Post by Teddy Bear on Apr 1, 2010 23:30:46 GMT
I think what's worse than the BBC lack of quality; high salaries paid out of public funds for talentless 'talent' and low level executives; the insidious self-serving bias that they pretend is 'fair and balanced'; is that the British public continue to pay for this crappy bloated propaganda generating corrupt behemoth and gravy machine for those inside it to go on.
A BBC executive with the title 'Rewards Director' is given £200,000 a year - just think about that. Over 1400 British citizens have to pay his salary or risk going to prison if they object. His job? To award bonuses to senior managers. Now if those senior managers were really entitled to those bonuses, why couldn't it just be part of an overall scheme that was open and forthright, and it wouldn't be necessary to pay anybody extra to administrate it. For the simple reason that it's not open and forthright, and the BBC need somebody to conceal these undeserved bonuses.
The Times have uncovered e-mails showing that this Rewards Director purposefully tried to hide the salaries of those BBC executives being paid over £100,000. Obviously a guilty conscience about everything otherwise why try to hide it?
So when caught what does he say?
Is somebody who can only realise IN HINDSIGHT that purposefully trying to conceal who was getting paid what and why WILL OBVIOUSLY affect the public perception of openness and transparency really worthy of £200,000 a year? Obviously for the BBC he is.
The 'Great British Public' will go on paying for scum like these. Better that than doing anything about it.
A BBC executive with the title 'Rewards Director' is given £200,000 a year - just think about that. Over 1400 British citizens have to pay his salary or risk going to prison if they object. His job? To award bonuses to senior managers. Now if those senior managers were really entitled to those bonuses, why couldn't it just be part of an overall scheme that was open and forthright, and it wouldn't be necessary to pay anybody extra to administrate it. For the simple reason that it's not open and forthright, and the BBC need somebody to conceal these undeserved bonuses.
The Times have uncovered e-mails showing that this Rewards Director purposefully tried to hide the salaries of those BBC executives being paid over £100,000. Obviously a guilty conscience about everything otherwise why try to hide it?
So when caught what does he say?
Mr Johnston, who has previously worked in human resources for Accenture, the consulting company, apologised last night. In a statement released by the BBC, he said: “With hindsight I realise this suggestion was wrong and I apologise if it called into question the BBC’s commitment to openness and transparency.”
Is somebody who can only realise IN HINDSIGHT that purposefully trying to conceal who was getting paid what and why WILL OBVIOUSLY affect the public perception of openness and transparency really worthy of £200,000 a year? Obviously for the BBC he is.
The 'Great British Public' will go on paying for scum like these. Better that than doing anything about it.
BBC ‘reward director’ tried to hide the salaries of high-earning managers
BBC Television Centre
Executives discussed moving salary bands to mask earnings over £100,000
Patrick Foster, Media Correspondent
A BBC executive who is paid almost £200,000 a year to award bonuses to senior managers tried to manipulate salary information to hide the number of staff earning more than £100,000.
Robert Johnston, who is “reward director”, asked staff responsible for releasing the data to the public to “deliberately disguise” the number of managers on six-figure salaries, according to e-mails seen by The Times.
The BBC’s Direction Group (BDG), the board of directors responsible for the day-to-day running of the corporation, had said that staff should be sorted into groups including a £70,000 and £99,999 band, and a band of those paid between £100,000 and £129,999.
Mr Johnston, who is paid £196,550, and Phil Austin, the “reward manager”, reformatted the information to group staff paid between £80,000 and £110,000 together.
Mr Austin wrote: “We purposely changed the bands in attempt [sic] to make it less obvious how many of the employees were above £100k, there are quite a few that fall between £100k and £110k but if they sit in an £80k to £110k band it’s not so clear how many of them there are!”
When staff queried the decision, Mr Johnston said: “We are sticking to the salary bands as per Phil’s note aren’t we — that’s what we told BDG and we are doing it to deliberately disguise the number in the over £100k band?”
The BBC has been criticised for its unwillingness to release information about executive salaries and contracts for presenters and performers. Last year it agreed to disclose the pay of 107 executives who it said had most responsibility for spending the £3.6 billion licence fee.
