Hmmm, I seen on channel 4news lastnight was one of the expenses was flying the Director Generals family home after he had to cancel a holiday due to the Ross/Brand incident. Now who started all that trouble?
All this nonsense about the head of the BBC claiming £2k on expenses to cut short his holiday to deal with the Ross/Brand affair…
Quick question – if you had to cut short your family holiday to return to deal with something important in the office, wouldn’t you claim that on expenses?
Fawcett only died yesterday and we’ve already got a tasteful expose of everything she ever did wrong showing why it was all her own fault. I dread tomorrow’s Jacko front page.
I see the way that they’ve used degrees F and not degress C. Now, each to their own but I’m in my mid 40s and haven’t used Fahrenheit for as long as I can remember. They can’t even report on the weather without pandering to prejudice.
Too right, Chris. Out of interest, when did the rest of the world leave the likes of The Express and The Mail behind and start measuring temperature using Celsius?
If only there was a ‘Planet BBC’. Hopefully it would be like a bigger version of the dear old UK, but with nationalised trains and utilities and no f**king Daily Mail to spoil everything. I’d go A.S.A.P.
My suspiscion is that senior staff at BA (and the DMGT for that matter) may also be paid more than the prime minister. And I bet they aren’t working for free!
Wouldn’t it be nice to see the all DM et al’s expense claims laid bare?
Just for the sake of transparency.
I mean, if we’re really going to get into nitty-gritty value judgements about what is usual, fair and reasonable?
Perhaps the Gov ought to pass a bit of new legislation so that share-holders can see exactly what costs they are stumping up for and what passes for a reasonable claim in the private sector?
They’ve happily made this bed for the Gov & the public sector, supposedly on behalf of the taxpayer, it strikes me as only reasonable that share-holders get something similarly illuminating.
Of course you can bet with 100% absolute certainty that the likes of the DM and a host of businesses would rather die than be as open as they have forced others to be.
(btw I’m all for openness as far as expenses etc go…..but if we’re going to have this then it should be openness for all.
I see no reason why taxpayers should be the only ones to ‘benefit’ from this level of detail)
The DM is a private company, if your silly enough to buy it that’s yours problem, but the BBC and the government sink alot of money from people in the license fee/taxes, that’s really the main reason why i’m not to bothered about DM expenses but am about the other two. Anyway I don’t know why people are shocked over the MP’s expenses ’scandal’, they’ve been doing this sort of things for years!
I’m not continuously bothered by MP’s expenses, I do have something that resembles a life. My point was that the whole set up is a joke, lying and fixing politicians are nothing new.
As far as I’m aware the DM is a private company owned by shareholding.
So why can we not have transparancy in this matter for that sort of private company?
The fact that they are a company owned by share-holders takes them into an entirely different arena than if they were just owned bu some private person or family so I just don’t see what your point is here.
So why couldn’t or shouldn’t our Gov extend the legal requirements for much more open accounting?
Of course the likes of the DM would hate it but if it’s good enough to hold this sort of invasive microscope over anything to do with publicly funded activities then why shouldn’t share-holders also receive similar openness for those widely owned private businesses?
Staff working for free at BA is not altruistic, and isn’t good – it’s bloody scandalous, that’s what it is. The bosses won’t be losing anything – the only ones working for nothing are the ones in difficult, low-paid jobs who probably risk losing their houses as a result of this blackmail. I suspect plenty of people at the top of BA get more than the PM, who incidentally only gets about £150k a year – not a lot for the man who runs the country. Typical ill-thought-out bollocks used to beat the Beeb with. Shite.
Mail Man, my point is is that if the DM is owned/part owned by shareholders then they made a decision to buy shares in that company, and its upto them to press for more transparency in the financial dealings of that company. This is very different from taxes/license fee money that is taken from the public on penalty that if you don’t pay you’ll get a fine or even a prison sentences.
BTW i’m not saying private company’s financial matters should always be kept under lock and key and away from the public eye, but I do place more importance on how public money is spent than on how private company money is spent.
The problem is that all the public sector industries will be smeared like this every week. Soon it will be the NHS, schools, social workers, giving the impression that everything public is wasteful and everything private is thrifty. If the Mail published their expenses we could see through the blatent hypocracy and show that compared to journalists, MPs and BBC are absolute saints.
They’re nothing but a gang of self-interested hypocrites hoping to wreck as much of the public sector as they can – and a destroyed BBC & a permanent tory party Gov are their prime motivations.
I think we should reveal this and enforce a blanket transparency on such matters – in the name of protecting and enlightening the ordinary share-holders, of course.
