Has George Entwistle revived the noble practice of accepting responsibility ?

Mr Entwistle seems to have been caught in the perfect storm; not helped by the prior twitter messages hyping the matter. Although the 'death knell' was confirmed by a John Humphries interview when asked:

JH: '.. The Guardian yesterday carried a front page story ... serious doubt on BBC's Newsnight programme .. You didn't know that that actually happened? ..'

GE: '.. no I am afraid I didn't ..'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/10/john-humphrys-george-entwistle

On the other hand was he the most suitable candidate in the first place to be put in charge of the BBC after being in charge of the Queens Jubilee broadcasting '.. described by viewers as "mind-numbingly tedious" .. '

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9375329/Jubilee-contro...

Not forgetting '.. Mr Entwistle was a latecomer to the corporation, arriving as a broadcasting trainee in 1989 – at the third attempt ..'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/john-humphrys-vs-george...

Essentially he was not the right calibre in the first place; not his fault, but that is down to others for selecting him

This brings us onto Mr Patten; and NO it is not a 'witch hunt' and purely about competence and judgement

'..  Patten wondered whether he should resign too — he had chosen Entwistle as the director-general in the summer ..

.. Patten had wanted Entwistle in part because he saw him as the right man for the job, but also because he got on well with him. But Patten decided not to resign after consulting trust colleagues ..'

'.. he got on well with him ..' - brilliant, great criteria for the job!

Perhaps Mr Patten should follow his DG and resign after all the sponsor should also carry the can

"Has George Entwistle revived the noble practice of accepting responsibility " - NO. He's continued the practice of grabbing a big fat pay-off and pension and hiding.

... is the easy option.

Surely it is better to stay put and deal with the problem rather than passing the buck to next poor sod. The problems seem to be endmic in the BBC culture, and until someone stays put to clean it up nothing will change.

I hardly think a few days in the saddle makes you responsible for the whole sorry lot that is the BBC.

More interested in hearing the head of ITV had resigned over the Philip Schofield amateur journalism debacle.

sword....£450k compensation for 56 days of farce.....where is the queue I want to join  it.  Mind you it will probably be behind a few dozen BBC execs who wish to 'fall on their sword'....collect a nice big cheque and hope to avoid further investigation (hmmm....i thought that was only for the police force...)

It seems yet again at the top of the tree abject failure is rewarded with cash beyond most peoples dreams....a truly noble way to set an example for the feckless millions.

... resignation meant you walked away with nothing?

What about the three months probation!!

apparently the BBC have said that part of the reason was to compensate the ex DG for ongoing work (complying with the multiple investigations...?!?!?!?) and the prospect that he wont be able to get another job in a similar role.....the mind truly boggles.......!

Just seen this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9672261/George-Entwistle-not-legally-entitled-to-450000-pay-off-from-BBC.html

quite the 'honourable'  falling on the sword, but rather 'i am happy to take one for the team as long as the money is right......' shameful.....much like his performance in front of the committee...not really a reflection of his apparent 'talent'.....

What are the BBC employment terms surrounding 'instant dismissal' - i.e. bringing employer into disrepute etc.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/foi/classes/policies_procedures/contracts_of_...

Question is can one have gross misconduct by failing to do things rather than by positive actions? Believed that any 'Gross misconduct' resulting in instant dismissal trumped all other contractual arrangements and just got the employee out of the door before they could do any more damage

'.. Under the terms of his contract he was entitled to only six months' pay, but the trust said that the additional payment had been agreed as a reflection of his continuing involvement with the various BBC inquiries now under way ..'

Finally, what is Mr Entwistles pension situation - once sincerely hopes that his £450k payoff is not matched by any pension contributions whatsoever from the BBC

But once again we are back to Mr Patten and the complete lack of reality with mistakes:

• sponsoring Mr Entwistle in the first place
• failing to resign in line with Mr Entwistle
• failing to curb the payoff for Mr Entwistle

How many more errors do we have to put up with from Mr Patten before he goes?

Like its detector vans the BBC seems to belong in a cold war era of state monopoly and control. It is funded by probably the most regressive and ruthlessly collected tax which is used to fund the broadcasting of socialist propaganda and exhorbitant pay to an establishment elite.

Shares in the beeb anyone?

I totally agree. Over the last few years the quality of programming has decreased substantially (more repeats, more third-rate "talent" contests - Strictly, The Choir,etc., and endless sell-your-home/trinkets programmes)

There appears to be very little worth watching. In fact, the best parts of the BBC thesedays appear to be on CBeebies (good for my 3 year old, not so good for me!).

The consumer is not getting value for money. Meanwhile, we see poor management and no-talent celebrities being rewarded very generously for their shortcomings. It's not how I would wish to see the licence fee being utilised, and in current times more and more people are saying the same thing: "I'm forced into paying for this and it's not good enough".

And let's face it - we get plenty of adverts on the BBC anyway; It would just mean that they would have to advertise something else other than purely themselves instead. Given this day and age of recordable TV that we live in that shouldn't cause too many people issues.

Let somebody else pay for their extravagence. Flying Scotsman is right - if they relied on advertising fees alone they would soon realise that they need to raise their game in order to attract investment.

Advertising is another BBC truism that is oft repeated in the hope that we will believe it. How many times have we heard that without the licence fee we would have to watch commercials?

The BBC makes programmes and sells merchandise. It doesn't need to advertise soap powder or ready meals just because ITV does this. If it simply made world quality programmes it would not need to pay enormous unjustifiable multi million pound salaries to celebrities.

I'm off to buy an Archers calendar for £10 (ahem a christmas present)

Other BBC truisms include

We are not saving enough for our retirement

We are not building enough houses

Not joining the euro will leave Britain isolated in Europe (haven't heard this recently)

Let's hope the huge talent of BBC staff is soon able to compete freely and fairly in the private sector.

Why is the taxpayer suffering a  double whammy

• Entwistle payoff
• McAlpine compensation

Why not pay McAlpine out of Entwistle's recompense & also anyone else involved at BBC salary?

After all it is not just a simple 'c**** up' but brought about by an acknowleded failure of 'duty of care' in executing their job

... if they sacked all the overpaid "celebreties" and used the money to ensure all UK teams sporting fixtures, home and away, are available to view by all.

If you compare the BBC licence fee to the monthly fee for the thousands of channels of tosh spewed out by Sky it is much better value.

could someone be compensated for not being named in a programme within a few weeks, whilst the real victims will probably have to wait months if not years and will probably receive a fraction of the compensation.

... get a few grand for having limbs blown off serving your country, but if someone calls you a name at work you'll get a few million!

A Scot should know how to spell McAlpine!

I've had my head chewed off for less than that before now :o)

didn't see any mention of a sword, although he should be able to afford one.  And the instigators of 28 gate still seem well entrenched.  Nothing honourable in this shambles.