ROLL UP, ROLL UP. IT’S THOMPSON VERSUS PATTEN

Suggest you get some popcorn in for Mark Thompson’s appearance in front of the Public Accounts Committee today! Given the verbals between him and Patten, given Lucy Adams poor memory (cough) and given that this is presided over by BBC heroine Margaret “millionaire” Hodge, this should prove a brain melter for the comrades.

Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to ROLL UP, ROLL UP. IT’S THOMPSON VERSUS PATTEN

  1. Guest Who says:

    Barring an amazing turn of events, on already recently contradictory statements from two of the most powerful and senior BBC executives of recent times, one presiding as DG at a period of significant concern and the other still wedged in place, there has to be at least a meltdown of some description to savour, yes.
    However, we are talking the BBC here.
    And vastly-compo’d , sidelined sacrificial scalps are common cannon-fodder to serve the beast and ensure it survives.
    So if swords get fallen upon, this must not be allowed to be another… yet another… ‘moving on’ excuse for what is clearly an institutional clusterfudge that would take Alexander’s sword to resolve.
    I’m hoping it’s Thompson who prevails in many ways, despite his clear complicity in so much. He has left, he has got his money, and nothing will change that. If damaged enough his new employers may see him as a liability. He fades into vastly pensioned comfort. Thousands of licence fees dedicated to rewarding his dead-handed efforts.
    But Patten needs exposing and calling to account, not least for arrogantly challenging anyone to simply try.
    He and the ill-named and starred Trust need to be held up for how they failed the BBC, the licence fee payers and the country so badly for so long.
    And then the serious job of sorting out the mess these two merely presided over must start.
    Lord Hall Hall must not be able to rebrand a professionally inept and objectively-compromised entity as Nu-BBC and carry on hiring executives to shadow the ones still in place to act as new faces when the next SNAFU occurs, and the entire CECUTT ship of the damned must not simply get an OFCOM label stickered over them to carry on intoning they believe the BBC ‘gets it about’ right under the less than benign, absolute rule of ex-Beeboid, DG-aspiring Ed Richards.

       26 likes

    • lojolondon says:

      Sorry to disappoint, I predict ‘an amazing turn of events’. No-one will remember exactly what was sent to who and when, the inquisition will be handled with kid gloves and no tough questions for the Lord Sir/DG and everyone will go home happy. Not least because Thompson is supposed to be answering questions about misleading parliament over the coverup of the multiple rape of adolescents over decades by BBC personnel, looks like we have completely forgotten that little subject!

         0 likes

  2. PhilO'TheWisp says:

    Anyone know if the BBC is showing this?

       4 likes

  3. George R says:

    “Ex-BBC chief Mark Thompson to be quizzed on pay-offs”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24009763

       3 likes

    • Guest Who says:

      ‘In response, the BBC Trust has called his comments “bizarre” and “unsubstantiated”. It now have to prove that.’
      Yes it do.
      Given their record with actual evidence and proof, this may be interesting. One suspects the inquiry may now be less keen on accepting BBC ‘belief’ as enough, simply because they say so.
      Quite how matters of money in the millions seems still so up in the air on written sign-off authorities will be interesting to hear fleshed out.

         11 likes

  4. George R says:

    Today:-
    3:15pm – The Boothroyd Room, Portcullis House.
    Public Accounts.

    BBC severance payments recall – Mark Thompson, former Director-General, BBC, Marcus Agius, former Chairman of the BBC Executive Board Remuneration Committee, Lord Patten, Chairman, BBC Trust, Anthony Fry, BBC Trustee, Sir Michael Lyons, former Trust Chairman, Lucy Adams, HR Director, BBC and Nicholas Kroll, Director, BBC Trust.

       11 likes

    • nofanofpoliticians says:

      3.15… Hmm.

      They’ll all want to be off by 5pm, so they’re not giving it much time. Don’t expect too many searching questions.

         18 likes

      • Guest Who says:

        I believe it is limited to one hour.
        Be interesting to see if any being questioned see merit in padding out answers to consume that time, and how Paxmanesque the reigning in is.

