Options
BBC spends £31,000 per day of tax payers money on taxi fares
tim59
Posts: 47,188 Forum Member
✭
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/559715/BBC-told-cut-waste-lose-licence-fee-must-account-every-penny-MPs-threat-31k-a-day-taxi. The corporation received £3.7billion in licence fees last year but it has been accused of wasting millions. It was revealed yesterday that it spent more than £34.4million on taxis in three years, equivalent to nearly £31,450 a day.
Mr Burns argues that greater transparency would bring this kind of waste to an end.
He writes: “I was encouraged when, in 2010, the BBC Trust agreed that the National Audit Office, which checks the accounts of all government departments, public agencies and a number of other organisations, would have full access to the BBC’s accounts to ensure that it is providing value for money.
“However, the head of the NAO, Sir Amyas Morse, recently reported to Parliament that the BBC often refuses to provide or delays the provision of evidence that would allow the NAO to assess its spending on behalf of taxpayers.
“I find this unacceptable and I know from my constituents that it damages the level of trust that we, the public, have in the corporation.”
Mr Burns argues that greater transparency would bring this kind of waste to an end.
He writes: “I was encouraged when, in 2010, the BBC Trust agreed that the National Audit Office, which checks the accounts of all government departments, public agencies and a number of other organisations, would have full access to the BBC’s accounts to ensure that it is providing value for money.
“However, the head of the NAO, Sir Amyas Morse, recently reported to Parliament that the BBC often refuses to provide or delays the provision of evidence that would allow the NAO to assess its spending on behalf of taxpayers.
“I find this unacceptable and I know from my constituents that it damages the level of trust that we, the public, have in the corporation.”
0
Comments
What they do with the money is upto them.
If the watchdog isn't happy with the amount then reduce the licence fee by £31,000 in the next review but as the fee is frozen it is the BBC who are chosing not to spend it elsewhere.
“However, the head of the NAO, Sir Amyas Morse, recently reported to Parliament that the BBC often refuses to provide or delays the provision of evidence that would allow the NAO to assess its spending on behalf of taxpayers.
No conflict of interest there then.
He owns Channel Five by the way.
It's up to the BBC how they spend the money end of.
Refusing to provide evidence of its spending shows they have no duty to do so or else they would have been forced therefore they can spend the money on what they like.
Exactly. If the money didn't go on taxis, it would just go into some executive's bonus.
And the way you write it, you seem to think that the BBC has a fleet of taxis lined up on Salford Quays ferrying people around Manchester for no real reason. The BBC has major broadcast centres across the UK and in virtually every county town for which there is a BBC Radio <place>. These broadcast locations require guests, presenters, interviewees, technical staff etc, who reasonably enough don't wish to be out of pocket or under pressure of the parking restrictions tha apply in most towns & cities these days.
I presume that that you've done your own audit to ensure that £31,000 is an outrageous amount of taxi rides to pay for in the creation of an average day's broadcasting around the world across its numerous tv, radio & other outlets, rather than it being pretty much what it costs to maintain a steady flow of people in & out of its premises?
It's also a matter of courtesy as well as the the most reliable solution to the issue of getting guests to and from studio locations on time to arrange transport rather than require them to make the journey on their own.
All of this really.
I'd also add that it's a business that does work 24 hours a day, and so will have staff/guests who finish late at night, when it's not reasonable to expect them to take public transport.
When I did bar work many years ago, I'd finish at about 1am, and the bar paid for all of us to get a cab home. They had this notion that it would be bad for staff morale and business if one of us got mugged on the way home.
I was under the impression that part of the costings for the move to Salford included higher travel expenses for some employees and guests, but it was more than made up for by other savings of the move. If they save (for example) £1,000,000 a year in general costs by the move to Salford, but it results in a predicted increase in taxi costs by £10,000 a year, it's actually a saving.
Considering taxi costs in isolation demonstrates a lack of critical thinking ability. Either that, or they know what they are doing, and just have an agenda. I wonder which?;-)
Well if they are NOT going to stick to a agreement they made to show were the money gets spent. They will be forced to do so. Last night senior Tory MPs lined up to back Mr Burns, including Philip Davies, who also sits on the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and who helped write the report.
“I totally agree with this,” Mr Davies said. “If the BBC wants to have the benefits of guaranteed licence fee income every year then that must come with total transparency as to how the money is spent. If they don’t want transparency then they must abandon the licence fee and earn their own money. They can’t have it both ways." Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said he would like to see the BBC adopt the same level of transparency as Whitehall departments and town halls.
At the very, very least, when you're complaining about a company's spending on something, you have to compare it to similar companies' spending on the same thing, otherwise you're just shouting numbers that sound big in order to OUTRAGE people.
Of course he wants that so he can control their budget, but the BBC is not a government department and does not get it's funding through the taxation system like the others therefore he cannot control what the BBC spends it's money on which is what is pissing him off.
If people contribute their £12 a month voluntarily that is up to them and when people hand over their £12 they are allowing the BBC to choose how they spend it.
If you do not like how the BBC uses your £12 then you are free not to pay it.
Channel 5 is owned by Viacom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_5_%28UK%29
On the right.
You do understand that ALL charites with a annual income over £25,000 have to publish thier accounts for the public to see. So you dont want the BBC to have to answer to the government or the people of the uk. So you dont believe they should be accountable to anyone and should just do what they like and spend TAX PAYERS money how they like but NOT be accountable to anyone but themselves. Well if the BBC want that kind of set up they can stop relying on tax payers money and go private and fight for the money like any other private buisness has to do.
As long as they don't ask for anymore and they do not spend TAXpayers money, they spend the money of people who voluntarily hand over £12 a month.
If you do not like the BBC or the licence fee find another form of entertainment to pass the time or watch recorded tv then when no one is paying it they will start worrying.
A lot of people who have a licence will not pay tax and the licence fee is not a tax you are not forced to watch tv or have a licence you can watch recorded programmes.
So 0.3% of its budget? I'd be more interested in how the other 99.7% was spent.
What? No. It's part of the BBC charter to ensure transparency in its expenditure.
The BBC is hell a lot bigger than some people may realise. People tend to think "celebrities, newscasters, directors, actors, camera crew, senior management" when comes to the BBC, but the BBC also employs cleaners, window cleaners, caterers, accountants, technicians, electricians, carpenters, administrative staff, solicitors, archivists, librarians, gardeners, hairdressers, translators, etc.
The rules say you don't need a licence to watch on-demand programs. But in that case, who's paying the cost of producing those programs (and the cost of providing the servers etc. needed for iPlayer)? Your neighbours? Everyone else?
It's not right.
The Television Licence Fee dates back to 1946, and has been classified as a tax since 2006 by the Office of National Statistics who state "in line with the definition of a tax. No you are not forced to watch it, but you are FORCED to prove you dont need or use thier service. So if they dont want to be open with the public why should the public be forced to prove anything to them. Trouble is the BBC want it all ways but the days of them not being accountable are coming to a end