BBC spent £28m of licence-fee payers' money gagging 500 staff

  • Thread starter Deleted member 26022
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 26022

Guest
The BBC has used licence fee payers' money to buy the silence of more than 500 staff with payouts of up to £500,000 each.

According to figures released under Freedom of Information, in the past eight years 539 staff have signed gagging orders at a total cost of £28million.

The scale of the pay-outs led to accusations that the BBC was using the agreements to silence potential whistle blowers and victims of bullying or sexual harassment.

They were disclosed to The Daily Telegraph ahead of the publication of what is expected to be a highly critical report by the National Audit Office next month.

Lord Patten, the chairman of the BBC Trust, has already admitted that the findings will prove "difficult" for the corporation.

Stephen Barclay, a Conservative member of the Public Accounts Committee, said: "These payments are at odds with the fundamental values of the BBC and a betrayal of the licence fee payer.

They expect their hard-earned money to be spent on supporting creative talent and world class programmes, not on payments to silence people."
The BBC confirmed that almost all of the settlements, known as compromise agreements, contained confidentiality clauses.
Tony Hall, the new director-general of the BBC, was so concerned by the scale of the payments that he introduced a £150,000 cap on severance payments in one of his first moves in his new role.
The biggest pay-offs were made to BBC managers, with 77 executives receiving more than £100,000 and 14 over £300,000.
They include George Entwistle, the former director-general who received a £450,000 pay-off, double the amount he was contractually entitled to.
He resigned last year in the wake of the Jimmy Savile and Lord McAlpine scandals after spending just 54 days in the job.
Two unnamed individuals were given pay-offs worth £500,100 and £524,681, while Sharon Baylay, the former director of marketing, received £392,000.
The pay-offs were also BBC staff who signed the orders after claiming they were victims of bullying or sexual harassment.
Miriam O’Reilly, the former Countryfile presenter who won a landmark case against the BBC for age discrimination, was offered a five figure settlement by the corporation in exchange for her silence.
She rejected the offer. "These gags are so legally binding that people cannot even speak to their spouse about them," she said. "They are wrong. The BBC as a public service broadcaster is renowned for honesty, truth, and freedom of speech. They should not be stopping people from telling the truth."
The true cost of the agreements is likely to be significantly higher, as the figures do not include the costs of legal advice for the BBC and employees or other benefits such as health cover, counselling and training.
A BBC spokesman defended the use of compromise agreements as “standard practice”. He said: “The BBC always insists that individuals take independent legal advice before entering into them.
“In light of BBC Director General Tony Hall's commitment to cap severance payments to £150,000 in all circumstances from September there will be no further severance payments above this level in future.”
The corporation said the rights of whistle-blowers were protected by law.
The biggest number of payments was made in 2009, when 95 individuals signed compromise agreements at a cost of £5.4million.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...cence-fee-payers-money-gagging-500-staff.html

:eek::eek: Quite Shocking.
 


Disgraceful!

The BBC is run as a cash cow to line the pockets of senior managers and employees. Not to produce high quality TV programmes.

As Alan Yentob has also allegedly used BBC funds to "help" his pal Camilla Batshitghale with her allegedly questionable running of the Kids Company, some people may consider that Yentob should be questioned about his role at the BBC.

THE BBC Charter is up for renewal and as they demonstrate on a daily basis ( watch any edition of Breakfast and see how many celebs come on to plug their new cd, movie, book or tour), I consider that they should start to show adverts and lose their TV license funding.
 
Still rather BBC than the shite advert-interrupted crap that is ITV
I agree totally but if these scandalous accusations have any basis in fact at all it moves us all a few steps closer to throwing the baby out with the bath water. This is complete misappropriation of public funds which should carry a criminal investigation.
 
Unlike ITV, you mean?
For me, all commercial TV stations can turn out utter dross, because they don't get any public funding. I have Sky BY CHOICE, but the BBC is thrust upon me and I MUST PAY THEM MOINEY even if I NEVER WATCH THE BBC.

How can that be right???


Don't forget, you can switch to another freeview channel other than ITV, without any cost to yourself.
 
Needs cracking down on. Since the Tories starting running it as an extension of their hq scandles like this will only grow.
 
Not that I can be arsed to read it but are compromise agreements not standard with all redundancies? I had one when I was made redundant. Are the payments not simply redundancy payments, redundancies brought about by cost cutting? A confidentiality clause is fairly standard and a minor part of the agreement but calling them gagging orders gets people excited.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top