Stephen Jackson dismissed as director of BBC Symphony Chorus

[french frank]

There is also the possibility that SJ turned down the offered contract - the other part of Lunchtime's story was that Radio 3 was halving some fees for broadcasts. And we know that Lord Berkeley (i.e. he announced it in the House of Lords) had taken a cut of two thirds in his Private Passions fee.

FF is also wrong , a person may have two employments .

Either I missed the point you were making or vice versa. When you said it was 'exactly the same if you are an employee' I thought you meant for an employee it was just as much a blow whether you were sacked or didn't have your contract renewed: I merely meant that it was rather less of a blow, as an employee, if it wasn't your sole employment but a single facet of your profession.

[ahinton]

In my view, it's about context - it is not the same as 'being dismissed' because really, we are thinking about 'being sacked'. Technically speaking, retirement counts as a dismissal as does the non-renewal of Stephen Jackson's contract. But it is misleading to describe such terminations of contract as 'dismissals' in common parlance, because we know people will assume that the employee has been 'sacked', perhaps for being naughty, incompetent or something else that's 'interesting'.

I think that this is correct. All that I might add here is that retirement might be more widely regarded as a form of "dismissal" when it is enforced, more often than not on grounds of age, for example upon NHS GPs, "civil servants" and the like, than is the case when retirement from a particular post is a decision made freely by the person who has held it; however, neither can reasonably be regarded as a "dismissal" per se as can (and are) employers' instances of cessation of employees' contracts of service on the kinds of grounds that you mention here (incompetence, misconduct, breach of contract, unreasonable absenteeism &c.) and, so far as anyone appears so far to be aware, none of these circumstances applies in Mr Jackson's case.

Non-renewal of contract (when an employed contract term is scheduled to end but the contract is capable of renewal at the employer's discretion and if the employee desires its renewal) does not in itself signify "dismissal" although, depending on particular circumstance, it might do just that. Consider, for example, the case of Martin Wheatley, CEO of the Financial Conduct Authority since its inception, whose contract was publicly announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer (who had final say in this to the best of my knowledge) as not being renewed; whilst George Osborne's woolly weasel words about how well he had led the organisation during his time in office but that a new direction of leadership of it was now sought could be (and indeed was widely) interpreted as a typical example of praising with the left hand while damning with the right but, until and unless anyone becomes privy to the details of what was not published about Wheatley's performance in post, suggestions that he was "dismissed" therefrom have to remain no more than speculation.

[duncan]

Musically, the BBC SO Chorus is clearly the strongest of the large orchestral choruses in London and this must be greatly to Stephen Jackson's credit. There are many current members of the Chorus who are very saddened at the non-renewal of his contract. The manner in which it was carried out by the BBC has received almost universal condemnation.

However, his reported behaviour over the years has alienated many valued members of the chorus and administrative support. A significant number are said to have left as a direct result of this. By all accounts this is above and beyond 'artistic temperament'. The Chorus contains a wider spectrum of views on Mr Jackson's removal than Private Eye suggests.

[teamsaint]

I think that this is correct. All that I might add here is that retirement might be more widely regarded as a form of "dismissal" when it is enforced, more often than not on grounds of age, for example upon NHS GPs, "civil servants" and the like, .

Forced retirement is illegal in most cases now.

https://www.gov.uk/retirement-age

[ahinton]

Forced retirement is illegal in most cases now.
https://www.gov.uk/retirement-age

I wasn't aware of this and am pleased to read it, although the linked item does include the sentence "however, some employers can set a compulsory retirement age if they can clearly justify it"; how any employer would do this and what the acceptable parameters might be, I do not know, but I presume in any case that any employed contract that actually specifies an end date coincidental with the contractee reaching a specified age would be legal (i.e. one where an employee signs such a contract in the knowledge that it cannot continue past a certain date); am I wrong in that and would such contract terms now be invalidated by what is prescribed in that linked item?

[Beef Oven!]

