Apparently, the BBC boss that's just quit is to receive a £450,000 payoff, a year's salary, as part of a "consensual" agreement to leave. And that after just 54 days in the job, during which the Savile affair blew up in his face, and the decision to broadcast the McAlpine story was made, directly during his tenure.
As the story comes out, it seems that his contract only entitles him to 6 months pay in lieu of notice.
So why has the BBC Trust approved double that, for a DG "resigning" over a scandal, and especially for someone that's been in the job about 10 minutes and probably hasn't yet even found the executive loo?
Moreover, we have yet to have the results of the various inquiries into the Savile débâcle, so we don't know what culpability, if any, Entwistle has in all that.
And his public performance since taking the job has been frankly lamentable. Given the latest Newsnight farce, it doesn't exactly appear to give a ringing endorsement of his grip on the management job either.
So ..... why the pay-off?
If he's not up to the job, he should have been fired, not allowed a cosy pay-off.
If he is up to the job, he should have stayed and done it, not taken a cowardly pay-off to cut and run.
The ethos of the BBC for paying ludicrous sums to senior executives who seem, by their public actions, to be wholly unfit for the job, stinks more than that of greedy bankers. At least they don't expect licence-fee payers to pick up the tab.
And as for the BBC "Trust" that thought this was acceptable in the current climate, what planet are you on?


LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote





