ChumpusRex Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 A friend told me an interesting story. Not sure if it's true, but it sounds as if it might be. It seems that concerns that about BBC overspending seem to have reached an MP. Apparently, the BBC had received a complaint from the member of the public about some trifling matter. However, the reply was sent on stationary of such quality that the recipient was quite taken aback at the thought of the cost of said stationary. The result was a letter of complaint to their local MP demanding an investigation into this misuse of funds. Somewhat surprisingly, the MP did actually ask the BBC to investigate and for a formal response. An investigation was duly conducted and the report sent to the MP (on the same exquisite paper that had prompted the complaint in the first place). The BBC's stance was that by using a single grade of paper for all internal use, they could buy in greater bulk than if they had to buy correspondence grade and internal grade paper. As a result all paper used in the BBC was to be of a specified brand and type. So, what did the BBC choose for such a broad general set of purposese? A decent quality, general purpose 90 gsm business grade paper? No. They chose 'Croxley heritage', a super-premium correspondence paper, for which I was quoted £20 a ream for a bulk purchase at my local office supplier. So, the dilemma is: 1. Is it appropriate for an MP to be spending his time prompting investigations into office paper? 2. Should the BBC be using "4p per sheet" paper for all use, because they are able to use the larger order to negotiate somewhat on price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_ichikawa Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 The BBC is backed by thugs of the government who will break your legs if you do not hand overmoney. So they don't give a damn as to how they spend their money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 A friend told me an interesting story. Not sure if it's true, but it sounds as if it might be. It seems that concerns that about BBC overspending seem to have reached an MP. Apparently, the BBC had received a complaint from the member of the public about some trifling matter. However, the reply was sent on stationary of such quality that the recipient was quite taken aback at the thought of the cost of said stationary. The result was a letter of complaint to their local MP demanding an investigation into this misuse of funds. Somewhat surprisingly, the MP did actually ask the BBC to investigate and for a formal response. An investigation was duly conducted and the report sent to the MP (on the same exquisite paper that had prompted the complaint in the first place). The BBC's stance was that by using a single grade of paper for all internal use, they could buy in greater bulk than if they had to buy correspondence grade and internal grade paper. As a result all paper used in the BBC was to be of a specified brand and type. So, what did the BBC choose for such a broad general set of purposese? A decent quality, general purpose 90 gsm business grade paper? No. They chose 'Croxley heritage', a super-premium correspondence paper, for which I was quoted £20 a ream for a bulk purchase at my local office supplier. So, the dilemma is: 1. Is it appropriate for an MP to be spending his time prompting investigations into office paper? 2. Should the BBC be using "4p per sheet" paper for all use, because they are able to use the larger order to negotiate somewhat on price. The paper they wipe their *rses on probably costs 4p a sheet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 You obviously missed the BBC Wales S4C story of this past week - they have been paying hundreds of thousands of pounds per year to their senior staff for private health care. I could not believe it when I read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live Peasant Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 An acquaintance of mine recently received a cake from the BBC as a gift, exquisitely decorated and delicious. He is an ex-director of Top of the Pops - that sort of thing, now in the private sector. Whilst the cake was very well received, presumably they sent a few of these things out, I have to wonder what the cost was? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easy2012 Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 You obviously missed the BBC Wales S4C story of this past week - they have been paying hundreds of thousands of pounds per year to their senior staff for private health care. I could not believe it when I read it. Think Tax Payer Alliance reported this last week (and i posted a link on newsblog). It is always easy to spend other people money... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 You obviously missed the BBC Wales S4C story of this past week - they have been paying hundreds of thousands of pounds per year to their senior staff for private health care. I could not believe it when I read it. private health cover for senior staff is nothing unreasonable, it happens in private sector in order to reduce sick days depends on the cost and whether it works I suppose! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash4781 Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 National audit office has produced quite a few audits recently where value for money wasn't achieved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 A friend told me an interesting story. Not sure if it's true, but it sounds as if it might be. It seems that concerns that about BBC overspending seem to have reached an MP. Apparently, the BBC had received a complaint from the member of the public about some trifling matter. However, the reply was sent on stationary of such quality that the recipient was quite taken aback at the thought of the cost of said stationary. The result was a letter of complaint to their local MP demanding an investigation into this misuse of funds. Somewhat surprisingly, the MP did actually ask the BBC to investigate and for a formal response. An investigation was duly conducted and the report sent to the MP (on the same exquisite paper that had prompted the complaint in the first place). The BBC's stance was that by using a single grade of paper for all internal use, they could buy in greater bulk than if they had to buy correspondence grade and internal grade paper. As a result all paper used in the BBC was to be of a specified brand and type. So, what did the BBC choose for such a broad general set of purposese? A decent quality, general purpose 90 gsm business grade paper? No. They chose 'Croxley heritage', a super-premium correspondence paper, for which I was quoted £20 a ream for a bulk purchase at my local office supplier. So, the dilemma is: 1. Is it appropriate for an MP to be spending his time prompting investigations into office paper? 