June 11

Lord Hill announced the details of the new contracts offered by the ITA. The announcement included the proposed merger of Rediffusion Television and ABC Television. ‘Mergers’, he said, ‘are always difficult to arrange…’

September 28

It was announced: ‘Agreement has today been reached, subject to contract, to lease Wembley Studios to London Weekend Television Ltd. for at least three years from May 6, 1968.

‘London Weekend Television has indicated that it expects to use three studios and that its union-graded staff will be recruited in the main from Rediffusion staff.

‘The arrangements made in respect of the studios will materially assist and accelerate the conclusion of the negotiations relating to the formation of the new ABC/Rediffusion company.’

October 19

Following talks with the unions, two statements were made. The first, which concerned A.C.T.T. members, said :

‘The following agreement was reached between the Independent Television Companies and the A.C.T.T. as a result of recent meetings:

1. The companies fully accept that every A.C.T.T. member in Independent Television subject to re-deployment will be employed in the network under the new contract allocation.
2. The companies guarantee to employ in London, with the minimum of disturbance, all A.C.T.T. staff presently employed by Rediffusion Television, and A.B.C. Television, in London in at least their present grades.
3. Yorkshire Television, will employ all A.C.T.T. staff presently employed at A.B.C. Television’s Didsbury Studios.
4. There will be early discussions to deal with problems arising particularly in relation to 2nd and 3rd schedules grades.
5. While this situation maintains, there will be no recruitment from outside the Independent Television Companies and no one employed by one company shall undertake work in television for other organisations.

‘It was also agreed that discussions should take place between the union and each of the new companies, London Weekend Television, A.B.C./Rediffusion joint company and Yorkshire Television, as soon as possible on the question of their general terms and conditions of employment and staffing.’

The second statement was agreed between the Independent Television companies and the E.T.U. and N.A.T.K.E. It said: ‘In connection with the re-allocation of I.T.V. contracts the companies recognize that they must use their best endeavours to re-employ E.T.U. and N.A.T.K.E. members affected by the re-allocation.

‘With this in mind they undertake that in the first instance recruitment will be made from within the industry, with first preference being given to staff directly affected by the reallocation and with the minimum of disturbance.

‘The new companies are sympathetic to the problems involved in the re-deployment of staff and undertake to commence discussions individually with the unions as soon as possible on the general terms and conditions of employment to be applied within their respective companies.’

Also on October 19 a company advertisement stated: ‘Rediffusion Television’s contract ends on July 29, 1968. Until that time it is the company’s policy and firm intent to continue to improve its programme content and to give its advertisers still better service during the next nine months.

‘Already it has been stated that our programme budget has been increased by over 10 per cent. Both the programme and sales departments have been reorganised to adapt to the changing situation.

‘The sales department is geared to give the maximum service to our clients, both directly and through their advertising agencies.

‘Between now and July 29, 1968, the demand for time on Rediffusion Television exceeds anything we have previously known. With the aid of our computer our sales service has been further improved and the whole operation speeded up. We shall continue to be very much in the forefront of the television advertising scene until the completion of our operation.’

October 27

Notice boards were put up at Television House and Wembley for staff to read. They said:

‘ABC Television Limited and Rediffusion Television Limited have reached agreement with the Independent Television Authority on the formation of a new company to operate the London Weekday contract from July 30, 1968.

‘The company will be called Thames Television Limited, and will be based at ABC’s Studios at Teddington-on-Thames with central London studios and offices at Rediffusion’s Television House. The capital of Thames Television Limited will be approximately £6,000,000 divided equally between ABC Television Limited and Rediffusion Television Limited.

‘The board of the new company will be as follows:

• Sir Phillip Warter, chairman (chairman of the Associated British Picture Corporation, and of ABC Television.)
• Robert Clark, M.A., LL.B., deputy chairman (deputy chairman and chief executive of the Associated British Picture Corporation, and deputy chairman of ABC Television.)
• Howard Thomas, C.B.E., managing director (managing director of ABC Television and director of the Associated British Picture Corporation.)
• Brian Tesler, M.A., programme controller (director of ABC Television.)
• A. W. Groocock, F.C.LS., director (director and secretary of Rediffusion Television.)
• George A. Cooper, sales director (director of ABC Television.)
• B. R. Greenhead, controller of studios and engineering (director of ABC Television.)
• J. T. Davey, F.C.A., director (chief accountant of Rediffusion Television.)
• D. R. W. Dicks, director (controller of production of Rediffusion Television.)
• Group Capt. H. S. L. Dundas, D.S.O., D.F.C., director (director of Rediffusion.)

