No company has ever increased staff productivity? No company has ever made shop floor staff redundant? No company has ever banned overtime? If Walmart cut every shop floor workers pay by $1 an hour that would save two billion dollars a year.
The BBC doesn't have anywhere near the number of staff as Walmart but by managing with 95 staff in Sochi instead of the 2500 NBC sent that is a saving of £2.4 million alone in just two weeks. (And that's just salary. Flights, food and hotel costs saved probably double that easily.)
I think the thing most people found ironic about that was that we only have 56 competitors in the winter Olympics
Apparently the DM put up a picture of Bridget Christie to illustrate an article about Charles II today. Which means someone there has a sense of humour. I guess.
I think the thing most people found ironic about that was that we only have 56 competitors in the winter Olympics
There have been years we had no British F1 drivers anywhere near a points finish yet millions still watched.
Wimbledon had no British players anywhere near a quarye final for years but millions still watched the finals.
While local players are popular they are not the only reason people watch sports.
Todays Daily Mail exposes Chris Moyles tax evasion and brings up again Jimmy Carr's tax evasion scheme.
Funny that they don't mention the owner of the Daily Mail Lord Rothemere is, like his father was, technically domiciled in France and owns the Daily Mail through trusts in Bermuda to cut his tax bill. The Guardian said he inherited the Mail "tax free", quite a nice saving on £1.3 billion.
Yet another thread on Britain's finest newspaper, eh.
There is another excellent investigation into the: Apologists for Paedophilia - the Mail exposes more links betwen senior Labour figures and a vile paedophile group.
Has the BBC mentioned it yet?
Today's excellent essay is by the editor of The Economist Magazine - Putin's Useful Idiots - The eminent Russian expert attacks liberals who support Edward Snowden.
Yet another thread on Britain's finest newspaper, eh.
There is another excellent investigation into the: Apologists for Paedophilia - the Mail exposes more links betwen senior Labour figures and a vile paedophile group.
Today's excellent essay is by the editor of The Economist Magazine - Putin's Useful Idiots - The eminent Russian expert attacks liberals who support Edward Snowden.
Highly recommended.
A bit of a confused article. He claims the public exposure has damaged relations between countries, but then says that all these countries knew each other were doing this anyway. And do you really think Putin could care less about what the west thinks?
The damage to operations against terrorists and revealing some of their tricks is valid however. Though I'm not sure why an intelligence career is "over" once someone is named publicly. Recalled from certain types of post maybe, but to say that there is therefore no job they can do is bizarre. And from someone who claims to be knowledgeable on the subject.
Yet another thread on Britain's finest newspaper, eh.
There is another excellent investigation into the: Apologists for Paedophilia - the Mail exposes more links betwen senior Labour figures and a vile paedophile group.
Has the BBC mentioned it yet?
Today's excellent essay is by the editor of The Economist Magazine - Putin's Useful Idiots - The eminent Russian expert attacks liberals who support Edward Snowden.
Highly recommended.
In addition the Mail today reports on horrifying stories from concentration camp victims in North Korea likened to Nazi Germany.
In addition the Mail today reports on horrifying stories from concentration camp victims in North Korea likened to Nazi Germany.
Grim stuff.
What? No comment about your "Has the BBC mentioned it yet?" question being answered with "Yes, eleven years ago"?
Or about the Mail gleefully running articles about Moyles and Carr evading tax while their owner uses French domicile and Bermudian trusts to escape UK inheritance, income and corporation tax?
What? No comment about your "Has the BBC mentioned it yet?" question being answered with "Yes, eleven years ago"?
Or about the Mail gleefully running articles about Moyles and Carr evading tax while their owner uses French domicile and Bermudian trusts to escape UK inheritance, income and corporation tax?
I didn't mention anyones tax liabilities. As regards the paedo cover up are the BBC reporting it NOW?
The Mail have a fine reputation as a campaigning newspaper, they will not rest until these senior Labour politicians give answers.
I didn't mention anyones tax liabilities. As regards the paedo cover up are the BBC reporting it NOW?
The Mail have a fine reputation as a campaigning newspaper, they will not rest until these senior Labour politicians give answers.
So the BBC report on something eleven years before the Mail and you're criticising the BBC? I can't see anything in the Mail article that wasn't known and reported eleven years ago.
And maybe in a few years people will start asking why the Mail chose to publish so many articles of underage girls in skimpy clothes and bikinis. I'm sure the Mail Online must have been Jimmy Savile's favourite website! A whole article about Will Smiths daughter illustrated with twenty pics of her in a bikini, for example. And she was twelve. Yep, great investigative reporting there.
Particularly recommended today is the article giving a stark warning from our most authorative historian of Eastern Europe (Mark Almond) - Why the eruption in Kiev could set off a tsunami that will engulf us all.
Also recommended is a special report on Kim Jong Un after the man who knows him best now reveals all.
Yet another thread on Britain's finest newspaper, eh.
Which newspaper is that then?
There is another excellent investigation into the: Apologists for Paedophilia - the Mail exposes more links betwen senior Labour figures and a vile paedophile group.
