one thing I've noticed about the 24-hour news channels. Even
though they are supposedly competing, they do seem
very similar, as to their content, and the fact that they
can milk 5 inconsequential stories all day long.
They have a shared monopoly on the news, and
they tell you what you "need to know"i.e. nothing.
They are tools of the government, as regards big national
and international policy.
That's why The BBC is now destroying the image of the NHS
as they've been told to do.
They denigrate immigrants and the long-term sick.
They seem to have forgotten the lepers in the Banks.
They are untouchable, not because they're disgusting
but because the government is protecting them.
So, why wouldn't the BBC gag its employees to keep
them from talking? They gag everything else too.
The important principle here is :
how the F$^&k you can legally tell someone
to shut the F$%^&k up! what happened
to free speech?
checkit: Telegraph
BBC spent £28m of licence-fee payers' money gagging 500 staff
The BBC has used licence fee payers' money to buy the silence of more than 500 staff with payouts of up to £500,000 each.
By Steven Swinford and Neil Midgley
10:00PM BST 18 Jun 2013
According to figures released under Freedom of Information, in the past eight years 539 staff have signed gagging orders at a total cost of £28million.
The scale of the pay-outs led to accusations that the BBC was using the agreements to silence potential whistle blowers and victims of bullying or sexual harassment.
They were disclosed to The Daily Telegraph ahead of the publication of what is expected to be a highly critical report by the National Audit Office next month.
Lord Patten, the chairman of the BBC Trust, has already admitted that the findings will prove "difficult" for the corporation.
Stephen Barclay, a Conservative member of the Public Accounts Committee, said: "These payments are at odds with the fundamental values of the BBC and a betrayal of the licence fee payer.
The BBC were right to broadcast the North Korea exposé
17 Apr 2013
BBC 'tying itself in knots' over song mocking Thatcher
12 Apr 2013
"They expect their hard-earned money to be spent on supporting creative talent and world class programmes, not on payments to silence people."
The BBC confirmed that almost all of the settlements, known as compromise agreements, contained confidentiality clauses.
Tony Hall, the new director-general of the BBC, was so concerned by the scale of the payments that he introduced a £150,000 cap on severance payments in one of his first moves in his new role.
The biggest pay-offs were made to BBC managers, with 77 executives receiving more than £100,000 and 14 over £300,000.
They include George Entwistle, the former director-general who received a £450,000 pay-off, double the amount he was contractually entitled to.
He resigned last year in the wake of the Jimmy Savile and Lord McAlpine scandals after spending just 54 days in the job.
Two unnamed individuals were given pay-offs worth £500,100 and £524,681, while Sharon Baylay, the former director of marketing, received £392,000.
The pay-offs were also BBC staff who signed the orders after claiming they were victims of bullying or sexual harassment.
Miriam O’Reilly, the former Countryfile presenter who won a landmark case against the BBC for age discrimination, was offered a five figure settlement by the corporation in exchange for her silence.
She rejected the offer. "These gags are so legally binding that people cannot even speak to their spouse about them," she said. "They are wrong. The BBC as a public service broadcaster is renowned for honesty, truth, and freedom of speech. They should not be stopping people from telling the truth."
The true cost of the agreements is likely to be significantly higher, as the figures do not include the costs of legal advice for the BBC and employees or other benefits such as health cover, counselling and training.
A BBC spokesman defended the use of compromise agreements as “standard practice”. He said: “The BBC always insists that individuals take independent legal advice before entering into them.
