To feel incensed by the BBC boss's golden handshake?

He obviously wasn't the right man for the job. Although I don't really think you can blame him for the whole Newsnight affair.

I would have given him half. Someone did give him the job in the first place.

If you are B U, there's a lot out there thinking exactly the same! Is this what we pay our licence fee for? (Don't answer!!)

Bloody SICK of it!

It's disgusting!

No - he can't be blamed for all that happened before he was in post - and indeed many years ago - but he did not get a grip on the news editing and he fumbled about ineffectually. He should have got a month's salary as the rest of us do when we leave.

Did anyone see the news broadcast listing all the managers who might be in trouble? I think there is a problem in an organisation when the job titles make no sense! What's the difference between being in charge of 'news' and being in charge of 'news gathering'? And what is 'London factual?' I don't object to the golden handshake as I believe he would have got a year's salary if he'd been sacked. I do object to other examples of profligate spending, though. Like sending George Alaghaia (?) to China to interview John Simpson who had been sent there to report on the election of the new Chinese leader. Haven't they ever heard of a video link?

Entwhistle and, I suspect, a number of other BBC managers are perfect examples of the Peter Principle: "employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence."

He was apparently entitled to six months' salary on resignation according to his contract. It's difficult to see why this amount was doubled, especially with his being in the job for such a short time. He is also entitled to a massive pension. No doubt, he'll take up anther lucrative position soon. Had he been sacked – which presumably would have been because he wasn't doing the job properly – he would, bizarrely, have been entitled to a whole year's salary.

Half the trouble with the BBC is it has too many chiefs and not enough braves.

As I understand it the excuse was he was being paid the full years salary as he will still be working for the BBC in some capacity - so demoted but keeping his salary!

I am amazed at all the people involved on such high salaries! I know I am naive but honestly there is a lot of silly money out there. I realise they have to compete with private TV companies to get people so not sure what the answer is!
I really believe it is extremely important to have the BBC and not just a myriad of private TV companies but there must be a better way of running it all!

Just thought...if I knew the answer to my own question I could do the job! Well I could have a go for about 55 days...

I feel fairly indifferent to him getting £450,000 instead of the £225 he was entitled to under his contract.

So many worse things to worry about at the moment.

As head of BBC he had to fall on his sword I suppose but to some extent he has been made a scapegoat for things that went on forty years ago.

Public fury has to be assuaged!

I'm not worrying about it. I just think the pay off and pension are wrong.

I don't think public fury will be assuaged by Entwistle's resignation. If anything, his obvious incompetence and the payoff will fuel it!

If he had been pushed rather than jumping, he would have been entitled to a full year's salary. I think Patten made the point that this saved them the hassle of dismissal procedure and enabled them to move on.

Agree absent, also agree that £450,000 p.a. is an obscene amount of money as a salary anyway