The Stench of Corruption: Only We Can Rid Ourselves of the Rotten Eggs in Top Positions

Posted: December 27, 2012 by tallbloke in Analysis, flames, Politics, propaganda, Robber Barons

Strong comment from Chris Booker in the Telegraph:

A Shameless Lack of Blame at Patten’s BBC

bbc_logo1Once you’re at the top, it seems your very incompetence will be rewarded

One of the more conspicuous features of British life nowadays is how many people who are, in one way or another, found seriously at fault, such as by failing to do their job properly, are nevertheless allowed to get away with it without having to pay any penalty. We see almost daily examples, as when the head of a major news organisation, forced to resign in what should be disgrace, walks away with £11 million; or a senior council executive fired for incompetence is then given a grotesquely inflated pay-off, such as the former head of Haringey social services compensated with £1 million for her wrongful dismissal after the Baby P scandal.

Even more familiar are the cases of people who make every kind of mess of a job they are overpaid for and never get sacked at all, such as those “quango queens”, who move effortlessly from one post to another, hopelessly out of their depth in every one. “What does it take to get sacked,” we may ask, “if you are at the top of an organisation in modern Britain?”

We may have had such thoughts last week when we heard how MPs had excoriated Lord Patten and the BBC for agreeing to pay George Entwistle a full year’s salary of £450,000 after only 54 days as director-general – which, with other perks, amounted to a pay-off of some £10,000 for each day he was in the job.

Patten admitted he had been “wrong” to appoint Mr Entwistle in the first place and was right to replace him two months later. But listening to Patten’s own smug, self-justifying interviews on the Today programme and elsewhere, many must equally have wondered how Patten himself could have the brass neck to remain in his own post as chairman of the BBC Trust, when pretty well everything he has done there has shown him to be wholly unfit to carry out the wholesale reforms that bloated, self-satisfied organisation so desperately needs.

I take something of a personal interest in this, because it is just a year since I wrote a long report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation analysing how and why the BBC had so blatantly flouted its charter in its reporting on climate change – from its shamelessly distorted coverage of the scientific debate to the way it has turned itself into a propaganda arm of the wind industry.

I traced the BBC’s decision to mislead its audience on these issues back to that now notorious “secret seminar” in 2006, attended by 28 senior BBC staff including Helen Boaden, its director of news (who, after a brief absence from work following her involvement in the Savile fiasco, last week waltzed happily back into her £354,000-a-year job as if nothing had happened).

It was the BBC Trust that told the world in 2007 that the briefing at this policy-changing seminar had come from the “best scientific experts”. Yet it recently came to light that this was a complete falsehood. Not one proper climate expert was there and almost all those present were professional propagandists from organisations such as Greenpeace.

Patten himself has been as happy to endorse the BBC’s deliberate breaching of its charter on climate change as he has so much else that this corrupted and dishonest organisation gets up to, such as allowing another top executive, Caroline Thomson, to walk away with £674,000. Is it surprising, when we hear such things, that so many of us stare in disbelief, asking how on earth do these people get away with it?

Read the rest here:

  1. tgmccoy says:

    Well we in the USA have same problem-however there is a bit of a sliver lining this AM:

    A good thing….if only temporary…

  2. J Martin says:

    After the farce that was the BBC’s decision to mislead its audience on these issues back to that now notorious “secret seminar” in 2006, and the subsequent legal farce when the judges involved ruled that the BBC did not need to release the names of the people at that fraudulent seminar.

    I have been wondering about the competence of British Judges to rule in such matters.

    In the USA 3 dimwit judges managed to rule that co2 is to be regarded as a pollutant despite the fact that it is essential for life.

    In New Zealand, one or more judges showed that they didn’t have sufficient intellectual capacity to understand the difference between climate and statistics expertise.

    In the UK 3 judges ruled in favour of the BBC, thus demonstrating that they are not fit to continue as members of the judiciary. Either they did not themselves look at the list of who took part and therefore satisfy themselves that they were making the right decision, or they did look at the list and therefore effectively knowingly conspired to turn a blind eye to the BBC’s clear breach of it’s charter. In either case the 3 judges concerned should no longer be allowed to practice.

