|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is resignation honorable?
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
With the news that the Director General of the BBC, George Entwistle has resigned, is an honorable resignation the right thing to do?
Are there times when it isn't the right thing to do?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
It's the right thing to do when people think you should do it.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
So the Sun and the Daily Mail with their claims of shoddy journalism are right to force the Director General of the BBC out?
When as was said on Twitter:
quote:
Will William Hague resign from the cabinet for shutting down the original inquiry into child abuse in N Wales in the 90's?
quote:
Struggling to remember who resigned when The Sun published appalling false allegations about Hillsborough and stood by them for 23 years
.
quote:
Did we see Rupert Murdoch stepping down because the shoddy and unacceptable mistakes his journalists made? No. We did not
quote:
Not one newspaper editor resigned on smearing of Chris Jefferies over Jo Yeates murder either. Maybe he wasn't powerful enough to merit it.
One rule for the tabloids and another for the BBC?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The BBC is accountable to the government for its licence and to the public who pay for it. It's not in the same league as a red top rag.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
My point was that the baying for the blood of the BBC, quoting the Blood Bath headline from the Daily Mail, are the tabloids. And those tabloids have been attacking the BBC since the Savile news broke. I cynically suspect they have been throwing mud in the hope that if there's enough flung around they will obscure their lack of action and cover ups.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
In this situation it may be correct. But I wouldn't want to see a DG resign in the face of politcal pressure to bias news reports, for example.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Doesn't the BBC do its own baying for blood? Is this not why he resigned, because of Newsnight reporting that that was unsubstantiated and malicious.
Philip Schofield should be next, for ITV.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I agree about Schofield.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
David Petraeus thinks so
But then I suppose the military is still somewhere where honour has meaning.
And yes, the Schofield incident was disgraceful. He should probably have stuck to light entertainment.
[Edit - fix spelling of the honourable man's name]
[ 11. November 2012, 00:11: Message edited by: lowlands_boy ]
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
Resignation is honorable if your presence threatens an organization that you believe in.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Piglet
Islander
# 11803
|
Posted
I feel sorry for Mr. Entwistle; most of the things for which he's fallen on his sword happened long before he became D-G. Also, it seems to me that the tabloids will do anything to beat up the BBC, conveniently forgetting that for the most part, it produces the best television on the planet.
I agree with Mudfrog and Doublethink about Philip Schofield though - what a complete plonker.
[ 11. November 2012, 00:21: Message edited by: piglet ]
--------------------
I may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music
Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
The BBC pulls a programme on then-unsubstantiated allegations of abuse by Jimmy Savile.. Evidence comes out that the allegations are true. The BBC is hammered.
Weeks later, gosh how surprisingly, they RUN a programme on then-unsubstantiated allegations of abuse by an UN-NAMED political figure. Evidence comes out that the allegations are false. The BBC is hammered and the boss resigns.
WTF?
To declare an interest, I love the BBC. I've spent my adult life, as far as commitments allow, plugged in to BBC radio. I'd feel bereaved beyond anything I could say without it. But there are commercial interests, it seems clear to many, out to get it. And milking these events for all they're worth.
Mudfrog?
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
I too think the value of the BBC outweighs its faults. But they do seem to need a DG who is a teensy bit more interested in the editorial content of the network's output.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Smudgie
Ship's Barnacle
# 2716
|
Posted
Resign over something which happened (or didn't happen) in the past? No - just work hard to ensure it doesn't happen again.
Resign over something which happened on your watch, a programme on a contentious issue where you are in the position of either condoning it or saying "I didn't know"? Yes. What value his job at all if he doesn't have a degree of control over everything which is broadcast, especially if there is a risk that the subject matter may be contraversial or libelous, which in this case was almost inevitable.
Should the tabloids have control? No. But you can't judge the honour of one man's resignation by complaining that others didn't act honourably. If the tabloid editors had a conscience and sense of honour, pfah they ... pfah, hardly worth commenting on that extent of an oxymoron, is it? If the tabloid editors had a conscience and sense of honour, they'd implode in the sudden realisation that they didn't really exist!
--------------------
Miss you, Erin.
Posts: 14382 | From: Under the duvet | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I too think the value of the BBC outweighs its faults. But they do seem to need a DG who is a teensy bit more interested in the editorial content of the network's output.
