There could be a technical concern here, but practically speaking the BBC is so impartial it will happily half-destroy itself in the name of journalism.
Their own Director-General just had to resign after a grilling by BBC journalists on BBC programmes. If they'll do that to their own boss, some guy from Autonomy has 0 chance of special treatment.
Let's travel back in time to a few days ago, before these allegations emerged. Mike Lynch seemed like a guy who'd founded a high tech software company, let it grow, and sold it for billions of dollars. He's got an engineering PhD from a top university.
Over the last 10 years technology like the web, podcasts, home broadband, iPlayer etc have had a lot of impact on the BBC. It makes sense to have someone on the board who has an engineering background and experience managing complex technology projects.
They seem to have a wide range of people from different backgrounds and industries. It's a non executive role, so I assume it's more for 'experience and wisdom' in their respective fields and expertise than anything else.
If he was there to wield influence, he's not done very well this time - otherwise why would the BBC report on possible foul play by his former company? Why would they explicitly mention his connection with the BBC?
>
If he was there to wield influence, he's not done very well this time - otherwise why would the BBC report on possible foul play by his former company
Well it such a big story now, they can hardly not run with it can they?
> Why would they explicitly mention his connection with the BBC?
Again, because they have to. I find it fascinating that private industry leaders would be involved, non-executive or otherwise, in the running of a state broadcasting company. The BBC is spending British taxpayer's money after all. Does not seem impartial.
Their own Director-General just had to resign after a grilling by BBC journalists on BBC programmes. If they'll do that to their own boss, some guy from Autonomy has 0 chance of special treatment.