Brockley TV agency seeks full-time employee

These are harsh economic times. So harsh, that the very idea that a new restaurant might one day open in Honor Oak is branded corduroy-clad fantasy by some of BC's most realistic readers. So we are delighted to post details of the one economic bright spot in Brockley right now. TV is back!


Full time Assistant for Television Agency.  Salary c 22K pa.

Small but booming Brockley based television agency seeks experienced and extremely organised assistant to help run their list of specialist factual television presenters.  The job would suit someone already working in the media looking for something more local or someone keen on a change of career but who is interested in Television.  

The successful candidate will have incredible attention to detail, an ability to handle over 20 diaries and a desire to learn and get stuck in to a growing agency business. They will also be very digitally savvy and prepared to manage the agency (and some client’s) web presence.  This is a job for someone who is prepared to commit to being an assistant for a couple of years but it has real prospects in either office management or agenting depending on which way the candidate wants to go.

Please email SL@factualmanagement.com with your CV and a covering letter as soon as possible.

16 comments:

J.R. Shakerley said...

Please, could the descriptions be less biased? Leave that to the comments? Neutrality is enough to promote discussion. If this is _Brockley_ Central then to reflect every reader's view from the area is impossible, but it is certainly trying to cater to the wide readership. Leave that to the comments?

Brockley Nick said...

Bias towards what, sorry?

J.R. Shakerley said...

Hi Brockley Nick. For me, it was the "branded corduroy-clad fantasy by some of BC's most realistic readers." It's referencing a comment Lou Baker made elsewhere that some found inappropriate. Shouldn't the descriptions set the tone for debate, not _start_ them?

Danja said...

There's nothing wrong with taking the mick* out of Lou. It's a prime-time Brockley Central sport.

*Delicacy for Kolp.

Brockley Nick said...

@JR Shakerley - I was one of the people that Lou was branding a fantastist. So when I said they were amongst BC's most realistic readers, I was being sarcastic. That is how they see themselves, not what they actually are.

I was gently poking fun at the doom-mongers who say that everything is economic despair.

BC is shamelessly biased towards optimism and that won't change.

Anonymous said...

Nick employs bias so often that it is extremely likely in his defence that he doesn't realise it.

Brockley Nick said...

Anon, see above.

J.R. Shakerley said...

Hi again. Thank you for your clarification - sometimes it becomes difficult to _read_ sarcasm on the web. If that was your intention then it seems less inappropriate - though now I feel sorry for instigating another bout of alienation for Mr Baker... Guardian readers aren't _de facto_ fantastical. Nothing wrong with sharing optimism.

Anonymous said...

Ergo, if BC (aka Nick) decides that a proposal by A is the best possible outome than the proposal by B, he promotes A at B's disadvantage. Err, isn't that editorial bias?

Brockley Nick said...

@Anon

"Err, isn't that editorial bias?"

Yes, wasn't that clear from what I said:

"BC is shamelessly biased towards optimism..."

Look, I have always said that sometimes I editorialise, sometimes I just report stuff that I become aware of.

When I do editorialise, I usually try to present all sides of the argument (when there is more than one credible viewpoint) but will also offer my opinion on things.

Sometimes, I will write a straight-up bit of polemic, but in those cases, I refrain from the usual editorial tropes, like we're all going to hell in a handcart, it's all the fault of some villain in government or big business, or a consrpiracy or a calamity, etc, etc.

I also offer up BC for others who want to use it to put forward their own arguments. That's an offer rarely taken up, because it's too much like hard work for the moaners.

The Economist (full disclosure: client) says that of its website that it strives to be a place where people come to have their opinions challenged, not confirmed, and that it is one place on the internet where readers are not afraid to say "I've changed my mind". That seems to me to be a pretty good aspiration and I would like that to apply to BC too.

In between the name calling, there is some sensible and constructive conversation between people who take the time to read each other's points. I have changed my mind at least three times in the course of running BC, which is saying something ;)

Anyway, there it is.

Anonymous said...

Most commendable. The fact that you are able to do this throughout the working day lends praise to your employer (and clients?).

A Non said...

Whine, whine, carp, complain. Conspiracy, bilderburg, lizards, david icke. Beaurocrats, spongers, scroungers, layabouts. Druggies, dealers, middle class class A users. Hostles, half way houses, refuges, metalists. Yuppies, dinkies, bankers, medja luvies. Olives, skinny lattes, focaccia, cupcakes but hold the glutin. Organic, fair trade, ethical, single estate. Art students, college students, babies, prams, babies in prams, babies in prams in cafes. Corduroy, sandles, beards, NHS specs, patchouli oil, dreadlocks (on any of the aformentioned hateful people)

Just some of the things that I obsess about Instead of having a sex life.

DJ said...

Lou sets himself up for the pisstaking. He loves it really - it adds to his self styled 'man of the people, I like what I say and say what I bloody well like' persona.

Lou Baker said...

@nick

I didn't brand you a fantasist. I simply pointed out that the option you favour isn't on the table.

Look at it like this. Image you're drunk at a party. You see a leggy blonde at the bar - and you'd like some action. But the leggy blonde is talking to me - engrossed in intelligent and humorous conversation. A lovely looking brunette approaches and propositions you. You can say yes - and you get lucky. Or you can say no - and hope the leggy blonde tires of our conversation (admittedly unlikely). Now, you might get lucky. But you might not. Honor Oak might get lucky too - but it also might be going home alone. I'd suggest it's sometimes better to go for a safe bet.

And I don't always talk down the economy. The economy is great if you have a job and don't drive. Cheap mortgages and bargains galore. But it's a different story if you're seeking investment and want to start a business.

I applaud the government's attempts to cut the budget. To make work pay. To cut the bloated public sector. To encourage entrepreneurialism. These are welcome moves which will lead to better things in the future. But there is a group in society - the corduroy brigade - who object to any 'cuts'. They don't ask whether money is being appropriately spent. They don't ask if things could be done better. They are anti-competition, pro-government, anti-capitalism and do not believe individuals are in any way responsible for their own actions.

These people are misguided and wrong. They object to change for the sake of objecting. I do not believe you are one of these people - but occasionally you seem swayed by corduroy tendencies. You must resist this dark path.

Anonymous said...

He said "brigade". Stopped reading.

Anonymous said...

what is the deadline for this position?

Brockley Central Label Cloud

Click one of the labels below to see all posts on that subject. The bigger the label, the more posts there are!