The Independent reports:
In a report published today, the Public Accounts Committee raised concerns over the BBC’s arrangements with the Peel Group, a private real estate conglomerate which owns the BBC’s new Salford broadcasting complex.
“The BBC risks becoming overly dependent on the Peel Group for long-term success at Salford,” said the report. “The Peel Group owns the BBC’s buildings at Salford, the on-site studio facilities and surrounding property.”
During earlier evidence to the PAC, the Labour MP Fiona Mactaggart made reference to a report on the Peel Group by the think tank ExUrbe “which suggests that the most profitable parts of the Peel Group are managing to pay nil UK corporation tax.”
“The BBC’s relationship with significant partner organisations also involves potential reputational risks for the BBC, for example, the extent to which partner organisations are transparent about their tax status in the UK and the amount of tax they pay,”
In its report the PAC also expressed concerns over the BBC’s disastrous handling of the Digital Media Initiative (DMI), which was scrapped at a cost of almost £100 million.
The BBC said: “We are pleased that the Public Accounts Committee has recognised BBC North was delivered on time, under budget and with no break in services. We have just celebrated two years of award-winning TV, radio and online content and the whole region is sharing in the momentum of Media City.”
So all good then.
The BBC has no sense of the value of money.
Given the consequences of misusing the public funding they are gifted by force, why would they?
Peel is notorious for its lucrative property deals with public bodies, and its cosy relationship with public servants.
http://britain-today.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/bent-sheffield.html
Any New labour links? All that Sheffield stuff was right in the Middle of Blair’s tenure.
See further down, etc Sir Arthur Grebe-Strebling…
In the Eighties SCC gave (as in here you go – no charge) a building to the NUM to use as their headquarters. The building was serviced by ex-council workers who were put on the NUMs books.
Not long after Scargill and his cess-pool of cronies moved in the cleaners went on strike – they didn’t like how the NUM were treating them. Scargill sacked them on the spot.
The Council remained silent throughout the whole dispute and no union would help the cleaners after they lost their jobs.
So much for solidarity.
Oh yeah, the story of Scargil and Solidarity. Another shameful episode in the NUMs history …
“We are pleased that the Public Accounts Committee has recognised BBC North was delivered on time, under budget and with no break in services.”
Fine, and I suppose they think Mussolini was a praiseworthy Leader then. Well, it was recognised that he made the trains run on time.
Agreed, did the PAC say this? If they did they have handed the BBC a get out clause to reply with banal pap just as they do when politicians do the same when they preface criticism with ‘the BBC is wonderful but…” or “most BBC output is award winning and great but…”
The Peel Group:-
Total assets: £6.6 billion (2011);
Owner(s): John Whittaker (75%), &
The Olayan Group (25%)-a Saudi conglomerate.
Seems a bit much to expect the BBC to be responsible for the Peel groups tax arrangements. Did the select committee warn the BBC about its links to the DCMS during the MPs expenses scandal?
If we are to judge on the basis of the company we keep, what should we make of those who inhabite this site?
“Is the BBC in thrall to Islam because of a Saudi landlord?”
(Cranmer, Jan 2011).
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/is-bbc-in-thrall-to-islam-because-of.html
It’s hypocrisy for the Beeb to take a critical editorial position on the legal tax arrangements of Amazon and Google whilst itself renting property from a company that does the same thing.
Incidentally, for some reason, I’ve never heard criticism on the Beeb of the tax reduction methods employed by Guardian Media Group and Labour Party Properties Ltd. Two other hypocrites with form for calling the kettle black on this issue.
Igor you say
“If we are to judge on the basis of the company we keep, what should we make of those who inhabite this site? ”
That’s the point, the BBC and its defenders on this site
constantly hold to account any that disagree with them, on the basis of association however tenuous (Check CTC’s current witch hunt on ‘Asian letting agencies’)
And I mean constantly But people of who they approve, not so much. Red Ken for instance has shared platforms with some truly lovely people and Michael Adebolajo spoke at UAF demos but sign of excommunication there either.
