Post by Teddy Bear on Jul 6, 2015 14:42:40 GMT
You may recall that each time the BBC comes under public scrutiny for one transgression or other the promise is issued by them to be open and transparent in future.
Well this story from the Mail shows just how much that means in real terms.
Well this story from the Mail shows just how much that means in real terms.
Hypocrisy row as BBC brands MoS man 'vexatious' - over bid to expose bosses expenses: Corporation tried to block investigation into expense claims of Director General
By Chris Hastings Art Correspondent For The Mail On Sunday
The BBC tried to block a Mail on Sunday investigation into the expense claims of its Director-General by smearing our reporter.
In a desperate bid to cover up details of the how Lord Hall spends licence fee-payers’ money on wining and dining, the Corporation accused this newspaper of running a ‘vexatious’ campaign against the BBC.
During a nine-month battle in which it refused to release documents under the Freedom of Information Act, the BBC complained that handing over the information would ‘encourage’ further enquiries.
But last week, the Information Commissioner ordered the expenses claims to be released to the MoS.
Last night, politicians branded the BBC’s behaviour hypocritical.
Andrew Bridgen, Tory MP for North West Leicestershire, said: ‘It’s very hypocritical that the BBC, which uses the Freedom of Information Act to get stories, doesn’t want to show the same level of transparency it expects in others.
‘The BBC is funded by the taxpayer and has a duty to respond to Freedom of Information requests about its expenditure. The Mail on Sunday has struck a blow for openness, transparency and accountability.’
The Mail on Sunday’s original request for information, in September last year, asked for details of when Lord Hall had wined and dined individuals at the Corporation’s expense over the previous year.
It asked the BBC to provide the names of the guests, details of the venues, as well as copies of bills and receipts the Director-General had submitted in support of his claims.
The BBC resisted the request, claiming it already published basic information about its executives’ claims online. But when the MoS complained to the Information Commissioner that the published information was insufficient, the BBC changed tack.
It argued that the reporter had already submitted a ‘large number’ of requests to the BBC and that further disclosure would only encourage him and other ‘requesters’ to submit even more requests.
And in his ruling, the commissioner revealed that the BBC had even argued the MoS complaint should be dismissed as it was ‘vexatious’.
As a result of the ruling, the BBC must now give details of the venues used by Lord Hall and his guests, as well as information about the menus. Previously, the Corporation argued that information about venues would jeopardise the safety of Lord Hall because he had received death threats in the light of his decision to sack Jeremy Clarkson from the Top Gear programme.
It also resisted providing information about menus on the grounds that an individual’s dietary preferences should remain private.
In recent years, the MoS, along with other media organisations, has successfully used the Freedom of Information Act to uncover examples of waste, mismanagement and incompetence within the BBC.
In 2007, the MoS revealed that Sir Terry Wogan had been paid £10,000 to present the BBC’s Children In Need appeal when other performers were expected to give their time free. The same year, we revealed that BBC creative director Alan Yentob received £27,000 in expenses claims over three years.
Two years later, we told how the BBC had spent £3 million of licence fee-payers’ money on bizarre arts projects for one its headquarters.
And in April this year we revealed how the BBC had spent £50,000 on renting meeting rooms because it had run out of space in its New Broadcasting House HQ, which was only opened in 2013 at a cost of £1 billion.
A spokesman for the BBC said: ‘We are considering our position on this matter. We have been voluntarily publishing the expenses of senior managers since 2009.’
By Chris Hastings Art Correspondent For The Mail On Sunday
The BBC tried to block a Mail on Sunday investigation into the expense claims of its Director-General by smearing our reporter.
In a desperate bid to cover up details of the how Lord Hall spends licence fee-payers’ money on wining and dining, the Corporation accused this newspaper of running a ‘vexatious’ campaign against the BBC.
During a nine-month battle in which it refused to release documents under the Freedom of Information Act, the BBC complained that handing over the information would ‘encourage’ further enquiries.
But last week, the Information Commissioner ordered the expenses claims to be released to the MoS.
Last night, politicians branded the BBC’s behaviour hypocritical.
Andrew Bridgen, Tory MP for North West Leicestershire, said: ‘It’s very hypocritical that the BBC, which uses the Freedom of Information Act to get stories, doesn’t want to show the same level of transparency it expects in others.
‘The BBC is funded by the taxpayer and has a duty to respond to Freedom of Information requests about its expenditure. The Mail on Sunday has struck a blow for openness, transparency and accountability.’
The Mail on Sunday’s original request for information, in September last year, asked for details of when Lord Hall had wined and dined individuals at the Corporation’s expense over the previous year.
It asked the BBC to provide the names of the guests, details of the venues, as well as copies of bills and receipts the Director-General had submitted in support of his claims.
The BBC resisted the request, claiming it already published basic information about its executives’ claims online. But when the MoS complained to the Information Commissioner that the published information was insufficient, the BBC changed tack.
It argued that the reporter had already submitted a ‘large number’ of requests to the BBC and that further disclosure would only encourage him and other ‘requesters’ to submit even more requests.
And in his ruling, the commissioner revealed that the BBC had even argued the MoS complaint should be dismissed as it was ‘vexatious’.
As a result of the ruling, the BBC must now give details of the venues used by Lord Hall and his guests, as well as information about the menus. Previously, the Corporation argued that information about venues would jeopardise the safety of Lord Hall because he had received death threats in the light of his decision to sack Jeremy Clarkson from the Top Gear programme.
It also resisted providing information about menus on the grounds that an individual’s dietary preferences should remain private.
In recent years, the MoS, along with other media organisations, has successfully used the Freedom of Information Act to uncover examples of waste, mismanagement and incompetence within the BBC.
In 2007, the MoS revealed that Sir Terry Wogan had been paid £10,000 to present the BBC’s Children In Need appeal when other performers were expected to give their time free. The same year, we revealed that BBC creative director Alan Yentob received £27,000 in expenses claims over three years.
Two years later, we told how the BBC had spent £3 million of licence fee-payers’ money on bizarre arts projects for one its headquarters.
And in April this year we revealed how the BBC had spent £50,000 on renting meeting rooms because it had run out of space in its New Broadcasting House HQ, which was only opened in 2013 at a cost of £1 billion.
A spokesman for the BBC said: ‘We are considering our position on this matter. We have been voluntarily publishing the expenses of senior managers since 2009.’
PS Amazingly, given the BBC’s stance on Freedom of Information requests, when the same MoS reporter last week asked the press office a separate question about the number of BBC staff at Wimbledon, he was told he would have to submit an FOI request about the matter.