           4 likes

  5. Roland Deschain says:

    I can see Patten going and, since he is nominally a Conservative, being replaced by a Labour stooge. Then lessons are learned and nothing much changes.

       20 likes

  6. John Standley says:

    If there’s such a concept as Pre-Emptive Schadenfreude, then I’m feeling it right now…

       15 likes

  7. AsISeeIt says:

    At 3pm this afternoon BBC1 will be showing an espisode of Escape to the Country.

    In a late change to the scheduled show we will join Chris and Lavender, a much travelled pair of highflying empty nesters. With a growing disillusionment with the rat race and a sudden unplanned career change Chris will be looking to find a rural property with all mod cons but as far as possible from prying eyes. A tall order you may think, the couple’s budget, however, is thought to be practically unlimited.

       16 likes

    • chrisH says:

      Fatty Patty and wifelet Lavender?
      Maybe “the Good Life” would be a better remake.
      That`s all that Patten has ever known since the good people of Bath sent him packing in 1992.
      Everyday is the Good Life remake , once you get up on a higher floor at the BBC…hope those railings are removed so they can believe they can fly…and give it a go!.
      Good Life/Dolce Vita?…welcome to Eurovision at the BBC.
      Craven Cowards , the lot of `em!

         2 likes

  8. Doublethinker says:

    I am trying to manage down my expectations on this one. If it were almost any other organisation , except a publicly owned one of course, the BBC would be raising the roof about lies being told to a Commons Select Committee. Imagine if poor old Murdoch had lied so blatantly about an e mail and claimed he had forgotten that he drafted the e mail a few months earlier.
    In fact I am sure that the BBC reacted with horror when the younger Murdoch said he may not have read every e mail he received. Well I bet Patten et al try to use the same defence, basically Thompson may have sent them the report but they didn’t read it.
    No doubt all sorts of evasions , half truths and outright lies will be deployed this afternoon. I hope that the committee cuts through all the smoke and mirrors and nails them to the floor.
    But what then? Is it too much to hope that the government have the courage to at least start the process of ridding us of the BBC?

       22 likes

    • John Anderson says:

      Talking about Murdoch – did you hear the ridiculous interview with Chris Huhne on the Today programme this morning ? Solely to let him have a bash at the evilk Murdoch empire.

      It’s a bit much when the BBC has to drag in a jailbird liar to keep up its vendetta against Murdoch.

         31 likes

      • Guest Who says:

        http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4123/chris_huhne_blames_wait_for_it_rupert_murdoch_for_his_and_wife_s_downfall
        So, where the Guardian leads, the BBC follows like a lap dog in complement?
        Shocked I tell, you… shocked.
        And if the grand plan to offset this afternoon was a bit of coordinated Murdoch-bashing, they might have picked on a slightly less loathed champion than Mr. Huhne, whose grasp of facts and accountability does seem to have an uncanny, if unhealthy mirror in the upper echelons of the BBC.
        As a foot-shooter… top gun, chaps.

           19 likes

        • Beeboidal says:

          From the Commentator’s article

          Huhne proceeds to argue that his “endgame” began when Murdoch’s News of the World got hold of some gossip suggesting he was having an affair.

          “Why was News International prepared to invest so much to tail an opposition Liberal Democrat back in 2009? Maybe it was coincidence, but that summer I was the only frontbencher who, with Nick Clegg’s brave backing, called for the Metropolitan police to reopen the voicemail hacking inquiry into Rupert Murdoch’s empire.”

          The call he is referring to is a July 2009 opinion piece he wrote for the Guardian. This, he claims, might have caused the News of the World to put its investigator on to him. However, according to this Independent article, NOTW’s investigator was assigned in May 2009, two months before his Guardian piece. NOTW journalist Neville Thurlbecks’s account has them on to the story from March 2009. All this strongly suggests NOTW were after an ‘MP having an affair’ story only, and had nothing to do with his call for a phone hacking investigation which had yet to be written.

          Over to you to set the record straight, BBC.

