Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Should Chris Patten Resign As BBC Chair?

taffboy gwyrdd

Embrace the confusion!
Should Chris Patten Resign As BBC Chair?
- Repeated failure to declare conflict of interest.

- £400k + donations from a private company standing to gain from a huge policy that the BBC under-reported.

- Other woeful failures of same company not reported on (though lesser failure of a similar company was)

The usual corruption we expect from the disgusting psychopathic filth, masquerading as "government" on behalf of kleptocrats who may well now have captured the BBC.

Note facility to Tweet BBC direct to challenge them on some of these failings as seen in 2nd link.

http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/exclusive-bbc-boss-fails-to-declare.html

http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/finally-we-now-know-why-bbc-refuse-to.html
 
Does he have any involvement in l'affaire Savile?

Blimey. That would be unconnected?

Jesus, things could really be on the slide.

With regard to Saville : For decades there have been strong allegations of fairly routine, even systemic, child abuse and cover up in Churches, Media, Police, Politics and other realms of the establishment.

2 of these areas are now exposed, to the seeming "shock" of a fair few.

Others admit they were wrong to have been so damning of such allegations.

The latter 2 realms, probably having more ultimate authority in such matters, should now be subject to severe scrutiny. But for now, I daresay it is for another thread, quite possibly the JS one.
 
Patten only became Chairman of the BBC in 2011, after a life in party politics, so no involvement with JS.

Well his time in Hong Kong would hopefully make it less likely, but are you ruling it flat out entirely on their being in different walks of life?
 
Well his time in Hong Kong would hopefully make it less likely, but are you ruling it flat out entirely on their being in different walks of life?
Wasn't he like the governor of Hong Kong, or something? I seem to recall his name from around the time of the changeover back in 97.
 
He was the final British governor, from 1992 to 1997 - the locals nicknamed him Fatty Pang.

patten.jpg
 
I've mentioned the danger of using Clarke's research before - he gets basic facts wrong and rushes to publish them without fully understanding them then he runs around shouting that he has has found the answer and key to everything.. In this case Patten and the BBC Trust have nothing whatsoever to do with deciding BBC content so Patten cannot be touched. The relevant person is the Director-General of the BBC and the editor-in-Chief. I wish it were different. The BBC has been shit on the NHS for far more banal reasons - shared elite interests and world-view.
 
Another example of his sloppy research leading to daft inflated accusations that will only allow the BBC to avoid proper scrutiny over this. Clarke claims:

In March, in the crucial days before the NHS Bill became law, the Trust Board discussed healthcare. Lord Patten failed to declare his business interests.

They did not. The entirety of this discussion was:

The Director, BBC News Group reported on key stories covered recently in the BBC’s journalism output, including the coalition government’s healthcare proposals; the Russian and American presidential elections; and the ongoing conflict in Syria. In the light of the recent deaths of reporters in Syria, she updated the Trust on the safety measures that were in place for BBC journalists. The Trust discussed the BBC’s coverage of international business, and noted the plans to appoint a new chief business correspondent, based in East Asia.

The single line of non-discussion is it - a brief overview of what the BBC news group did since the last meeting, presented by the DG and with not a word of discussion or debate from Patten or a single Trust member. This sort of stuff can do more harm than damage. I appreciate he does this with the best of intentions but it simply isn't good enough.
 
I've mentioned the danger of using Clarke's research before - he gets basic facts wrong and rushes to publish them without fully understanding them then he runs around shouting that he has has found the answer and key to everything.. In this case Patten and the BBC Trust have nothing whatsoever to do with deciding BBC content so Patten cannot be touched. The relevant person is the Director-General of the BBC and the editor-in-Chief. I wish it were different. The BBC has been shit on the NHS for far more banal reasons - shared elite interests and world-view.