The DG doesn't need to be interested in every programme the BBC broadcasts let alone every story the news teams produce. To draw a military analogy the DG is a general, not any kind of commander of a fighting unit but s/he sets the tone and has to be accountable for these.
I can't say for sure that resignation was honourable. OTOH, not resigning would have left the BBC in a worse position, so George Entwistle did the right thing.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I think they should separate the DG and Editor-in-Chief jobs.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
There are hurting people here.
The media circus, out for scoring points against each other are ignoring the fact that in the case of both Savile and the North Wales cases there are victims. Victims who hurt.
This baying for blood, this looking for a scapegoat, is causing more hurt for the victims. Is the resignation of the DG more important than the needs of the victims?
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The DG doesn't need to be interested in every programme the BBC broadcasts let alone every story the news teams produce.
True enough. But when you have an incandescent potato like Newsnight and investigations of historic child-abuse, I think you might take a special interest. I get the impression that there is a rather rigid culture of separate domains within the BBC, with the DG functioning like the titular emperor of a conglomerate of warring states.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
David Petraeus thinks so
But then I suppose the military is still somewhere where honour has meaning.
And yes, the Schofield incident was disgraceful. He should probably have stuck to light entertainment.
[Edit - fix spelling of the honourable man's name]
I thought that rather odd frankly. Having an affair was a dishonourable thing to do. Not sure how it was relevant to his job - unless it created a security risk. You could argue walking away from a complex, difficult job impacting on the nations security - with bugger all notice - is somewhat irresponsible and is putting his personal discomfort above the national interest.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
I read a report that Petraeus had been receiving abusive (anonymous?) emails which made his position untenable.
As for Entwistle, a general can't know every detail of what's happening, relies on staff to be kept informed but equally (pace Firenze) has to know what questions to ask them. In this damned if you do, damned if you don't atmosphere, 'What's happening at Newsnight?' should have been at least of passing interest to him.
Nonetheless, the final humiliation that brought Entwistle down seems to have been the grilling he received from John Humphreys on Today, a BBC programme. Did anyone see a Murdoch get that treatment on a News International outlet during the culture committee hearings? If it happened, I missed it.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
David Petraeus thinks so
But then I suppose the military is still somewhere where honour has meaning.
At the risk of sounding like 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells', who wants to re-introduce National Service or have a military takeover, it does seem as though the military is almost the only area of public life where honour means something.
As well as General Petraeus, I'm reminded of this story of a few weeks ago. A suggestion of inappropriate lobbying led to a retired general of great distinction immediately resigning his post with the Royal British Legion. A world away from the 'clinging on by their fingertips to every trapping of power and influence' that seems to be common elsewhere, especially among politicians.
[ 11. November 2012, 10:44: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
However, consider this. If the DG had asked the question, and when told of the coming Newsnight item had said no way, pull it. After the Savile debacle you can be sure someone would have leaked this fact to the press. What would the tabloids, politicians be saying now? What would we be saying?
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
@argona: The BBC is not prepared to go on the line about abuse claims.
The Daily Mail is really making much of this, which takes sleaziness to whole nuther level.
Would Andrew Mitchell have had an easier time if he'd resigned immediately?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
David Petraeus thinks so
But then I suppose the military is still somewhere where honour has meaning.
At the risk of sounding like 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells', who wants to re-introduce National Service or have a military takeover, it does seem as though the military is almost the only area of public life where honour means something.
Slightly less honourable if you believe the scuttlebutt that Petraeus' affair was widely known about amongst the troops in Afghanistan...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
There are some occasions when the honourable thing to do is to resign. There are others when resignation is the act of a chicken. Then the honourable thing is to say, 'I stay. If you want me to go, you must sack me'. If that gives you the right to sue, the honourable thing to do, is to sue. If it also enables you to take your former employer to the cleaners, so well and good.
I suspect George Entwistle hasn't been there long enough to do that.
The difficult question, is when is the honourable thing to do which. If it isn't obvious, I don't think we can criticise someone for taking the wrong decision.
Having said that, I don't think George Entwistle has acted dishonourably in resigning, but I'd rather he'd stayed and faced them down.
I also think it's a pity he hasn't waded in and sacked a few people, or if that would be too expensive in unfair dismissal claims, despatched them on their present salaries to Radio Whitehaven (if there is one). I would have thought last week's fiasco would have justified instant dismissal on gross misconduct grounds.