The following senior staff appointments were announced: Jeremy Isaacs, current affairs and children’s programmes (Rediffusion); Lloyd Shirley, drama (ABC); Guthrie Moir, education and religion (Rediffusion); Phillip Jones, light entertainment (ABC); Grahame Turner, outside broadcasts (Rediffusion); Stuart Sansom, engineering department (ABC); James F. Shaw, advertisement department (ABC); M. Lawson, accounts department (ABC).

The message continued: ‘Recruitment of staff from ABC Television and from Rediffusion Television will commence shortly. ‘The redeployment of unionised staff now engaged by Rediffusion will be conducted in exact accordance with the letter and the spirit of the agreements reached at the following National Labour Relations meetings:

a. Meeting with the A.C.T.T. – October 18

b. Meeting with ETU/NATKE – October 19

‘The company will use it’s best endeavours to find satisfying and equally remunerative work for all non-unionised members of the staff.

November 8

A company press statement said:

‘The Rediffusion ACTT shop concluded a meeting with the management at 5.30 p.m. today by registering failure to agree with the company on the amount of ex-gratia payments which the company has offered in addition to the payments required in accordance with the Redundancy Payments Act of 1965.

‘These ex-gratia payments were offered as a result of the termination of the company’s ITA contract on July 29 next year.

‘All the ACTT staff concerned have already been guaranteed further employment in ITV in London after Rediffusion’s contract ends.

‘The commercial break before the ITN News at 5.55 p.m. was blacked out by the ACTT staff.

‘The company had no warning of the action from the ACTT shop. It is considering the position.’

Later there was this joint press announcement:

‘Meetings between Rediffusion and ACTT began again tonight at 9 p.m. They will continue tomorrow in the hope, shared by both parties, that a satisfactory conclusion will be quickly reached. In the meantime normal transmission will continue.’

The post The Facts appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

On Wednesday, November 24, 1954 I walked into the offices (two rooms) of Associated-Rediffusion in Stratton House as the third member of the staff: the company secretary, Arthur Groocock, and his personal secretary, Fay Caddy, were already there. The company’s name was fixed – an accountant in Rediffusion was presented with a gold watch for having thought of it, especially the hyphen – and the Board of Directors had been chosen – the chairman from B.E.T., three directors from Rediffusion and four from Associated Newspapers. Nothing else was fixed.

I do not propose to trace the build-up of the company, nor to describe the intriguing excitement with which I entered, for me, the unknown worlds of entertainment and advertising. Suffice it to say that the company went on the air on Friday, September 22, 1955 with a crashing and most expensive programme, and will end its present Licence period on Wednesday, July 29, 1964 with, I hope, another outstanding programme: and that between these two dates, the company has been so successful financially as to become the envy of many people, and so successful programme-wise that it is the provider of the majority of live/taped hours to the network. Some call us doggedly decent; I say we are reliably good.

Most people think of a general manager as a man in command, even at times as a dictator, but in fact no one is a successful general manager unless he serves. In our case he has to serve the viewers, the staff and the shareholders. Also, of course, he has to manage.

If the viewers are not given the sort of programme they can admire and like, they will switch off or switch on to the BBC. First, therefore, the general manager must develop a programme policy which will serve the viewers. We have now evolved a programme policy over the years which, I think, meets the viewers’ needs. From 7.00 p.m. till about 10-10.45 p.m. we give programmes likely to appeal to all members of the family over the age of 17. Before 7.00 p.m. and after 10-10.45 p.m. we give programmes likely to appeal to substantial minorities. Sport in the afternoon; small children at 4.45 p.m.; older children at 5.00 p.m.; news at about 6.00 p.m.; the till 7.00 p.m. Similarly, in the late evening a more sophisticated audience is always served by at least one programme. Up till 7.00 p.m. programmes are suitable for children; between 7.00 p.m. and 9.00 p.m. they are not unsuitable for children; after 9.00 p.m. they are suitable for adults, but not always for children.

