No. 4 Nick Griffin

This person is always going to be top of the list, in a stupid list.

Hmm I am sure you can find a good reviewer.

Which festival is it?

Anything placed on this forum is pre checked to ensure the safety of users.

Well sadly Tiger he is not the only one.  As these tweets tonight from PAC member Steve Barclay show, Mark Teflon Thompson is showing his true colours and stalling on appearing before the Public Accounts Committee.  I'm quite taken aback by this rightly or wrongly and by Steves seeming compliance so will not say anything further right now.

Well that is hardly surprising, Mark Thompson is a dishonourable man and a coward and dishonest. Any person worthy of respect would seek an early opportunity to defend himself, but he is happy to let everyone else pay for his vanity. Disgusting, but it will allow hopefully a proper scrutiny of him now. So FOI requests etc, that would be about his whole 7 years will now be easier and I really hope that those that worked for him and know what he is, will now spill the beans? Has he had those town Hall meetings for the NYT yet? I guess not.

Oh yes I could see straight through him, and not in a good way.

Richard Ayre would now be welcoming serious issues and indeed welcomes them, according to his statement on Feedback.

Therefore please everyone reading this make use of the Trust improved contact details.

I will be asking them directly why they are unable to protect licence fee payers!

With a bit of detail, maybe !They authorised DMI in 2010 and presumably had to give a yearly authorisation for that. We are of course talking about hundreds of millions of pounds.

AND yet they have authorised cuts to BBC local radio services. Which represents licence fee payers at the very grass roots.

They need to justify both.


So just have a look at the BBC Trust site, if you want to make a comment about that sort of thing. easy?, no not really. Perhaps best to contact Richard himself, that is exactly what he is paid for. As the great Roger Bolton said today"our prime job is to defend our teams"


richard.ayre@bbc.co.uk

It really is quite a shocking statement from the BBC Trust.

All of the questions that they have asked Price Waterhouse to look at must be directed at the Trust itself. I note they keep using the words "fit for purpose" those are the words correctly being used about the Trust itself at the moment.

They can honestly and simply answer some of those questions themselves. In 2010 they approved DMI with this astonishing statement.

"When approving the revised business case in June 2010 the BBC Trust gave weight 16 to the strategic benefits of moving the BBC more fully into digital technology and the non-financial benefits expected from the Programme, such as improved creativity and increased partnership working with other organisations and potential public access to the BBC archives. "

Please note the use of the words "non financial benefits"

We as the public deserve to know who in the Trust made such an astonishing statement. The Trust are comprised of experts. Their job is now to be as honest and transparant as possible and all it will take is a few open questions to the executive as to why the promised high level of referal between the Trust and BBC management did not work. We just need to know who was in charge of looking at this since 2010 on the Trust, if they were not being updated they had an absolute duty to insist.If they did not it is either incompetance or corruption.


There is no need for the public to pay any more money for a highly expensive so called review by Price Waterhouse. The National Audit Office must be given immediate power to investigate, we as tax payers already pay for them and the report must be delivered not to the Trust , who are under scrutiny, or to the BBC executive but the report must be delivered to the PAC and Margaret Hodge and to OFCOM and I think to an independant public representative. Then it might be appropriate for it to be referred to the CPS.

There are many articles about this at the moment. This is one(thanks Darcyx)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/12/bbc_dmi_digital_media_initiative/

Stand with Edward Snowden. There are many places to stand, but this is I think quite important, few people are as brave as this man and he has only done it for us, not for himself.

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/stop_prism_global_do/?tyrPIcb

 Re: Mismanagement by BBC bosses lose £100m . DMI(or Don't Mention It!)
« Reply #32 on: June 11, 2013, 03:54:55 PM »PublishQuoteModifyRemoveThis from The Times today(11/6)

Mark Thompson said he had answered questions from the PAC "honestly and in good faith"
Times
Mark Thompson said he had answered questions from the PAC "honestly and in good faith" Times photographer Richard Pohle Ben Webster, Russell Jenkins Published at 12:01AM, June 11 2013
Mark Thompson accused of misleading parliament about the success of a technology project which closed last month after wasting £100 million

A former BBC director-general will be summoned by MPs for questioning over concerns that he misled parliament about the success of a technology project which closed last month after wasting £100 million.