    Perhaps the legal systems in the West are slowly atrophying and are in need of a major overhaul.

  3. johnbuk says:

    I think the time has come for those in the UK, who have no choice but to pay a “TV Tax” for the BBC, to think about civil disobedience – ie refuse to pay the Licence fee when it becomes due. The fact we have to pay for these liars, cheats and incompetents is a bloody insult to those, other than sheep, in the UK. If enough of us refuse to pay then the administration required to do something about it would be enough to cause a rethink about the whole stinking morass known as the BBC.

  4. oldbrew says:

    “What does it take to get sacked,” we may ask, “if you are at the top of an organisation in modern Britain?”

    Probably a major PR disaster + a lot of media pressure. Then it’s on with the golden parachute and jump, with any luck into another feather bed.

  5. J Martin says:

    I have cancelled my TV license and find that I do not miss television, indeed, what is there to see on television, that cannot be seen later if one so wished. The weather is predictable in the UK, rain, rain, rain, the news is predictable, some people are always getting killed in some minor war or other.

    Now that one can stream unlimited films and previous TV programs for just £5 to £6 per month who needs to watch live TV anymore. Move to such streamed content and there is no legal requirement to pay a license fee.

    The corrupt and immoral BBC will no longer be getting my £145 per year to support their desire to leave the bulk of the population unprepared for the severely cold climate that ever decreasing sunspots would indicate.

    I can if I so wish pay £72 per year for a much better television service, Netflix, Lovefilm. Much less than paying the morally bankrupt BBC £145 per year.

    I shan’t miss live television, especially now that I have discovered that I can legally watch what I want when I want for half as much.

    I was once proud of my British BBC. No more. I am instead ashamed of the BBC and think they should be closed down. And indeed the growing penetration of effective broadband may well bring about the demise of the BBC. The BBC has become a form of cancer, which the internet will steadily excise.

  6. TomO says:

    J Martin at 5:49 pm

    There *are* issues about the judiciary in the UK – but the far bigger issue is with the arrogance of public officials (and I class the BBC as such) – they simply don’t think the law applies to them and because they are statutory bodies with deep pockets stuffed with public funds – without exception – they retain posses of lawyers and can pull in barristers at a whim and make up the law as they go..

    This situation is presently endemic in U.K. central government – each department behaves like some tin pot Balkan state ruled by a member of the Appleby Dynasty that makes up it’s own local “laws” and extracts levies from the peons and metes out it’s own “justice”.

    Wheeling out a process engineering term – there’s corrective feedback missing AKA Accountability.

    I’ve been involved fighting The Environment Agency for over three years – their officials (inc. lawyers) have intrigued, lied (inc. to MPs,) lost at Judicial Review, broken statute and committed criminal acts – but still there’s no appetite for the “A” word…

    Somewhere in all this there must be a final straw?

  7. Sparks says:

    Do a public poll on the BBC. In fact do several, 🙂

  8. TomO says:

    I think I’ve found a way through this – we allocate their platinum parachute payoffs as deposits and raise the rest by public subscription – via PayPal obviously.

    I wonder if they’ll accept incremental payments ? an ongoing appeal / whip round ?

    Free enterprise solution to Fatty Pang, Al Gore and so on – with none of the nasty musicology connotations


  9. michael hart says:

    I increasingly think “smug” and “self-satisfied” are appropriate descriptions for the BBC.

    Pissing-off the government of the day is the comfort-blanket they often use to assure themselves that they are doing a good job and being “independent”. Sometimes it is true. But they need to ask themselves more often if it might actually be because they are out of their depth or simply rubbish.

    The climatic-28, not to mention all the other scientific non-descripts, is ample evidence that at the highest levels the BBC doesn’t even understand, or care, what science is supposed to be about. (Either that or it is corruption, which I don’t like to allege yet. Not wholesale. I’ll still go with gross general ignorance.)

    Science is not about producing absolute answers. It is about asking better questions. When the BBC re-titles its “Science and Environment” page to “Science” then they will have taken the first step in their rehabilitation process.

    Until then, I am left wondering how much of the BBC really just exists to provide employment-training for children of foreign-office employees who studied Arts at University and are in-line for a civil-service sinecure.