Going deeper, though, I don't see how an organisation can function if people can, with impunity, put on programmes castigating their own senior management for taking editorial decisions about their programmes that they don't like. I recognise there would be a colossal squeal about 'journalistic integrity' etc if they were sacked, but if I were the DG, Panorama's loss would by now have been Radio Whitehaven's gain.
I'd also add that as I write this post, I am listening to an extra long news at one, extended to an hour, with the following programme I wanted to listen to, postponed to a future date, so that the BBC can treat its own inner anguishes and navel-gazing as 'the story of the minute' and a matter of vital public interest.
We've now got Janet Daley - a commercial competitor, with an obvious a bias of her own - being asked what her view is. Why is her view relevant, and why do we care?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'd also add that as I write this post, I am listening to an extra long news at one, extended to an hour, with the following programme I wanted to listen to, postponed to a future date, so that the BBC can treat its own inner anguishes and navel-gazing as 'the story of the minute' and a matter of vital public interest.
Hear hear!
Somebody or other was grumbling earlier to day on the radio thar the deputy put in to fill in for the disgraced Entwistle 'has no journalistic experience'. Of course the BBC broadcasts news and current affairs programmes. But it also broadcasts a heck of a lot else - drama, arts, music ... I don't suppose whoever it is has much experience in theatre direction or conducting orchestras either, but I wouldn't think that would stop him doing a reasonable job as fill-in DG. Why do the news people think they are the be all and end all of the organisation?
[ 11. November 2012, 20:00: Message edited by: Metapelagius ]
--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.
Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
[QUOTE].... Hear hear!
Somebody or other was grumbling earlier to day on the radio thar the deputy put in to fill in for the disgraced Entwistle 'has no journalistic experience'. Of course the BBC broadcasts news and current affairs programmes. But it also broadcasts a heck of a lot else - drama, arts, music ... I don't suppose whoever it is has much experience in theatre direction or conducting orchestras either, but I wouldn't think that would stop him doing a reasonable job as fill-in DG. Why do the news people think they are the be all and end all of the organisation?
This may start to look like a mutual admiration society, but Hear hear also!
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Traveller
Shipmate
# 1943
|
Posted
Newsnight were poised to do a hatchet job on the late Jimmy Savile at the same time that another part of the corporation is producing a eulogy. The suspicion is that someone in authority preferred the eulogy to the hatchet job. The risk to the corporation was to get egg on its face. Dead people can't sue for libel, nor can their families.
In the last few days (i.e. on George Entwhistle's watch), Newsnight are poised to do a hatchet job on a well known figure from a previous political era who is still alive, basically on the unsupported say-so of an abuse victim. The programme didn't name the individual, but leaks abounded and the internet was full of reports naming him. The individual concerned somehow got wind of the programme and threatened to sue for libel. The BBC seems to have taken the ostrich-like position of not using the name, so we aren't libelling anyone.
Following a bit of proper investigation, it appears that the Newsnight source was mistaken in his identification. The person the BBC thought was in the firing line is actively persuing libel claims. What on earth was the sign-off process before Newsnight was broadcast to check that the story was right and the BBC wasn't being exposed to enormous risks to its reputation for competent journalism, legal actions, etc.? Everyone in the chain should give some sort of "heads-up" to their boss to say that there is a big case here: a big coup if it is right, enormously damaging to all concerned if it is wrong.
I suspect several factors were at work. First, the old-fashioned desire for a scoop, which provides a pressure to publish. Second, a polital bias in that the individual was a Tory (BOO!) and a close associate of Margaret Thatcher (HISS!) which would also provide a pressure to publish.
If the DG didn't know, he should have done. He is being lauded as having lots of experience in news, he should have made certain he was told of any hot potatoes in the offing. Incompetent doesn't come close.
Is resignation honorable? I think it was unavoidable. It is certainly comfortable, if he can walk off with a year's salary, worth £450k, as the BBC has revealed in the last 15 minutes.
--------------------
I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live:
I will praise my God while I have my being.
Psalm 104 v.33
Posts: 1037 | From: Wherever the car has stopped at the moment! | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
You do get the impression of the Newsnight lot going: We were muzzled over Savile - we'll show 'em!
It's at time like that you need a boss to put a friendly arm around the shoulder prior to smacking with a clue bat.
Was nobody - nobody - watching this one?