Exactly the point I was making before . FF is also wrong , a person may have two employments . If Mr Jackson was employed by the BBC the non-renewal of a contract is a dismissal which to avoid being unfair the BBC would have to justify on one of the specified statutory grounds so long as he had been employed for two years .

BBC would need to be more cautious. He could bring a claim irrespective of his length of service if he felt the dismissal was discriminatory.

I don't know who BO is referring to as a barrack room lawyer ? If it is me I have been a fully qualified one firstly as a solicitor and now as a barrister for over 20 years .

You previously revealed that you are a lawyer, so I wasn't referring to you. But one doesn't need to have spent 20 years (whatever the quality) in the legal profession to understand that the non-renewal of an employment contract, is a dismissal.

[Barbirollians]

BBC would need to be more cautious. He could bring a claim irrespective of his length of service if he felt the dismissal was discriminatory.



You previously revealed that you are a lawyer, so I wasn't referring to you. But one doesn't need to have spent 20 years (whatever the quality) in the legal profession to understand that the non-renewal of an employment contract, is a dismissal.

Quite plainly a number of forumites do not understand . As for your snide remarks about whatever the quality they say much more about you than me.

[french frank]

Quite plainly a number of forumites do not understand .

What the forumites (or some who may have missed the all-important reference) as yet 'do not undertand' is whether Mr Jackson declined a new contract offered or whether he was not offered one. Perhaps that could be explained?

Or indeed whether there is authoritative confirmation from anywhere - other than in Private Eye - that he is no longer in post.

[Cockney Sparrow]

Lunchtime O'Boulez is quite specific that the BBCS Chorus convened an extraordinary general meeting in response to Stephen Jackson not being there to direct the chorus after 30 November (there must have been some scheduled rehearsals since then?) And that the controller R3 and BBCSO manager were invited but did not attend. And the piece clearly conveyed this is seen as a shabby way to treat a highly skilled, and unpaid resource (who gift time and travel expenses to the BBC). Is Private Eye as famously unreliable as is implied here, when specific facts such as the EGM are mentioned?

I'm sure it would be good to have it confirmed, but nonetheless, thats not likely to come forth from the BBC bunker, even if a freedom of information request was made.

As ever, this has provided an opportunity (which is seldom not taken up) for forum members to engage in their respective antipathies to each other, and the usual pedantry. Its unappealing, but that is what it is like on this board (which is always a caveat I give should I recommend anyone look at posts here).

It seems unlikely it was a well managed exit for Mr Jackson - if he had notice of a civilised length of time, it would have been "going on to another opportunity" after a long period of service..... And at the back of that, and the uncertain life of a freelance or contract (or employed - you decide which) worker there is no doubt a real effect on his livelihood, and his family.

As to Private Eye, its possible to regard one element as speculation and gossip not to be relied on. But OTOH they do provide information which the public should know but which the vested interests ensure does not reach the mainstream media (not the least because much of the media is owned and controlled by foreign resident tax exiles who are nonetheless part of the Establishment). The Eye hasn't been notably wrong on the accountancy/HMRC personnel merry go round, the lunches between senior HMRC and big business/their accountancy firms......and other issues.

p.s. I've switched off the BBC Singers since the days I would come across the gruesome Daily Service. I totally agree with the analysis on the other thread - they only sound acceptable in modern and extremely difficult pieces, where, (along the lines of Dr Johnson) its more remarkable that it can be done at all, rather than the choral quality. Yes, the Baltic and Swedish Radio choirs are streets ahead in producing a blended but just as virtuoso sound. In the words of Alan Sugar the BBC is "very corporate". It seems the BBC singers are to be supported at all costs, uncritically. That calls into question the judgement of controllers - why has there been no change? And the apparent treatment of the BBCS Chorus similarly calls their judgement into question.....

[french frank]

and the usual pedantry.

I know, I should have been a lawyer. I still don't see evidence that anyone knows the precise circumstances - or can explain any action (whatever it might have been) by the BBC.