To arrive at this pattern of programming, and to make a success of individual programmes, a great deal of research is essential in order to find out the types and the sizes of minority audiences, and to find out if a particular minority audience likes the programme aimed at it. If, for instance, we transmit a programme on the lives of pop singers, and we know that a minority of three million homes in the country are interested in pop singers, then if 80 per cent of this minority of three million homes switch on and stay with the programme, we have got a successful programme; whereas, if only 40 per cent switch on or if the 80 per cent dwindles to 40 per cent, then we have a failure. The viewers must be served and, therefore, the programme must be altered or withdrawn.

We are sometimes accused of being too rigid in our programme schedules, especially by the television critics – poor chaps, they have to watch all the time – who long for a surprise. It is said that we are forced into a rigid pattern by the advertisers: this is not so. We do not lightly change a programme schedule because we feel that we should keep faith with our viewers. If the keen followers of “This Week’ switch on only to find we have substituted boxing, then they are maddened; if the followers of Hughie Green find a Cape Canaveral programme substituted, then they are saddened, whilst family men will know the result if ‘Small Time’ is pre-empted for tennis. My policy throughout has been to try and serve the viewers; the touchstone is whether or not the viewers will be satisfied by and grateful for the programmes. To make them grateful, however, it is necessary to advance a little beyond their present taste; always to improve the programme content.

Strange as it may seem to many of you, a general manager also has to serve the staff. Firstly, he must establish an organisation which is clear and workable, so that everybody knows who does what. Nothing is more frustrating than not knowing who deals with what and who can give a decision. Secondly, he has to create a staff relationship in which the staff feel that promotions or demotions are fairly done, that discipline is tempered with understanding. Nothing can engender bitterness more than a feeling that something has been decided unfairly or ruthlessly and, in this connection, the same ill feeling can be caused if the general manager allows one person to get away with something – bad time-keeping or excessive expenses – whilst his colleague has abided by the rules. Thirdly, the general manager must see that conditions under which the staff work, and the equipment that they operate are the best that can reasonably be provided. It may be the creative freedom given to the programme directors, or it may be the vision mixing panel in master control, but whatever it is, it should enable the creative staff to be creative and the servicing staff to be able to do their job efficiently.

The shareholders are certainly considered by the staff less than any other part of the company: I doubt if the majority of the staff ever give them a thought. Nevertheless, they are a most important part of the organisation. They provide the money and it was their faith which launched the company. The general manager must serve the shareholders. Therefore, he must set up and supervise an advertising sales department which will bring in the revenue; he must be attentive to the views of advertisers and their agents, since they are entitled to get good value for the money they spend with the company. The shareholders want revenue, not only to pay for the cost of our operations and to pay a dividend on their capital, but also to provide cash for improving the equipment and programmes. 625 lines standard and colour are on their way, and will need a lot of money to install. The shareholders through the board also look to the general manager to see that the money they provide is not wasted, either by bad organisation, excessive salaries or artists’ payments, or by the purchase of dud or unwanted equipment.

You will observe that there is a very fine dividing line between the object of satisfying the viewers with better programmes which might be achieved by extra expenditure, and the object of preventing the shareholders’ money being wasted. The general manager never has an easy life and very rarely does he have easy decisions to make. (‘Problems only reach the general manager when they are insoluble elsewhere’.) An example much talked about at the moment is the decision whether or not to edit tape. Editing tape might lead to improved programmes, though the improvement in my opinion will only be appreciated by a minority of professional viewers, and not by 90 per cent of our public. It would, however, be expensive and might lead, as in the U.S.A., to taped programmes being produced by film techniques which would be very expensive. This, in turn, might lead, as in the U.S.A., to 90 per cent of the programmes being made in film studios which, to my mind, would kill ITV as it now exists and substitute a home cinema. This general manager has not found it an easy decision, but he leaves the company firmly convinced that the editing of tape is not in the interests of the viewers, the staff or the shareholders.

