Children In Need.

[Malcolm Robinson]

I won't be giving the BBC's Children in Need anything this year because they have just given a very wealthy peer £185,000 for supposed infringements of his 'good name'. Plus the DG payoff scandal of course where the guy fell on his sword but walked away with twice what his contract actually stated. Nearly half a million for 50 days work not bad if you can get it.

So as well as the self-flagellation the BBC has been undertaking recently they are now doling out money to people they haven't actually named in any defamatory way. Others did but the BBC didn't! Watch ITV cough up too.

They should just give the NSPCC the money and tell the complainants legal team to sue and be dammed.

So one rich Lord (Est. net worth £10M) gets £185K and six victims of sex abuse at the Bryn Alyn children's homes in North Wales have been told they will receive little of the compensation awarded to them. Why, because the company that owned the homes went bust and the Appeal Court has ruled that Bryn Alyn's insurance firm is not liable to meet the compensation awards in full. Talk about getting priorities right!

So sorry Pudsey until the rest of your parent organisation starts to behave in a responsible manner, especially since I am taxed to pay for it anyway, you won't be getting any extra from me; instead NSPCC gets my paltry donation!

[threegee]

It was £185,000 plus his legal bills - so in fact a lot more.

Knowing just a little bit about Lord McA I'd say that he's likely worth a lot more than that. In any event he'll likely give the Beeb cash to charity himself. If the BBC hadn't settled they'd have been in for a lot more; there was more to it than simply not naming him on air. So, it was a pragmatic decision - having been sucked into the mess in the first place.

The DG matter is entirely different, and yes, I have to agree with you. Far too many senior executives are insulated from the consequences of their own actions, unlike us mere mortals. In this case GE was already an insider prior to the appointment, so there's very little excuse that he didn't know the lie of the land. Few people resign of their own accord for "honourable reasons" these days, they are invariably pushed. If he wasn't to blame he should have pushed back, and if he was then Patton should never have agreed to the pay-off! As things stand everyone is left wondering, and this hasn't done the Beeb any good either.

[Malcolm Robinson]

I won't be giving the BBC's Children in Need anything this year because they have just given a very wealthy peer £185,000 for supposed infringements of his 'good name'. Plus the DG payoff scandal of course where the guy fell on his sword but walked away with twice what his contract actually stated. Nearly half a million for 50 days work not bad if you can get it.

So as well as the self-flagellation the BBC has been undertaking recently they are now doling out money to people they haven't actually named in any defamatory way. Others did but the BBC didn't! Watch ITV cough up too.

They should just give the NSPCC the money and tell the complainants legal team to sue and be dammed.

So one rich Lord (Est. net worth £10M) gets £185K and six victims of sex abuse at the Bryn Alyn children's homes in North Wales have been told they will receive little of the compensation awarded to them. Why, because the company that owned the homes went bust and the Appeal Court has ruled that Bryn Alyn's insurance firm is not liable to meet the compensation awards in full. Talk about getting priorities right!

So sorry Pudsey until the rest of your parent organisation starts to behave in a responsible manner, especially since I am taxed to pay for it anyway, you won't be getting any extra from me; instead NSPCC gets my paltry donation!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/22/itv-pay-lord-mcalpine-125000-damages