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

  • Thread starter Deleted member 26022
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So never watch, or listen, or read, any BBC content?
Read what I said mate, I said "even if I never watch it".

I watch Match if the day and the missus watches Bake off etc.

I wud happily pay a small amount to the BBC as part of my Sky package. That wud be my choice.

However, I think that it is wrong that ONLY THE BBC GETS PUBLIC MONEY AND THAT MY CONTRIBUTION IS COMPULSORY.

How, wud you explain/justify this to the Monopolies Commission.

Why are the BBC THE SOLE RECIPIENTS OF the LICENSE FEE, when they spunk money on vast salaries and clearly advertise every day??

QUALITY PROGRAMMES really ...... EastEnders!
 


Read what I said mate, I said "even if I never watch it".

I watch Match if the day and the missus watches Bake off etc.

I wud happily pay a small amount to the BBC as part of my Sky package. That wud be my choice.

However, I think that it is wrong that ONLY THE BBC GETS PUBLIC MONEY AND THAT MY CONTRIBUTION IS COMPULSORY.

How, wud you explain/justify this to the Monopolies Commission.

Why are the BBC THE SOLE RECIPIENTS OF the LICENSE FEE, when they spunk money on vast salaries and clearly advertise every day??

QUALITY PROGRAMMES really ...... EastEnders!

But, by definition, if they have provide programming for an entire Nation then there will be programmes some like and others don't. You watch MOTD, someone who watches EastEnders or Strictly might think the fees they have to pay to the PL are a complete waste of their money, where as, you don't. I personally think £12 a month for the quality of Radio 5, 6, the news and the documentaries far outstrips the £60 a month I spend on Sky.
 
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.
Another thing, why does the BBC appear to cover America more than the UK? I've noticed it in the morning, are those in America charged a subscription fee etc?

Fuming here, get the f***ing vans rolling round Cali with their lazer beams so they can see who's watching tele and who isnt.
 
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.
give its the home to a number of high profile stars who coming under various abuse investigations you can see that the bbc has been operating against a backdrop of dubious activities and hush money.

who knew what..and for how long?
why didnt people take responsible action? or where they afraid of the consequences?
this story makes you wonder where this who mess starts and stops
 
Last edited:
give its the home to a number of high profile stars who coming under various abuse investigations you can see that the bbc has been operating against a backdrop of dubious activities and hush money.

who knew what..and for how long?
why didnt people take responsible action? or where they afraid of the consequences?
this story makes you wonder where this who mess starts and stops

exactly, savile may have just been the tip of the iceberg, which i am sure yew tree with get to the bottom of in time.
 
look at some of these award contextually
the size of some of these payouts are larger than normal; why?

well think about it, if (Person A)knew something about (Person B), and the BBC wanted to Keep Person B, they would have given Person A) a larger payout to keep quiet, that's how it looks like to me, but then again this is just a theory.
 
well think about it, if (Person A)knew something about (Person B), and the BBC wanted to Keep Person B, they would have given Person A) a larger payout to keep quiet, that's how it looks like to me, but then again this is just a theory.

and person b was will to take down person c as they knew what they were upto and didnt do anything to stop it
 
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.

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.

Strange this - if I resign my job, I get a P45 and that's it. How can someone resign, and yet be given such a substantial amount of money - £450,000? I wish I had a contract that says if I resign I get £225,000 and then be actually given double that amount! Pigs in troughs comes to mind...
 
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You could at least check your facts before ranting - Channel 4 and S4C (Wales) both receive public money.

Well, I stand corrected.

From BBC WEB PAGE: The fee you pay provides a wide range of TV, radio and online content, as well as developing new ways to deliver it to you. In addition to funding BBC programmes and services, a proportion of the licence fee contributes to the costs of rolling out broadband to the UK population and funding Welsh Language TV channel S4C and local TV channels.

Off to blow my brains out for not being fully clued up,before posting on here. Mind, you were right to correct me. Thanks.

Now I know my measly contribution is helping the Welsh, I shall be campaigning to increase the license fee to £50 a month and for all senior executives to receive a 300 per cent salary increase and for them to be exempt from paying income tax.
 
give its the home to a number of high profile stars who coming under various abuse investigations you can see that the bbc has been operating against a backdrop of dubious activities and hush money.

who knew what..and for how long?
why didnt people take responsible action? or where they afraid of the consequences?
this story makes you wonder where this who mess starts and stops
look at some of these award contextually
the size of some of these payouts are larger than normal; why?
and person b was will to take down person c as they knew what they were upto and didnt do anything to stop it

Is your keyboard broken?
 
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.

Don't pay marra if you don't watch live telly. You don't need a licence for the capability of receiving live telly. Not many people know this.
 
Don't pay marra if you don't watch live telly. You don't need a licence for the capability of receiving live telly. Not many people know this.
That's common knowledge, surely. Also the more people that do that, the more the Tories will push for an internet tax.

Why people bitch about the BBC I do not know, its a small price to pay for an excellent service. I wish I had the chance to pay for it over here. Do these same people complain about paying for other services they may never need? Like the NHS, public transport, Police, fire service, coastguard, army, etc? How about English Heritage? Or is this actually part of the cost of living in a society?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top