Ah to be at the BBC, where it’s summertime and the living is easy.
The heads of BBC radio and TV stations and senior corporation management figures used public money to pay for flowers, champagne, hampers for stars and “thank you” lunches and dinners. Read the sordid details here!
It’s a luvvie merry go round oand we, dear reader, fund it. That’s what makes it so special, you see.
Digby Jones was talking about the public sector seeming to blissfully unaware of the pain the private sector is feeling. This is a prime example of greed and complete sneering disregard of their paying customers.
The banks aren't alone in the freebie feeding frenzy
It's so rewarding being a Trotskyite Trougher.
We have an unelected Prime Minister, an unelected Deputy Leader Baron Mandelson, an unelected Baroness Kinnockio all pushing for an unelected President Elect of Europe, Tony Blair.
It's no wonder the friends of the proletariat at the Guardianista Broadcasting Corporation are filling their boots on public money none of us elected to pay.
The BBC is just part of the great socialist fraud. Time to dismantle this nationalised industry and stop paying for these troughers.
None of these people represent my views and I refuse to pay for them.
No taxation without representation.
No taxation without representation.
what about people under 18 who pay tax?
not disagreeing with what you say, just interested
The following report epitomises the BBC – being politically biased, and dumbing down at the same time, at the licencepayers' expense:
"Glamorous life of the PM's wife"
('Politics' page!)
[Opening extract]:
"Whether it is hanging out with supermodel Naomi Campbell at Glastonbury, getting in with the crowds at Gay Pride, or posing with Hollywood heartthrob George Clooney, Sarah Brown's diary has its fair share of celebrity and glamour.
"Not, perhaps, what you would expect for the wife of a prime minister.
"While Gordon Brown struggles to boost his own and his party's fortunes after a difficult few months, Sarah Brown seems to be in her element, building up a public profile in her own right."
It is a non-story, except for being a gratutitous plug for the Labour Party and the promotion of Homosexuality, compulsory soon under Labour's 'Equality Bill'.
So it comes, that those who claim to worry about the poor and fight poverty are among the best paid of all, the source of which money includes many taxes on the poor.
Printing money when we do it is forgery, when they do it is quantitative easing.
Perhaps its time Jonathan Ross and Bruce Forsyth sent a thank you card to every license paying member of the public for their luvvie gifts from the BBC.
"For example, without overseas travel we couldn't secure millions of pounds of new investment in co-production and exports that can be ploughed back into programming to benefit licence fee payers."
So why not do this without the licence? If they can scour the world for money to fund programmes, why do we need to pay for it.
I thought the whole idea of the telly tax was to pay for public service broadcasting. As far as I can see there is little "public service" from the BBC. Cookery, Game shows and talent shows are hardly a public service.
Now I can understand why the Independant broadcasters are disadvantaged. Not only is the BBC taking our money, but they are also competing with others. And what marvelous programmes do we get.? Eastenders, Casualty, Holby City etc every one of these programmes are long past their sell by date. What is new on the BBC? What outstanding television have they produced in the last 10 years? Putting on the odd adaptation of some Bronte novel is hardly brilliant.
Is all these millions needed to keep Jonathan Ross at the BBC, just in case some independant broadcaster may want to poach a talentless, unfunny and foul mouthed "comedian".
Or maybe they want to pay Graham Norton more to boost his failing audiences.
What with millons from "co-productions" and grants off the EU it seems they don't need us. Maybe the licence fee is used only for their pensions and dinner parties and the odd jolly at pop festivals.
More in the 'Daily Mail':
"Pizza meetings, champagne, muffins and a get well card: BBC faces new expenses scandal."
[Extract]:
"The BBC disclosed a fresh round of expense claims today which showed that in a three-year period £380,000 was claimed by 30 highly-paid middle managers.
"Claims ranging from 80p to £3,213 were put in by managers earning between £160,000 and £314,000 per year.
"The claims made by station controllers and editors follow on from last month's disclosure that £364,000 had been paid out in expenses to the corporation's top executives over the last five years.
"Today's figures showed Andy Parfitt, controller of Radio 1 and Radio 1 Xtra, claimed nearly £700 for 'relationship building' and 'catch up' sessions with DJs.
Mr Parfitt, who earns between £190,000 and £220,000 a year and is also in charge of Popular Music, Asian Network and Switch, also charged £1,517.06 after a 'comm strategy to Radio 1 specialist presenters'.
And despite earning more than the Prime Minister, Mr Parfitt was even paid claims for £176.81 and £89.93 for 'pizza meetings' on the same day, as well as £37.98 for a bottle of champagne."
I'm surprised the Telegraph didn't rip into this quote they got from Caroline Thomson in that article
"However, like all global media organisations, senior leaders will inevitably incur expenses as part of carrying out their roles."
When did our national broadcaster become a 'global' media organisation…..did I miss the part where the globe also pays a licence fee???
Oh shock of shocks these socialists ,are doing their normal trick ,do as we say not as we do .
It's ok for them to try to avoid paying taxes (using monies raised from tax ),but have the cheek to brand those who try to avoid their tv tax criminals !
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/114712/Public-foot-BBC-chiefs-tax-advice-bills
I don't know why I've been so bothered about having to pay my £142 odd to the beeb all these years.
Obviously I should just stick the cheque in the post to Mark Thompson with a case of champers, a Fortnum's hamper, a few tasteful designer fripperies and a sweet little card saying "Thanks awfully sweeties, keep up the good work"
– and then stick the whole lot on expenses as "misc. entertainment".
Why didn't I think of that before?
Whilst MPs troughed their expenses they still all had the "Well, the Fees Office passed it" defence. Not that you'd hear it from the BBC, but the famous claims for moat cleaning and duck houses were just that: "claims", not actually paid, though I can't see much moral defence in "trying it on". Bit like the suicide bombers whose bomb failed to go off, because they didn't quite make the bomb right. True they didn't actually kill anyone…
So where is the "BBC Fees Office" in all this? BBC avoid FOI requests because they are not "the Government" (could have fooled me). But I had to comply with internal rules about expenses in the private sector. Couldn't just lunch each other and claim it, there had to be an outside party, or its taxable benefit in kind. Where is the legal compliance role in the BBC Finance Department?
Betcha nowhere. Don't make waves, just shovel out the money, no questions asked. Why can't we see a list of claims by BBC staff THAT WERE REJECTED by the BBC Finance department? Were there any? We know that at least the gutless Parliamentary Fees Office rejected some. Don't tell me there was proper scrutiny of BBC staff expense claims until you show me a list of those declined.
All these west-end lunches with each other sound very much to me taxable – ie we are looking at fraud by BBC employees.