Ship of Fools: Is resignation honorable?

Thread: Is resignation honorable? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024144

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

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?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

It's the right thing to do when people think you should do it.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

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?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

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.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I agree about Schofield.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

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 ]

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

Resignation is honorable if your presence threatens an organization that you believe in.

Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :

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 ]

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

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?

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

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.

Posted by Smudgie (# 2716) on :

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!

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

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.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I think they should separate the DG and Editor-in-Chief jobs.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

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?

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

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.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

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.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

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.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

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 ]

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

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?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

@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?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

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...

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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?

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

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 ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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!

Posted by Traveller (# 1943) on :

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.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

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?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

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?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

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 ]

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

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.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

Sorry for the double post, but apparently the DG's own contract only entitles him to 6 month's salary, so he is getting double his contractual entitlement.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

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.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

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 ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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.

Posted by Tubifex Maximus (# 4874) on :

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.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

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?

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

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.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

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.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

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.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

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.)

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

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?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

(Sorry, cross-post.)

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

(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 ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

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.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

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.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

passer linked this blog post which looks to have been online since 2010 in Hell on the Jimmy Savile story. That gives the same names that the BBC are blamed for leaking.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

At the risk of turning this into a running commentary on a news story,

Iain Overton has also resigned from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, and they've said any involvement by their staff was contrary to their own standards.

It seems completely clear that Newsnight didn't actually name anyone. But the feeding frenzy that resulted came on Twitter, and it's reported that Iain Overton's Twitter account had said that the Newsnight program would be naming someone.

So the Beeb's director general seems to have been screwed in the end by a medium entirely beyond his control. And this seems to be just another instance of the lawlessness on that platform, as in the case of that famous Welsh footballer who 75,000 people named on Twitter as having an injunction about his private life.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Well I am mystified. It seems that some old guy saying the allegations about him are not true is enough to have everyone running for cover, even though I can't see who is supposed to have identified him as the abuser.

The odd thing is a) how his involvement has mystically been disproven b) why the victim is apologising, given that he (the victim) doesn't seem to have done anything to implicate the old gent c) how everyone is now so sure that the old gent was not involved.

The whole thing has more than a touch of the bizarre about it.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Well I am mystified. It seems that some old guy saying the allegations about him are not true is enough to have everyone running for cover, even though I can't see who is supposed to have identified him as the abuser.

The odd thing is a) how his involvement has mystically been disproven b) why the victim is apologising, given that he (the victim) doesn't seem to have done anything to implicate the old gent c) how everyone is now so sure that the old gent was not involved.

The whole thing has more than a touch of the bizarre about it.

I think that when you slander or libel someone then the onus is on the slanderer to prove there is substance in the allegation and not for the slandered to have to disprove it. Clearly the BBC have no evidence to back up what was a very defamatory allegation and are now facing an enormous libel action. The fact that Newsnight did not directly name the individual is not relevant as it effectively drew attention to the man's name on the internet. However because of the nature of the accusations there should be a police enquiry into the matter at least to show that there has not been a conspiracy to close the matter down.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
... However because of the nature of the accusations there should be a police enquiry into the matter at least to show that there has not been a conspiracy to close the matter down.

From what I have read the police do not appear disinterested enough to carry out an inquiry into this matter.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:

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.

You said:

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.

In the article you linked to, Boris didn't say that.

However, whatever.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Well I am mystified. It seems that some old guy saying the allegations about him are not true is enough to have everyone running for cover, even though I can't see who is supposed to have identified him as the abuser.

The odd thing is a) how his involvement has mystically been disproven b) why the victim is apologising, given that he (the victim) doesn't seem to have done anything to implicate the old gent c) how everyone is now so sure that the old gent was not involved.

The whole thing has more than a touch of the bizarre about it.
I think that when you slander or libel someone then the onus is on the slanderer to prove there is substance in the allegation and not for the slandered to have to disprove it. Clearly the BBC have no evidence to back up what was a very defamatory allegation and are now facing an enormous libel action. The fact that Newsnight did not directly name the individual is not relevant as it effectively drew attention to the man's name on the internet. However because of the nature of the accusations there should be a police enquiry into the matter at least to show that there has not been a conspiracy to close the matter down.

