The Mirror trailed Tory Lord Hanningfield for 19 days to check up on if he was doing any work for his £300 a day.
Might have been more relevant to trail a Labour Peer…..more of a story if a ‘working man’s representative’ was being greedy…wonder why they didn’t?
The BBC naturally went large and were straight in with BBC Essex grabbing an early interview.
Just wondering if the Leftwing Mirror gave the BBC an early tip off…the timing of the story might indicate to a cynic that this was intended as a ‘spoiler’ and a distraction at a time when the BBC is under attack for its spendthrift ways with tax payer’s money by politicians…Tory ones in particular.
Lefty Mirror and BBC working together?
And finally…Let’s not forget that the less than useless Chairman of the BBC Trust, Chris Patten, takes home a base wage of £143,000…and is expected to work a whole 3-4 days a week for that…so say 3.5 days.
By my reckoning that is nearly £800 a day. And we have heard alleged that some of those ‘days’ he comes in only to make a phone call.
‘Lord’s A-Leeching’ indeed.
The Mirror’s story is being used to lever in demands for the abolishing of the House of Lords…perhaps the BBC Trust could similarly be put to the sword?
The BBC link page almost libels ex-Tory peer Lord Hanningfield, whilst failing to mention the recent suspension of Labour peer Lord Mackenzie.
It might be even more relevant to find out what Gordon Brown has been doing for the last three and a half years. Will the Mirror ask how many times Incapability has shown his face in Parliament? (will the BBC come to that).
‘The Mirror’s story is being used to lever in demands for the abolishing of the House of Lords…’
I seem to recall that we have a similiar turn up / clock in / sod off / cash in situation with MEPs – perhaps we will hear demands for abolishing the Euro Parliament…?
and led by many of the radio 5 live troupe who turn up for 10 hours a week and trouser multi £100k wads
At least the Peer turned up!
Labour councillors from the north of England have been doing this for years. They get themselves on a number of committees in London and then spend one day a week going round them all, just to get booked in. They claim multiple expences, including travel for each trip. This must be where he got the idea from. If the BBC would like me to, I can point them in the right direction for a major scoop. I do not expect them to ask, it involves members of the Labour party.
Take the greed and hatred out of the Labour Party and you have nothing left. Now that its supporters run the BBC the same can be said of the BBC.
The Labour party does have lots of decent, even patriotic, members but they too are ill served by the BBC’s ‘hands off’ policy toward negative Labour stories. They’ve dropped all mention of Flowers pretty quickly enough – imagine if the Chief Executive of Barclays had been a dope dealing, rent boy using, Tory vicar – do you think the BBC might still be pushing the story?
In the spirit of ‘balance’, Kevin Maguire on twitter seems to be talking himself out of BBC Club by asking why ‘never met a bandwagon he didn’t like’ Ed is being so reticent to join in the wailing and rending of vestments.
Unless this is all part of a cunning plan and he’s keeping his powder dry.
If so, if only there were a pervasive national media monopoly ready to clear their schedules for his latest pronouncement.
There was a jaw dropping piece of bias in favour of the Labour party on the Daily Politics yesterday. When some actor I have never heard of, did a piece about how people were put off by ugly politicians and didn’t listen to what they said or to their policies. He felt that this was grossly unfair. Had that been it, it would just have been a harmless piece of whimsey, but he actually mentioned E Miliband and Labour constantly throughout the piece. He said that he felt it was grossly unfair that E Miliband could be deprived of the premiership because people were put off by his looks and didn’t listen to his policies.
This was clearly a piece contrived by Labour spin doctors to counter something they have picked up and the BBC offered them all the help they needed to try and combat this negative perception of E Miliband. Surely this must be a breach of the impartiality clause in the BBC Charter.
Wasn’t the HOL undermined in the first place by Blair when he removed the hereditary Lords and filled the house full of his cronies. So first the Left wreck the HOL and then call for it to be disbanded as it is no good. It’s just a shame a Tory Peer was foolish enough to provide ammo.
Maybe this is why the Mirror looked at Hanningfield?
‘In 2011, Lord Hanningfield served nine weeks of a nine-month sentence for parliamentary expenses fraud totalling nearly £14,000.’
You sound a bit like a Catholic who complains about all this new coverage of child abuse by the church.