As planned long ago, I am retiring from my job as general manager before the start of the new Licence period; firstly, because I think that after 45 years of full-time work I am entitled to take life a bit easier and, secondly, because I believe that television is a young man’s job: new ideas should be bubbling up and new techniques tried (always provided they are not to the detriment of the viewers). When you are over 60 there is a danger of thinking that old and tried ideas are necessarily the best. I shall, however, be on the board of some of our subsidiary companies, and will not, therefore, be completely out of touch.

I am delighted that John McMillan, who has so often stood in for me when I have been away, is now relieving me. The board of Associated-Rediffusion is remaining the same and they are, in my opinion, the best board in Independent Television. I am sure that Associated-Rediffusion’s second licence period will be one of continuing success. I hope to see most of the staff over the Christmas period in order to say a personal good-bye, but I would like now to thank you all for your loyal support through the years, and for never allowing your jobs to get you down. I hope, when the station clock is redesigned, it will contain the company’s motto ‘Never Baffled’.

The post The General Manager’s farewell appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

It is with a great sense of sadness that Fusion records the death of Capt. T. M. Brownrigg, general manager of this company from its start in November, 1954 until his retirement in December, 1964.

Only in the last issue did we print extracts from a letter he had written to The Times about the merger of Rediffusion Television and ABC Television. In this letter he defended the record of the company and its staff, a staff, he said, which was never baffled.

That his death should occur while the company he helped to create was, itself, facing a form of death sentence makes the event even more tragic. He would have been glad to be sure that the future of those who worked for him was secure.

That his death has to be recorded in Fusion, the magazine he launched for the staff, is also sad. He always took a keen interest in each issue but never interfered in its production. Occasionally there would be a suggestion but never an instruction. He defended the freedom which enabled it to be a magazine created by the staff for the staff.

He was proud of his motto for the staff — never baffled.

Yet near the end of his life be had to admit in his letter to The Times about the merger: ‘It is sad and I am baffled’.

Maybe the staff will continue to live up to their reputation of never being baffled. But about his death, less than four years after his retirement, they can only echo bis words and say: ‘It is sad’.

The editor

More than 300 colleagues from the Royal Navy, the world of television and Rediffusion Television attended the memorial service last month to Captain Brownrigg at St. Martin-in-the-Fields. The lesson was read by Admiral Sir David Luce and the service was conducted by the Rev. Austen Williams. The address was by Robert Everett, a man who served under Capt. Brownrigg in the Royal Navy and at Rediffusion Television. His address, which was widely praised, is reproduced here.

In the lesson, from the Book of Wisdom, which Sir David Luce has read, there is that phrase:

‘as sparks among stubble…’

I do not think that, in so few words, there could be a better epitaph for our Tom Brownrigg.

I use the word our in this somewhat proprietary sense because I believe that that is how many of us here would feel about him.

As a ‘spark among stubble’ indeed because, having known him as it were in two lives, I certainly knew that spark – and I have been a small part of the stubble.

It seems to me that this church is absolutely the right place in which we should come together to remember Tom; the man and his achievements. And, therefore, to feel sad, but not to be dismayed.

For those of us from Rediffusion, St. Martin’s has been virtually our parish church to which, upon so many occasions, we have brought our cameras.

St. Martin’s is also known as the parish church of the Admiralty and, thus, the altar is flanked by the White Ensign and the Admiralty’s flag.

It is very much, then, the proper place in which to remember the man who was our so redoubtable general manager having already had a distinguished career as a sailor.

I am not going to recite a catalogue of almost unattainable virtues. Tom Brownrigg was not a great national figure – nor was he a saint. He had no desire to imitate one.

But I look back at the man I knew and served; whom I admired and greatly liked. Therefore, I grieve but I am also grateful.