Tom Watson MP did the same thing at Prime Minister's Questions though. Of course, he gets to claim parliamentary privilege, which is another complication.

But I'm not sure your argument is very practical anymore - it's a repeated problem on Twitter (and the wider internet). Information can be conveyed, copied, modified and so on at lightning speed. For many people the internet is the dominant medium now - a late night news show reporting that "someone on the internet has said something about somebody" can scarcely make a difference.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

quote:
Originally posted by passer:
You said:

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.
In the article you linked to, Boris didn't say that.

However, whatever.

Passer, I'm not sure what your point is. Boris Johnson referred to the "programme's makers". It was made by the BBC, even if the journalism was by outsiders (Iain Overton has said that he had no editorial control over the programme). It's possible that Johnson meant to refer to the journalism, not the making of the programme, but that's not what he said

quote:
"a certain person" was the name the programme’s makers fed out to various Left-wing tweeters and bloggers.

The only tweet from Iain Overton I have seen contained no name. This tweet might be what Boris Johnson is referring to, but it isn't a straightforward interpretation of his words.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Clearly the BBC have no evidence to back up what was a very defamatory allegation and are now facing an enormous libel action. The fact that Newsnight did not directly name the individual is not relevant as it effectively drew attention to the man's name on the internet. However because of the nature of the accusations there should be a police enquiry into the matter at least to show that there has not been a conspiracy to close the matter down.

Well this is the crux of my confusion - can it be slander when they're not identified the alleged abuser? And who exactly originated the leak on twitter, where did it come from - and was it actually repeated by Newsnight?

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

Chapelhead:

My point is that you are the one who referred to BBC staff. I asked where that was from and you linked to Boris.

Boris referred to the programme's makers; you are the one who extrapolates that to be the BBC. I don't know anyone other than you who has said that someone at the BBC tweeted a name. I suspect that if someone at the BBC had tweeted a name, it would be in the public domain by now. This is not, to the best of my knowledge, the case, and I tend to watch the public domain. This is why I asked you to elucidate.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It all seems hyped up to me, and I'm still not sure why the DG resigned. I suspect that the right-wing and various tabloids want to target the BBC, as they basically don't like it, and probably want to see it dismantled.

It's also curious that it has now become the story, instead of child abuse itself. There is an element of hysteria about the BBC, which I find misdirected.

But then the same thing happened over Iraq, when the BBC got shafted, instead of the government.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

The aim of the Press is to show that a regulated organisation is just as wicked and scandalous as an unregulated one, so therefore when Lord Justice Leveson recommends that the Press barons are reined in, when he publishes his report in the next couple of weeks, he's just talking cock, and Dacre et al should be left to their own devices.

[ 12. November 2012, 14:35: Message edited by: passer ]

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Well this is the crux of my confusion - can it be slander when they're not identified the alleged abuser? And who exactly originated the leak on twitter, where did it come from - and was it actually repeated by Newsnight?

The name in question has been knocking around the internet for a long while, but it doesn't really matter how or where it originated. Slander does not have to involve a giving a person's name, just so long as they are identifiable. Referring to 'a black president of a major western power' or 'a man dressed in white who leads a city-state in central Italy' does not name the individual, but they are identifiable. Giving someone's job or position (if sufficiently unusual) so that viewers can trawl the internet to match it to a name may be sufficient to demonstrate slander.

Passer - it isn't much of an extrapolation, if any, from "the programme's makers" to the BBC, given that the BBC was the programme's maker, although I accept that Boris Johnson may have been using this terminology inaccurately.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Clearly the BBC have no evidence to back up what was a very defamatory allegation and are now facing an enormous libel action. The fact that Newsnight did not directly name the individual is not relevant as it effectively drew attention to the man's name on the internet. However because of the nature of the accusations there should be a police enquiry into the matter at least to show that there has not been a conspiracy to close the matter down.
Well this is the crux of my confusion - can it be slander when they're not identified the alleged abuser? And who exactly originated the leak on twitter, where did it come from - and was it actually repeated by Newsnight?

