This Grips My Shit

#2
What an outrage - a mere £10,000 for communication costs?


What annoys me is the suggestion that he was an honourable bloke who 'fell on his sword'. Cobblers: I suspect that he realized that the sort of bollock he dropped would more than likely result in the sack and a vastly reduced pay out. Offering to resign would entitle him to the full whack.

The BBC continues to swell it's ranks of middle management whilst making cuts at the 'coal face' - some more technical mates of mine are getting the chop in November.

*******
 
#3
So you're outraged that someone shouldn't have to pay out on legal costs for the (albeit a lot higher than he was entitled to) earnings he was given by another party?

Why should he pay, it wasn't he fault he was paid what he was.

Professional failure doesn't reflect financial loss when you're at the top hob-knobbing it with the big boys & girls. In many cases (and it appears this one to) failure is rewarded very handsomely thank-you if it brings about silence.

Life's tough, suck it up!
 
#4
****ing hilarious:

Margaret Hodge, the chairman of the committee, said: "It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding in the way this was viewed in the public domain given that this is licence fee payers' money.

He took a public job, he is highly remunerated, he failed in 54 days and then he gets incredibly rewarded for failure. There is no understanding that what the ordinary viewer turning on their TV feels like."
Margaret Hodge, moralising. Heh, ****ing brilliant.

Actually, Margaret, I feel considerably less antipathy to yon **** than I do to you and the rest of the money-grubbing ********* you head up as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, and as one of the most independently wealthy MPs, who claims way above the average in expenses. Peonies from Homebase, Madge?

Lord Patten, the BBC chairman, admitted the payoff which is equivalent to £8,333 for each day he spent at work, was twice what he was entitled to but was awarded so Entwistle would go quietly.
Chris Patten rationalising the payoff. Somehow. Heyup, Chris, what might have happened if he'd have been made to go noisily then? Just asking, like.
 
#5
So to account for the 365 day's pay he got for 54 day's work cost an additional £45,000, mostly in legal fees? Allowing for weekends, when God forbid any senior management should work, that's about £1,000 a day to explain why someone promoted way above his ability should get 12 month's pay rather than the six months he is legally entitled to.

Lawyers, loathe them or ignore them, you can't like them
 
#6
INHO, no public servant should be paid more than a General. I don't buy the argument that the big money has to be paid to get the best people. With that approach, one risks attracting people who are only in it for the money. Like MPs.
 
#8
Well don't expect any changes...new DG is in the same mold, arty-fartsy type well drilled in sucking at the taxpayer's teat.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Trans-sane The NAAFI Bar 287
Cpl_ripper Current Affairs, News and Analysis 2
Greengrass The NAAFI Bar 13

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top