I think you’ve missed my point, its not so much how the money is spent but how it is obtained. The DM obtains its money through advertising and people buying the paper, the MPs and the BBC obtain a large % of their money through the public. Sure the DM spends alot of money on wasteful things (Melanie Phillips being but one example that springs to mind) but since the money for this is obtained through people buying the paper of their own will and companies advertising in it of their own will, why would it make any difference if they showed their accounting for the year? I have not brought a DM in my life, nor have I advertised in it, I have given quite alot in taxes and license fee money though and I have but a small interest in how that money is spent (or often as the case seems misspent). If you wish to see how the DM is full of hypocrites just read the paper (for free online) or the blogs that cover it, you don’t need to know their expenses to know they are full of sh*t.
I do agree in principle with what powertotheimagination says, but in reality we need to protect our public institutions from smears by exposing the lies of the tabloids. Of course dodgy expenses at the BBC and MPs are bad but we cant let them drag these great institutions through the mud by tabloid lies and hypocracy. Therefore comparing them with the private sector is vital.
The problem with the Dailly Mail is that it’s policy and views are so rigid, and classicaly right wing, that they believe that anyone that doesn’t follow them are “biased”.
If you go on a Dailly Mail “user” board, to post a message on a board, they won’t publish it unless you say something that goes along with their editorial policy.
It gets blocked by the moderators/censors. The same applies for the ultra conservative Sky news web site.
Bias in terms of Daily Mail world is creative independence.
How can we tell whether expenses paid by private companies to their employees are truly legitimate expenses or just benefits in kind that should be TAXED unless these things are out in the open!
How do shareholders know that they are not beiong ripped off from legitimate dividend earnings being pi$$ed up the wall in fraudulent expenses claims?
Those f*ckers started this brutal episode of holding everything up to the light (which I am not against, actually……but it was done so obviously politically) so if we’re going to have these standards in public life I see no reason why we ought not insist on them being extended in to publicly owned businesses.
Surely that should read “The Daily Mail vs The BBC”
What about Daily Mail World?
huh? i was never under the impression that the pm got a huge wage anyway, i doubt any of the beeb exec jobs come with a free house.
Hmmm, I seen on channel 4news lastnight was one of the expenses was flying the Director Generals family home after he had to cancel a holiday due to the Ross/Brand incident. Now who started all that trouble?
All this nonsense about the head of the BBC claiming £2k on expenses to cut short his holiday to deal with the Ross/Brand affair…
Quick question – if you had to cut short your family holiday to return to deal with something important in the office, wouldn’t you claim that on expenses?
Fawcett only died yesterday and we’ve already got a tasteful expose of everything she ever did wrong showing why it was all her own fault. I dread tomorrow’s Jacko front page.
I see the way that they’ve used degrees F and not degress C. Now, each to their own but I’m in my mid 40s and haven’t used Fahrenheit for as long as I can remember. They can’t even report on the weather without pandering to prejudice.
Check out all the red arrows:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1195607/The-King-Pop-dead-Michael-Jackson-passes-away–aged-50–rushed-hospital-coma.html
Too right, Chris. Out of interest, when did the rest of the world leave the likes of The Express and The Mail behind and start measuring temperature using Celsius?
If only there was a ‘Planet BBC’. Hopefully it would be like a bigger version of the dear old UK, but with nationalised trains and utilities and no f**king Daily Mail to spoil everything. I’d go A.S.A.P.
My suspiscion is that senior staff at BA (and the DMGT for that matter) may also be paid more than the prime minister. And I bet they aren’t working for free!
I thought she was destroyed by cancer.
It’s a standard trick in much of the media to report low temperatures in Celsius and high ones in Fahrenheit, so that they sound more extreme.
They ought to use Kelvin for the high temperatures.
The nasty paper for the nasty party’s nasty people.
Celsius – PAH! woolly, yoghurt-knitting PC foreign muck!
They made a big deal about the BBC spending £100 for a champagne bottle to give to Brucie on his 80th.
Wouldn’t it be nice to see the all DM et al’s expense claims laid bare?
Just for the sake of transparency.
I mean, if we’re really going to get into nitty-gritty value judgements about what is usual, fair and reasonable?
Perhaps the Gov ought to pass a bit of new legislation so that share-holders can see exactly what costs they are stumping up for and what passes for a reasonable claim in the private sector?
They’ve happily made this bed for the Gov & the public sector, supposedly on behalf of the taxpayer, it strikes me as only reasonable that share-holders get something similarly illuminating.
Of course you can bet with 100% absolute certainty that the likes of the DM and a host of businesses would rather die than be as open as they have forced others to be.
(btw I’m all for openness as far as expenses etc go…..but if we’re going to have this then it should be openness for all.
I see no reason why taxpayers should be the only ones to ‘benefit’ from this level of detail)
The DM is a private company, if your silly enough to buy it that’s yours problem, but the BBC and the government sink alot of money from people in the license fee/taxes, that’s really the main reason why i’m not to bothered about DM expenses but am about the other two. Anyway I don’t know why people are shocked over the MP’s expenses ’scandal’, they’ve been doing this sort of things for years!
