The BBC  permalink

Oh dear!

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 21 of 21
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by captainMouse (U14652804) on Sunday, 15th September 2013

    www.dailymail.co.uk/...

    How the other half lives

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Sunday, 15th September 2013

    www.dailymail.co.uk/...

    How the other half lives 
    Of course there are no MPs with second jobs. As long as BBC employees are working their contractual hours it is up to them what they do in their spare time. I am jealous of their energy levels though.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Lee (U1149673) on Sunday, 15th September 2013

    Who are the "other half" of which you speak? Do you mean people who juggle more than one job? That will almost certainly include all the MPs on this "powerful Commons committee" who are set to "probe the ‘second jobs culture’ at the top of the BBC".

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Testcard (U1164920) on Sunday, 15th September 2013

    Average salary for an elected MP is around £66,000, plus expenses.
    If the story is to be believed, Lisa Opie earns £207,800 a year at the BBC.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Lee (U1149673) on Sunday, 15th September 2013

    Average salary for an elected MP is around £66,000, plus expenses.
    If the story is to be believed, Lisa Opie earns £207,800 a year at the BBC. 
    Unless your point is that people shouldn't be allowed to own a café if they earn more money than an MP, then I don't see how this is relevant.

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Sunday, 15th September 2013

    How many consultants in the NHS have private consultancies as well. If you have the energy to do two jobs why shouldn't you. This really is a non-story.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Bananas are the best (U15650112) on Sunday, 15th September 2013

    So what? Nothing has been said that convinces me in the slightest that this is a problem. Did she do something that crippled the nation? No. Did she do something that is liiegal? No. She did absolutely nothing wrong. It seems to be yet another case of people wanting to kick the BBC.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Sunday, 15th September 2013

    What is worrying though is that it is the Culture, Media and Sport select committee who want to give the BBC a kicking. The whole point of the licence fee as a means of funding the BBC rather than by direct taxation is to keep politicians away from the BBC. I think that they have over stretched themselves this time.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Bananas are the best (U15650112) on Sunday, 15th September 2013

    I have to say that I wasn't impressed with the way in which the kicking went. The turning point came when one member wanted to ask a less than hostile question, only to be overruled by the chair, at which point it really became clear where things would go. I was not impressed. If you want to do something, do it properly. The problem faced by the Trust was the way it was set up. What was under discussion was not the responsibility of the Trust; no matter how you try to spin it, they could have had no say on the matter as it transpired, and people within the BBC were already in the process of changing things so that it could not happen again. As long as it was clear that what was being paid out satisfied those responsible (and even if it was not clear) all the Trust could do is maybe ask how it happened, at a later date; they could not have stopped it if it was in the contract or, if it was NOT in the contract and justified in that the redundancy was a breach of contract, the Supreme Court recently ruled very much in favour of the employee. The threat of legal action does not need to be explicit; the ruling would have been enough to point out to those responsible that if there was a non-contractual redundancy, that legal action could follow, and the probabilities were that they would lose. But, I saw nothing that went to the heart of the matter which was NOT about what the Trust was doing - there was nothing they could do, but how the situation came about in the first place. To me, it seems like they were asking the wrong people.

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Onslow The Cat (U13672446) on Sunday, 15th September 2013

    This is quite informative and in one web page as well.

    www.tvlicensing.co.u...

    smiley - blackcat

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by PaulHammond (U5000908) on Monday, 16th September 2013

    Interesting. I saw a copy of last Saturday's Sun too, which had the front page headline "BBC helps Paedo to escape" which, when I read a couple of paragraphs of that actual story turned out to be a story regarding a person who had a paedophile conviction being filmed for an episode of "Escape to the country" and being re-arrested, presumably before the episode in question was shown (unless this is an episode from years ago and the reconviction was recent)

    So... not evil BBC aiding and abbeting criminals as the headline suggests, but BBC not unearthing the criminal record of a member of the public for a reality show and him turning out to be an unsavoury character (which is probably a waste of money for the BBC if they have finished that show and can't show it now)

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Monday, 16th September 2013

    A spokesman for the BBC said: ‘The BBC asks for checks on all contributors to be undertaken yet Mr Robinson deliberately withheld information, misled the production team and signed a contract stating that he had no unspent criminal convictions or pending proceedings.

    ‘The episode has now been removed from iPlayer and will not be repeated.
    The spokesman added: ‘We categorically would not have broadcast that had we known about the investigation into Mr Robinson beforehand.

    ‘We would never had made the programme had we known about it previously.’

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by susiesar (U10941938) on Monday, 16th September 2013

    Where's captain mouse the one off poster gone? back to the Daily Mail research department?
    The drip drip campaign of the right wing press to suppress the BBC is getting beyond a joke, every time the BBC does not agree with the agenda of the tory press it's lefty, what's it supposed to do agree with all the tory policies and then there would be no alternative view? Even if you disagree with the view the BBC puts across you should defend it's right to do it, that's democracy.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by captainMouse (U14652804) on Monday, 16th September 2013

    I am not a one off poster and if you could be bothered to check you would know that.

    I was just pointing out the BBC was in The news for all the wrong reasons

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by susiesar (U10941938) on Monday, 16th September 2013

    Why do you need to point it out if your not a journalist, we can all read the mail if we want, and what is wrong with someone opening a coffee shop
    anyway

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Monday, 16th September 2013

    I am not a one off poster and if you could be bothered to check you would know that.

    I was just pointing out the BBC was in The news for all the wrong reasons 
    But nobody was doing anything wrong which admittedly is not always the case.

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Tuesday, 17th September 2013

    You may be confusing the Public Accounts Committee with the Culture, Media and Sport select committee.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Sir Ad E Noid (U1525146) on Thursday, 19th September 2013

    The Mail has another pop at the BBC. Yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by Baldinio (U2012448) on Thursday, 19th September 2013

    It's a very strange article and I'm not sure what point it is trying to make, is it the two jobs or the level of remuneration? If as humans we couldn't cope with more than one thing at a time we'd still be back there in a swamp waiting to evolve.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by Bananas are the best (U15650112) on Thursday, 19th September 2013

    It's a very strange article and I'm not sure what point it is trying to make, is it the two jobs or the level of remuneration? If as humans we couldn't cope with more than one thing at a time we'd still be back there in a swamp waiting to evolve.  I don't think it is either. I think they don't really expect you to do any thinking about it. They just want to be outraged, and for you to feel the same.

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by pyanaman (U2905997) on Monday, 30th September 2013

    The Mail has another pop at the BBC. Yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz  It would be nice if there was a way the BBC could retaliate, but I suppose impartiality would not allow that. Yes, they lost the plot with wages, but there must be a way they can educate the public about just where the licence fee goes, and all the services they support.

    Report message21

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.


Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.