Seeing the BBC Newsnight program yesterday evening and hearing what as been stated in the Nick Pollard report, I wonder if it will make much difference. Because it would seem that some of the people involved are choosing their own ways forward, instead of being told.
There even a media report today, that the BBC are taking possible further expensive legal advice about regaining returns on previous pay-outs, because those in power now regard the payments and conditions were excessive, and not to the public's advantage or taste. Yet at the same time, they are already saying that any returns would be very unlikely and uncertain?.
The position of senior staff who have been named or were suggested, was also highlighted in yesterday's Newsnight program. And it would seem that there are changes pending, and the people involved will have lesser responsibilities , but reap the same previous rewards. one particulat comment was how someone can resign (before being pushed), yet still remain in the same job for a further six months?.
On this morning's Radio4's Today, John Humphrey interviewed Lord Patten (JH made appologies to listeners about the 'background noise of the rain hitting the roof'. Listening 'standards' have already dropped :o]
As I suggested in the intro, this was a point that was forcibly asked on the BBC Newsnight program yesterday evening. Why have those who have been mentioned, are just being moved to lesser responsibility jobs with the same pay and entitlements. All being paid for at the public's expense.
The other week Patten was asked at a Select Committee sitting about his role, his other jobs and the hours he served on the BBC Trust. Apparently he was very annoyed this question was asked, and indeed he refused to provide a clear answer.
I wouldn't have done anything with these people, because it isn't my responsibility to do so.
If you had bothered to have read my post at 6.59pm and my introduction correctly, you would have noted that I was not asking the question, but repeating what had been stated on the BBC Newsnight program. It was the point Jeremy Paxman was trying to make, when he was interviewing the acting person now in charge of the BBC. He (Jeremy Paxman) asked point blank, more than once, why these people were still in jobs, and received no direct answers to the question raised.
My post at 6.59pm was in response to the post Chronus the 2nd made at 1.49pm
It as also been stated, that the BBC are conducting a legal investigation as to whether they can claw back any money that might have been incorrectly and already been paid out, because senior management originally claimed that it would be cheaper to pay out than go to a possible hearing. Apparently they are now having a rethink about this first decision, because questions are being asked on who or how these decisions are or have been made. Patten seemed to be the person who may have made the original decision?.
It might also be worth noting, that a Parliament Select Committee as already recently sat in regards to employment or working contracts that the BBC have issued, and this is still ongoing.
I did read your post, and now that you've explained I understand, but you worded it badly,which is why I picked up on the sentence. Punctuation is what gives sense to a post, and you put a full stop after "As I suggested in the intro, this was a point that was forcibly asked on the BBC Newsnight program yesterday evening." Then you started a new sentence - the one I quoted. It gives the impression that you're asking the question.
It seems like small thing, but it's what prompted my response - huge court cases about contract disputes have been fought over such apparently trivial things as wrongly placed punctuation marks.
Anyway, now that you've explained I understand, and I apologise for confusing you.