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
There are very few occasions where I think 'the boss should have stopped us' is a valid excuse, and this certainly isn't one of them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
You do get the impression of the Newsnight lot going: We were muzzled over Savile - we'll show 'em!
It's at time like that you need a boss to put a friendly arm around the shoulder prior to smacking with a clue bat.
Was nobody - nobody - watching this one?
Succinctly put, Firenze.
Clearly any half-decent boss who had one part of the business that had caused as much of a crisis as Newsnight has would want to keep a close eye on what was happening there, would want to know what reports were going out and would insist on being informed of anything relating to child sexual abuse that was being considered for transmission. If the boss doesn't ask for this then it suggests that either they are incompetent, or they don't want to know, in order to to try to keep a nice, safe distance from any nasty decision-making.
There may be honourable resignations, but Entwistle's isn't one of them. It's a resignation that stems from knowing the game is up and cushioned by a nice £450,000 payoff organised by his good mate the Chairman of the Board of Trust (sic).
And £450,000 is more than would be due as statutory redundancy pay, if Entwistle was made redundant - about twice as much. Not that he was made redundant, he resigned. How many of the rest of us would expect a year's salary if we handed in our notice?
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
It is roughly half what he is entitled to under his contract were he to be made redundant - my guess is that he has gone on a mutually agreed resignation or compromise agreement. And it is probably cheaper for the organisation than a fight over his going.
They shouldn't be paying him half a million salary in the first place.
[ETA In other words, I don't think he actually "chose" to resign.]
[ 12. November 2012, 06:13: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
They shouldn't be paying him half a million salary in the first place.
Agreed. But I would go further, and say that he shouldn't have been in the job in the first place. He was clearly out of his depth, seems to have little in the way of leadership skills, and after the debacle of the Jubilee River Pageant coverage, for which he was responsible, Chris Patten should not have appointed him.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
[ETA In other words, I don't think he actually "chose" to resign.]
And yet the impression (and more than an impression) that both he Chris Patten have been giving is that he wasn't pushed and that he chose to leave ('honourable' as Chris Patten put it). Certainly that is what Chris Patten was suggesting in his interview yesterday, (see imbedded video) albeit it in a 'not quite answering the question' way.
Yes, it was almost certainly a compromise agreement, but an over-generous one - but then spending other people's money is always easy.
So not an honourable resignation, just a pay-off.
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
In the last few days (i.e. on George Entwhistle's watch), Newsnight are poised to do a hatchet job on a well known figure from a previous political era who is still alive, basically on the unsupported say-so of an abuse victim. The programme didn't name the individual, but leaks abounded and the internet was full of reports naming him. The individual concerned somehow got wind of the programme and threatened to sue for libel. The BBC seems to have taken the ostrich-like position of not using the name, so we aren't libelling anyone.
I've been away so have not been watching this in real time. So can someone break this down for me?
The programme recorded an allegation from a victim without naming the person. Allegations swirled around on twitter about who was being referred to and in the end the victim was forced to go on camera to say that the individual was not the person being named.
I don't understand what the problem is or why this is an example of shoddy journalism. Is the suggestion that the twitter leaks originated from the BBC?
I have been trying to pick up the story but it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I've been away so have not been watching this in real time. So can someone break this down for me?
The programme recorded an allegation from a victim without naming the person. Allegations swirled around on twitter about who was being referred to and in the end the victim was forced to go on camera to say that the individual was not the person being named.
I don't understand what the problem is or why this is an example of shoddy journalism. Is the suggestion that the twitter leaks originated from the BBC?
I have been trying to pick up the story but it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.
This may be getting rather off-topic, but I don't know who many related threads on this subject the hosts want!
There are allegations that BBC staff may have leaked the name of 'a certain person' prior to broadcast of the programme, but these are unsubstantiated. Although Newnight didn't name the person on air, the broadcast certainly gave authority to the circulation of the name of 'a certain person' on the internet.
Where the 'shoddy journalism' comes in is:-
The reason for the misidentification of 'a certain person' is that, at some point, the victim was shown a photograph by the police of a person he identified as his abuser. The police told the victim that the photograph was of 'a certain person', although in fact it wasn't, it was a photograph of someone else. When the Newsnight programme was being prepared, nobody thought to show the victim a photograph of 'a certain person' and ask, 'Is this the person who abused you'. Had they done so the victim would have said, 'No'. This is essentially what happened the next day when the victim saw a picture of 'a certain person' and realised that this wasn't his abuser.
