"Oh yes, and the company is not permitted to use that forced payment in any positive promotion of how they are handling their finances."
What on Earth does that mean? There is no positive promotion of a pension deficit. It's a drag on the share price.
As for the suggestion that there is a cap on the pensions paid, just how many people do you think that would affect and how much difference would it make to the total? The number of people involved in making decisions which would have impacted on any pension deficit is tiny and the BT pension scheme has well over 300,000 members.
In any event, it's a complete irrelevance as the whole thing is covered by pension regulation. BT are obliged to agree a plan to cover the deficit with the trustees of the scheme. It clearly has impact on the OR division as they will (due to historic employment patterns) have a duty to provide some cashflow to cover the deficit (at the moment it's only reported at group level). If you care to read the Ofcom proposals on OR separation you will find a large section given over to that very subject.
There is no Philip Green figure that can extra money from a privately owned company leaving it unable to service the pension deficit. BT is a PLC, whilst BHS was not.
nb. ultimately the government is on the hook for the deficit due to the Crown Guarantee at the time of privatisation. Briefly, if BT Group were to go insolvent then any deficit is guaranteed by the state (which has been established in court). Given that the government had to pick up the Royal Mail pension deficit (about £8n), I doubt they want to see that happen.