             9 likes

      • Guest Who says:

        The crassness of this BBC competitor-smearing attempt, using of all people Huhne, and on today of all days, has not gone un-noticed.
        Amazingly they have seen fit to plaster it across their social media outlets, and are getting universally pasted, even by their own cheerleaders.
        If the intention was to distract from the PAC, it seems safe to say it was not the best judged idea they’ve ever attempted to blunder through.

           18 likes

      • Maturecheese says:

        And on the Victoria Drearyshire show afterwards. Why give and airtime to that odious creature?

           8 likes

  9. Guest Who says:

    A small taste of things to come?
    http://order-order.com/2013/09/09/pay-offs-are-nice-distraction-for-mark-thompson-mps-must-use-chance-today-to-seek-savile-truth/
    Lucky it’s just a small blog that no one pays attention to, and hence will not be newsworthy (reasons FOi exempted).

       11 likes

  10. David Wells says:

    The licence fee should be paid directly to the treasury and the BBC should be given the option of surviving by subscription or fading into history. My feeling is that like union members being given the option of subscribing to pay money to the Labour party rather than not being given the choice as is the case now under a subscription only option the BBC would disappear overnight taking the inept idiots along with it. The programming is poor to useless, paying Bruce Forsyth £550k for three months work on strictly come vomit and those freakish jug headed judges £110k but the dancers only £30k is an absolute abuse of public funds. The should all be paid the same and if the don’t like it good riddance to bad rubbish. At least the dancers have to work for their money whereas judges and Bruce are little more than vindictive half wits trite superficial mendacious and inherently spiteful. You would be forgiven for believing that the only reason they recruit odd looking celebrities is so that the judges can enjoy being spiteful and judicious presumably because they think we enjoy it. The real truth is that just like the film industry every facet of what is described as entertainment has been done to death, drama done that, special effects done that, vicious murder and subsequent pathology with dead bodies being cut up and bits of liver being hung in the air for inspection, done that. The BBC and the media throng really don’t have anywhere to go except to keep on trotting out the same tired formulas and in the end just like mylie cyrus it becomes just another case of who can hang their arse out the furthest and tits out the most in order to get “the fans” energised over twitter to get cash from the more gullible and easily persuaded that tits and bums equal entertainment because in reality whatever talent there was died with Pavarotti. It really is about time we all found something better to do with our lives than funding the hopeless and talentless chimpanzee approach of Jessie Jay the BBC’s new obsession and her rif raff, truth is we think this is what life is all about according to the BBC we are all fascinated by celebrity, no we are not!

       14 likes

    • Derek says:

      “The BBC and the media throng really don’t have anywhere to go except to keep on trotting out the same tired formulas and in the end just like mylie cyrus it becomes just another case of who can hang their arse out the furthest and tits out the most in order to get “the fans” energised over twitter to get cash from the more gullible…”

      Yes, but the BBC receive funding through the tv licence in order to inform, educate and entertain, not for bitchy tits-&-ass ratings chasing as if dependent upon advertising revenue.

      Admittedly that is, I think, a harder job but I feel there are two main reasons why the BBC go that route, in an attempt to set assumptions for public attitude towards debate about UK political and social issues:
      – they are now an ideological propaganda unit for whatever Lefty EU cause they try to impose on our society so want as many non-critical glitz-distracted viewers as possible;
      – then given such a large part of the BBC ‘entertainment’ programming includes, using one issue as example, assumptions and clear statements, views or asides along the lines ‘the science is settled’ it is not then incongruous to hear that same ideological message manifested in a so-called news, science or nature programme, which is supposed to be informative and/or educational.

      It is pervasive, and corrupting.

         4 likes

  11. Guest Who says:

    Looking for a feed on the fun in fifteen, I stumbled across this:
    http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news/statement-on-bbc-severance-payments/
    The BBC does seem to carry some form of live cover online:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/
    The questions to the education secretary indicated do get a mention here too:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/tv/bbc_parliament/20130909
    Can’t see anything at 3.15pm or even later, but then the PM is waffling and then there’s the vital, vital… ‘Coverage of Commons proceedings including Humble Address on the royal the birth. Whatever the heck that is.
    Not too keen on ‘editted highlights’ as the BBC has a rather bad reputation in this regard now, so I’d prefer to see all of it than find the bits they leave out in an FOI-excluded vault.