The corporation admitted it had 382 staff on salaries of more than £100,000, but refused to name most, claiming that they did not have enough responsibility. About 25 staff thought to be on more than £150,000 are anonymous, despite a call from Gordon Brown for public bodies to reveal those paid more than £150,000.
John Whittingdale, the chairman of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, said that Mr Johnston’s actions were “absolutely outrageous”. He added: “The select committee and indeed many others have repeatedly called for the BBC to be more transparent and give more information about the number of people earning high salaries and what the salaries are.
“The idea that people at the BBC deliberately tried to conceal that by changing the bands is absolutely outrageous. We were sceptical about the bands in the first place. They are a first step and nothing more. It’s no good the BBC trying to twist and turn about this. This is public money and they should be totally transparent.”
Mr Johnston, who has previously worked in human resources for Accenture, the consulting company, apologised last night. In a statement released by the BBC, he said: “With hindsight I realise this suggestion was wrong and I apologise if it called into question the BBC’s commitment to openness and transparency.”
According to the BBC website, Mr Johnston is “responsible for the policy and direction of all matters relating to compensation and benefits for all BBC employees. He provides information, advice and guidance that covers pay, bonuses, benefits and pensions.”
A BBC spokesman said: “This proposal was discussed at BDG but was immediately dismissed. The BBC will continue to publish salaries in the already established bands as ruled upon by the Information Commissioner’s Office.”
BBC Television Centre
Executives discussed moving salary bands to mask earnings over £100,000
Patrick Foster, Media Correspondent
A BBC executive who is paid almost £200,000 a year to award bonuses to senior managers tried to manipulate salary information to hide the number of staff earning more than £100,000.
Robert Johnston, who is “reward director”, asked staff responsible for releasing the data to the public to “deliberately disguise” the number of managers on six-figure salaries, according to e-mails seen by The Times.
The BBC’s Direction Group (BDG), the board of directors responsible for the day-to-day running of the corporation, had said that staff should be sorted into groups including a £70,000 and £99,999 band, and a band of those paid between £100,000 and £129,999.
Mr Johnston, who is paid £196,550, and Phil Austin, the “reward manager”, reformatted the information to group staff paid between £80,000 and £110,000 together.
Mr Austin wrote: “We purposely changed the bands in attempt [sic] to make it less obvious how many of the employees were above £100k, there are quite a few that fall between £100k and £110k but if they sit in an £80k to £110k band it’s not so clear how many of them there are!”
When staff queried the decision, Mr Johnston said: “We are sticking to the salary bands as per Phil’s note aren’t we — that’s what we told BDG and we are doing it to deliberately disguise the number in the over £100k band?”
The BBC has been criticised for its unwillingness to release information about executive salaries and contracts for presenters and performers. Last year it agreed to disclose the pay of 107 executives who it said had most responsibility for spending the £3.6 billion licence fee.
The corporation admitted it had 382 staff on salaries of more than £100,000, but refused to name most, claiming that they did not have enough responsibility. About 25 staff thought to be on more than £150,000 are anonymous, despite a call from Gordon Brown for public bodies to reveal those paid more than £150,000.
John Whittingdale, the chairman of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, said that Mr Johnston’s actions were “absolutely outrageous”. He added: “The select committee and indeed many others have repeatedly called for the BBC to be more transparent and give more information about the number of people earning high salaries and what the salaries are.
“The idea that people at the BBC deliberately tried to conceal that by changing the bands is absolutely outrageous. We were sceptical about the bands in the first place. They are a first step and nothing more. It’s no good the BBC trying to twist and turn about this. This is public money and they should be totally transparent.”
Mr Johnston, who has previously worked in human resources for Accenture, the consulting company, apologised last night. In a statement released by the BBC, he said: “With hindsight I realise this suggestion was wrong and I apologise if it called into question the BBC’s commitment to openness and transparency.”
According to the BBC website, Mr Johnston is “responsible for the policy and direction of all matters relating to compensation and benefits for all BBC employees. He provides information, advice and guidance that covers pay, bonuses, benefits and pensions.”
A BBC spokesman said: “This proposal was discussed at BDG but was immediately dismissed. The BBC will continue to publish salaries in the already established bands as ruled upon by the Information Commissioner’s Office.”