Post by Teddy Bear on Feb 26, 2011 18:35:35 GMT
The BBC are so used to dismissing genuine grievances against them, that in the end the disgruntled complainant, realising they might just as well knock their head against a brick wall, doesn't bother.
Listening to Talkback for a few minutes on Radio 4 this week I caught the major criticism that they aired as not having the accents quite right on one of their dramas. They invited a professional accent expert to give their opinion who proceeded to justify the criticism.
Point is - SO WHAT! The BBC want the public to think that these are the major issues that those who contact the BBC want to have dealt with. What the public doesn't know is how many of the far more serious issues have just been consciously swept aside by this insidious organisation.
In this instance they would have known they dismissed this presenter because they wanted somebody younger. She decided to take it to court where her claim was upheld. This denial by the BBC for something they knew they were wrong cost the licence fee payer over £100,000, which is why this treatment of justified criticism is so commonplace. It doesn't come out of their pocket. Naturally too, their legal advisers won't tell them they don't have a case in advance since they earn loads of money out of it.
And what mealy mouthed garbage do they say after they are found to be in the wrong?
A BBC spokesman said: “The BBC is committed to fair selection in every aspect of our work and we clearly did not get it right in this case".
Like they are committed to be fair - balanced - impartial in their reporting, while consciously pursuing their own agenda that is far from that.
Despicable slime appealing to a brain dead public!
Listening to Talkback for a few minutes on Radio 4 this week I caught the major criticism that they aired as not having the accents quite right on one of their dramas. They invited a professional accent expert to give their opinion who proceeded to justify the criticism.
Point is - SO WHAT! The BBC want the public to think that these are the major issues that those who contact the BBC want to have dealt with. What the public doesn't know is how many of the far more serious issues have just been consciously swept aside by this insidious organisation.
In this instance they would have known they dismissed this presenter because they wanted somebody younger. She decided to take it to court where her claim was upheld. This denial by the BBC for something they knew they were wrong cost the licence fee payer over £100,000, which is why this treatment of justified criticism is so commonplace. It doesn't come out of their pocket. Naturally too, their legal advisers won't tell them they don't have a case in advance since they earn loads of money out of it.
And what mealy mouthed garbage do they say after they are found to be in the wrong?
A BBC spokesman said: “The BBC is committed to fair selection in every aspect of our work and we clearly did not get it right in this case".
Like they are committed to be fair - balanced - impartial in their reporting, while consciously pursuing their own agenda that is far from that.
Despicable slime appealing to a brain dead public!
BBC spent £45,000 defending Miriam O'Reilly's ageism claim - and lost
The BBC spent nearly £45,000 on legal fees defending itself against Miriam O’Reilly’s age discrimination claim - despite ultimately accepting defeat and admitting that we “clearly did not get it right”.
The eventual cost to the BBC of the case is likely to be well over £100,000.
The figure for external legal costs, of £44,740.03 plus VAT, was paid to just one barrister, Jason Galbraith-Marten, who represented the BBC at the 12-day employment tribunal hearing.
The corporation instructed Mr Galbraith-Marten through its own legal department rather than instructing an external firm of solicitors, but will have incurred hundreds of hours of its own lawyers’ time in preparing for the case.
Mr Galbraith-Marten was named a “star individual” for employment law in this year’s authoritative Chambers & Partners directory of the legal profession.
The BBC must also pay compensation to O’Reilly for loss of earnings and hurt feelings.
O’Reilly sued the BBC claiming age discrimination after she was dismissed from the BBC One programme Countryfile when it was moved from Sunday mornings to a peak-time slot in 2008.
An employment tribunal found in her favour last month.
A BBC spokesman said: “As we said at the time, we accept the findings of the Tribunal and have apologised to Miriam. We are discussing with Miriam how we can work with her in the future. The BBC is committed to fair selection in every aspect of our work and we clearly did not get it right in this case.
“The BBC has its own in house legal teams just as it does for Editorial Policy and other departments. This is entirely consistent with the way we work across the business helping to ensure we make the most of our in house expertise as well as keep costs down.”
The BBC spent nearly £45,000 on legal fees defending itself against Miriam O’Reilly’s age discrimination claim - despite ultimately accepting defeat and admitting that we “clearly did not get it right”.
The eventual cost to the BBC of the case is likely to be well over £100,000.
The figure for external legal costs, of £44,740.03 plus VAT, was paid to just one barrister, Jason Galbraith-Marten, who represented the BBC at the 12-day employment tribunal hearing.
The corporation instructed Mr Galbraith-Marten through its own legal department rather than instructing an external firm of solicitors, but will have incurred hundreds of hours of its own lawyers’ time in preparing for the case.
Mr Galbraith-Marten was named a “star individual” for employment law in this year’s authoritative Chambers & Partners directory of the legal profession.
The BBC must also pay compensation to O’Reilly for loss of earnings and hurt feelings.
O’Reilly sued the BBC claiming age discrimination after she was dismissed from the BBC One programme Countryfile when it was moved from Sunday mornings to a peak-time slot in 2008.
An employment tribunal found in her favour last month.
A BBC spokesman said: “As we said at the time, we accept the findings of the Tribunal and have apologised to Miriam. We are discussing with Miriam how we can work with her in the future. The BBC is committed to fair selection in every aspect of our work and we clearly did not get it right in this case.
“The BBC has its own in house legal teams just as it does for Editorial Policy and other departments. This is entirely consistent with the way we work across the business helping to ensure we make the most of our in house expertise as well as keep costs down.”