       7 likes

  12. David Preiser (USA) says:

    First words out of the Chair’s mouth when starting the hearing: “I have a daughter who works at the BBC.”

    Cozy, incestuous establishment? What cozy, incestuous establishment?

       15 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Now you know why Margaret Hodge generally gets an easy ride when she appears on Today or other BBC shows.

         15 likes

    • Beeboidal says:

      Lizzie Watson, FOI declined.

         8 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        I wonder if she was working at the BBC while Hodge was Minister for Culture, Media & Sport.

           8 likes

        • Craig says:

          David,
          It looks, from a spot of ‘Googling’, as if she was a producer on ‘Newsnight’ back in 2001.
          http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00kvt75

          And she still seems to be.
          http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2013/07/511251.html?c=on

          She was also a producer on BBC News 24 (around 2004). James Landale called her “our producer, the indefatigable and incomparable Lizzi Watson.”
          http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/low/newsid_4050000/newsid_4055000/4055073.stm

          Margaret Hodge was a minister at the Culture, Media and Sport committee from 2007-10 so, unless Lizzi Watson left the BBC for a while, it looks as if she would have been working at the BBC at that time.

             11 likes

          • David Preiser (USA) says:

            Newsnight again? That show really does seem to have quite the Left-wing legacy behind the camera. One of these days somebody needs to do a chart.

               12 likes

          • Guest Who says:

            It’s a small a small world so certain conflicts of interest are unavoidable, but often you do wonder.
            Ms. Hodge was on occasion rather personal to the point of downright harsh, and in ways I felt compromised the professional integrity of the chair.
            One cannot help but wonder if she was in some way reflecting the level of feeling amongst BBC rank and file that can only come from quite intimate briefings.
            I have to say senior BBC staff wailing ‘it’s not fair’ was a guilty pleasure to savour, and also the blind-siding by ‘claims’ from ‘sources’ that they seemed to feel was not cricket… unless they are doing it to others.
            One thing is for sure, Ms. Watson probably is untouchable now as she’s either a made girl or can’t be taken to task for fear of it looking like payback.

               2 likes

  13. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Fulsome praise and dedication to the BBC from the Chair. You naughty people are making the BBC look bad, and that’s why we’re here today.

    Anybody who thinks this latest scandal marks the beginning of the end of the BBC had better think again.

       15 likes

  14. Guest Who says:

    Looks like we may have to depend on more external forces a while longer.
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/stephenpollard/100234966/we-took-your-60m-because-were-worth-it/
    The first couple of top rated comments may explain if not excuse what DavidP is hearing and sharing (ironically, I cannot, as I am in this country and no longer have a licence).

       4 likes

  15. David Preiser (USA) says:

    If I was Mark Byford I’d be pretty upset that Thompson is claiming that I wouldn’t do my job properly unless he forked over an extra half mil.

       6 likes

  16. George R says:

    “Prefects have run riot in the BBC tuck shop.
    “Is there a more hilarious Punch-and-Judy show now going on than the inquiry into the BBC’s culture of corporate generosity?”

    By Sam Leith.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/sam-leith-prefects-have-run-riot-in-the-bbc-tuck-shop-8804965.html

       7 likes

  17. George R says:

    “Hodge tells BBC HR boss: ‘I’m not having any more lies'”

    http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-09-09/hodge-tells-bbc-hr-boss-im-not-having-any-more-lies/

       5 likes

  18. Sir Arthur Strebe-Grebling says:

    Who says the bBBC doesn’t broadcast high-quality programmes any more? The current Democracy Live (http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/21006886) is a classic, mixing all the things the bBBC used to be good at:
    historical drama – who said what to whom and when
    wildlife – an entertaining display of ferrets in a sack
    sport – who is going to be relegated

       8 likes

    • nofanofpoliticians says:

      It is breathtaking, this lot couldn’t manage their way out of a paper bag.

      The quality of the questioning isn’t great mind, its difficult to see what there findings could be from this. As an example of how bad it actually is the session is currently running an hour over.

