recently been made more diverse, eh?
Yep, they now play both types, country and western.
Several new lines this evening on BBC News 24.
None of which come as a huge surprise.
Incurious George is to receive a massive cash pay-off. A cool near half million quid (his yearly salary – free of tax, if I am not mistaken – and twice as much as that to which he was contractually entitled.
The old guy whose collar the cops have felt in the on-going criminal Savile case is an ex-BBC Producer. A Mr De’Ath.
A spokesman for NAPAC reminds us not to forget the children and eulogizes good old George who was – he feels – absolutely on top of the child abuse issue. Well I’ll be damned….there was me thinking George was supposed to be running the BBC. No wonder he had no time to watch his own news and current affairs output since his real BBC remit appears to been keeping pressure groups happy. And don’t forget all you British families – most child abuse happens in the home. Got that? Not A home – THE home.
So watch out for all the nonces out there…..forget the seedy bloke hanging around the playground in a beat up mac/the bearded geezer at the dodgy kebabery/the gold encrusted eccentric DJ in the brand new BBC paid for Rolls Royce* delete as inappropriate.
Nope it’s the ordinary normal licence paying public who are the real public enemy number one. Our dear modern Auntie…she has such a winning way about her.
Oh and I almost forgot. While Hugs Boaden had her hands over her eyes shut up in a cupboard and busy counting to one hundred, the Newsnight kiddies were reporting to one Adrian Van Klaveren. (Who is also something big at Salford Local Radio (5 Live) – you could have knocked me down with a feather – it’s Dame Nikky’s boss!)
“Salary and total remuneration: June 2012
Salary: £186,850
Total remuneration: £193,150
Adrian has been in receipt of a temporary Relocation Allowance which is in line with our Salford Relocation Policy and HRMC regulations for relocation. The value of this allowance is c£1,900 per month (Net £912 per month). This allowance is in place to reimburse the costs that are incurred as part of Adrian’s relocation to Salford. Documents and evidence of rental arrangements are required to be presented in order for this payment to be made.
For the last financial year, the total that Adrian has received under this relocation reimbursement arrangement is £15,194.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/managementstructure/biographies/vanklaveren_adrian/
Right he goes to the top of my list of wished for sackings for Xmas. It’s still only one down and one stepped aside so far.
Relocation reimbursement for one financial year £15194.
Wonder how that breaks down.
Wonder how much equity cash he has left after selling his London pad and buying his Salford – or is that Hale – hovel.
All a bit public sectorish, really, isn’t it?
Never mind, £145 a year poll tax levied against pretty well every household in Great Britain – great value, really. Where else could you get daily lectures on global warming, the benefits of EU membership, religious studies (understanding the ‘religion of peace’ ONLY), how public sector ‘investment’ produces economic growth, how Israel is the only threat to peace in the Middle East, how the imperial British raped the world of its natural resources and did nothing in return, how every race that invaded the British Isles brought only cultural enrichment etc etc – for that kind of money?
I love you, Big Brother.
Salford?
Hale?
Try
Alderley Edge
Knutsford
Mobberley
According to this Daily Mail article
BBC insiders say Director General’s claim he ‘didn’t ask’ about content of Newsnight Savile expose is ‘ridiculous’
*George Entwistle says he didn’t ask about content of Newsnight investigation into Savile’s sex abuse
*But BBC insider calls claim ‘ridiculous’
*Newsnight staff split over handling of the broadcast
At the bottom of the article there is this statement from the BBC – I’m not sure if they were really aware of what they were admitting to:
A BBC spokesperson said: ‘George Entwistle has made his position exceptionally clear. As said at the press briefing on Friday, ‘I was the Director of Vision for the television department at the BBC, I had no influence or authority over investigations carried out by BBC News and it’s very important that I always behaved in a manner which absolutely bore out that lack of authority or responsibility’.’
So Entwistle says his remit was to always ‘behave in a manner which bore out a lack of authority or responsibility’. And for this he was given a job paying £450,000 a year.
What is even more insidious and ridiculous, is that now he’s resigned, only after 5 weeks, he’s still to be given a full year’s salary. The BBC could legally have only paid 6 months, but felt it right to give him the full year.
How generous they are with our money – and they complain about bankers.
And Patten reckons ‘he’s still the man to do a radical overhaul on the BBC’.
