Post by Teddy Bear on Jan 2, 2013 21:39:15 GMT
There are two main general public scandals that the BBC is undergoing at the present time. The first relates to the Newsweek Savile/McAlpine debacles, not to mention the fact that Savile perpetrated much of his abuse with the awareness of many within the BBC who chose to look the other way - wink, wink, nod, nod.
The other has to do with the tax avoidance schemes set up within the BBC for many of its higher paid employees.
The BBC way of raising the topic of these issues is to mentioning it within the context of 'regaining public trust', and 'lessons to be learned', and a lot of similar hype that is nothing more than tripe. They clearly feel that their licence fee paying public will now feel that the scandals are all behind now, and the BBC can be trusted, even more than before. All they have to do to achieve this is to repeat the mantra again and again, like a hypnotist.
But in real terms, if anything it is more corrupt than ever.
MP's have asked the BBC to reveal the emails concerning their promotion of tax avoidance to their employees.
The response of the BBC Trust is to refuse on the basis that they have been seen by their own tax advisers, who assure them that all is kosher. The Trust member who deals with these matters doesn't himself even want to read these emails, just offer assurances.
I seem to recall BBC Trust chairman Chris Patten, along with DG Entwistle at the time, assuring the public that all was above board with the Savile Newsnight shelving, until MP's pushed harder which forced them to launch an investigation.
For the British public to continue to accept this bullshit is the scariest part of these examples showing the real BBC. Appears they are well and truly brainwashed, or simply don't see the danger to our society by allowing it to continue.
The other has to do with the tax avoidance schemes set up within the BBC for many of its higher paid employees.
The BBC way of raising the topic of these issues is to mentioning it within the context of 'regaining public trust', and 'lessons to be learned', and a lot of similar hype that is nothing more than tripe. They clearly feel that their licence fee paying public will now feel that the scandals are all behind now, and the BBC can be trusted, even more than before. All they have to do to achieve this is to repeat the mantra again and again, like a hypnotist.
But in real terms, if anything it is more corrupt than ever.
MP's have asked the BBC to reveal the emails concerning their promotion of tax avoidance to their employees.
The response of the BBC Trust is to refuse on the basis that they have been seen by their own tax advisers, who assure them that all is kosher. The Trust member who deals with these matters doesn't himself even want to read these emails, just offer assurances.
I seem to recall BBC Trust chairman Chris Patten, along with DG Entwistle at the time, assuring the public that all was above board with the Savile Newsnight shelving, until MP's pushed harder which forced them to launch an investigation.
For the British public to continue to accept this bullshit is the scariest part of these examples showing the real BBC. Appears they are well and truly brainwashed, or simply don't see the danger to our society by allowing it to continue.
BBC Trust facing calls to publish 'tax avoidance' emails
The BBC Trust was today facing calls to publish emails that could show the corporation gave its star presenters an avenue to avoid tax.
The BBC Trust is facing calls to publish emails that could show the corporation knowingly gave its star presenters an avenue to avoid tax
A senior Trust official has reportedly rejected a request from MPs to disclose the internal BBC emails.
Anthony Fry, the BBC Trust's finance committee chairman, has also refused to read the emails despite being questioned by Commons Public Accounts Committee about the contents, it was reported.
It comes after Deloitte, the financial consultants, recently searched BBC files on payments to "on air talent".
It found evidence the corporation had taken into account a "range of tax outcomes" for two people who were paid via service companies, the Times newspaper claimed.
The BBC has since admitted that the evidence was in emails containing advice from one, or more, of its tax advisers.
The emails appear to have been sent to BBC employees who negotiated contracts with presenters, prompting suggestions that an opportunity for paying less tax could have been part of the negotiation, the Times said.
Mr Fry, an investment banker, told the committee in November that he did not read the emails because they had already been checked by Deloitte.
The accountants had given "a clean bill of health to the BBC in regard to this matter", he added.
He might have read the emails if Deloitte had said it was "extremely concerned" by them but "that is not what the accountants have told me", the Times reported.
The Times added that the report appeared to suggest that the BBC could have been aware that service companies could be used to avoid tax or national insurance contributions.
The BBC has admitted that more than 100 of its presenters and other "talent" should be paid as staff rather than as freelancers because of concerns about tax avoidance.