2. Should the BBC be using "4p per sheet" paper for all use, because they are able to use the larger order to negotiate somewhat on price. ...good for the MP so far ...what's he going to do about it ..?...this was a small cell in the tip of the iceberg....let's have the drains up and view real waste....and then change it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dissident junk Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 You obviously missed the BBC Wales S4C story of this past week - they have been paying hundreds of thousands of pounds per year to their senior staff for private health care. I could not believe it when I read it. Yes, I heard this. I am severely unhappy about being legally obliged to pay a license fee when the money is then used to pay for an executive's private healthcare provision. Why the hell should I be forced by law to pay for someone's private healthcare when my family and I have to use the NHS? I said, in another thread, that I think the British public are being exploited and abused, and I am think it is probably time I attempted to to do something about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shrink Proof Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 private health cover for senior staff is nothing unreasonable, it happens in private sector in order to reduce sick days depends on the cost and whether it works I suppose! It's pointless. Not only does it fail to reduce health problems, it diverts trained staff (medics, nurses, etc.) & technology (scanners, ECG machines, etc.) away from the sick. In addition, a significant amount of (taxpayer funded) GP time is taken up with appointments needed to explain results &/or reassure the patients now made unnecessarily anxious. In other words, treating them for (psychological) problems they never had before they had the screening... Nicely summarised here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lagarde's Drift Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Don't disagree with much of private screening being a waste, but not all private healthcare is just screening or pointless tests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shrink Proof Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Sure, but private screening is a very different thing to private treatment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lagarde's Drift Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Yes, and so far the original mention was of private health care, this includes treatment, and possibly screening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 private health cover for senior staff is nothing unreasonable, it happens in private sector in order to reduce sick days depends on the cost and whether it works I suppose! Can they not be motivated to come to work with the threat of the sack? Or is their skillset just too unique? eight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shrink Proof Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 (edited) Yes, and so far the original mention was of private health care, this includes treatment, and possibly screening. Don't know the details, but many private deals for employees include annual screening as well as treatment. BUPA & co sell the idea to employers by using the line that regular screening will mean a healthier workforce, hence less days off sick, hence a better deal for the employer in the long run. I assumed that BBC deal included screening as I can't see them spending our money on anything other than the full package with all the bells & whistles. Can you? Edited June 4, 2011 by Shrink Proof Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 (edited) Sure, but private screening is a very different thing to private treatment. fwiw - I was referring to the situation where you GP wants to refer you to a specialist with a 3 month waiting list who wil only have 10 minutes for you anyway and more often than not are a supervised nurse practitioner, you feel ill for the next few months waiting, therefore unproductive at work, and even then they don't really sort it very well. this is fine as a national health insurance scheme and is a million miles ahead of what was (wasnt't) available before the welfare state. then you say 'I have company health insurance' and you instead see someone with 30 minutes for you, inside a week, who is a specialist c onsultant, sits down, really works thru the problem, and you are right as rain inside another week or two, at work more highly productive. For the bulk discounts companies get, this, arguably, is an investment in staff. Private medical screening may well not work, but I really was not talkign about that (did the thread?). Referrals to private specialists paid for by work, referred by your GP, are surely a different situation? Edited June 4, 2011 by Si1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Don't know the details, but many private deals for employees include annual screening as well as treatment. BUPA & co sell the idea to employers by using the line that regular screening will mean a healthier workforce, hence less days off sick, hence a better deal for the employer in the long run. financial institutions thjat i know of (pre nationalisation!) definitely did NOT pay for screening, just referrals I assumed that BBC deal included screening as I can't see them spending our money on anything other than the full package with all the bells & whistles. Can you? quite possibly ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 National audit office has produced quite a few audits recently where value for money wasn't achieved. ...did the supplier take them out to lunch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Can they not be motivated to come to work with the threat of the sack? Or is their skillset just too unique? eight in the BBC's case I cannot speak but sickness is a real thing that happens to real people, strange that that may be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.