Bbc Presenter Is Awarded Undisclosed Payout.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2267512/Suzanne-Virdee-BBC-presenter-claiming-bullied-poisonous-atmosphere-awarded-payout.html

Haven't the BBC licence payer a right to know, the amount of such payouts?

[Bazile]

em10

I agree

[anotheoldgit]

Zeuhl

/// Would confidential details be revealed to the shareholders of any Public company? ///

I think that shareholders would have every right to know of the payouts that the company made.

And since the BBC is run on licence payer's money, they are the 'shareholders'.

[emmie]

that doesn't matter, it's still a fee and you still have to pay, for the same criteria i mentioned. If they generate lots of money from other ventures why do they need people to pay a licence fee.

[ummmm]

/it's still a fee and you still have to pay/

No you don't have to pay.

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

/// I would not be too impressed if I received a payout from my employer - BT - and the information was accessible to anyone who wanted it simply because they choose to rent a telephone line. ///

A person who rents a telephone line from a telephone company is a customer, and of course does not hold the right to certain company details.

But a licence payer is not a customer of the BBC, but one of many who are in fact 'shareholders' since it is their yearly investment that actually runs the BBC.

So they have every right to know how and where their money is spent.

By the way Andy not seen you around much lately, been busy with other things?

[andy-hughes]

No AOG, as you are aware because of your inverted commas, being a licence holder does not make you a 'shareholder' - so no, we are not entitled to know the amount - it is between employee and employer.

[andy-hughes]

Hi AOG - I think we are going to have to agree to differ on this one.

I was away after Christmas for two weeks - maybe that accounts for my temporary absence? Nice to be missed!

[Zeuhl]

/I think that shareholders would have every right to know of the payouts that the company made. /

shareholders of public listed companies are not legally entitled aog

that is the whole point!

[NOX]

I don't think this should be disclosed but the BBC like to keep everything as close to their chests as possible like it's all gone awfully quiet over Russel Joslin's suicide even after Liz Kershaw was named as woman who was being the malicious phone calls to him. He'd complained long and loud about her and management declined to listen, seems Suzanne Virdee had the same problem.

[emmie]

ummm yes you do, are you suggesting that if i don't pay they won't come banging on the door. If you want to watch the TV you have to have a licence. Only if you are over a certain age i think its 75, which i am not.

[NOX]

I think the point everyone is making Em is you don't HAVE to have a TV- therefore if you choose to, you pay but it's not compulsary because you don't HAVE to own a television.

[emmie]

but i have said if you want to watch the tv, which i sometimes do, then i have to have a licence, however that is only the BBC, no one else asks you for the same, time it was scrapped. If i wanted sky i would have to pay for it, it's the reason i don't have it.

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

/// a TV licence is a voluntary payment, ///

And so are shares in a company, no one forces one to take them up.

[Zeuhl]

aog

stop being obtuse

as I am a British Gas shareholder, do you imagine i can ask them for the details of a payout they have made to a named individual who has won an unfair dismissal case against them or settled out of court?

Come on ....

[NOX]

Well if you voluntarily want to watch TV sometimes Em, then you have to pay the licence fee, not really sure why some of us who are happy paying for some pretty good quality programmes would agree to ditch what works pretty well and is pretty cheap and switch to something like SKY which is comparatively expensive- or do you never watch the BBC?

[Bazile]

///it's still a fee and you still have to pay//

No - you don't have to pay - no one is holding a gun to your head

However the BBC is a slightly different kettle of fish compared to other companies .

Television is the major medium of information and entertainment in our society - you are forced to pay a fee to the BBC to receive any other companies output - you have no choice .

Therefore ' you have to pay '

[Bazile]

To clarify - my post was in response to ummmm , stating to em10 that
// no you dont have to pay //

[joko]

the payout wont affect the licence fee.

they do not have some big communal pot of money that they will take it out of, at the expense of tv shows being made.


i have worked at the BBC on a fair few occasions and there is indeed some bullying going on.
you see it in small ways and larger ways, but who knows what goes on that you dont see - i am freelance so often not there with the same people long enough for things to turn really stale, though some people are just nasty from the start.

theres a lot of arrogance and lot of egos that are easily dented ... its a competitive, results driven, cut-throat industry, and many people are incompetent or simply make mistakes and will do all they can to deflect the blame onto others, and so sadly, the worst of people can end up being in charge, and it can be horrible at times.

[Zeuhl]

//it's still a fee and you still have to pay//

You can choose not to

You can't choose not to pay for the Parks and Gardens you may never use
Or the Museums and Art Galleries you may never visit
Or the Building and National Monuments you may never enter or see

But none of that is relevant here

No matter how much transparency the BBC or any publicly owned enterprise might offer its stakeholders - some matters involving individual employees must remain private and confidential

[emmie]

i can understand why it was instigated early on, the BBC was the only broadcaster, that is not the case now, there's plenty of choice, even if it sometimes seems there is little to watch.
As this post was about whether the woman should disclose the amount she received well it's not going to happen, so a moot point.