I shall not embark upon a series of naval anecdotes. I would, however, recall my very first encounter with Tom when, having just been appointed to a brand new aircraft carrier under his command, my admiral commented:

‘Congratulations, with Tom Brownrigg as your captain you will have an exciting time … I would give you about a fortnight before you are sacked…’

Curiously enough, it wasn’t so, but most certainly we had an exciting time; because he was an exciting man to know and to serve.

What, then, were the qualities and characteristics which made it so? As a seaman he was a master craftsman. He could handle an awkward heap of aircraft carrier as if it were a sports car; and he did.

He was a brilliant navigator; and that is why he was Master Navigator of the Mediterranean fleet during the most crucial and precarious time in our naval history. He commanded a war-time cruiser; he was twice decorated for distinguished services. He was Director of Plans at the Admiralty and, subsequently. Chief of Staff in the Mediterranean.

Then he ‘retired’ … but, when thinking in terms of Tom Brownrigg, the word retired is almost a joke. Having ‘retired’, he became the driving force in the creation of the post-war Bracknell new town.

He became the founder general manager of Associated-Rediffusion and carried us through eight hectic years of what I would claim to be extraordinary endeavour and achievement.

He ‘retired’ again.

In the intervals of being chairman of the Berkshire council of St. John’s, on the Arthritis and Rheumatism Council – and so many other activities – I suppose that his time was his own.

When I think of Tom Brownrigg, I think of the essential qualities of leadership; of command. Of command, one demands justice. He gave it. One needs decisions; he made them. Above all, I believe that in command there must be a basic, rock-like integrity. He had it.

Tom was not an easy man. Very often, he could be downright ‘difficult’. He was not everybody’s ‘cup of tea’. Most certainly, he could be almighty ‘difficult’ with those who were found wanting. To those who might try to conceal their ignorance in waffle he applied a mind and technique like a surgeon’s scalpel. He was certainly allergic to yes-men.

He could be very tough, haughty and seemingly implacable. Yet, he would be surprisingly compassionate, even sentimental. He was absolutely loyal to trusted subordinates – whether they were right or wrong.

To some people he could be frankly alarming; yet he was a gay character. He dearly loved a party and liked nothing better than to play the host, at the centre of the stage and surrounded by people. He liked people.

He had a strong, endearing and infectious sense of humour; and the blessed capacity to laugh at himself.

In this day and age, when we seem to be set about with people of empty aims and phoney values, I think that we should mark well men like Tom; the things he thought mattered and his spark of unquenchable enthusiasm for the job to be done, to be done well, to be thoroughly finished, whatever the difficulties.

And so, here we are today; all of us for the same reason. Each of us with personal memories, and personal reactions to the man. We have come together to pay our respects; to give a farewell salute – sadly but without dismay – to the man whom we had to admire, having travelled with him just so far.

To achievement; to the memory of Tom Brownrigg; most truly and surely a very remarkable man.

A third man’s view

There are two views about him and mine is neither of them. I remember him as a professional affliction and then with personal affection. Professionally, he was very tough on me: on reflection, I care nothing about that. He fired at me, as he did at all of us. There are so many ‘Tom’ stories. Mine are no better than so many. The story about the cats is true.

There were two pug-dogs wandering about in features, which should not have been there. I got word that the GM was on his rounds. There was no place to hide the dogs and the owner resolutely refused to shove them into a filing cabinet.

‘What are these cats doing in the building?’

‘They are not cats, sir, they are pug-dogs.’

‘They must be cats. Dogs are not allowed in the building.’

Shortly afterwards I allowed the young son of a well-known personality to sit-in on a ‘This Week’. On his rounds the Captain nearly had a fit. Lacerated, in shreds I took the boy to the guest room, where orange squash can just be found. There, Captain Brownrigg made him his guest of honour. The mistake was mine. The boy was in the technical area and that was not allowed. However, he was a guest.

Later, also on ‘This Week’, a well-known journalist fell into the guest room and fell asleep during an anniversary programme. ‘Who is that?’

‘That’s XY, sir. He’s had pneumonia.’

I reckoned that was my good deed for the night by XY.

Later the familiar tinkling of glass galvanised the recumbent XY towards the Scotch. Tottering towards the Captain he intoned … ‘Are you here for the free drinks too?’