You mean a rehashing of the article they ran two months ago about something in the far distant past?
You mean a rehashing of the article they ran two months ago about something in the far distant past?
"Revealing" things that were already a matter of public record years ago, that The Telegraph covered in 2009 and the BBC had made a documentary about in 2003. What exactly does he expect the BBC to report? "Shock news! Princess Diana still dead!"
To the claims that the BBC is somehow "soft" on labour we should just remember it was the BBC who exposed that Blair sexed up the WMD document used to justify the war in Iraq. And that events long after the Hutton report proved the BBC was right all along.
Following the Mail's campaign, now columnists from the Observer, the Mirror, Sunday Mirror and Sunday Times have come out and demanded answers as well.
It gets attacked by left wing comedians but look at any tabloid sized newspaper and it will be partisan. The Mirror does for the left what The DM does for the right: feed into stereotypes to stir up continued readership.
Comments
I think the thing most people found ironic about that was that we only have 56 competitors in the winter Olympics
Source- http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2014/02/18/19624/are_you_sure_this_is_charles_ii%3F
There have been years we had no British F1 drivers anywhere near a points finish yet millions still watched.
Wimbledon had no British players anywhere near a quarye final for years but millions still watched the finals.
While local players are popular they are not the only reason people watch sports.
Funny that they don't mention the owner of the Daily Mail Lord Rothemere is, like his father was, technically domiciled in France and owns the Daily Mail through trusts in Bermuda to cut his tax bill. The Guardian said he inherited the Mail "tax free", quite a nice saving on £1.3 billion.
There is another excellent investigation into the: Apologists for Paedophilia - the Mail exposes more links betwen senior Labour figures and a vile paedophile group.
Has the BBC mentioned it yet?
Today's excellent essay is by the editor of The Economist Magazine - Putin's Useful Idiots - The eminent Russian expert attacks liberals who support Edward Snowden.
Highly recommended.
The damage to operations against terrorists and revealing some of their tricks is valid however. Though I'm not sure why an intelligence career is "over" once someone is named publicly. Recalled from certain types of post maybe, but to say that there is therefore no job they can do is bizarre. And from someone who claims to be knowledgeable on the subject.
In addition the Mail today reports on horrifying stories from concentration camp victims in North Korea likened to Nazi Germany.
Grim stuff.
What? No comment about your "Has the BBC mentioned it yet?" question being answered with "Yes, eleven years ago"?
Or about the Mail gleefully running articles about Moyles and Carr evading tax while their owner uses French domicile and Bermudian trusts to escape UK inheritance, income and corporation tax?
I didn't mention anyones tax liabilities. As regards the paedo cover up are the BBC reporting it NOW?
The Mail have a fine reputation as a campaigning newspaper, they will not rest until these senior Labour politicians give answers.
So the BBC report on something eleven years before the Mail and you're criticising the BBC? I can't see anything in the Mail article that wasn't known and reported eleven years ago.
And maybe in a few years people will start asking why the Mail chose to publish so many articles of underage girls in skimpy clothes and bikinis. I'm sure the Mail Online must have been Jimmy Savile's favourite website! A whole article about Will Smiths daughter illustrated with twenty pics of her in a bikini, for example. And she was twelve. Yep, great investigative reporting there.
Also recommended is a special report on Kim Jong Un after the man who knows him best now reveals all.
You mean a rehashing of the article they ran two months ago about something in the far distant past?
"Revealing" things that were already a matter of public record years ago, that The Telegraph covered in 2009 and the BBC had made a documentary about in 2003. What exactly does he expect the BBC to report? "Shock news! Princess Diana still dead!"
To the claims that the BBC is somehow "soft" on labour we should just remember it was the BBC who exposed that Blair sexed up the WMD document used to justify the war in Iraq. And that events long after the Hutton report proved the BBC was right all along.
HOW MUCH LONGER CAN PAEDOPHILLIA APPOLOGISTS STAY SILENT?
That's the third such front page headline in recent days. Well done to the Mail for persisting with their campain.
But STILL the BBC choose to ignore the story.
Apart from covering it eleven years ago of course....
What, in your opinion, has the Mail just exposed to make the story relevant today? What is there that wasn't known public knowledge eleven years ago?
The BBC cannot ignore the story now.
And the BBC have now had to stop ignoring it.
You didn't see Newsnight then?
Their main story was a Harman interview and they ripped her to shreds.
But you are still claiming they are "ignoring it"? Newsnight aired at 10.30 yet you posted at 10.54 and 23.12 claiming they are still "ignoring it"
I suggest you check it out on iPlayer.
I've already told you: The Mail have smoked her out.
And now the BBC couldn't ignore it any longer.
Well done again to The Mail - Britain's finest newspaper and naturally regarded as the Most Influential.
Response.
They are resolute!
Maybe the Mail should look closer to home, for people who were paid up members of PIE, but I doubt they will.
If they go far enough back we could get..."Nazi Concentration Camp Apologists Stay Silent" ?