         5 likes

    • Guest Who says:

      All I can say is..’Wow’. Just…’wow’.
      I was only going to dip in… maybe sample such as this..
      http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/sep/09/bbc-payoff-row-thompson-patten-face-mps-live?CMP=twt_gu
      … but simply could not resist hanging with every gobsmacking line after line as they spewed out.
      And this… is an entity seeking trust and demanding payment via compulsion?
      Good luck with that.
      The committee were dire, but as Austin Mitchell, Patten & Agius showed, even saying diddly squat was not the saving strategy hoped.
      They all came out with more egg on them than daisy cutter in a factory farm.

         4 likes

  19. George R says:

    THOMPSON shows that his key loyalty is to Thompson.

    He vaguely and inaccurately talks of ‘value for money.’

    The 1 million pay-out to BYFORD was only ‘value for money’ in the sense that the £1 million pay-out to Byford was personal, grossly overpaid ‘value’ to Byford, but that this obscene amount was ‘money’ taken from licencepayers.

       9 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Thompson said that Byford couldn’t do his job properly without the extra cash. So it was a net savings or something.

         2 likes

      • Bodo says:

        Thomson admitted that he socialised with Byford, he looked very worried that the questioning might go further. Fortunately for him it didn’t. It would’ve been interesting to find out just how close these two were. They entered the BBC together and worked alongside each other pretty much their entire career.
        If only the questions had been asked about how close they were it could have painted a picture of two best mates very much scratching each other’s back.

           3 likes

  20. David Preiser (USA) says:

    So they’re all lying. All of them, in one way or another. The only person who doesn’t come across as a corrupt, dissembling operator who insists that nothing was done wrong even while admitting things were done wrong is Lucy Adams. And she’s not doing very well, either.

    I laughed out loud at Patten stating that there’s clearly a culture problem at the BBC after hissing that wanting to change the culture was tiresome. If, after this, anybody still thinks the Trust is worth keeping as a governing body, they can’t possibly think any of these people should be allowed anywhere near it.

    In the end, though, Hodge made it clear that nothing will come of this. This was apparently an excuse to air grievances and make a pretense of slapping a few wrists. She got to scold everyone, so can claim to have been tough and got it about right, but she said that this was all about protecting and saving and cherishing the BBC. It was fun hearing people mention DMI and Lonely Planet, but this was all a charade.

    Nobody has to resign, nobody forced to apologize, nothing will happen. Job done.

       10 likes

    • Bodo says:

      All too true. Like all the other parliamentary committees I’ve ever witnessed their purpose seems to be designed to make MPs look and feel good about themselves and not to improve any of the institutions involved.

      Plus of ccourse, no Labour run committee would ever be too harsh on the BBC, it is simply too useful to labour to be threatened in any way.

         4 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        The root cause of all these problems – from Savile to the DMI waste to having 100 different Beeboids making 100 different reports about the same thing for 100 different shows to these fat “sweeteners” – wasn’t and will never be addressed.

           2 likes

  21. David Preiser (USA) says:

    What a shock:

    BBC open to cronyism charge after hiring Blair spin doctor

    THE BBC has hired one of Tony Blair’s former spin chiefs to help rebuild its reputation in the wake of the Savile scandal.

    Godric Smith was the Labour prime minister’s official spokesman between 2001 and 2004 and then head of strategic communications until 2006. He was a key figure at No 10 when the Hutton inquiry claimed the scalps of Gavyn Davies, then the BBC chairman, and Greg Dyke, then its director-general.

    Smith is understood to have secured a contract worth at least £100,000 with the BBC division now headed by James Purnell, the former Labour cabinet minister.

    The appointment is likely to raise questions about cronyism at the corporation.

    Nothing will happen.

       3 likes

    • Derek says:

      Might as well just put Labour on the lucrative BBC payroll all-expenses-paid, and admit the BBC is the mouthpiece of Labour.

      Labour – successful at getting your money even when they’re not in power.

      Still, I’m sure the Trust will be all over this.
      Yeah, right.

         4 likes