The Telegraph tells us that the BBC Trust has released the new Director General’s contract of employment.:
‘Mr Hall to change the culture of the BBC by being open about its failings.
Mr Hall’s contract forbids him from making “any derogatory or unfavourable public remark or statement” about the BBC, either during his time in office or the two years afterwards.
He is also barred from writing or speaking about the BBC without its “prior written consent”, and from engaging in “any political activities”.
The BBC Trust said it disclosed the contract in “the interests of transparency”, marking a contrast to the steps it took with Mr Entwistle’s package which was only published after a Freedom of Information request.’
Now we know why Tony Hall said that the BBC was not left of centre…he couldn’t say the truth as the BBC really believes it isn’t…and therefore any such remark is ‘derogatory or unfavourable’.
Surely this, if typical of BBC contracts, would prevent BBC employees taking to Twitter and using the ‘These ideas are all my own and are entirely separate from work’ type defense (Section 5.1):
You will not….engage in activities outside work which the BBC believes are likely to interfere, conflict (actual or potentially) or compete with the proper performance of your duties or the business of the BBC….whereby [the BBC is], in the opinion of the BBC, brought or is likely to be brought into disrepute or its reputation for impartiality is likely to be affected.
You shall not engage in any political activities.
Also note that failure to adhere to the BBC editorial guidelines is a serious offence and could result in their employment being put at risk.
The BBC can access, intercept, read and monitor employees internet use (Section 8)……work related or not…under its ‘Acceptable Use’ policy.
Oddly they must disclose any and all ideas, works, inventions and designs created by an employee whether or not work related….and it becomes the property of the BBC. (Section 3.6)
I don’t know if this conflicts with the ‘gagging order’ on Tony Hall et al but the BBC Trust also says this as a ‘mission statement’:
The BBC exists to serve the public, and its mission is to inform, educate and entertain. The BBC Trust is the governing body of the BBC, and we make sure the BBC delivers that mission
We set the strategic objectives for the BBC. We have challenged the BBC to:
set new standards of openness and transparency
Of course the ‘new standards’ could just be a lower standard of openness and transparency…but that would just be a cynical thing to say.
“Mr Hall’s contract forbids him from making “any derogatory or unfavourable public remark or statement” about the BBC, either during his time in office or the two years afterwards.” < even if its the truth?
Most especially if its the truth.
He’d probably defend the BBC to the death no matter the topic anyway. I mean, even if he did have serious concerns about the extremists and partisan hacks over which he was assuming command, it’s sports coaching 101 that you don’t bust your players via the press if you want to keep them from biting you in the ass. And there are plenty of Beeboids who make more money than Lord Hall will, and who will keep their jobs long after he’s relegated to the gilded palace of a charity CEO.
Still, it’s nice to know the BBC is just as cutthroat and cynically corporate as any other corporation. All in the interests of providing value for the license fee, of course. You wouldn’t have it any other way, would you?
The Inner Party even polices itself.
“…whereby [the BBC is], in the opinion of the BBC, brought or is likely to be brought into disrepute…” (Emphasis added).
So there’s the get-out clause, then,
How does and organisation have an opinion? Surely they mean the BBC management or Trust?
By dictat,as in ‘the party line is’
”..in the opinion of the BBC..”
Just but one of many uniques ‘the BBC’ conjures up to be whatever it wants, where it wants, about who it wants, how it wants, all internal, in secret and protected by redactions and FOI exemptions like no other entity around.
It’s also amazing how easily ‘the BBC’ gets trotted out by… ‘the BBC’, when it is sometimes a unified whole, and sometimes a bunch of squabbling departments, or when BBC CECUTT bends over, inspects its own orifices and professes them ‘believed comfortably about right… in the opinion of… an un-named BBC spokesperson’.
Any other organisation tried to pull such a stunt they’d be disemboweled and all market rate heads arrayed on poles along Salford Quays by a baying mob of ‘professional’ journalists of ‘integrity’ such as Humphrys or Paxman.
But as they seem to be on the same soul-selling hue as Lord Hall-Hall, they appear to have made a unique exception in the case of the meal ticket.
Put this on the Open Thread but looks now as if it belongs here.
It’s been revealed that in the contract for the new director general Tony Hall there is a clause that forbids him from making “any derogatory or unfavourable public remark or statement” about the BBC, either during his time in office or the two years afterwards.
He is also barred from writing or speaking about the BBC without its “prior written consent”, and from engaging in “any political activities”.
Now why does a media organisation need such an action? We are not talking about a highly secret security company or branch of the government. The BBC claim they revealed this contract in the interest of transparency. It shows their complete contempt as this transparency is only to show THAT THE PUBLIC WILL KNOW NOTHING ABOUT WHAT GOES ON WITHIN.
How long is the government going to allow these continual scenes from 1984 to continue? Doing so makes them just as guilty.
Exactly the same the public has no right to know how its money is spent approach that stops them answering FOI requests.
” ’Mr Hall to change the culture of the BBC by being open about its failings.
Mr Hall’s contract forbids him from making “any derogatory or unfavourable public remark or statement” about the BBC, either during his time in office or the two years afterwards.”
Surely the above two statements are complete contradictions: If one is open about the BBC failings that automatically means that one is making a derogatory or unfavourable public remark etc.
(1) “Mr Hall to change the culture of the BBC by being open about its failings.
Mr Hall’s contract forbids him from making any derogatory or unfavourable public remark or statement about the BBC, either during his time in office or the two years afterwards“ — The contradiction is solved by Hall being forced to deny that the BBC has any failings if he appears before the Culture, Media and Sport committee.
(2) “He is also barred from writing or speaking about the BBC without its prior written consent” — As head of the BBC, he has to authorises his own written consent on whether to appear before and speak to the Culture, Media and Sport committee
(3) “And from engaging in any political activities” — He is not allowed to appear before the Culture, Media and Sport committee.
(4) “The BBC Trust said it disclosed the contract in the interests of transparency marking a contrast to the steps it took with Mr Entwistle’s package which was only published after a Freedom of Information request” — The BBC wants to openly tell the Culture, Media and Sport committee to fuck off.
Presumably he will still be allowed to lobby the government next time the license fee is up for renewal.
“BBC gags director general Tony Hall to muffle criticism”
By John Glenday.
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/04/11/bbc-gags-director-general-tony-hall-muffle-criticism?
But since BBC think everything left of centra is so perfect they could not then argue idt was derogatory – in fact it would in their eyes be a compliment
I don’t suppose that anyone in the BBC legal or HR departments would have been struck by the irony of the Orwellian nature of Lord Hall’s terms of employment.
All the same the thought of a luvvie like Hall criticising the BBC is unimaginable anyway.
This sounds just like the gagging clauses imposed on whistleblowers by the Nationalised Death Service. Not surprising that the main two socialist monopolies (bBBC and NHS) should think and act in the same way, at our expense of course.
According to ‘Today’ this morning the expert they interviewed said the gagging cluase in the contract was meaningless and unenforceable.
John Humphreys then said several times literally – ‘So there’s no problem. Now let’s move on.’