[EnemyoftheStoat]

What the forumites (or some who may have missed the all-important reference) as yet 'do not undertand' is whether Mr Jackson declined a new contract offered or whether he was not offered one. Perhaps that could be explained?

Or indeed whether there is authoritative confirmation from anywhere - other than in Private Eye - that he is no longer in post.

There have been announcements to BBCSC members, the BBCSO and the BBC Singers, to the effect that the BBC "decided not to renew" Stephen's contract when it expired on 30/11. The Chorus were only officially informed that afternoon, shortly before what was to have been the second of five rehearsals for the 17/12 concert of Child of our Time. Due to the BBC's mismanagement, the Chorus will effectively be performing the work on three rehearsals.

The BBC have so far made no official public-facing announcement or explanation, if this is what you mean by "authoritative confirmation".

[Cockney Sparrow]

I know, I should have been a lawyer. I still don't see evidence that anyone knows the precise circumstances - or can explain any action (whatever it might have been) by the BBC.

Sorry Fr F, I didn't mean you. You as forum Administrator, are being punctilious, although I think a tad too punctilious. Entirely understandable.

I appreciate, however, that you are not saying the issue cannot be discussed in the terms of the Eye piece....which I think has been said or implied by some. I think its highly likely this issue has not been handled well, and the last thing we should expect, given what we know, is that the BBC will be in any way transparent about it, at any point. Again, given the usual way of these things, another point of interest will be who the next M Director of the BBCS Ch will be - who will be the "shoe in".

[ardcarp]

I am quite surprised that most of the discussion has revolved around legal niceties! I think the substance of the matter is that an (albeit good) amateur choir has to perform to exacting standards and produce the goods for high profile concerts with renowned conductors. In order to achieve this, the choir's trainer has to work to exacting standards and maybe at times work the choir members relentlessly and a tad harshly. This can lead to unpopularity, and factions can form between members who realise the need to be stretched and those who want to turn up and have a jolly old sing. I probably haven't expressed myself well, but I suspect something of the sort may have occurred.

[Cockney Sparrow]

I'm not trying to be critical or disputatious Ardcarp, I understand your approach in the preceding post. Here's my take.

Personal reactions to MDs will inevitably be different, with some in thrall, others disdainful and points between (or more extreme) - just like reactions to the attributes of singers, comedians, etc it varies widely between us. I think most MDs have to be quite driven and its a great art to motivate (even willing) unpaid volunteers on an evening after a day's work*** and get the best out of them. So unless I find a MD wholly objectionable, I put up with foibles and hissy fits etc (water off a ducks back)- as long as I don't go home feeling turning out for the rehearsal was a negative experience. Or at least, not very often.

I've never been a member, but as it happens have been at a few of their rehearsals (taken by Stephen Jackson) and otherwise have no association with them. My take on the chorus is that in general they are serious, pretty serious about singing and whilst there is no doubt a social side, I don't think they would just expect to have a good time singing, without being brought up to the mark if necessary. FWIW they seemed pretty accomplished to me - although it was a piece from the standard repertoire being rehearsed. And the atmosphere was friendly and workmanlike, between the singers, and between them and Stephen Jackson.

Entering further into the realms of speculation, if the committee called an immediate EGM maybe there is not much of a divide, but substantial support for Mr Jackson? (Any who were really alienated would have left already - yet they have 230 members on the roll?). My bet is that its a management decision, for whatever reason, and they act like they do with professionals who they hire and fire; but they have forgotten, are oblivious to, or do not care that they are offending the unpaid chorus who perhaps they undervalue and take for granted?

**** in a concert programme they had a thumbnail on chorus members, one described a chap who lives (and practises law) in Jersey. How's that for commitment - with up to 2 rehearsals a week plus concerts?

[mopsus]

My main contact in the BBCSO Chorus lives in west Wiltshire (and is not working mainly from London) which is some indication of the dedication people put in. The demands made of the choir members, particularly for the Proms, are considerable. If the BBC tries anything similar in Cardiff with the BBCNOW Chorus, I will soon know too.