Ship of Fools: Double Talk

Thread: Double Talk 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=026057

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

How much double talk ( or pass the buck or downright lies) do we have to put up with?

The BBC has been in the dock today over extreme payments to people given the sack.

Everyone blames everyone else. Nobody is to blame. And millions of £££s of taxpayers money are written off by plutocrats who are only concerned about their own interests.

I say sack the lot and start again from a moral base.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I say sack the lot and start again from a moral base.

Well, it sounds like this lot is already morally pretty base...

--Tom Clune

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I fail to get either excited or shocked over this one. If you get sacked, shouldn't people assume you'll try and get as big a payout as you can. Whatever the objective position, most people that get sacked think they have been treated unfairly. I don't know and don't particularly care whether this is the case here, but quite often, they have been.

I'm more annoyed by the way the BBC thinks this, and how it runs its internal affairs, is a big news story that is really important and interesting for the rest of us. Once again it is behaving as though it is an in-house magazine.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If you get sacked, shouldn't people assume you'll try and get as big a payout as you can.

Well I think that's fair if your contract is terminated because of a disagreement. But if you are really sacked i.e. because you're crap and you screwed up, and you're not able to do your job, most people would expect you to be given a cardboard box to pack your personal effects into and be escorted off the premises. Basic salary up to date and not a penny more. Which was the case here?

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Surely whether you had screwed up or not would be a dispute and it's cheaper to pay out than to be taken to a tribunal?

M.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Surely whether you had screwed up or not would be a dispute and it's cheaper to pay out than to be taken to a tribunal?

Precisely.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Surely whether you had screwed up or not would be a dispute and it's cheaper to pay out than to be taken to a tribunal?

M.

Yeah, that's expensive, but you get a heck of a lot of tribunal for £25,000,000

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

But then, if they were laid off because the company's needs change, rather than being incompetent themselves, the company has some obligation to cushion the shock.

Or do you believe that people who actually try to work should be punished for that?

Maybe you are in the camp that says everyone else is just a skiver, in which case your comment may be somewhat closer to acceptable. Still pretty silly though.

Posted by cheesymarzipan (# 9442) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But then, if they were laid off because the company's needs change, rather than being incompetent themselves, the company has some obligation to cushion the shock.

Or do you believe that people who actually try to work should be punished for that?

That would be 'being made redundant' rather than 'being sacked'. And there is a way to work out how much you're owed. It's normally based on a certain number of week's wages per year you've worked there, or something similar.

Edit:
a link to a better page: here

[ 10. September 2013, 12:13: Message edited by: cheesymarzipan ]

Posted by cheesymarzipan (# 9442) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But then, if they were laid off because the company's needs change, rather than being incompetent themselves, the company has some obligation to cushion the shock.

Or do you believe that people who actually try to work should be punished for that?

Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Surely whether you had screwed up or not would be a dispute and it's cheaper to pay out than to be taken to a tribunal?
Yeah, that's expensive, but you get a heck of a lot of tribunal for £25,000,000

If your ex-employee takes your company to a tribunal and wins, the company has to pay all the court costs and compensation to the ex-employee.

It is cheaper to work out what the ex-employee is likely to be awarded (I understand that there are formulas for this) and pay them slightly more than that to sign a legal document that prevents them from taking you to court.

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Well I think that's fair if your contract is terminated because of a disagreement. But if you are really sacked i.e. because you're crap and you screwed up, and you're not able to do your job, most people would expect you to be given a cardboard box to pack your personal effects into and be escorted off the premises.

The problem, in the UK, is that it is almost impossible to sack someone for screwing up. Most contracts have clauses that give conditions for instant dismissal, but "screwing up" is not generally one of them. In the UK, the onus is on the employer to prove incompetence, rather than on the employee to prove competence. Therefore, any dismissal on the grounds that you screwed up can lead to a court case for unfair dismissal (where the dismissal is outside the terms of your contract) or constructive dismissal (when your employer's conduct makes it so appalling to work for the organisation that you are forced to leave).

ETA: IANAL

[ 10. September 2013, 12:38: Message edited by: Dal Segno ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Gross misconduct has usually to be something of a different order from incompetence. Fairness to a person who isn't quite making the grade usually has to involve giving them a chance to learn and mend their ways. So it should be.

If an organisation is getting rid of someone who's important enough to know where the bodies are buried, it's prudent to pay them off rather than end up in a Tribunal. The hearings are public. So the threat that they'll subpoena the members of the board etc and shred their personal reputations should be sufficient to extract more cash than they might strictly be entitled to.