When the Captain left he turned to me and said ‘You must look after XY. Pneumonia is a terrible disease.’

For some people on ‘This Week’ he had a personal dislike amounting to incivility. There was the case of a scriptwriter who shall he called Can Can. It would be difficult to forget such a name.

There was a fearful row. The subject hardly matters.

Next morning the Captain was in the lift on his way to the invincible Fourth Floor. Can Can stood silently beside him. When both reached the fourth the Captain said, as the doors opened, ‘Good-morning, Wharburton.’

He admired efficiency. On one of his trips to America his agent so confused American time scales that he was caused to arrive for urgent appointments hours too early, which was boring, or hours too late, which was intolerable. On his return to civilisation (UK) he posed before a do-it-yourself photographic machine in an attitude of extreme ferocity, which was not difficult. The result he had sent to the agent with a note to the effect that this was what he thought about the arrangements made for him.

He admired and respected straight talk, though curves and mazes in his own conversation went unnoticed, by him. Lord Birkett once told us, at a programme planning meeting, the story of two workmen ‘who became inebriated, I am sorry to say, near Liverpool. Later, both men found themselves, I know not how, crawling late at night along some railway lines. One said – “I find these stairs (meaning the railway sleepers) very steep.” The other said – “I don’t mind the stairs being so steep but I cannot abide the bannisters being so low.”’

When Lord Birkett had gone the Captain sent for me and said: ‘What do you think the fellow was getting at?’

The notion that Birkett was merely telling us a story for its own sake, in working hours, eluded him.

One day he invited us to the theatre; his secretary, Liz, could see anything she liked. So we went to ‘Make Me An Offer’.

During an interval I asked him how he was enjoying the show. ‘Don’t tell Liz’, he said, ‘but we saw it last night.’

‘Well, why didn’t you say so? We could have seen something else.’ ‘No. This is what she wanted to see.’

His attention to detail sometimes came unstuck. On the occasion of the visit of a Prime Minister to the studios he issued one of his second-by-second calculated instructions. Only one function had been forgotten. The Prime Minister wanted to wash his hands. The Captain leapt forward to lead him out – to the ‘Ladies’.

He did not appear to be very musical. Visiting the rehearsal of a full orchestra in a serenade for strings he complained that the brass wasn’t working.

Normally meticulous when it came to rank and station, the uncouth world of show-biz sometimes defeated him. In the very early days he was discussing, at one of his superbly stage-managed cocktail parties, his appointment of a senior drama executive. He had to choose between two people, he told his guest; one was ‘Harold Hitler’ and the other was ‘Sir Francis Drake’. He had chosen Harold Hitler because Sir Francis Drake was quite unsuitable.

His guest said nothing: he was Sir Francis Drake.

Peter Hunt

Filed. This anecdote of Capt. T. M. Brownrigg is told by Neil Bramson:

‘I was once unwise enough to ask for an extra filing cabinet. Nothing happened for a day or two, then, without warning, the Captain entered himself, followed by business manager, office manager and purchasing officer. Unerringly he went to my existing filing cabinet and selected, equally unerringly, the third drawer down. Opening it, without even looking, he triumphantly produced a pair of ladies’ high-heeled shoes.

‘Deadpan he turned to the business manager: “Requisition these, Elms”, he said and walked out with a gleam in his eye.’

His farewell

Four years ago in December, 1963 an article appeared in Fusion under the heading ‘The general manager’s farewell’. In it Capt. Brownrigg revealed some of his memories and philosophies about television. This article consists of extracts from that piece.

‘On Wednesday, November 24, 1954 I walked into the offices (two rooms) of Associated-Rediffusion in Stratton House as the third member of the staff: the company secretary, Arthur Groocock, and his personal secretary, Fay Caddy, were already there. The company’s name was fixed – an accountant in Rediffusion was presented with a gold watch for having thought of it, especially the hyphen – and the Board of Directors had been chosen: the chairman from B.E.T., three directors from Rediffusion and four from Associated Newspapers (hence Associated-Rediffusion – ed.). Nothing else was fixed.