You (conveniently) miss the (obvious) point, that most of the corrupt behaviour in both Houses of Parliament has been by (representatives of) the Labour Party. You want me to give you the (numerous) examples? The Mirror and the BBC are Labour Party supporting and so they (invariably) try to get the focus on duck houses and slimeballs such as Lord Hanningfield (who used to take the Conservative Whip) and away from the more general issue of greed and abuse of power by the (predominantly) Leftist establishment. I wonder why?
Like this you mean?
http://order-order.com/2013/12/18/milibands-union-henchman-forced-to-apologise-to-commons/
I await the impartial BBC’s reporting of this ,more in hope than expectation.
Or perhaps this?
http://order-order.com/2013/12/20/macshane-sentencing-today-case-for-a-custodial-sentence/
True.
The reason the Mirror are looking at Hanningfield can be summed up in just one word:
“Tory”
Or Muslims who complain about the slightest mention of the Industrial scale ,systematic sexual abuse of white working class girls by Pakistani men?
If you don’t already work there I would apply for a job at the BBC you’d fit right in.
For which he is rightly castigated.
But did you ever ask why they chose him and not one of the many members of the HoL who only ever do the bare minimum? Believe me there are many of them who do less than Hanningfield.
And what about the army of expense warriors that infest the public sector, including the BBC, who get handsomely paid (often more than most get in a month) for a few hours work a year? When will we see an investigation on the BBC into that?
The mirror is the ‘ Guardian ‘ for the less literate socialist, those who can’t do joined up writing.
I thought that was the Indy?
There were 6 MPs who were either convicted or pleaded guilty in relation to the expenses scandal. All 6 were Labour MPs. No member of the public who relied on the BBC for news would have the first clue that this was the case because offending Labour MPs are generally referred to as “MPs” or “politicians” whereas for the Tory misdemeanours the party is identified and the facts (duck houses etc) are constantly repeated. Impartiality its in their DNA
… and then again the ‘duck house’ expenses scandal was no such thing. No expenses were paid for a ‘duck house’ to any politician of any party. It’s a lie to suggest, as the BBC keep doing, that there were.
But of course they won’t stop because when you mention the expenses scandal to people their first words are invariably ‘duck house.’ It’s just another example or repeating a lie often enough …
“… and then again the ‘duck house’ expenses scandal was no such thing. No expenses were paid for a ‘duck house’ to any politician of any party. It’s a lie to suggest, as the BBC keep doing, that there were.”
Really? Are the DM and Telegraph also “repeating a lie”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247503/Have-shame-Duck-house-moat-MPs-fought-expenses-payback-call.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5364831/MPs-expenses-Sir-Peter-Viggers-in-duck-house-mystery.html
The taxpayer did not pay for Sir Peter Viggers duck house because Parliament did not allow him to claim for it on expenses.
Rather pedantic view considering that he did include the cost on an expenses claim that he submitted and no doubt wanted paid – or are you arguing he submitted the claim to give him an excuse to stand down!!
Pah asserted that
“No expenses were paid for a ‘duck house’ to any politician of any party.”
This is correct.
Baroness Uddin, now there is an exploiter of the systems. She did her regular 10 minute spot at the Hol’s for her TAX FREE £300 and screwed the overnight allowance whilst staying at her subsidised council house. But all was payed back by her “ahem” fellow peers. And now she’s back able to make laws for you and me to obey.
Laws are only for the little people.
Like Taxes – what percentage of cross party troughers switched second home designation to avoid capital gains? Cameron, Darling, Brown to name but three ‘senior figures’ – alas in the case of Blair we shall never know do to an unfortunate shredder accident.
The lying thieving Baroness Uddin floated in on the New Labour tide. It is is hard to think of a public institution which New Labour did not corrupt. A Liberal/Left nomenclature whose sole competence is thieving from the taxpayer.
People don’t realise Uddin was involved in 2 overnight allowances scams – the Maidstone flat but prior to that when they didn’t even have to have a registered address she claimed to have been staying with her brother on the Essex coast – sadly his wife hadn’t been briefed and when questioned blew the gaffe denying she had never stayed there – then quickly went silent and this was sadly not pursued – she was as guilty as any convicted surely she didn’t escape prosecution for other reasons?