Also, a lot of the cases where a high profile person comes a cropper, they've been given an impossible job to do, and then get the book thrown at them for not succeeding. Sharon Shoesmith is a classic example.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Virtually all contracts contain a clause relating to conduct and capability. That's the get out clause to sack someone for incompetence.

The worst thing IMHO of all this? The idiot who set up the contracts that allowed such pay offs in the first place. The benefits are exceptional by anyone's standards - in private industry, they would have received precisely zero. In some jobs they would've been escorted off the premises without being paid to that day esp. if criminal activity is suspected.

[In extreme cases proven gross misconduct equals instant dismissal without any redress. No warning is necessary - you are assumed to be aware of the terms of your contract. To keep the right side of the law in such cases it is enough for the employer to state the reasons for dismissal in an interview, that for safety's sake should always be in the presence of a witness].

Ok those affected may decide to sue but the courts are more likely these days to take a more robust view on the point of competence. In this case there seemed to be allegations that some were paid more than they were due.

Sharon Shoesmith may or may not have been guilty of the issues raised against her. In that particular case, the process was flawed, not necessarily the decision. [That invalidates the whole thing - one small breach of the law and/or process is enough: even a wrong date on a letter or an error in a home address]. The trouble there was the intervention of a Government minister who messed the whole thing up as only a Government Minister can.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

The BBC fiasco was not because people leaving/being sacked/made redundant were paid what was due to them.

it was because they were overpaid by £1000's.

And not simply because the BBC was afraid of possible Trinbunals. There was a culture amongst all the top people to collude in this over-the-top pay-off.

The BBC Trust should be dismantled immediately and their responsibility handed over to those who have the license-payers interests at heart.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The BBC fiasco was not because people leaving/being sacked/made redundant were paid what was due to them.

it was because they were overpaid by £1000's.

And not simply because the BBC was afraid of possible Trinbunals. There was a culture amongst all the top people to collude in this over-the-top pay-off.

The BBC Trust should be dismantled immediately and their responsibility handed over to those who have the license-payers interests at heart.

It must be horrible to have had one's mind so entirely colonised by tabloid bilge. I feel claustrophobic just reading your posts.

Oops, I thought this was a Hell thread because you keep posting angry, incoherent ranting. Sorry to be personal.

[ 11. September 2013, 18:42: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Thanks for the apology, Plique-à-jour. It too is overly personal though.

Gwai,
Purgatory Host

[ 11. September 2013, 19:02: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Instead of shouting "incoherent" please indicate where the incoherence lies.

Its not the tabloid press which makes my mind up. It is watching the actual TV of the interview with the Parliamentary committee.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Instead of shouting "incoherent" please indicate where the incoherence lies.

Its not the tabloid press which makes my mind up. It is watching the actual TV of the interview with the Parliamentary committee.

I'm not shouting.

The incoherence lies in calling BBC employees 'plutocrats', in viewing your deciding to watch proceedings which are none of your business as being expected to 'put up with' them, in implying that self-interest is immoral when it's natural and in this case has not harmed anyone, in dismissing the difference between changing jobs, being made redundant and getting the sack because it would get in the way of a good moan, in the concept of calling others 'overpaid' when one's pay is determined by one's value to one's employer, and you weren't employing any of them, in the capitalisation of 'Trinbunals' (sic), in your confusion of consensus with collusion, in the idea that there is a body of people who have licence-fee payers' 'interests at heart' who'll think that paying uncompetitively low money would be preferable to making the BBC workable in the real world, and in your belief or hope that you or I or anyone can touch pitch without being defiled: your paragraphs are tabloid press paragraphs, your vocabulary is their vocabulary of outrage run down by incomprehension of the world, and you're angry about the things they want you to be angry about. Wake up!

[ 11. September 2013, 20:44: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Good heavens.

And you accused me of incoherence!

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Good heavens.

And you accused me of incoherence!

That would work if I wasn't coherent, but I am, so you'll have to try coining something other than childish reversal. Can you still think up sentences? Let's find out. Best of luck.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Plique-à-jour, shamwari, call each other to hell, or turn down the heat and skip the personal attacks!

Gwai,
Purgatory Host

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

A few sentences as requested.

Mark Byford was paid well over the top to leave the BBC.

Thompson says he told the BBC Trust about this.

The BBC Trust denies this.

Lucy Adams ( the HR Director) says one thing then changes her mind and contradicts herself a couple of months later.