‘I do not propose to trace the build-up of the company, nor to describe the intriguing excitement with which I entered, for me, the unknown worlds of entertainment and advertising. Suffice it to say that the company went on the air on Friday, September 22, 1955 with a crashing and most expensive programme, and will end its present Licence period on Wednesday, July 29, 1964 with, I hope, another outstanding programme: and that between these two dates, the company has been so successful financially as to become the envy of many people, and so successful programme-wise that it is the provider of the majority of live/taped hours to the network. Some call us doggedly decent; I say we are reliably good.

‘Most people think of a general manager as a man in command, even at times as a dictator, but in fact no one is a successful general manager unless he serves. In our case he has to serve the viewers, the staff and the shareholders. Also, of course, he has to manage.’

About serving the staff he said: ‘Firstly, he must establish an organisation which is clear and workable, so that everybody knows who does what. Nothing is more frustrating than not knowing who deals with what and who can give a decision. Secondly, he has to create a staff relationship in which the staff feel that promotions or demotions are fairly done, that discipline is tempered with understanding. Nothing can engender bitterness more than a feeling that something has been decided unfairly or ruthlessly and, in this connection, the same ill feeling can be caused if the general manager allows one person to get away with something – bad time-keeping or excessive expenses – whilst his colleague has abided by the rules. Thirdly, the general manager must see that conditions under which the staff work, and the equipment that they operate are the best that can reasonably be provided. It may be the creative freedom given to the programme directors, or it may be the vision mixing panel in master control, but whatever it is, it should enable the creative staff to be creative and the servicing staff to be able to do their job efficiently.’

Later on he made this point: ‘You will observe that there is a very fine dividing line between the object of satisfying the viewers with better programmes which might be achieved by extra expenditure, and the object of preventing the shareholders’ money being wasted. The general manager never has an easy life and very rarely does he have easy decisions to make. (“Problems only reach the general manager when they are insoluble elsewhere”.)’

About his retirement Capt. Brownrigg wrote: ‘As planned long ago, I am retiring from my job as general manager before the start of the new Licence period; firstly, because I think that after 45 years of full-time work I am entitled to take life a bit easier and, secondly, because I believe that television is a young man’s job: new ideas should be bubbling up and new techniques tried (always provided they are not to the detriment of the viewers). When you are over 60 there is a danger of thinking that old and tried ideas are necessarily the best.’

His article ended: ‘I would like now to thank you all for your loyal support through the years, and for never allowing your jobs to get you down. I hope, when the station clock is redesigned, it will contain the company’s motto “Never Baffled”.’

With the death of Rediffusion Television that clock will now never be redesigned.

The post A very remarkable man appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

‘I wonder if you would be good enough to write the next article in the “Fourth floor says” series for Fusion. I should require approximately 1,250 words and the deadline is…”

So began an internal memo from the editor, recently discovered (the memo, not the editor) among one of the enormous piles of paper which find their way on to my desk with such monotonous regularity. (Who was the sage who referred to the invention of the printing press – which for this purpose may be taken to include typewriters – as one of the greatest-ever booms to mankind?) While, in fairness to the editor, I am bound to say that there was a gap of some eighteen days between the date of receipt of his memo and the specified deadline, I cursed him roundly nevertheless for having imposed this chore upon me at the season of the year when all my leisure time – pause for a moment here for a burst of ironical laughter – is reserved for much-needed activity in the jungle which surrounds my country seat, situated in what – except for the jungle referred to – is generally known as the Garden of England.

(Any time readers of Fusion are in the neighbourhood, I shall be delighted to show them my wonderful display of Taraxacum Officinale, Ranunculus Bulbosus, Beilis Perennis, Rumex Obtusifolius, and the many other exotic botanical specimens which flourish in such prodigal profusion as evidence of my horticultural propensities.)

While I have written many reams of agendas, minutes, memoranda, reports and suchlike for Board Meetings, Annual General Meetings, Extraordinary General Meetings, Council Meetings, Committee Meetings and what-have-you, I have no pretensions to literary ability in the general sense. But I must confess that my fancy was somewhat tickled by the suggestion, implicit in the editor’s invitation, that there might be someone who would, of his or her own volition, be prepared to read something which I had written.