  10. TomO says:

    @michael hart

    a drill down through the categories on iPlayer is a depressing experience most of the time (there are exceptions but they are fleeting)

    Is a usually pretty bare cupboard with a few highly coloured packets of synthetically flavoured thin gruel.- go back up to “factual” and see how the state broadcaster devalues our language.

    They mostly don’t get it at all – the science or the engineering.

    Darrah O’Brien’s Science Club format with it’s frenetic cued cheering and clapping – I bet they’d use a laughter machine if they thought they could get away with it.

    They got rid of any boring engineers years ago – it’s show biz with added health and safety so’s the poor lambs don’t hurt themselves doing anything practical with musical fades away from awkward sums that involve thinking too much.

    The substitution of eye candy for content dominates.

    I think I heard the sigh of relief when Patrick Moore passed away.

  11. Stephen Richards says:

    Sparks says:

    December 27, 2012 at 11:38 pm

    Do a public poll on the BBC. In fact do several,

    Waste of time and money. 99% of brits are as thick as two short planks. They are not even aware of the corruption currently displayed by the BBC. Why would they be? None of it is reported in the SUN newspaper !! Just tits 🙂

  12. Joe's World {Progressive Evolution} says:


    It is the corruption and innovative ways to screw the public that keeps the economy going.
    Investors jumping ship for the biggest payouts.

    When was the last time an employer actually cared about their workers?

    The people who will always be screwed is the middle class and poor for the excesses of the rich to change policies in their favor. Many politicians end up in the corporate world after they are out of office in high paying positions…considering it is usually corporations that lobby the government to change policies…hmmm.

  13. Stephen Wilde says:

    Putting on my lawyer’s hat the fact is that our crazy employment protection laws make it almost impossible to sack anyone for anything without running the risk that the dismissal was in some way ‘unfair’.

    Sacked employees can make up an infinite variety of stories as to why the employer should be at least partially responsible for what happened and/or dealt with the procedural requirements incorrectly.

    In the end it really is cheaper to stuff their mouths with gold to avoid the inevitable risk and cost.

  14. Evan Highlander says:

    …….wen i wos a bern………….. As a Pupil of a Highland Secondary School in the 60’s, going on to further & Higher Education, we were repeatedly told by our Elders to ‘ …. go on and Learn … The world will be your Oyster ‘ . So we did. Where is the Oyster ? Polluted to extinction by corruption. Today we struggle through the myre of being in the wrong place at the wrong time… Cannot earn what we deserve as Professional Engineers, etc through being treated as commodities by a younger ignorant governing class. we have to Network to find work… OK to point BUT whatever hapenned to getting work based on your Merit ? All the Qualifications under the Sun, in old money, yet being bullied into submission by over-zealous Officialdom / Bureaucracy………….. and then I read this too :

    I really wonder whether our Politicians ( all brands at all levels) are on some ##sh stuff ? considering their behaviour and utterances . . So why is Industry or the Population generally perceived to be so depressed wrt Economic future ?

  15. Brian H says:

    Lies, damned lies, and BBC self-assessments. Reading them, one doesn’t know quite whether to laugh or vomit. (It is dangerous and uncomfortable to do both.)

  16. DP111 says:

    The BBC news and current affairs section is staffed by lefties and AGW nutters. They reward themselves massive salaries. Six figure salaries + expenses, to read from a prepared text, or copy and paste on the BBC website.

    It’s the kind of massive corruption, nepotism and cronyism, only the left can pull off.

  17. DP111 says:

    For decades the BBC shielded Saville. Even when the news came out, they tried to suppress it.

    An inquiry on just the Savile affair is now not enough. For decades, the BBC has been the mouthpiece of Leftists. BBC’s Leftist/Socialist bias is most certainly not a reflection of the views of the majority. While preaching to hard pressed BBC license payers on the benefits of socialism, the BBC have awarded themselves with massive salaries quite out of keeping with their real worth. Not content with that, they have engaged in massive tax avoidance.

    The BBC has sneered at Western civilisation and Christianity, while lauding and defending totalitarian and Islamic despots of every sort. It has now come to this, that compared to the BBC, alJazeera or RT are sources of unbiased news and commentary.