Secondly, nobody at Newsnight thought to contact 'a certain person' to get his side of the story. Had they done so they might have realised that there was doubt as to whether the abuser was 'a certain person'.
[ 12. November 2012, 08:20: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
If he resigned "to do the honourable thing" then no pay is due, let alone a year. What kind of contract is that? Not one I've ever seen. Its certainly not the same kind of one that Mrs Mark had - when she resigned from her nursing post because we were moving, there wasn't even a thank you letter for 11 years of hard graft (with no sick days), let alone a years salary.
If he was "invited" to go, which does rather look likely given the size of the bung (oops sorry, salary in lieu), then we should be told.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubifex Maximus
Shipmate
# 4874
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If he resigned "to do the honourable thing" then no pay is due, let alone a year. What kind of contract is that? Not one I've ever seen. Its certainly not the same kind of one that Mrs Mark had - when she resigned from her nursing post because we were moving, there wasn't even a thank you letter for 11 years of hard graft (with no sick days), let alone a years salary.
If he was "invited" to go, which does rather look likely given the size of the bung (oops sorry, salary in lieu), then we should be told.
I think this is a good point. Surely an honourable resignation has to involve some element of risk and sacrifice on the part of the person resigning? The resignee should be either taking the sins of the organisation on themselves in an effort to avoid the punishment falling on the wider organisation, or taking responsibility for personal actions likely to harm the wider organisation and showing that they have done so by suffering negative consequences. If the terms of George Entwhistle's generous severance package have been accurately reported, then he could invest the money in a way that would make him financially secure for the rest of his life. Few people have pension pots as generous as his payoff.
--------------------
Sit down, Oh sit down, sit down next to me.
Posts: 400 | From: Manchester | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
Chapelhead:
quote:
There are allegations that BBC staff may have leaked the name of 'a certain person' prior to broadcast of the programme, but these are unsubstantiated.
Where?
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Chapelhead:
quote:
There are allegations that BBC staff may have leaked the name of 'a certain person' prior to broadcast of the programme, but these are unsubstantiated.
Where?
Some will probably decry the source (and, as I said, these are unsubstantiated allegations), but try paragraph six of this comment piece by Boris Johnson, Mayor of London - the paragraph below the 'related articles' box.
Not authoritative, as I have acknowledged, but nor is it an anonymous bit of tittle-tattle swirling round the twatosphere.
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
David Petraeus thinks so
But then I suppose the military is still somewhere where honour has meaning.
At the risk of sounding like 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells', who wants to re-introduce National Service or have a military takeover, it does seem as though the military is almost the only area of public life where honour means something.
As well as General Petraeus, I'm reminded of this story of a few weeks ago. A suggestion of inappropriate lobbying led to a retired general of great distinction immediately resigning his post with the Royal British Legion. A world away from the 'clinging on by their fingertips to every trapping of power and influence' that seems to be common elsewhere, especially among politicians.
I don't think it has anything to do with the military but the obvious fact that as Director of the CIA by having an affair he could have compromised his security and in so doing showed poor judgement.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
David Petraeus thinks so
But then I suppose the military is still somewhere where honour has meaning.
At the risk of sounding like 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells', who wants to re-introduce National Service or have a military takeover, it does seem as though the military is almost the only area of public life where honour means something.
As well as General Petraeus, I'm reminded of this story of a few weeks ago. A suggestion of inappropriate lobbying led to a retired general of great distinction immediately resigning his post with the Royal British Legion. A world away from the 'clinging on by their fingertips to every trapping of power and influence' that seems to be common elsewhere, especially among politicians.
I don't think it has anything to do with the military but the obvious fact that as Director of the CIA by having an affair he could have compromised his security and in so doing showed poor judgement.
This. It is the reason the FBI started looking into the affair in the 1st place as the mistress had unfettered access to Petraus and into his office. Pillow talk would make him susceptible to blackmail from anyone who knew about the affair. Also, the mistress had a high security clearance, but not high enough for the top CIA office. Pillow talk would make him susceptible to blackmail.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Plus he would have exposed himself to blackmail which is a Very Bad Thing.
