BBC staff, underpaid as they are, as we all know, are having trouble making ends meet.
In order to keep body and soul together they have been forced to take second jobs. A bit of baby sitting, bar work at the local tavern, stacking shelves on the night shift at Tescos you might think.
Not a bit of it…they are running large scale corporate enterprises whilst at the same time carrying out their duties at the BBC….at least you would hope so.
Commons to probe BBC second jobs: Fury over the £270,000-a-year corporate boss who somehow found the time to set up a coffee chain
But all that makes reporting and challenging something like this rather difficult for any BBC journo when taking to task a politician for the same doubling up of jobs.
Labour has called for a ban on MPs holding paid directorships and consultancies during an opposition debate – but the government dismissed the party’s motion as “chaff”.
Shadow Cabinet Office minister Jon Trickett said there should be no doubt in the public’s mind that MPs are there to serve them, “and not diverted into defending their own private personal interests”.
You might remember this from a while back:
The BBC executive responsible for an IT debacle which has ‘wasted’ more than £100 million of licence fee-payers’ money has been allowed to hold down a second job while working for the corporation.
John Linwood, currently suspended from his £280,000-a-year post as BBC head of technology, became a non executive director of a private technology firm called DRS in January last year. He was paid £28,000 by the firm in 2012.
Sure he never took his eye off the ball once.
Nothing new of course to the BBC’s double standards and conflicts of interest when their own chaotic management suddenly finds itself in the spot light and held up for comparison to the very thing they have been castigating for example on the Today programme…such as government employees being paid as private companies with all the possible tax advantages that might have…only to find that the BBC had forced its own stars to use exactly the same format…but of course the BBC insisted there were absolutely no tax benefits for its staff….which makes you wonder what all the fuss was about then…from the very same BBC.
Just hope the new coffee chain enterprise, ‘Here’, pays its corporate taxes.
Perhaps the BBCers can get some tips from their colleagues at the Guardian on how to run a coffee based enterprise:
Oh…perhaps not as Guido tells us:
At the time of going to pixel, before Guardian Coffee sadly removed their data infographic from the internet, on their big opening day they had sold just 60 coffees. Another Guardian financial success…
Programme procurement is riddled with corruption. When executives aren’t buying programmes from their friends, they’re buying them from themselves. Perhaps the same is true of IT scams…
Government IT scams only initially involve corruption. The way they tend to work is that Sir Humphrey hires one of the big players through a not quite transparent enough procedure. Big Player then appoints one of its fixers to go into the department and weed out of the project any one who knows the business and has IT awareness. The big player then hires a load of wet behind the ears graduates (but not IT graduates) with good degrees. These poor souls are then sent on a course and expected to sell Big Player’s off the shelf solution. This off the shelf solution is simply rebranded and shoehorned into the department. As there is no one left from the client with any relevant knowledge the solution is accepted and built. It costs millions and generally fails because of the inherent flaws in the off the shelf solution.
Repeat ad nauseum.
I once worked on an IT project for one government department that had spent 20 million without a line of code being written. Needless to say it was another abysmal failure.
Oh, BTW, Sir Humphrey, once the dust has settled, then ‘retires’ and takes a ‘board level’ post at Big Player and spend his ‘retirement’ in the South of France. He is not expected to attend any board meetings.
A few years ago I actually worked on an NHS IT project that was coming in under budget and on time. The NHS IT manager really knew his stuff and what he was doing (bringing in small software houses to do tightly defined work) should have been a model to the entire organisation.
Instead his bosses brought in one of the big three consultants who surprise surprise (he had cut them out of the equation) recommended he be sacked and they take on the project. At this point the work I was doing went out to India. No worries I had plenty else on. Cue forward a few months I start getting emails from clueless Indian programmers begging me for information on the niche field I work in. You can guess my response. Anyhow a couple of years later I heard the project collapsed and nothing was delivered.
No one ever learns, I’m tempted to blame corruption but its just stupidity.
Both sound very real to me, though I would be inclined to blame it on corruption rather than stupidity.
Corruption at the top leads to similar self-serving behaviour below, which is not likely to be challenged, as more cock-ups and confusion make it harder to sort out proof of corruption.
BBC, the great climate-change scam, local councils and police chiefs permitting organised rape etc – it is all very similar:
– deals done in secret,
– such deals described as for the public’s good,
– very active resistance to FoI,
– persistent propaganda,
– lack of accountability,
– smearing those who try to establish and make public the horrible facts,
– when questioned those involved point at someone else,
– ‘lessons are learned’, apparently.
I estimate that over 10,000 little girls have been systematically gang raped, each hundreds of times over. There is no parallel in history in any nation, where a bunch of impoverished immigrants have been allowed into a country, and then raped little girls over decades, with the authorities turning a blind eye.
It is inconceivable that the authorities, from the cabinet to the constable on the street, did not know, as they claim. They knew.
And now they are trying to brush it under the carpet. Of course they are doing their best to sweep it under the carpet – the matter is of such huge national shame, that they have no option but to.
And distracting our attention by targetting elderly white celebrities.
Supplementary:-
‘Telegraph’ (£)-
“BBC Trustee ‘worried’ about second jobs culture.
“A BBC trustee has raised concerns about a second jobs culture at the broadcaster after it emerged highly-paid executives were being allowed to run businesses on the side.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10310739/BBC-Trustee-worried-about-second-jobs-culture.html
Well, this is serious; a trustee is ‘worried’.
Panic in the whispering corridors as senior staff kick empty bubbly bottles aside to get back into the office to place a call to their accountants? Again?
As always, I do find this chap does glean the odd useful snippet in complement:
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/extra-shot.html
I still look forward to finding out more about the new head of ‘We get it about right’ complaints lady, but Ms. Opie does channel her inner Patten well.