You would think that Aunty ,who regularly pontificates about the legal tax status of companies like Starbucks (but not Stemcor or the Guardian) or lambasts amazon for selling ‘banned books’ .Might, in her own interest if not the interest of her sponsors (us) ,check into the financial back ground of a multi billion pound property developer before dropping her knickers and jumping into bed
Still the Peoples Republic of Sheffield deal with them ,what better testimonial could the BBC ask for
Well said, and the efforts being made by the Cherry Vultures of late seem nothing sort of deranged in what they pick up on, try and include, avoid or, my favourite, what sees them suddenly run back to ground.
I still await a response on the precedent of shutting down this blog based on the demands of a few upset that things they don’t like get mentioned, or if they do must get howled at like the end scene in ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’.
You can only see what is unpalatable, or to taste, if it is shared, and then open to assessment. Filters put power in the hands of gatekeepers, and such power leads to corruption very quickly. As to visible signs of approval, or not, the abuse of voting by show (or not) of hands was moved to secret ballot as a fundamental part of democracy.
One can see why such banwagon selective censorship mindsets get excited by Leveson or ECHR rulings in shutting out critics (it is such as the Mail that has brought to the attention of at least 2 million licence fee payers this little Saudi Salford conflict of interest, and abuses such as… this ‘guess who pays?’ latest: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2459094/TV-Licensing-compensates-son-threatened-1k-fine-dead-mothers-house.html Not a likely topic for a Watchdog or Newsnight ‘investigation’ soon, maybe?), but they really have not thought it through.
‘If we are to judge..’
Seems there’s already another ‘we’, from another fresh, obviously welcome but possibly destined to be brief contributor to the site.
Closely followed by a bit more brush-tar attempted all-inclusivity, albeit more restricted to this site rather than the activities and associations of the BBC, which would never do.
While this site is free, and folk can come and go as they please, the BBC’s commercial bonds, and ideological selectivity, are different matters.
Conflicts of interest can be borne of many factors and fealties, from debt to tribal loyalty, but also includes the two influential extremes of threat or reward.
Managing my Mum’s old cottage we had a tenant who decided to test his motorbike in the garden every Sunday morning, that was not best neighbourly. So I asked him to desist. He refused. So I served him his notice. He re-assessed and community harmony was restored.
If so minded (I was not), I could have likely got him to dance a jig on the roof each night had I reduced the rent enough as part of the deal.
Such is the power that can be wielded if necessary, or chosen.
As others have already gently pointed out to you, not perhaps optimal with a media monopoly open and/or prone to ‘encouragement’ on certain issues already?
“MediaCity UK… does its name not shriek gullibility?”
By QUENTIN LETTS
(June, 2013).
[Excerpt]:-
“There, suddenly, stand some highish-rise buildings, sparkly, spanking new, covered in BBC ‘branding’. Modernist architecture. Empty, draughty squares. It is the sort of citiscape Nicolae Ceausescu planned for Bucharest.
“Communists used egalitarianism as a cover for a cult of the personality. The BBC high-ups of the past decade – in collusion with a Labour Government keen to pack northern constituencies with public money and Left-wing voters – plotted a cult of the corporation. Dissent was ignored, inconvenient truth crushed.Yesterday Peter Salmon, head of BBC North (who has only just stopped claiming two years’ worth of extra spondoolicks to compensate him for moving north), adopted management-speak opacity. ”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339203/QUENTIN-LETTS-MediaCity-UK–does-shriek-gullibility.html
‘There, suddenly, stand some highish-rise buildings, sparkly, spanking new, covered in BBC ‘branding’. Modernist architecture. Empty, draughty squares’
There is more damning in how the semantics were dialled up to 11 to misrepresent this barking waste of money – ‘He implied BBC TV audience figures have rocketed … He gave the impression… Note that was not quite what he said. – but this para resonated.