Yes - and I think as a broadcast is would be libel not slander. I don't think that the fact that they did not actually read the name out matters. I cannot see how not stating the name is any sort of defence if you make it clear how the name could be found. It might be like libelling George Clooney by describing a "Hollywood actor who appears in coffee adverts".

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by passer:
The aim of the Press is to show that a regulated organisation is just as wicked and scandalous as an unregulated one, so therefore when Lord Justice Leveson recommends that the Press barons are reined in, when he publishes his report in the next couple of weeks, he's just talking cock, and Dacre et al should be left to their own devices.

Very good point. I guess also they are all at sea about the internet and Twitter and so on, and don't know how to handle it.

It seems ironic now that the press also ignored the Savile case historically.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

My understanding* is that a statement can also be libellous if it concerns an unnamed individual in a named and delineated group of individuals. So for example, if I say 'one of the Stow-on-the-Wold Ice-Cream Van Jingles Approval Committee is a thief', then any of the members of that committee can sue me for libel.

In this case we were told that the abuser was an aide to Margaret Thatcher. I don't know how many aides she had but that sounds like a fairly narrow group to me.

* I'm not a lawyer - this is based on an article in the Writers' and Artists' Yearbook.

[ 12. November 2012, 14:56: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

The printed Press is in its death throes, and will be all but gone within a decade. The future is online. It's very difficult to generate revenue and profit from online news as the internet is largely free. The BBC has not been much of a competitor to the Press until now, as the BBC doesn't print. The Press owners are trying to transfer their product to an online medium, and at that point (as Murdoch and Dacre realised some years ago) the BBC becomes a major enemy.

As someone tweeted ironically a few days ago (can't remember who) :

quote:
Don't talk to me about the license fee. All I get for the equivalent of two months' Sky subscription is 4 excellent TV channels, 6 national Radio stations, the World Service, local radio, and a first-rate website. What a rip-off.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
The name in question has been knocking around the internet for a long while, but it doesn't really matter how or where it originated. Slander does not have to involve a giving a person's name, just so long as they are identifiable. Referring to 'a black president of a major western power' or 'a man dressed in white who leads a city-state in central Italy' does not name the individual, but they are identifiable. Giving someone's job or position (if sufficiently unusual) so that viewers can trawl the internet to match it to a name may be sufficient to demonstrate slander.

Am I to understand that the guy's role was identified by Newsnight (Tory chairman at the time of Margaret Thatcher - or whatever?)

I'm sorry to sound thick, I've not seen the original programme and am struggling to get up to speed on exactly what has happened..

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
David Petraeus thinks so

But then I suppose the military is still somewhere where honour has meaning.

Irony meter exploded this morning when Matt Lauer wants someone to weigh in on this question-- what's the honorable thing for a public figure to do when caught in a private indiscretion-- and he chooses to ask... Newt Gingrich.
[Snigger]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Youtube Newsnight from 2 November 2012 when allegations were made

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by passer:
The printed Press is in its death throes, and will be all but gone within a decade. The future is online. It's very difficult to generate revenue and profit from online news as the internet is largely free. The BBC has not been much of a competitor to the Press until now, as the BBC doesn't print. The Press owners are trying to transfer their product to an online medium, and at that point (as Murdoch and Dacre realised some years ago) the BBC becomes a major enemy.

As someone tweeted ironically a few days ago (can't remember who) :

quote:
Don't talk to me about the license fee. All I get for the equivalent of two months' Sky subscription is 4 excellent TV channels, 6 national Radio stations, the World Service, local radio, and a first-rate website. What a rip-off.

