Rewarding failure with shedloads of money...

There has been much commentary in the media about the shed-loads of cash awarded to the failed and recently retired bank chief executives, as they hang their heads without too much shame in their financial services trough.

Then there's the dismal senior executives in councils up and down the land who, having fouled-up in their Boroughs, leave with huge golden handshakes, only to pop up again in a different Borough, on an equally huge remuneration.

And more recently, chief executive of G4S, Nick Buckles, not as yet resigned, but on a salary of £890k and reckoned to walk away with £20million should he resign.

That these people are handsomely rewarded for sheer incompetence and total failure, there can be no doubt, but there are others outside these high-profile merchants.

Take Frankie Cocozza (and quite frankly, I wish someone would - as far away as possible), one of the rejects form the finals of X-Factor. So well-known, that his name has to be subtitles with "former X-Factor entrant" in every piece of self-publicity he undertakes. He went through to the final twelve,  but later had to quit the show after admitting to taking cocaine. Then, with his new found 'fame', went on to finish as runner-up in the absolutely putrid Celebrity Big Brother 2012.

Now I appreciate the Big Brother franchise is as useful and entertaining as an HR Director, but he then went on to guest on the vapid "Million Pound Drop" (presenter Davina "dreadful trousers" McCall never seems to do as good a version of herself as impressionist Debra Stephenson!).

And the same applies to many of the talentless runners-up of reality TV shows. They suddenly become celebrities, for absolutely no apparent reason, being rewarded handsomely for their failure.

So perhaps the tabloid newspapers need to more fairly apportion the failure blame around. Admittedly, their blank-brained readers prefer the exploits of the talentless entertainers over the talentless denizens of industry and commerce, but why be so one-sided. Yes, the 'entertainers' cause less misery to the burdened taxpayer (the exception being when these witless souls being paid to appear on the publicly-funded BBC).

But come on guys.