He’s the reason we’ll now be paying for 2 director generals for the next year at a vastly overrated salary.
Completely Ludicrous!
For the government not to act to end this farce shows their own corrupt ineptitude.
Until people who resign are made to understand that they will not get paid off at the taxpayers expense , then maybe that will install in all so called public workers that they have to be beyond approach in their day to day dealings. Half a mil will go a long way into dick splash falling on his sword. and lets be honest he will have been offered a cushy nbr by somebody before he went.
The bBC, traitors to the British taxpayer
the bbc
traitors……full stop
Yes, it’s ridiculous that Incurious George didn’t ask and ran off to a conference with his head figuratively buried in the sand. But the question is: did he lie about it or was there’s some kind of agreement like Col. Hogan had with Sgt. Schultz?
The only way for Entwistle – and Mark Thompson, let’s not forget – to get avoid blame for the Savile situation was to play Ronald Reagan/Iran Contra (“I wasn’t told – I don’t recall – Here’s Oliver North to provide full deniability”).
It’s probably a load of BS, but if Entwistle and (more importantly?) Thompson were to escape blame, Entwistle had to be kept out of the loop for this one as well.
He may have been handed a poisoned chalice, but he was one of those mixing the poison for years. If the Beeboids turn on him, he ought to name names.
He honourably stood down i.e. I didn’t resign I waited until I saw the size of your compensation offer and then offered to go.
Bloggers should protest about this payoff like they did Sir Fred Goodwin . You know the one a certain Mr Preston wrote an article about:
Should RBS revisit Sir Fred’s pension?
The bank’s board could consider whether there is a case for revisiting whether Sir Fred is entitled to all of the very large pension he is receiving (£342,500 per annum, on top of a tax-free lump sum of £2.7m).
I take it, the wankers at the bBC see themselves as above meer plebs like
SirMr GodwinHis payoff is the licence fee from 3,103 households! We’ll see how much longer this will be tolerated. Shameful, immoral and an insult!
Here’s a laugh re: Helen Boaden.
http://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/features/helen-boaden/
This must have been late 2010/early 2011
University of York
‘A visit from Helen Boaden, Director of BBC News
Helen Boaden, Director of BBC News and an honorary graduate of the University, knows all about the value of timing.
So it was with a wry smile that she arrived at the Department of Theatre, Film and Television’s new building on Heslington East. Ms Boaden was to take part in a debate, chaired by University Chancellor Greg Dyke (former director-general of the BBC) on the future of investigative journalism’
‘At the time, the BBC was embroiled in media controversy over a Panorama exposé of alleged corruption in football’s world governing body, FIFA.
But as she prepared to join the panel of experts Helen Boaden was unequivocal in her defence of the BBC’s journalistic integrity, while recognising their responsibility to the licence payer.’
I notice this site is still up.
https://sites.google.com/site/bbc2012dgstakes/what-next
Well, it’s only been 54 days…or was it 55?
Lots of hostages to fortune. eg. The Guardian comment
‘….the BBC Trust has rightly decided to entrust the world’s greatest programme-making enterprise to an experienced programme-maker.’
And it just gets better and better….
Londoner’s Diary in The Evening Standard
‘Was it the Bard wot won it for George Entwistle? BBC Trust chief Lord Patten has revealed that Saturday night’s acclaimed BBC2 dramatisation of Shakespeare’s Richard II played a more than helpful role in securing the director-general position for George Entwistle’
‘The timing of the first adaptation, starring Ben Whishaw as the king burdened by his inadequacy, could not have been more propitious’
Maybe many more people will now realise just how much pay these execs at the BBC get. Plus their pensions, pay offs etc.
Hopefully another own goal from this woeful excuse for an organisation.
They are hardly worth a fraction of the money. I suspect there are plenty of good young people prepared to take their jobs for a great deal less. And to make a good job of it.
‘Telegraph’:-
“Threat to Lord Patten as BBC chief gets £1.3m pay-off.
“Lord Patten, the chairman of the BBC Trust, came under increasing pressure last night as it emerged he approved a £1.32 million severance package for George Entwistle, the former director-general.”
[Excerpt]:-
“Mr Davies [MP] suggested that Mr Patten’s position had become ‘untenable’. He said: ‘He has been asleep at the wheel while he has been doing the job, he spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of licence-fee money appointing George Entwistle and 54 days later he is gone.