The removal of evidence (albeit a bit late) doubtless soon to be followed by astounding uncuriosity by our Tone and Chris in oversight, possibly with a dusting of alzheimers all round? Again.
Like a shit Poo latte with a bukkake swirl and ground glass sprinkles to the licence fee payer. Again.
Can’t think why Lisa needed to explain her £207,000 job, as all around here can’t imagine how we’d manage with out our Controller of Business for Knowledge and Daytime. Certainly her explanation was crystal clear as to its vital nature.
Presumably there also one looking after Business for Pig Thickness and Evenings?
Or is that Ian Katz’ job? In which case, he’ll need pay rise.
To be fair to Jane Garvey who presented the programme this morning – she sounded really peeved about this moonlighting being allowed for high-responsibility high-paid managers. The natives are getting restless ?
I could not care less about any of the BBC staff lower down or high up – I recently saw some BBC news, which had everything in it but the facts – emotion, community, ethnicity, innuendo smearing of UKIP and EDL, the ‘courage’ of a burka wearer, and an inane smile and message at the end.
Really – fuck them.
Many natives have been restless for some time. There’ve been strikes and threats of strikes. And the BBC had to issue a gag order to staff to stop them publicly bitching about Savile-gate. But getting rid of the current crowd of mandarins and replacing them with some of the restless natives will change nothing. After all, many of the people responsible for the situation are BBC lifers.
The BBC has always been a totally incestuous organisation and we all know what happens when that continues for generation after generation. It may appear that, from time to time, some new blood is brought in to the mix but, almost invariably, before you have dug too far into their background you find they have already been subjected in the past to BBC indoctrination.
Apparently Linwood is also taking over as Chair of the Ethics Committee. YCMIU.
From the article:
“”I am delighted to welcome John Linwood to the Board of DRS Data & Research Services plc. The company will benefit greatly from the knowledge and insights he has accumulated during his career as a top-level technologist and businessman in the global information and communication industries”
‘A BBC Trustee has raised concerns about a second job culture at the BBC after it emerged highly-paid executives were being allowed to run businesses on the side’.
This comes after the Mail on Sunday published its findings.
So what does the trust think its job is?
The actual information concerning the individuals named in the newspaper is available on the BBC website itself, Inside the BBC>/a>
So what have the trustees been doing to justify their positions and fulfil their remit?
According to the BBC website the Trust does the following:
Led by the Chairman Lord Patten, and consisting of 12 Trustees, the Trust is the guardian of licence fee revenue and of the public interest in the BBC.
The Trust is separate from the Executive Board which is led by the Director-General. The Executive Board is responsible for the operational delivery of BBC services and the direction of BBC editorial and creative output in line with the framework set by the Trust.
Our job is to get the best out of the BBC for licence fee payers.
We set the strategic objectives for the BBC. We have challenged the BBC to:
* increase the distinctiveness and quality of output;
* improve the value for money provided to licence fee payers;
* set new standards of openness and transparency; and
do more to serve all audiences.
We issue a service licence to every BBC service stating what we expect it to deliver and how much it can spend. We set the BBC’s editorial guidelines and protect the BBC’s independence. We monitor performance to ensure that the BBC provides value for money while staying true to its public purposes.
Based on the various scandals that have come to light just in the past year, does it really appear as if the Trust is fit for purpose?
Chris Patten hasn’t just got a second job. His officially remunerated positions are –
Non-executive Director, Russell Reynolds Associates Inc (company research)
Member, European Advisory Board, Bridgepoint (private equity group)
Member, EDF Stakeholder Advisory Panel (electricity)
Occasional income from writing and speaking engagements
Member, International Advisory Board of BP (energy)
Adviser, Hutchison Europe (telecomms, property, transport)
Chairman of the BBC Trust
http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-patten-of-barnes/1136
Plus of course there are his ministerial and EU pensions.
You missed out another small task he has – Chancellor of Oxford University, heavily involved in international fundraising
With so little to do all day, no wonder Patten is such a success as Chairman of the BBC Trust – representing the interest of the licence-tax payer so effectively !
He represents all that is best in modern Britain.
Has not the country been blessed with such a titan?
I marvel at the man.
None of the BBC is fit for purpose.
http://bbcwatch.org/2013/09/15/a-complaint-to-the-bbc-is-upheld-and-then-what/
A question possibly directed at the £131,525 Ms. Cecil, if she can ever be found at her desk (the BBC one), has a valid email and sees fit to answer.
In that unlikely event, it still seems a lot of money to intone ‘we think we got it about right and will now consign this to oblivion’ by default.
I well remember Jay Hunt as she applied her jackboots to a squirming Carol Thatcher…but put on the kitten heeled mules to caress Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross.
Both TV appearances and radio stuff were nightmares-inarticulate, PC speak your weight robotics..and showed her and the BBC for what it was…as stuttering and flea-ridden an outfit as its DG presnted at that time.
Who better then to advise the BBC how to present itself…bet Murdoch is paying her to destroy the Beeb from within if he`s got any sense!
That Sarah Pennells , ex Bbc journo is constantly on news 24 ,promoting her Savvy Woman website with her old “mates” giving her lots of free plugs . A bloody disgrace!
“Other Financial Advice Services Are Available”
Just don’t expect to see/hear them on the BBC any time soon.
Think of it as France in the 1770s. Same contempt . Same greed. Hopefully the same outcome.
Being a man of peace I would eschew Madame Guillotine in favour of a poverty stricken retirement just like the poor old tax paying peasants.
No one who receives a tax-payer funded pension should be getting a pension greater than the average annual salary.
This means the BBC, local government and civil servants.