More good stuff. I think I shall think of you as the media Deep Throat. It's striking that the right-wing complain that the BBC is 'too big' and should pull its horns in - this is code for 'we don't actually like competition'.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by passer:
The printed Press is in its death throes, and will be all but gone within a decade. The future is online. It's very difficult to generate revenue and profit from online news as the internet is largely free. The BBC has not been much of a competitor to the Press until now, as the BBC doesn't print. The Press owners are trying to transfer their product to an online medium, and at that point (as Murdoch and Dacre realised some years ago) the BBC becomes a major enemy.

As someone tweeted ironically a few days ago (can't remember who) :

quote:
Don't talk to me about the license fee. All I get for the equivalent of two months' Sky subscription is 4 excellent TV channels, 6 national Radio stations, the World Service, local radio, and a first-rate website. What a rip-off.
More good stuff. I think I shall think of you as the media Deep Throat. It's striking that the right-wing complain that the BBC is 'too big' and should pull its horns in - this is code for 'we don't actually like competition'.

Except that it is not competition from the BBC as anyone who wants to watch the television has to pay a licence to the BBC whether they want to watch it or not. If the BBC were to be truly competitive then they would be a subscription channel. If that were to happen then I very much doubt they would have the wherewithal to keep in place their enormous bureaucracy on some very bloated salaries. A lot of this is paid for by very poor people.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Just because it made me laugh, Graeme Garden has just tweeted:

quote:
Very proud to hear that 'I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue' is to be adopted as the BBC's new motto.

The BBC is a bit twitchy about it all. I was in the audience for a pilot vehicle for Sandi Toksvig and Susan Calman last night, and Sandi had to rewrite her introduction to lose the comments about Newsnight and not being available next week as it was her turn to be Director General that day.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by passer:
The printed Press is in its death throes, and will be all but gone within a decade. The future is online. It's very difficult to generate revenue and profit from online news as the internet is largely free. The BBC has not been much of a competitor to the Press until now, as the BBC doesn't print. The Press owners are trying to transfer their product to an online medium, and at that point (as Murdoch and Dacre realised some years ago) the BBC becomes a major enemy.

As someone tweeted ironically a few days ago (can't remember who) :

quote:
Don't talk to me about the license fee. All I get for the equivalent of two months' Sky subscription is 4 excellent TV channels, 6 national Radio stations, the World Service, local radio, and a first-rate website. What a rip-off.
More good stuff. I think I shall think of you as the media Deep Throat. It's striking that the right-wing complain that the BBC is 'too big' and should pull its horns in - this is code for 'we don't actually like competition'.
Except that it is not competition from the BBC as anyone who wants to watch the television has to pay a licence to the BBC whether they want to watch it or not. If the BBC were to be truly competitive then they would be a subscription channel. If that were to happen then I very much doubt they would have the wherewithal to keep in place their enormous bureaucracy on some very bloated salaries. A lot of this is paid for by very poor people.

You are Norman Tebbit and I demand my £5 reward.

[ 12. November 2012, 16:16: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

You can have a £500 reward of you dispose of Tebbitt - in an nonviolent way, of course.

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :

Regarding Entwistle's departing pay, see
BBC report.

quote:
...But in a letter to Conservative MP John Whittingdale, chairman of the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Lord Patten argued the amount was "justified and necessary".

Lord Patten said Mr Entwistle would have been entitled to a year's pay if he had been sacked, adding that the a "consensual resignation on these terms was clearly the better route"....

Seems an odd sort of contract to me, but what would I know?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re Petraeus:

My understanding of the story is as follows:

--He and Paula (?) met when he was still in the army. She asked him to read a paper she'd written for her studies at Harvard. She then went on to write his biography.

--Reportedly, the affair didn't start until after he left the army. That's an important point, because the US Army has strict rules against adultery. AIUI, he could be tried for anything improper that happened when he was in the military; and since she's still in the army, she's going to be in that kind of mess, too.

--They exchanged tons of private e-mails; "Nightline" just now said hundreds, possibly thousands.