I was owner of a very successful creative business in Singapore a while back. But the government was a bit narked that while the country as a whole was lauded across the board on most things, it was not for ‘creativity’.
So they decided to make Singapore ‘creative’, and invited a bunch of us to the big presentation on how it would all work. Seems the plan was to create a ‘Centre of Creative Excellence’ out amongst the flatted factories, and stick all of us out there to mull and seek our muse, with some incentives thrown in on rents.
Thing is, none of us had any intention of biting. We pointed out that creativity grows organically, in the bars of Covent Garden, small parks of SoHo or along the banks of Boat Quay…. not in a block of buildings with a coffee shop managed by SBC executives once they duck out of their essential jobs come 4pm daily (I may have added that bit on).
Cue a bunch of very grumpy civ servs kicking us all out and, in true public sector style, getting in those who would tell them what they wanted to hear.
The BBC wonders why the British public has lost all trust in the BBC – and the BBC’s response shows exactly why trust is not being restored. Does anyone at the BBC know the meaning of honesty not just the Alistair Campbell version?
“MPs blast BBC for being too close to Peel – and for ‘excessive’ Salford relocation packages.
“The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee warned the corporation is too ‘dependent’ on landowners Peel – who own the BBC’s Salford Quays base – and is risking its reputation by being so closely associated with the company.”
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/mps-blast-bbc-being-close-6189935
Are they still going to name their Peel wing after the seedy fey lecherous bloke who played Teenage Kicks( be aware of that record, people…those lyrics are very Glitter Band these days!).
Or will they name it after the dodgy tax dodging holding Corps that let the BBC squat on their land with our money
I preferred the name Savile Row myself..which at least does exactly what it says on the tin.
Why don’t they just call it the BBC Paedophile Wing?
It’s become home for the propagandist INBBC Arabic Service (programmes for world’s Muslims, paid for by British people). And this afternoon’s Radio 4’s ‘Thinking Aloud’ had the adopted Beeboid politico Laurie Taylor uncritically fronting a puff piece for BBC Arabic Service, implying, of course that it is politically impartial, when it has a political predilection for Muslim Brotherhood, still.
‘Propagandisng for INBBC aloud’ today:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03cngzw
…”the construction of the new John Peel Wing, now home to the BBC’s Arabic and Persian television services and BBC London. It was completed in 2005 and officially opened by The Queen in April 2006.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/broadcastinghouse/bh_story/bh_future.shtml
There’s a few aspects to the following article that are not covered, and worthy of mention.
The ‘Public Accounts Committee’ has condemned the BBC for paying its staff a total of £24 million to move to Salford, while not keeping a full record of just who it was that authorised these payments.
Seems like a no-brainer that whoever heads the departments responsible should have their heads on the block, and that’s just for starters.
Another criticism was that that despite the huge expense of moving to Salford, the BBC does not own its new office space or studios. Instead, it rents them from real estate giant the Peel Group.
The PAC raised concerns about the 10-year arrangement, saying the BBC could risk locking itself into making payments for buildings it may not use.
It also warned the corporation risked damaging its reputation by associating itself with the company, which was accused of avoiding corporation tax earlier this year. The Peel Group has always denied the allegations.
Besides the obvious, there’s something I read in the article that rang an alarm bell. It was when I read this:
Last night, the PAC’s chairman Margaret Hodge praised the BBC for moving to Salford on time, but condemned its financial management saying: ‘The scale of some of the allowances paid to staff to relocate to Salford is difficult to justify.
In light of the excesses and bad judgements displayed, praising them for anything related to it seems odd. So I looked up just who this Margaret Hodge is, and wouldn’t you know it, she’s a Labour MP. 🙄
So besides the fact that she’s going to do her best to protect ‘auntie’, there’s a few other things about her own record.
Hodge’s role as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee (United Kingdom) has not been without controversy.
