BBC launches corruption inquiry after claims of 'sham' process at broadcaster
An investigation into the recruitment of five BBC presenters is to be investigated following anger over its 'sham' process
PA
An investigation into the recruitment of five BBC presenters is to be investigated following anger over its "sham" process.
Candidates were reportedly told they would get the job salaries of up to £230,000 in advance, according to several sources.
The inquiry was launched on June 8 by Daryl Maitland, head of HR at the broadcaster - eight weeks after BBC News went live.
Concerns were raised following allegations that chiefs had decided on the presenters last Autumn before the interviews went ahead in January.
Matthew Amroliwala was announced as one of five presenters in February
Wiki Commons images
It is claimed that the BBC were keen to maintain faces which viewers would find familiar outside the UK.
The replacements were made to make annual savings of £400 million as costs rise due to inflation.
Questions are set to be asked about the recruitment process after sources described a meeting with a BBC panel of executives and a screen test as “humiliating”.
Established presenters such as David Eades, Joanna Gosling and Tim Willcox decided to take voluntary redundancy before the employment process began.
The new five presenters were later announced as Matthew Amroliwala, Christian Fraser, Yalda Hakim, Lucy Hockings and Maryam Moshiri in February.
One of the presenters who went through the process told The Times it had been “sham”.
They added that BBC management “go on at length about BBC values such as truth, accuracy, impartiality and transparency but were behind a fig-leaf selection process that was predetermined months before anyone did a job interview”.
Another source told The Times as BBC bosses have instigated the probe, “they will be marking their own homework."
One of the presenters who went through the process said it had been 'sham'
PAA second star said the inquiry would look into whether the process was "rigged", while a third source said: “It was common knowledge who was getting those gigs well in advance. Not very nice.”
However, some have insisted that the decisions were “fair and square” and maintained that it was thorough.
One senior editor said: “The review is designed to assess whether there was any bad sequencing at all. Were the successful candidates given a nod and wink?”
A BBC spokeswoman said: “We don’t comment on HR issues.”