Are you continously bothered then that MP’s have been doing this for years?
The piece on Farrah is horrible junky journalism i expect from this paper.
I’m not continuously bothered by MP’s expenses, I do have something that resembles a life. My point was that the whole set up is a joke, lying and fixing politicians are nothing new.
Powertotheimagination
As far as I’m aware the DM is a private company owned by shareholding.
So why can we not have transparancy in this matter for that sort of private company?
The fact that they are a company owned by share-holders takes them into an entirely different arena than if they were just owned bu some private person or family so I just don’t see what your point is here.
So why couldn’t or shouldn’t our Gov extend the legal requirements for much more open accounting?
Of course the likes of the DM would hate it but if it’s good enough to hold this sort of invasive microscope over anything to do with publicly funded activities then why shouldn’t share-holders also receive similar openness for those widely owned private businesses?
A new open reality for all, why not?
105F ?!?
Bollocks
it was in the high 20’s tops (Centigrade that is, for those of us born in the 20th century)
couldn’t agree more with Power
Staff working for free at BA is not altruistic, and isn’t good – it’s bloody scandalous, that’s what it is. The bosses won’t be losing anything – the only ones working for nothing are the ones in difficult, low-paid jobs who probably risk losing their houses as a result of this blackmail. I suspect plenty of people at the top of BA get more than the PM, who incidentally only gets about £150k a year – not a lot for the man who runs the country. Typical ill-thought-out bollocks used to beat the Beeb with. Shite.
THIS IS NOT THE CORRECT FRONT PAGE
THE DM RAN A STORY ON MICHAEL JACKSON’S DEATH
At least it was a FAMILY holiday, rather than these crooked, leftist, Euro-ised holidays us single childless folk take.
Mail Man, my point is is that if the DM is owned/part owned by shareholders then they made a decision to buy shares in that company, and its upto them to press for more transparency in the financial dealings of that company. This is very different from taxes/license fee money that is taken from the public on penalty that if you don’t pay you’ll get a fine or even a prison sentences.
BTW i’m not saying private company’s financial matters should always be kept under lock and key and away from the public eye, but I do place more importance on how public money is spent than on how private company money is spent.
The problem is that all the public sector industries will be smeared like this every week. Soon it will be the NHS, schools, social workers, giving the impression that everything public is wasteful and everything private is thrifty. If the Mail published their expenses we could see through the blatent hypocracy and show that compared to journalists, MPs and BBC are absolute saints.
Precisely Matthew.
They’re nothing but a gang of self-interested hypocrites hoping to wreck as much of the public sector as they can – and a destroyed BBC & a permanent tory party Gov are their prime motivations.
I think we should reveal this and enforce a blanket transparency on such matters – in the name of protecting and enlightening the ordinary share-holders, of course.
I think you’ve missed my point, its not so much how the money is spent but how it is obtained. The DM obtains its money through advertising and people buying the paper, the MPs and the BBC obtain a large % of their money through the public. Sure the DM spends alot of money on wasteful things (Melanie Phillips being but one example that springs to mind) but since the money for this is obtained through people buying the paper of their own will and companies advertising in it of their own will, why would it make any difference if they showed their accounting for the year? I have not brought a DM in my life, nor have I advertised in it, I have given quite alot in taxes and license fee money though and I have but a small interest in how that money is spent (or often as the case seems misspent). If you wish to see how the DM is full of hypocrites just read the paper (for free online) or the blogs that cover it, you don’t need to know their expenses to know they are full of sh*t.
I do agree in principle with what powertotheimagination says, but in reality we need to protect our public institutions from smears by exposing the lies of the tabloids. Of course dodgy expenses at the BBC and MPs are bad but we cant let them drag these great institutions through the mud by tabloid lies and hypocracy. Therefore comparing them with the private sector is vital.
The problem with the Dailly Mail is that it’s policy and views are so rigid, and classicaly right wing, that they believe that anyone that doesn’t follow them are “biased”.
If you go on a Dailly Mail “user” board, to post a message on a board, they won’t publish it unless you say something that goes along with their editorial policy.
It gets blocked by the moderators/censors. The same applies for the ultra conservative Sky news web site.
Bias in terms of Daily Mail world is creative independence.
How can we tell whether expenses paid by private companies to their employees are truly legitimate expenses or just benefits in kind that should be TAXED unless these things are out in the open!
Too true KnoxJunior.
How do shareholders know that they are not beiong ripped off from legitimate dividend earnings being pi$$ed up the wall in fraudulent expenses claims?
Those f*ckers started this brutal episode of holding everything up to the light (which I am not against, actually……but it was done so obviously politically) so if we’re going to have these standards in public life I see no reason why we ought not insist on them being extended in to publicly owned businesses.