That person until recently was/is Mark Thompson:

"The BBC has always had to go into the market for key broadcasting talent. Our licence fee payers want the very best people on the BBC. Were Jonathan to leave the BBC, you would have headlines about that fact and I think our licence fee payers would be disappointed. We know amongst key talent - and we've had recent examples - that other broadcasters are offering key talent large sums." (2006)


"We have a rather brilliant series running of Radio 4 right now presented by Simon Heffer who is not generally considered a Guardianista... We have some of the most politically Incorrect voices in Britain on the air every week – and I’m glad we do. And Jeremy Clarkson will come round looking for you if you disagree!" (2008)


The Telegraph reported in August 2012 (Mark Thompson in line for up to $10.5m at The New York Times) that in his new job Mark Thompson would receive a large pay deal:


"His joining package and first year’s pay could be worth up to $10.5m (£6.7m), according to a filing with the US Secutities and Exchange Commission. The Oxford-educated 55-year old will receive a basic salary of $1m, roughly comparable with his BBC pay, as well as up to $2m in annual incentives and $3m in long-term incentives due to pay out in 2015."


It is impossible for anyone with such ambition and wealth, not to be predisposed to cutting public spending when faced with a crisis in profitability. He is at the head of output, having said that Patten's case is also a conflict of interest. The Trust is riddled with people who are directors of other firms or organisations.


"Patten Chairman
Dr Diane Coyle OBE, Vice Chairman and a director at EDF.
Richard Ayre, head of the Editorial Review Board at Al-Mirbad, pro-occupation Iraqi radio channel set up in Basra after the fall of Saddam
Anthony Fry, British chairman of Espirito Santo Investment Bank, chairman in CALA Group, chairman in Dairy Crest, a director at Control Risks
Rotha Johnston CBE, owner and chief (with her husband) of Variety, an northern Irish food and agricultural firm.
David Liddiment, director of private production company All3Media
Bill Matthews, owner of M2M2, "M2M2 provide non executive and consulting support to clients in the public and private sector, and management and other support" says the website, non-executive director of the Security Industry Authority, public member (unpaid advisor) of the board of Network Rail and ambassador of the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo (royalist military knees up)
Mehmuda Mian, non-executive director of the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) and associate director at Lokahi Foundation charity.
Suzanna Taverne, director at Nationwide Building Society and Ford Credit Europe, trustee of the Consumer Credit Counselling Service and the Shakespeare Schools Festival and sits on the Advisory Board of Manchester Business School"
 
A director at the conversational Global Security giant, Control Risks and other dubious characters, I really thought the trust would be mostly worthies like say Sir Trevor Nunn, not corporate bosses, good find, BA...

btw, who appoints the Trust's members..
 
I take the point that the main accusation could be well over stretched, detracting from something that needs a serious look.

On the other hand, it's the only thing I've really seen substantiating why there should be a serious look at all. To that end, the 2nd link is more useful.

He has interests in a company that paid £400k to the conservative party. Cameron said that lobbying would be the next big scandal. It hasn't happened.

The hacks are asleep on the job. Again. Now the BBC is more likely to be so.

They were very tame of the the NHS Bill. 2 + 2 often does = 4.
 
But not as a result of this, in fact, with nothing to do with this. This is not the reason for the bbc's lax attitude. There is no smoking gun to find.
 
I've mentioned the danger of using Clarke's research before - he gets basic facts wrong and rushes to publish them without fully understanding them then he runs around shouting that he has has found the answer and key to everything.. In this case Patten and the BBC Trust have nothing whatsoever to do with deciding BBC content so Patten cannot be touched. The relevant person is the Director-General of the BBC and the editor-in-Chief. I wish it were different. The BBC has been shit on the NHS for far more banal reasons - shared elite interests and world-view.
An example:

An apology to Lord Ashcroft by Dr Eoin Clarke

I would like to make 5 sincere and unequivocal apologies and clarifications about earlier pieces I wrote in relation to Lord Ashcroft. My earlier writings used hyperbole in 2 cases, may have caused a false impression to be received in others 2 cases, and was incorrect on the facts in 1 case.
 
Back
Top Bottom