Greg Dyke, in an interview with the Sunday Times (Paywalled) says that Entwistle, whilst way out of his depth, was betrayed by the very man that was supposed to protect him….Chris Patten.
You might argue with that….protect Entwistle…even when he’s obviously failed? Though failure might be ‘excused’ by his newness in the job and inexperience.
Dyke goes on to ask: ‘Where was Lord Patten when the going got tough? Lord Patten did a runner…his response to that crisis was to hang Entwistle out to dry.’
Dyke says Patten is ‘damaged goods’ and should really go.
One thing of note is that he suggests that Tony Hall has probably become the ‘most powerful DG in history…and that has to be good.’
Dyke doesn’t elaborate on that…no explanation as to why he thinks Hall is now so powerful, nor what the consequences of that might be…other than ‘it has to be good.’
Dyke is a Labour man through and through so he is never going to be nice about Patten. That doesn’t mean that he isn’t right about Fatty Pang being damaged goods though.
Trouble is, isn’t Patten supposed to protect the public from the BBC? It’s not the other way around surely? He’s failed at that too of course but then in the world he lives in success or failure you still get rich and Patten has got very rich from failure – why should he change now?
I thought that the prime role of the BBC Trust was to represent the License Fee payer and , at least nominally , hold the BBC to account, after all there is no other body which can reprimand the BBC. Basically the Trust is supposed to be the equivalent of the regulators of the various service industries that were once state owned, OFGEN etc.
So why would the regulator be protecting the DG of the BBC?! Clearly, there is something rotten in the whole set up, and we the long suffering License Fee payers are suffering as a result.
> Is there no one in the whole country who can hold the BBC to account?
>Is the BBC beyond control of the elected politicians?
>Do politicians only run the country with the consent of the BBC?
Well of course the answers to the three questions are NO, YES and YES. Let’s hope that the emergence of UKIP may somehow break the strangle hold of the BBC on the politics of Britain.
Is there no one in the whole country who can hold the BBC to account?
I have been told to watch BBC Parliament on Freeview channel 81 from 7pm to 9.30pm today Sunday.
Lord Patten and Lord Hall are questioned by the Media, Culture and Sport Select Committee Members.
At the end, Philip Davies MP, raises the cost to licence payers of the failed attempt by the BBC to censor the identities of the Green activists chosen by the BBC, to advise the BBC on its Climate Change policy, in a Freedom of Information request.
I am told that they apologise profusely, and promise not to do it again, and then Patten seems to indicate that the BBC’s policy to censor scientists, science and scientific debate about Climate Change may possibly end.
But I am told that more is to follow.
When the BBC want to evade answering FOI requests they hide behind the get-outs they ensured were written in for them. They claim the enquiries fall under the exclusions of Journalism, Art or Literature and if I recall correctly, Editorial Content which they manipulate to cover anything they wish to hide.
Patten is beyond damaged. He’s an anchor that drags the BBC and its tattered credibility ever further into the mire the longer he clings on and utters arrogant, petulant ‘can’t touch us’ BS at every turn.
‘most powerful DG in history…and that has to be good.’’
Given history has given us an absolute definition on what power does, it seems odd to be proud in flaunting the sorry direction being ploughed.
I seem to recall that Dyke bought his job with substantial donations to the Labour Party…..