--Somewhere along the line, Paula started sending harassing e-mails to Jill, a friend of the Petraeus family. Jill happened to know an FBI agent, and happened to mention it to him. He looked into it. I guess he got into Paula's account and saw e-mails from Petraeus. He (and Jill, AIUI) thought they had to be fake, and therefore someone must have hacked into Petraeus's account, which potentially compromised national security...

--There's speculation that he might have been involved with Jill, too. I think he's denied it.

--Petraeus is reportedly devastated. (I hope someone's got him on suicide watch.) He told a friend something to the effect that Mrs. Petraeus is far beyond furious.

--Petraeus was scheduled to testify before a Congressional committee (IIRC) this week about issues at the CIA. There was some speculation that he wouldn't now, since he's no longer the boss. (Which had me wondering if the fuss came about now so he could get out of testifying.) But Sen. Dianne Feinstein, head of the Intelligence Committee, has indicated that he may still testify.

--Plus the security issues due to the possibility of blackmail.

Talk about an awful mess! Both their careers are wrecked, as are both their families. (Paula is married and has kids.)

[Votive]

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

Additionally on Petraeus, classified material was found on her computer and she gave details in a speech in October that had not been released to the press. And in a really strange twist, the commanding general in Afghanistan is now under investigation for sending inappropriate emails to Jill Kelley, the woman Petraeus' mistress was threatening.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

The BBC are carrying an article this morning by two media lawyers, discussing the law in respect of social media.

It says that actually each person who re-tweets something also carries out the libel, and each must be able to prove that it's true. Interesting stuff

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

From the article -

quote:
When individuals post material online, they act as publishers and their publications are subject to the same laws as those of professional publishers, such as newspapers.

This includes publications made by way of a tweet. A retweet also amounts to a further publication.

This is very well understood and managed on the Ship, so why not in the twitterverse too?

Not sure how twitter would be policed 'tho - it'd take a lot of hosts ...

It'll be interesting to see if any of the tweeters are sued for libel.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
From the article -

quote:
When individuals post material online, they act as publishers and their publications are subject to the same laws as those of professional publishers, such as newspapers.

This includes publications made by way of a tweet. A retweet also amounts to a further publication.
This is very well understood and managed on the Ship, so why not in the twitterverse too?

Not sure how twitter would be policed 'tho - it'd take a lot of hosts ...

It'll be interesting to see if any of the tweeters are sued for libel.

Yes, even with the 140 character limit, Twitter's 400 million tweets per day surely rather dwarf the Ship's own publishing stats....

When the famous Welsh footballer episode occurred on Twitter, 75,000 people tweeted about it - presumably the whole point of that effort was to make it impractical to sue them all. Of course in that case, it was a breach of a privacy injunction, not a wrongful identification of someone.

But the issue still seems to be the sheer scale of it. According to the article the wronged party could get 6 figure payout per tweet. Given how many people there are who seem to have become involved, that's a lot of money.

If he sues a handful of them, can they just say "why aren't you suing all the others?" ? Surely large numbers of tweeters will be sufficiently anonymous to make it difficult to sue them.

Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
From the article -

quote:
When individuals post material online, they act as publishers and their publications are subject to the same laws as those of professional publishers, such as newspapers.

This includes publications made by way of a tweet. A retweet also amounts to a further publication.
This is very well understood and managed on the Ship.

Except that the article seems to say that the individual tweeters are responsible for what they publish, rather than Twitter itself. On the Ship potentially libellous postings are stamped on because of the danger of the Ship being sued, as far as I understand it.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

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.

Fortunately, we weren't so fussy in the 1950s, and allowed Allen Dulles to build the CIA despite multiple affairs which were no secret. Ah for the good old days when they had sexual liberation.

Possibly this revelation was an inside job. According to some, there is considerable rivalry within the CIA between those who gather intelligence and those who act as the President's personal army. Petraeus sided with the latter group at the expense of the former, who might have taken their revenge, at least by not standing in the FBI's way as they could have done.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0