21–30 of 31 posts
> Autonomy founder Mike Lynch is a non-executive director of the BBC. Way to go journalistic impartiality at the BBC.
Their own Director-General just had to resign after a grilling by BBC journalists on BBC programmes. If they'll do that to their own boss, some guy from Autonomy has 0 chance of special treatment.
> Autonomy founder Mike Lynch is a non-executive director of the BBC. Way to go journalistic impartiality at the BBC.
There could be a technical concern here, but practically speaking the BBC is so impartial it will happily half-destroy itself in the name of journalism. Their own Director-General just had to resign after a grilling by BBC journalists on BBC programmes. If they'll do that to their own boss, some guy from Autonomy has 0 chance of special treatment.
"We did a whole host of due diligence but when you're lied to, it's hard to find," Are you kidding me? That's the whole purpose of doing due diligence in the first place.
The purpose of due diligence is to uncover mistakes and ensure that the books are in order, not to uncover fraud or wrongdoing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If he was there to wield influence, he's not done very well this time - otherwise why would the BBC report on possible foul play by his former company? Why would they explicitly mention his connection with the BBC?
> If he was there to wield influence, he's not done very well this time - otherwise why would the BBC report on possible foul play by his former company Well it such a big story now, they can hardly not run with it can they? > Why would they explicitly mention his connection with the BBC? Again, because they have to. I find it fascinating that private industry leaders would be involved, non-executive or otherwise, in…
There used to be funding from the Foreign Office for BBC World Service, but that has now ended. There's a tiny payment from Department of Work and Pensions to cover the discount for people over 70.
What other tax-payer money is used for the BBC?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If he was there to wield influence, he's not done very well this time - otherwise why would the BBC report on possible foul play by his former company Well it such a big story now, they can hardly not run with it can they? > Why would they explicitly mention his connection with the BBC? Again, because they have to. I find it fascinating that private industry leaders would be involved, non-executive or otherwise, in…
> The BBC is spending British taxpayer's money after all. There used to be funding from the Foreign Office for BBC World Service, but that has now ended. There's a tiny payment from Department of Work and Pensions to cover the discount for people over 70. What other tax-payer money is used for the BBC?
License fee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The BBC is spending British taxpayer's money after all. There used to be funding from the Foreign Office for BBC World Service, but that has now ended. There's a tiny payment from Department of Work and Pensions to cover the discount for people over 70. What other tax-payer money is used for the BBC?
> What other tax-payer money is used for the BBC? License fee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The purpose of due diligence is to uncover mistakes and ensure that the books are in order, not to uncover fraud or wrongdoing.
And one of the mistakes you should be looking for is the possibility that you are being lied to so thoroughly that it's hard to know what's real and what isn't. It's in situations like that, that forensic accountants earn their salt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is the licence fee a tax?
Watching any live TV in the UK, even when avoiding all BBC channels, is subject to this mandatory payment. Hence it is, by any reasonable definition, a tax.
Call it tax-like, but it is not a tax, and mistaken terminology is unhelpful when campaigning to change the licence fee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Watching any live TV in the UK, even when avoiding all BBC channels, is subject to this mandatory payment. Hence it is, by any reasonable definition, a tax.
So it's a voluntary charge, payable by anyone who receives live tv in the UK? Collected by Capita, and paid to the BBC but not to the government? Call it tax-like, but it is not a tax, and mistaken terminology is unhelpful when campaigning to change the licence fee.