54 disatrous days in post - £1.3Million serverance package.

[Gromit]

Shome mishtake shurely??

[dotty.]

they should have just sacked him and let him take them to an industrial tribunal and taken their chance, and hey, that's our money!

[Svejk]

Bazwillrun should get a badge or something. He either predicted this at 10.30am or he's on the board of the BBC.

[jno]

the deal was reached by agreement, so they're basically paying him to go quickly. Presumably the value they see in this is that he won't be acting as a lightning rod for criticism any more, the BBC will cease to be the big story, and attention can turn back to abused kids, paedophiles in government, the Cameron-Brookes riding academy and so forth. That's not an unusual commercial decision - in fact I got a better deal that that when I left work (though slightly less money all round).

Dotty, if he'd won a claim at an industrial tribunal, that would also have been our money.

[WELSHYORKIE]

jno - was he in his job long enough to go to an industrial tribunal, though?

[bazwillrun]

It wasnt exactly rocket science to predict it.

this is the BBC its not their money its your money, yes you the poor plebs that are criminalised if you dont want to pay a tax to keep this dinosaur in business.

apparently hes owed six months contractual and the other six months is because hes going to help with the inquiry....What The Funicular

Errrrm but hold on he left , he quit, he gave notice, he wasnt sacked, he wasnt fit for purpose in the first place

how many on here would be entitled to six months dosh if they quit their jobs ?

[jno]

I don't know what the rules are, WY. I doubt that he was sacked, though; he would have argued very strongly that he'd done nothing wrong personally and that one dud programme amid hundreds of hours of output every day is no reason for the CEO to be fired, just as Murdoch never resigned when the Sun got a story wrong or even when employees were breaking the law left right and centre.

So I think they had to bribe him to go, and had to calculate how much his departure was worth to them. As I say, not at all an uncommon business procedure.

[jno]

baz: me. And many other like me.

[DTCwordfan]

So if you were turfed out of his job as he was, you would accept just a month, two months, three months, six months, a year..............sauce for the goose me things here.

The other thing is that he is not finished in his BBC employ, continuing on with two Parliamentary enquiries.

[Svejk]

Baz, just give up mate. Some of us have to live in the real world.
And it looks like some of us don't.

[DTCwordfan]

Head of news and deputy have "just stepped aside" whatever that means....Beeb news a minute ago.

[bazwillrun]

"baz: me. And many other like me."

more fool you and most of them

just about anything you want to watch on nearly all the channels can all be watched legally on catchup, so what if its a day later, online news is far better and far more choice.

HDMI from PC, laptop whatever to TV and you'll never look back and the money you save not having to pay a tax to watch funds your Broadband or whatever.

The BBC is long past its sell by date and should be broken apart and made to compete like other businesses, so its a level playing field for broadcasters.

Lets see how well they do on the open market with subscriptions.

[ummmm]

TV License cost about 40p a day. I'd pay that just for not having adverts..

[youngmafbog]

Agree Baz, the Blairs/Browns Broadcasting Company should be done away with.

This latest fiasco with Newsnight was clearly political in that the lefty BBC couldn't resist getting at a Tory Grandee, their blinkered views so distorted they forgot to look at one important thing. The truth. Hariet Harperson was on Sky blabbing about how the BBC was so important to them. Wonder why, it could be bang goes their propaganda machine.

As for this man has done nothing wrong. He was in charge, most of the public knew about what was goign on but he claims he knew nothing until the next day. What rubbish he should be sacked with no pension, no payoff and a bad reference.

[youngmafbog]

Point is umm, there is no choice. I dont want to pay my 40p so why should I pay it so you can have the pleasure? The reality is that is costs far more than 40p a day for those that do watch it.

Watch catch-up, no ads on there.

[jake-the-peg]

I've not followed this all that closely - perhaps you can correct me


From what I heard the investigators had an abused man you directly accused McAlpine of abuse

The BBC ran the story

He then changed his story and said he was wrong - and everybody blamed the BBC.


Have I missed part of this story? Because they seem to me to have had good reason for running this story in good faith - shouldn't the policemen who misidentified McAlpine be taking a lot of the blame for this?

Especially when you consider the BBC was getting a lot of stick for sitting on the Saville story

[DVB99]

Isn't it only 450k.
Think as he resigned himself, he should get nothing

[Hopkirk]

I suspect he was offered the year if he would resign.

[ummmm]

I do watch catch up as well. I think the BBC is worth every penny.

[Hopkirk]

Jake, a responsible journalist checks the facts thoroughly before publishing.

It was Sunday Sport type journalism that said we will publish anything we are told.

With such a massive accusation, the minimum that should have been done is show the accuser a photo and ask if it is the man.

[bazwillrun]

"Because they seem to me to have had good reason for running this story in good faith"

thats exactly the problem, they were made aware that McAlpine was not the correct person but for some reason carried on regardless.

for those that like a conspiracy theory you could say it was the fact that McAlpine is/was a Tory grandee