not exactly. patton told the bbc board who to hire and they did. his mate.
Ex BBC DG George Entwistle Pay Off
- Thread starter Arazi
- Start date
not exactly. patton told the bbc board who to hire and they did. his mate.
Nope it's up to Sky what they pay themselves as long as they provide a worthwhile service I'll keep subbing otherwise I'd try Virgin. The BBC take a mandatory license fee and set their own liberal agendas (try buying a tv nowadays) so you'd expect them to be more responsible
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Nope it's up to Sky what they pay themselves as long as they provide a worthwhile service I'll keep subbing otherwise I'd try Virgin. The BBC take a mandatory license fee and set their own liberal agendas (try buying a tv nowadays) so you'd expect them to be more responsible
Trouble is if you allow (As you should) the competing broadcasting organisations to pay whatever they want to ensure they hire the best, then you either let the BBC do the same or suffer with the sort of person who would happily work for miles less money than his skillset is worth.
Paying market rate, however, doesn't always guarantee quality as this debacle appears to demonstrate. But its hardly an arguement for paying even less and attracting even less capable people.
He resigned after a 20+ year career during which time he paid into his pension, why wouldn't he then be entitled to claim it
He wasn't fired?
I'm not sure I understand why they paid him more than his contract said he was entitled to but to complain about his pension seems a bit odd?
Last edited:
Fox, the thinking seems to go that anyone with a pension who works for a pubic body, or organisation should be ashamed of it.
It's sometimes fun watching as some peoples heads explode when the DM mentions that someone has a "pension pot worth...", especially when they don't or won't understand that the person might have been paying into a pension scheme (and in the case of people who started the job 20-30 years ago, often linked to final salary), so whilst the pension pot sounds high, it's not over the expected time period it'll cover.
It's a bit like people complaining about the fact Police could retire after a mere 20/25/30 years and get an increasingly high portion of their pension but retire from the job at 40-50
(or Civil servants who used to often retire at 55 or 60*).
I'm guessing Entwhistle's pension is likely to be linked to final salary, so expect to see a headline in the papers in the next few weeks claiming something like "disgraced ex BBC boss in pension shame, as he retires with X million pot".
*With the option of early retirement often being an incentive to stick in a job that might have paid a fair bit less than the commercial sector.
It's sometimes fun watching as some peoples heads explode when the DM mentions that someone has a "pension pot worth...", especially when they don't or won't understand that the person might have been paying into a pension scheme (and in the case of people who started the job 20-30 years ago, often linked to final salary), so whilst the pension pot sounds high, it's not over the expected time period it'll cover.
It's a bit like people complaining about the fact Police could retire after a mere 20/25/30 years and get an increasingly high portion of their pension but retire from the job at 40-50
(or Civil servants who used to often retire at 55 or 60*).I'm guessing Entwhistle's pension is likely to be linked to final salary, so expect to see a headline in the papers in the next few weeks claiming something like "disgraced ex BBC boss in pension shame, as he retires with X million pot".
*With the option of early retirement often being an incentive to stick in a job that might have paid a fair bit less than the commercial sector.
He has however worked at the BBC for something like 20 or 30 years.
So depending on what exactly the pension scheme was when he joined, he's potentially got a large "pension pot" (iirc the BBC at one point had a final salary pension scheme*, and I think it's now an average salary scheme for new employees).
The same would be true of virtually anyone working in a reasonably well paid job, paying into a good pension scheme for decades.
He was DG for 2 months, but a BBC salaried employee paying into the pension scheme for decades (basically DG was his final post in a succession of roles inside the BBC).
And your comment about his pension as he was only DG for a short while demonstrates fairly nicely how a lot of people will get confused about why a pension can be quite high (and exactly the reason why the DM etc will go on about "pension pots").
*The same as many large companies and organisations up until the 80's or 90's (IIRC many civil servants, and most of the big name companies did)..
how about they just put adverts on it we only pay for bbc
Good way to get people to stop watching TV I suppose, turn the BBC into a financially successful, high quality output channel similar to ITV /s******.
He has worked for the BBC for more than 20 years, hence his pension accrual.
You are becoming more and more stockhausen-esqe with every post you make on this subject. It's quite bizarre, I normally seek out your posts as they are interesting to read but on this subject all you seem to do is post cut/paste news articles with bits highlighted in bold and then add a few lines of hyberbole to show you how utterly disgusted you seem to be.
Which seems a bit odd even before we consider the fact you are lucky enough to be 10,000 miles away and not even in receipt of the BBC's core programming anyway?! It would be like me going on a crusade against ABC or something.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 16,513
- Location
- Swimming in a lake
Nvm
kd
kd
Last edited:
TBH they need to have multiple DG's, they have 8 channels (plus BBC 1 HD), you cannot possibly watch 8 channels at once so the is no chance of one person effectively policing their content. (that might not be his actual job but its what he got scapegoated for not doing...)
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 16,513
- Location
- Swimming in a lake