“The fact that he has approved a £450,000 payoff for him means his position has become farcical.
“This pay-off is totally unjustifiable, it’s unacceptable, it’s extraordinary and I suspect it’s been done to save Lord Patten’s bacon.”
“Gerry Sutcliffe MP, another member of the culture, media and sport committee, said the package was ‘symptomatic of the problems around the BBC’, adding: ‘He has not had time to make an impact and to get that amount of money is ridiculous.’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9671132/Threat-to-Lord-Patten-as-BBC-chief-gets-1.3m-pay-off.html
So, in one day, Patten gives his ‘honourable’ chum Entwistle £450,000 of our licence payers’ money, and publicly opposes News International!
This is the unchanged BBC moral and political ethos.
David Potter donated £90K to the Labour Party at the last election.
His foundation funds the Bureau of Investigative Journalism which helped the BBC produce the Newsnight report.
Once again the BBC has been caught red-handed.
‘Daily Mail:-
“The men behind the Bureau of Investigative Journalism which helped Newsnight compile their child abuse dossier falsely accusing a politician of being a paedophile.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231291/The-men-Bureau-Investigative-Journalism-helped-Newsnight-compile-child-abuse-dossier-falsely-accused-politician-paedophile.html
Orwellian thinking “how to get rid of Investigative Journalism” bring on “Editorial Guidelines” or a “Bureau of Investigative Journalism”
Orwellian thinking on how to get rid of a thousand year accumulation of Human Rights legislation such as “Magna Carta”, “Habeas Corpus”, “Bill of Rights” etc. Replace it with a Human Rights Act.
No wonder that the BBC Trust told complaining Mensa members that it has NO scientific investigative journalists.
The BBC has a collective left-wing clamp on independent investigations.
Stephen Dorrell on R4 Westminster Hour just now saying that Patten should stay and the problem is simply to regain public trust in BBC editorial standards, giving the impression this simply means to him, putting in place systems for the future avoidance of egregious blunders.
When asked if he agreed with people who thought the BBC had become too big, he replied in the negative saying that it was smaller than some of its rivals, such as CNN, Bloombergs, and indeed ‘the Murdoch empire.’ A lot of the Conservatives (no doubt including Dave) just don’t seem to get it, somehow.
Cinos never get it. That is why they are Cinos. Patten, Cameron the whole useless lot of them.
Patten defines himself as the personification of the interests of both the BBC Executive Board, and of the interests of the BBC’s licence payers; and god-like he deems the two interests to be identical.
‘Sky News’:
‘Gallery: Monday’s Newspaper Front Pages’-
http://news.sky.com/
MailOnline produces the sort of background check that the BBC couldn’t be bothered with. A victim of his delusions: Astonishing story the BBC DIDN’T tell you about its troubled star witness
• He assaulted QC at inquiry and was branded ‘unreliable witness’
• Triggered £400k libel payout after false sex abuse accusation
• Stood trial for £65k fraud at charity for victims of the scandal
• Even his lawyer says he may have invented stories
If true the problem was not simply reasonable mistaken identity but that the BBC was taken by a shyster whose bona fides were not checked because he provided the story the BBC wanted. Not simply malice but incompetence.
But it’s not just the bBBC. The so-called Bureau of Investigative Journalism apparently couldn’t even search press cuttings for Messham, let alone telephone Lord McAlpine.
They all just saw the words ‘Thatcher-era Tory’ and didn’t bother with even the most cursory checks.
That may not be correct. According to the Mail story In 2004, Angus Stickler, the reporter behind this month’s Newsnight story, was publicly criticised for interviewing Messham on Radio 4 without mentioning he was facing charges of defrauding a charity he ran for alleged abuse victims. Messham was later acquitted.
Maybe, just maybe, the BBC were willing dupes. B.I.J. were actively pushing a story they had reason to doubt, even without the news clipping check.
He tweeted on 5th November that he and Tom Watson had had contact with each other.
There needs to be a purge of both management and editors and journalists. Otherwise biased Beeboids will only be promoted to replace other biased Beeboids. “Restructuring” according to whatever new-fangled management school recommendations will fix nothing.
Seems the BBC were so keen to run the story against the Tory MP, they didn’t bother checking the credibility of the supposed victim.