Richard Bacon, a Conservative member of the committee, said that Mr Fry should read the emails immediately and take action.
"He can't put his head in the sand on this,” he told The Times.
“It's his responsibility to check these things out properly and, if things are not in order, act accordingly.
"The emails should also be published because sunlight is the best disinfectant. Public trust has fallen in the BBC and the best way to restore it is to be open."
A spokesman for the trust said that officials who advised the trustees had seen "the relevant papers" but Mr Fry had not read the emails.
He added: “Tax experts Deloitte were engaged to carry out a comprehensive review.
"The Trust is satisfied that Deloitte reviewed everything in the round, including the documents referred to, and concluded that there was no evidence of tax avoidance and more generally a high level of tax compliance.”
He declined to follow comment further.
Following the Deloitte report, the BBC said that it would apply a new "employment test" to 804 presenters and others paid more than £50,000 a year as freelances.
It estimates 131 of these people will be offered staff contracts because the majority of their earnings are from the BBC and they have the "characteristics of an employee".
A BBC later spokesman added: "The Deloitte report makes clear that there is no evidence that the BBC directly advocated the use of personal service companies to avoid tax or National Insurance Contributions.
"These individuals were originally sole traders but were identified as likely to need either to come onto staff or to set up personal service companies.
"Their accountants advised that when setting up a personal service company they would be subject to IR35 and should ask to be compensated for the resulting costs arising including NIC."
The BBC Trust was today facing calls to publish emails that could show the corporation gave its star presenters an avenue to avoid tax.
The BBC Trust is facing calls to publish emails that could show the corporation knowingly gave its star presenters an avenue to avoid tax
A senior Trust official has reportedly rejected a request from MPs to disclose the internal BBC emails.
Anthony Fry, the BBC Trust's finance committee chairman, has also refused to read the emails despite being questioned by Commons Public Accounts Committee about the contents, it was reported.
It comes after Deloitte, the financial consultants, recently searched BBC files on payments to "on air talent".
It found evidence the corporation had taken into account a "range of tax outcomes" for two people who were paid via service companies, the Times newspaper claimed.
The BBC has since admitted that the evidence was in emails containing advice from one, or more, of its tax advisers.
The emails appear to have been sent to BBC employees who negotiated contracts with presenters, prompting suggestions that an opportunity for paying less tax could have been part of the negotiation, the Times said.
Mr Fry, an investment banker, told the committee in November that he did not read the emails because they had already been checked by Deloitte.
The accountants had given "a clean bill of health to the BBC in regard to this matter", he added.
He might have read the emails if Deloitte had said it was "extremely concerned" by them but "that is not what the accountants have told me", the Times reported.
The Times added that the report appeared to suggest that the BBC could have been aware that service companies could be used to avoid tax or national insurance contributions.
The BBC has admitted that more than 100 of its presenters and other "talent" should be paid as staff rather than as freelancers because of concerns about tax avoidance.
Richard Bacon, a Conservative member of the committee, said that Mr Fry should read the emails immediately and take action.
"He can't put his head in the sand on this,” he told The Times.
“It's his responsibility to check these things out properly and, if things are not in order, act accordingly.
"The emails should also be published because sunlight is the best disinfectant. Public trust has fallen in the BBC and the best way to restore it is to be open."
A spokesman for the trust said that officials who advised the trustees had seen "the relevant papers" but Mr Fry had not read the emails.
He added: “Tax experts Deloitte were engaged to carry out a comprehensive review.
"The Trust is satisfied that Deloitte reviewed everything in the round, including the documents referred to, and concluded that there was no evidence of tax avoidance and more generally a high level of tax compliance.”
He declined to follow comment further.
Following the Deloitte report, the BBC said that it would apply a new "employment test" to 804 presenters and others paid more than £50,000 a year as freelances.
It estimates 131 of these people will be offered staff contracts because the majority of their earnings are from the BBC and they have the "characteristics of an employee".
A BBC later spokesman added: "The Deloitte report makes clear that there is no evidence that the BBC directly advocated the use of personal service companies to avoid tax or National Insurance Contributions.
"These individuals were originally sole traders but were identified as likely to need either to come onto staff or to set up personal service companies.
"Their accountants advised that when setting up a personal service company they would be subject to IR35 and should ask to be compensated for the resulting costs arising including NIC."