Skip to main content

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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Season for all men

Well, we’re used to hearing about the Camping Season , which for Scouts runs from approximately 31st March to 31st October each year, although Graham Norton’s camping season lasts all year. Then there’s the Caravan Season , where Jeremy Clarkson spends six months with extremely high blood pressure as he tries to overtake them on the A38 in an excruciatingly expensive and completely unnecessary car. The Japanese have their Scientific Season, which was a series of sporadic weeks where they slaughtered endangered whales for scientific research, the results of which seem to be a closely guarded world-secret. This season now looks set, thanks to a group of spineless, land-locked countries threatened by the Land of the Rising Scientific Research with paying more for their Nintendos and PlayStations, to last until the final whale is wiped off the face of the oceans. I have written to the Japanese Embassy four times now seeking details of this research (email address info@l...

"Q". My name is Bond. Oh. not THAT Q.

I was sent a story today by a friend who knows my feelings on the subject - that is, about one of the consummately greatest of all British activities, namely, queuing. It seems some Danish Professor or other has come up with the theory that those who queue the longest should actually be served the last. He claims it makes purchasing something altogether more efficient and smooth through the idea of 'contra-queuing' (whatever the devil that may mean). 'Serve the people at the back of the queue first', he says, with profound wisdom. Altogether very professorial, albeit demonstrating a somewhat keen lack of understanding of the purchasing psyche. The Nobel Prize-chasing Prof suggests that if, for example, a popular entertainment act was to announce a tour, with tickets going on sale at 11am one morning, using the theory of 'contra-queuing', no one will want to be first to buy said tickets. So no one will turn up 14 months in advance and venues will...

"Pre-" . . . . . good grief!!!!!!!!!

I was looking through the Guardian this morning and noticed a position being advertised that I thought I'd take a closer look at. The first sentence, when clicking the link to apply was: "If you are registered, please log in and we will pre-fill this form for you." What is the current fixation with the prefix "pre" . It is everywhere, turning perfectly reasonable statements into total and utter gibberish! I would have thought that for one of our major quality newspapers, instead of "please log in and we will pre-fill this form for you" it would have been much more sensible to have something along the lines of "please log in and your details will be automatically filled in for you". It is the rip-off Britain merchants who have embraced this particular prefix with a vengeance. They have nonsensically slapped it in front of the word " order " so that the moment an overpriced games console, war game for that console, phone,...