There have been concerns raised in the national Press over the fact that as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, Hodge is leading an investigation into the controversial tax arrangements of a number of US companies operating in the UK when her own family company ‘pays just 0.01pc tax on £2.1bn of business generated in the UK’.[38] However, the same newspaper subsequently apologised to her, stating that “there is no inconsistency or hypocrisy in Ms Hodge criticising other companies for tax avoidance and [we] apologise to her for any contrary impression”.[39] In a May 2013 interview with Sky News Hodge stated that her family company paid ‘every penny’ of the tax it owed although later she admitted that she did not know how much tax it actually paid.[40] She has also been accused of lacking understanding of how the taxation system operates, both the existing statute and the process involved for amending it.[41] Hodge continued to demonstrate her lack of understanding of UK tax law by demanding HMRC launch an “absolutely thorough investigation to make sure that UK taxpayers receive the maximum to which they are entitled” when the Vodafone sale of Verizon Wireless was announced in September 2013.[42][43] This was despite the fact that no UK companies were involved in the transaction, and even if there had been then no UK corporation tax would have been payable due to the ‘substantial shareholdings exemption’. This was a deliberately designed exemption that Hodge herself voted in favour of in the Finance Act 2002, introduced by the Labour government of the time.[44]
So hardly somebody that can be said to be impartial in relation to the Peel Group and their tax affairs.
As to her own previous record, there’s also this scandal that indicates just what this woman is about.
Child abuse controversy
In 1985, Demetrious Panton complained about abuse that he had suffered while in the council’s care in the 1970s and 1980s. He did not receive an official reply until 1989, in which the council denied responsibility.[12]
In 1990, Liz Davies, a senior social worker employed by the borough and her manager, David Cofie, raised concerns about sexual abuse of children in Islington Council care. Correspondence between Hodge and the director of social work indicates that she declined a request for extra resources to investigate. In early 1992, Davies (not to be confused with the barrister and former Islington councillor) resigned from her post and requested that Scotland Yard investigate the allegations. The Evening Standard then began reporting on the allegations of abuse in Islington’s children’s homes, shortly after which Hodge resigned to pursue a career with Price Waterhouse. In 1995, the “White Report” into sexual abuse in Islington Care Homes reported that the council had failed adequately to investigate the allegations.[13]
In 2003, following Hodge’s appointment as Minister for Children, Panton went public with his allegation that he was abused in Islington Council care and had repeatedly raised this issue with no effect. He accused Hodge of being ultimately responsible for the abuse that he suffered. Davies also went public with the issues that she had raised concerns about while working for the council.[14] Following a media campaign conducted by several national newspapers calling for her to resign from her new post, she responded to Panton by letter, in which she apologised for referring to him as ‘an extremely disturbed person’ in an earlier letter to then BBC chairman Gavyn Davies which was broadcast on Radio 4’s Today programme. Hodge was forced to publicly apologise and offered to contribute to a charity of Panton’s choosing as recompense.[15]
One can guarantee that the BBC will not be judged adequately by any body that this woman heads. We’ll now see just how she manages to ‘excuse them their sins’ (‘lessons have been learned, etc, etc,)
BBC’s £24m relocation cost ‘difficult to justify’: MPs condemn corporation for failing to keep records of who authorised payments to staff
It’s no surprise to those of us who live in the NorthWest that Peel Holdings allegedly has close links to sources of public money, although the bBBC would never tell us that. The most egregious examples came through the unlamented North West Development Agency, abolished by the coalition government, which had been set up in 1997 by Labour to give away about £1billion a year of our money during Gordon Brown’s “borrow, borrow, borrow” years.
The Deputy Chairman of Peel Holdings became the Chairman of the NWDA (whilst still a paid director of Peel Holdings Management Ltd) and within a few months the NW’s Regional Strategy closely resembled Peel’s Business Plan, allegedly.
More details are at http://www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=448, http://www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=438, http://www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=439 and http://www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=440.