So I decided to take the plunge, accept the editor’s invitation in principle and proceed to the obvious next step, namely, the settlement of a fee for the job. I was distressed when the editor explained that he had paid all the previous contributors to the series a fee of nil, but after much skilful bargaining on my part (I ought to be in contracts section) he eventually agreed to double the fee in my case.

Honour being thus satisfied, I considered what should be my next move. One thousand, two hundred and fifty words being quite a lot for a literary tyro, I suggested that since two pages had to be filled, it would be a good idea to have a full page portrait of the contributor on one side so that only six hundred and twenty-five words approximately need be provided by me for the other. But on this he resolutely refused to co-operate. Apparently he took the view that the advantage to his readers of having to suffer only one page of my literary outpourings – substantial though that would be – would not provide anything like adequate compensation for inflicting a full-page picture of me upon them. In an aside on the subject of the proposed picture, I distinctly heard him mutter that even a Jack Emerald couldn’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s car.

Quite clearly I was rapidly getting nowhere on this, so I concluded that there was nothing else for it – one thousand, two hundred and fifty words or thereabouts it obviously had to be. But after all, I thought, one thousand, two hundred and fifty words or thereabouts should present no problem to one who in his Third Form days regularly got one hundred lines each Thursday morning for declining to decline ‘mensa’ in the manner specified in his Latin Primer.

So I braced myself for the task. The editor shall have his one thousand, two hundred and fifty words or thereabouts -I’m more than half-way there already. The probable results are (a) that he’ll get the sack and (b) that I shall never again be asked to write for Fusion. As to (a), I offer him whichever he prefers of my sympathy or my congratulations; as to (b), I am sure this will be better for all concerned.

Following these few brief words of introduction, it is necessary to decide what this article shall be about. (I apologize for straying from the path of grammatical rectitude by ending a sentence with a preposition – but my brain is tired; writing the introduction must have exhausted me somewhat.) And since, according to my reckoning, I have only some five hundred words to go, I think a decision on this matter had better be made without more ado.

Surely I cannot do better than take a leaf out of the chief accountant’s book – what a wonderful write-up he gave the accountant’s department in Fusion 5 – and say a few words about the secretary’s department, the principal function of which is to deal with all those matters arising in the course of carrying on the business of an independent television programme company which all other departments, by reason of their ignorance, incompetence or inertia, are unable or unwilling to handle. But, on reflection, the comparatively few words that remain to me (can’t be many more than three hundred now) will certainly not enable me to do justice to the invaluable services rendered by the select few who are my departmental colleagues, let alone to the priceless part played by yours truly.

But maybe there is sufficient space left to correct one very widespread misconception as to the usefulness of a Company Secretary. I am told that the view is widely held that the Secretary performs his most useful function by writing letters in the following terms:

Dear Sir (or Madam)

I write to inform you that your salary is increased to £________ per annum with effect from 19__.

Yours faithfully, _____________ Secretary

but that his usefulness would be considerably increased if he would only ‘let himself go’ a bit more when inserting the figures following the £ sign.

This, I contend, takes too narrow a view of the functions of the secretary, though I suppose I mustn’t complain since it does suggest – albeit with motives which may be questioned as to their disinterestedness – that there may be some justification for his existence. But I certainly prefer that view to the one expressed by Lord Esher in 1807, when he said –

‘The Secretary is a mere servant. He has to do what he is told, and no person can assume that he has any authority to represent anything at all.’

With respect to the learned Lord quoted, I prefer the view of Gladstone who spoke of the company secretary as –

‘Very frequently one of the original concocters of the Company. Usually in substance the Managing Director,’ after which he added —

‘The Secretary has in fact put the directors into their office, and they have a feeling of delicacy towards him in consequence.’

(Note for Printer – Please underline this last bit.)
(Note for Fusion despatch office – Please send copies of this issue of Fusion to Associated-Rediffusion directors by registered post.)

And that, dear Editor, is that. I told you I had no pretensions to literary ability in the general sense, and I can already hear you saying ‘You’re telling me!’

The post Forth flaw sez… 1,250 words? appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.