(I believe it used to be the case, and may still be, that you could work for the CIA if you were openly gay, but not if you were in the closet, because closeted gays could be blackmailed.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I don't think it has anything to do with the military but the obvious fact that as Director of the CIA by having an affair he could have compromised his security and in so doing showed poor judgement.
Would that also be the case if it were the President?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
(Sorry, cross-post.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
(x-post - @Chapelhead)
Ah - Boris "I haven't got a dog in the race, guv" Johnson.
Try this:
quote:
The Newsnight story that falsely alleged "a senior Thatcher-era Tory" was a paedophile was, unlike most of the BBC's journalistic output, worked up in conjunction with an outside agency, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ).
Founded two years ago to bring public interest journalism to the fore in the mould of the US organisation ProPublica, the BIJ is now fighting, alongside Newsnight, for its survival.
Its managing editor, Iain Overton – an established foreign correspondent and More4 executive before taking the helm at the not-for-profit operation – lit a fuse when he now-infamously tweeted: "If all goes well, we've got a Newsnight out tonight about a very senior political figure who is a paedophile."
Iain Overton, references to whom have now been expunged from the BIJ website, is not a member of the BBC staff.
[ 12. November 2012, 09:57: Message edited by: passer ]
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubifex Maximus:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If he resigned "to do the honourable thing" then no pay is due, let alone a year. What kind of contract is that? Not one I've ever seen. Its certainly not the same kind of one that Mrs Mark had - when she resigned from her nursing post because we were moving, there wasn't even a thank you letter for 11 years of hard graft (with no sick days), let alone a years salary.
If he was "invited" to go, which does rather look likely given the size of the bung (oops sorry, salary in lieu), then we should be told.
I think this is a good point. Surely an honourable resignation has to involve some element of risk and sacrifice on the part of the person resigning? The resignee should be either taking the sins of the organisation on themselves in an effort to avoid the punishment falling on the wider organisation, or taking responsibility for personal actions likely to harm the wider organisation and showing that they have done so by suffering negative consequences. If the terms of George Entwhistle's generous severance package have been accurately reported, then he could invest the money in a way that would make him financially secure for the rest of his life. Few people have pension pots as generous as his payoff.
This rather implies that whatever the official line, somebody, whether the trustees, or somebody else, told him 'we think you ought to go'.
In which case, he's entitled to get any payoff out of them that he can extract, as his price for saving their faces.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Iain Overton, references to whom have now been expunged from the BIJ website, is not a member of the BBC staff.
I don't believe anyone has stated that he is. Boris Johnson's article referred to 'programme makers', which would seem to mean BBC staff. That someone who is not a member of BBC staff may also have disclosed a certain person's name doesn't mean that BBC staff didn't.
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubifex Maximus:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If he resigned "to do the honourable thing" then no pay is due, let alone a year. What kind of contract is that? Not one I've ever seen. Its certainly not the same kind of one that Mrs Mark had - when she resigned from her nursing post because we were moving, there wasn't even a thank you letter for 11 years of hard graft (with no sick days), let alone a years salary.
If he was "invited" to go, which does rather look likely given the size of the bung (oops sorry, salary in lieu), then we should be told.
I think this is a good point. Surely an honourable resignation has to involve some element of risk and sacrifice on the part of the person resigning? The resignee should be either taking the sins of the organisation on themselves in an effort to avoid the punishment falling on the wider organisation, or taking responsibility for personal actions likely to harm the wider organisation and showing that they have done so by suffering negative consequences. If the terms of George Entwhistle's generous severance package have been accurately reported, then he could invest the money in a way that would make him financially secure for the rest of his life. Few people have pension pots as generous as his payoff.
This rather implies that whatever the official line, somebody, whether the trustees, or somebody else, told him 'we think you ought to go'.
In which case, he's entitled to get any payoff out of them that he can extract, as his price for saving their faces.
A payoff based on his contract but after such a short tenure to have double the contractual amount looks at best wasteful and at worst fishy. Personally I think Patten, who was apparently instrumental in his recruitment, should go also. How can Patten do a proper job whilst at the same time being Chancellor of the University of Oxford and holding other sinecures? He is the very worst example of a political appointment. Have we not moved on from Lord North's Administration? Sadly this sort of nonsense will shortly riddle the Police Service as well as the BBC with each elected commissioner getting £100,000 per annum and providing more jobs for political hasbeens. All part of Cameron's Dumb Britain where instead of cutting wasteful expenditure the government pisses even more of it away.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