Anybody following the way the BBC reports events between Israel and the Palestinians will be used to it.
Watson says that he is co-operating with the police and that he never thought that it Was McAlpine. It is another aide to a former prime minister. Might it be someone from the Labour party? Can we spend a few thousand hours speculating on who is may be?
“While I cannot take the time to name all the men in the State Department who have been named as members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring, I have here in my hand a list of 205.”
Joseph R McCarthy
Ironically, in the case of Hollywood (I am not sure of the State Dept) McCarthy was dead right. And the Foreign office and MI6 were (???) crawling with Bolsheviks at the time. So maybe Watson has a non-partisan point……
Please see my previous references to my breath holding ability. It is limited.
I make no claims of accuracy of the following, could be wrong, slander, libel. I just provide the link for information and speculation and opinion:
http://www.economicvoice.com/ex-tory-minister-names-sir-peter-morrison-as-paedophile/50033190#axzz2AcMcsAog
The point I am making, Ironically, is that within all the political posturing Watson may indeed have some genuine new evidence and he says this has been passed to the police. However, as we are not party to it the fact that we know that further allegations are around will generate lots more damaging speculation again. This has proved to be a very damaging approach to the BBC at least. I have no idea who has been named and frankly do not want to know until such times as formal charges are laid in a public forum. If they are not laid in public in due course all we have is McCarthy standing up with a list of 205 villains.
bBBC NorthWest local news ran that story last week, naming names and showing film footage of Morrison.
If that’s the case, why did Newsnight run the McAlpine story? Left hand not knowing what the other Left hand is doing is common at the BBC due to the fiefdoms and laziness, I know, but this is ridiculous.
The former Tory MP Rod Richards making one of the Morrison accusations has a somewhat rackety past which would call his reliability into question.
The Newsnight Tory Smear Distraction Tactic has been, all in all, quite successful. No one is mentioning Jimmy Savile much now, George walks away with a cool £1.3mill, lessons learned, trebles all round!
David, the article you link to has all the explanations including links to when all that info was published, even Edwina Curry openly saying that Morrison had regular sex with 16 year old boys, that isn’t the issue of abuse in North Wales though, the investigations of which failed to make a connection to Morrison.
And to add: even the Wiki page is perfectly clear:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Morrison#Homosexuality
And below that the child abuse saga which was reported just after Watson made his PMQs ‘suggestion’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224167/Former-Minister-says-Thatcher-aide-paedophile-preyed-boys-home–Hague-known.html
All these calls for Patten to resign seem to be missing a unique new BBC feature.
Because can ‘we’ the licence fee-paying public afford any more BBC incompetents to grab the Webley, swig the Scotch and then… rob the pot?
Will there be any licence fee left for actual programming (that isn’t bent) or protecting gold plated pensions from poor investment choice (not an option in the private sector)?
Speaking of which the £450,000 reward for failure ((c) D. Cameron) seems to be topped up by a bolted on pension that takes it to near £1.5M.
That would buy a few years of a public sector employee who actually… works.
Oh, and don’t forget the £330,000 ‘finders fee’ that was consumed to locate this market rate talent.
I really think paying the DD is under threat now for reasons beyond being compelled to pay for inaccuracy, re-education and mis-information.
And when it hits pockets to this extent, even some more tolerant may have cause to question too.
‘Daily Mail Comment:-
“Is Patten now part of the BBC’s problem?”
[Excerpt]:-
“Lord Patten said yesterday a ‘radical overhaul’ was needed to regain the public’s trust. So should that overhaul include his own resignation?
“That is not for a newspaper to say. But it is hard not to conclude that Lord Patten, far from being the solution, is now part of the problem.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2231581/BBC-crisis-Is-Patten-BBCs-problem.html
The ‘BBC Trust’ (oxymoron) serves the interests of the BBC, as shown by Patten’s £450,000 pay off for his chum George, and Patten’s public ciritique of News International.
Patten should be replaced immiediately, without huge pay off.
And ‘BBC Trust’ should be scrapped, and replaced by an interim ‘BBC Licencepayers’ Trust’, which, and this is a revolutionary idea, should be made up of representatives of licence payers, and should represent licencepayers’ interests, not those of BBC.
Plans should be set up now to make the BBC a subscription only service, with the licence fee to be abolished as soon as possible.
A̶m̶e̶n̶
Apersons
😉