Mark Thompson, now chief executive of The New York Times, told the Commons Public Accounts Committee in February 2011 that the Digital Media Initiative was “already working”. He said it was “on track to fully deliver” that year for BBC North and claimed that feedback from users of the system, intended to do away with videotape, was “very positive”.

Last month, Lord Hall of Birkenhead scrapped the project, saying it had “wasted a huge amount of licence-fee-payers’ money” and admitting that it had been badly managed by the corporation. He suspended John Linwood, the BBC’s technology officer, pending an independent review.

Anthony Fry, a BBC Trustee, who appeared before the committee yesterday at a hearing at the BBC’s base at MediaCity, Salford, Greater Manchester, was pressed repeatedly on why Mr Thompson had given such a rosy account.

He said that on the back of the successful delivery of the iPlayer, there was feeling at the BBC that it “could actually walk on water”.

He added: “I would accept that one of the problems was there was not enough technological expertise around either the trustee table or executive board table to go ahead on something of this scale and complexity.”

Mr Thompson, who will be called to give evidence next month, said in a statement: “When I appeared in front of the PAC, I answered all of the questions from committee members honestly and in good faith. I did so on the basis of information provided to me at the time by the BBC executives responsible for delivering the project.”

Well, so Mark Thompson is no longer remembering to blame his memory. This time it is everyone else!

Excuse me for wondering but if you are paid hundreds and thousands of pounds to be responsible, at what point do you become unresponsible?

Surely as DG of such a vital project you would/should be looking at the actual project in some detail.

If that was not the case it appears Mark Thompson can take no credit whatsoever for the iPlayer etc. NYT must be a bit more worried now.

Margaret Hodge speaking on the Media Show today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00dv9hq

confirmed that Mark Thompson would be compelled to give evidence to the Public Accounts Committe, should he not voluntarily do so.

This from The Times today(11/6)

Mark Thompson said he had answered questions from the PAC "honestly and in good faith"
Times
Mark Thompson said he had answered questions from the PAC "honestly and in good faith" Times photographer Richard Pohle Ben Webster, Russell Jenkins Published at 12:01AM, June 11 2013
Mark Thompson accused of misleading parliament about the success of a technology project which closed last month after wasting £100 million

A former BBC director-general will be summoned by MPs for questioning over concerns that he misled parliament about the success of a technology project which closed last month after wasting £100 million.

Mark Thompson, now chief executive of The New York Times, told the Commons Public Accounts Committee in February 2011 that the Digital Media Initiative was “already working”. He said it was “on track to fully deliver” that year for BBC North and claimed that feedback from users of the system, intended to do away with videotape, was “very positive”.

Last month, Lord Hall of Birkenhead scrapped the project, saying it had “wasted a huge amount of licence-fee-payers’ money” and admitting that it had been badly managed by the corporation. He suspended John Linwood, the BBC’s technology officer, pending an independent review.

Anthony Fry, a BBC Trustee, who appeared before the committee yesterday at a hearing at the BBC’s base at MediaCity, Salford, Greater Manchester, was pressed repeatedly on why Mr Thompson had given such a rosy account.

He said that on the back of the successful delivery of the iPlayer, there was feeling at the BBC that it “could actually walk on water”.

He added: “I would accept that one of the problems was there was not enough technological expertise around either the trustee table or executive board table to go ahead on something of this scale and complexity.”

Mr Thompson, who will be called to give evidence next month, said in a statement: “When I appeared in front of the PAC, I answered all of the questions from committee members honestly and in good faith. I did so on the basis of information provided to me at the time by the BBC executives responsible for delivering the project.”