Sunday, December 23, 2012

To costly to sack

Those clever sods at the centre of the Saville scandal at the BBC have managed to get themselves into a position where they cannot be sacked because it would be too expensive to do so. Which rather begs the question as to who the hell negotiated the contracts in the first place. After all, most companies have certain procedures in place to weed out incompetents and gross misconduct. Then again this is the BBC we're talking about so I suppose we must assume that they believe their top people are above reproach and of the 'right' (in this case left) mindset.
CUSHY contracts at the BBC mean it would cost more than £600,000 to fire the four most senior people at the centre of the Jimmy Savile and McAlpine debacles.
The revelation that those criticised would have had six months’ or more of their inflated salaries will ­reinforce the view that more heads did not roll because the BBC could not afford the sackings.
Fears will be raised that more incompetence could be tolerated because 451 senior managers at the BBC have contracts that mean they get six months’ pay if they are sacked for not doing their job properly.
Seven members of the executive board, the top jobs at the BBC, have contracts giving them a year’s pay if they are fired.
Matthew Sinclair, of the TaxPayers’ ­Alliance, said: “The BBC has been engulfed by a crisis and much of the blame for that lies at the door of senior bosses at the broadcaster. They should be given the boot, not a wedge full of money.”
Of course there is the problem that these people actually think they did nothing wrong in presiding over a cover up and mudslinging that brought the BBC into further disrepute. It's always someone else's fault after all isn't it? Besides in Savile they have the perfect target, he's dead, can't tell no tales and cannot prosecute them for libel or slander. Shame about McAlpine, but much of what he's doing is threats, some out there doubt he'd actually get a lot of sympathy in court but why take a chance, besides he's establishment and deserves the cash etc.
Time and time again when it comes to incompetence in public service we find that the contracts negotiated have been bound in iron clad clauses which effectively mean that being caught and proven unable to do your job might get you sacked but with a golden handshake that beggars belief. It does seem that in public service different rules apply than to the rest of us, you know the ones who actually pay for this sort of stuff by making money rather than spending it.
I used to only think that politicians were worthy of being strung from lampposts, now I'm coming to the conclusion that we need a massive clear out at the top where the scum has apparently risen...

4 annotations:

Antisthenes said...

When you have an organisation that receives it's revenue by threat of force then that organisation can and will be wasteful, inefficient, corrupt and have nothing but disdain for it's customers. Some of these organisations we have no choice but to put up with them however they are few but there are so many that should not be in the public sector like the BBC and the NHS. Big state equals big socialism which equals massive failure. Hang the lefties, greens and other assorted loonies from the Christmas tree and have a very merry Christmas for a change.

Antisthenes said...

More often than not I cannot access your blog page and can only read them on my Google reader. Is that your doing or is it something else?

Lee said...

Sack the bastards. Let them go to an industrial tribunal and broadcast it live.

Ripper said...

What saddens and disgusts me is that all those around me moan about what the BBC has become, yet still happily pay their licence fee. No one seems to realise that if everyone stopped paying this disgusting and unneccessary tax, then the BBC would be no more, at least in its current form.

There is no need to pay the licence fee, I haven't paid since 2006 and its entirely lawful. But try to inform people about that and they look at me as if I had just escaped from a mental institution.