A day after it faced harsh criticism in a review of its response to the Jimmy Savile/Newsnight crisis, the BBC has taken a lambasting from British lawmakers over a severance payment to former director general George Entwistle. The Public Accounts Committee of Parliament slammed the pubcaster for a “cavalier use of public money” when it agreed to pay Entwistle £450,000 ($714,000) upon his November resignation, twice the provisions in his contract. Entwistle resigned amid furor sparked by the BBC’s handling of the Savile sex scandal and questionable editorial decisions made at flagship current affairs program Newsnight. “Public servants should not be rewarded for failure. But that was exactly what happened when the BBC Trust paid off [Entwistle],” the committee said. In response, BBC Trust chairman Lord Patten again defended the move to swiftly resolve Entwistle’s severance, telling BBC Radio 4 today, “The legal advice we had is: if we fought, we would have fetched up a bigger bill.” He also called the committee’s report “shabby.” The committee said it has asked for an official examination of the BBC’s severance payments and benefits for senior managers which have totaled over £4M to 10 people since 2010.

It must be hard for the powers that be at Britain’s state broadcaster to give a darn about the state of the economy there when they can be so detached from it.
For example, ordinary people are struggling with miserable rates on their savings, but who needs to worry about interest when you have access to flipping great wodges of capital?
A very perspicacious and perceptive summary there, Kevin, to which I would add that the BBC’s essentially leftist, socialist and liberal ethos, after years of recruiting solely through The Guardian newspaper and similar publications, with its determination to foist its unrepresentative agenda on the rest of the country, means spending other people’s money is both its first and second nature. Funded by a tax levied on owners of television and radio sets, whether they watch or listen to the BBC or not, it lives and works in its own reality.
“after years of recruiting solely through The Guardian newspaper and similar publications”
First time I’ve ever heard of The Times and The Daily Telegraph which have carried those ads as well described as similar publications as The Guardian
Let’s not forget MIS vetting applicants to make sure “the right people” were recruited and incidentally the radio licence was discontinued the better part of 50 years ago ,
You clearly never saw the rush for The Guardian’s weekly ‘Media’ section then, which certainly used to carry the vast majority of BBC vacancies. They might be in the Times and Telegraph now, though, but that was not always the case. Had anyone told an interview panel in the past, assuming they got that far since many of the positions had already gone to insiders anyway, they were a Daily Telegraph reader (hence conservative with a big and small c) then that would have been their lot. The fact remains, the BBC’s voice and culture is unashamedly liberal left.
You are correct, the radio licence was abolished in 1971, but to quote from the BBC’s own website: “You need a TV Licence to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on television, irrespective of what channel you’re watching, what device you are using (TV, computer, laptop, mobile phone or any other), and how you receive them (terrestrial, satellite, cable, via the internet or any other way).” In other words, British viewers are forced to pay for the BBC even if they never watch it.
As for, I think you mean, MI5 (that’s counter-intelligence in the UK) vetting applicants and staff, don’t be too quick to apply the past tense. Old habits die very hard.