When caught out on another error she claims the letter was incorrectly dated!!

Michael Lyons, before the Parlianentary Committee, contradicted both Thompson and Patten.

I heard it with my own ears. And, as a tax payer I have every right to listen in on this.

As the Chair of the Committee ( Margaret Hodge, Labour) expostulated at one stage " we are not having any more of these lies".

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

The licence fee isn't a tax.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
paid well over the top

There's no such concept.

Maybe the people who are trying to destroy the BBC are right. I mean, you've read thousands of sentences on here, no doubt, but your style hasn't been influenced by them. Maybe anyone trying to inform, educate and entertain in Britain now is wasting their life, and the people trapped on this island are only good to be bled through the nose for satellite subscriptions. I hope not.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Shamwari, how seriously should one respect Parliamentary Committees as having a peculiarly authoritative status?

Having had to prepare some material for a witness to one dealing with a very uncontroversial topic some years ago, I was struck that the way they work means they are unlikely ever even to be capable of achieving any penetrating analysis of anything, yet alone want to, rather than provide an opportunity for politicians to grandstand what they already wanted to say.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
The licence fee isn't a tax.

Yes it is...

As a monetary levy imposed by the state on citizens, with non-payment punishable by law, I think it fits the basic requirements of being called a tax...

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Shamwari, how seriously should one respect Parliamentary Committees as having a peculiarly authoritative status?

Having had to prepare some material for a witness to one dealing with a very uncontroversial topic some years ago, I was struck that the way they work means they are unlikely ever even to be capable of achieving any penetrating analysis of anything, yet alone want to, rather than provide an opportunity for politicians to grandstand what they already wanted to say.

To be fair most of them are useless lacking the coherence between members to push a particular line of enquiry sufficiently to get real answers.

However I don't think that shamwari is appealing to the committees (or Margaret Hodges - since her chequered ability in the past makes that a problem) authority but merely pointing out that it was the situation in which all the lies of the BBC peeps were being laid bare by themselves...

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
The licence fee isn't a tax.
Yes it is...

As a monetary levy imposed by the state on citizens, with non-payment punishable by law, I think it fits the basic requirements of being called a tax...

No, it isn't. It's imposed on television and radio owners.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Road Tax is imposed on vehicle owners but not on those who dont own a car. Its selective.

But still a tax

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Road Tax is imposed on vehicle owners but not on those who dont own a car. Its selective.

But still a tax

No it isn't. It was abolished in the 1930s.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

So why does my renewal form tell me its time to get a tax disc?

And the website for renewal is ..... gov.uk/taxdisc

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Road Tax is imposed on vehicle owners but not on those who dont own a car. Its selective.

But still a tax
No it isn't. It was abolished in the 1930s.

Ok, Vehicle Excise Duty. But VED is colloquially referred to as 'road tax', as I'm sure you know.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
The licence fee isn't a tax.
Yes it is...

As a monetary levy imposed by the state on citizens, with non-payment punishable by law, I think it fits the basic requirements of being called a tax...
No, it isn't. It's imposed on television and radio owners.

I don't know about any UK cases, but the leading cases in Australian law on what is a tax distinguish it from a fee for service. Given that you get a specific thing for your television licence fee - access to television broadcasts - I wouldn't readily jump to the conclusion that it's a tax. Taxes don't usually get you something specific for your money.

EDIT: Oh, and the vehicle one... an excise IS a standard type of tax.

[ 12. September 2013, 13:39: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Road Tax is imposed on vehicle owners but not on those who dont own a car. Its selective.

But still a tax
No it isn't. It was abolished in the 1930s.
Ok, Vehicle Excise Duty. But VED is colloquially referred to as 'road tax', as I'm sure you know.

I do. And I know why Churchill abolished the old tax - he was afraid that motorists would believe that it gave them special rights to the road. He was right, and they still do, which is why I don't like the term.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
So why does my renewal form tell me its time to get a tax disc?

And the website for renewal is ..... gov.uk/taxdisc

Because you get a disk that tells you you've paid a tax. But that tax is VED, not "road tax", which doesn't exist, and hasn't since the 1930s.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
So why does my renewal form tell me its time to get a tax disc?

And the website for renewal is ..... gov.uk/taxdisc
Because you get a disk that tells you you've paid a tax. But that tax is VED, not "road tax", which doesn't exist, and hasn't since the 1930s.

Quite an interesting history. Wikipedia suggests that the tax wasn't abolished but simply ceased to be hypothecated.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0