BBC bias

Discussion in 'Just Talk' started by Harry Stottle, May 13, 2019.

  1. joinerjohn1

    joinerjohn1 Screwfix Select

    What I was pointing out is the fact that they may not actually be qualified to do the job. Yes I agree we'd all like to give money to family or friends, but I'd like to see proof they're actually qualified to do the work they are paid for, rather than accept the word of the MP.
     
  2. Bollerks

    Bollerks Active Member

    Exactly JJ,Westminster is a Public Office and not a family business.
     
    joinerjohn1 likes this.
  3. Muzungu

    Muzungu Active Member

    I think the difference here is that in your case it is your money to do with as you please; in the MPs case it is public money. Now it could be that the MPs wife (or husband) may well be the best person qualified to do the job, in my opinion this is irrelevant. Even if it is more efficient for the MP to employ a relation I would have a better opinion of them if they put the job out there on the market and the person employed was appointed by an independent panel.

    I wonder how many of the relations employed by MPs would actually get a similar job out in the world if they applied along with everyone else. Given the proven propensity of some MPs of every party to play fast and loose with their considerable expense accounts (particularly MEPs) I don't think it is beyond the bounds of possibility that relations have been employed more to enhance the family income than anything else.
     
  4. spinlondon

    spinlondon Well-Known Member

    I don’t see this as a problem.
    MP needs to employ someone as a researcher.
    Why shouldn’t they employ their son, daughter, neighbour’s child?
    MP needs a secretary, again why not employ their husband or wife?
    One of my GPS used to employ his wife as a receptionist in his surgery, was that wrong?

    What’s out of order, is when an MP who has always lived in the Borough he represents purchases a flat somewhere else then declares his home in the Borough as a second home and the flat he’s just purchased as his main home.
     
  5. Muzungu

    Muzungu Active Member

    GPs are very often self employed, MPs are not.

    In my view it is quite simply nepotism for an employee to use their expenses to employ a relative or friend let alone a public servant. It is by definition nepotism. Now if you believe that nepotism in public office is acceptable then fine, I differ.
     
  6. spinlondon

    spinlondon Well-Known Member

    I was not aware that GPs are self employed.
    I thought they were employed by the NHS.
    I don’t have a problem with MPs employing family members, and I don’t see it as nepotism.
    A researcher or secretary has no power over anyone, they are just someone working for an MP.
    If an MP were to appoint a family member to a position of power, that would be a different matter.

    Although, from what I understand, the practice has been banned, so the discussion is moot.
     
  7. Muzungu

    Muzungu Active Member

    I think you may have the definition of nepotism backwards. Nepotism is defined as a person in power using that power to prefer someone either related to themself or to whom they have a personal connection. By that definition it is nepotism. An employee of the NHS, doctor or not, using that position to prefer a relation in employment would also by definition be nepotism. This cannot be a matter of opinion, it is how nepotism is defined. On the other hand whether you agree that nepotism is acceptable is a matter of opinion, I would say it is not acceptable for a person in public service. I think my original comment related to MEPs.
     
  8. Bollerks

    Bollerks Active Member

    The problem arises with discipline - would YOU dare sack your wife? Son? Daughter? It's similar when the your colleague is promoted to management of you.

    The scenario is just ripe for conflicts of interests arising on a daily basis. Not good for organizational morale when other see a member of your family treated more favorably.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2019
  9. Muzungu

    Muzungu Active Member

    I once worked in a school where the headteacher employed her partner, when her partner retired, without interview or advertising the post. Completely unacceptable and a clear abuse of her power. Also in breach of school policy but she got away with it as she was in charge. If you run your own business, fair enough, but when using public money it is completely different.
     
  10. spinlondon

    spinlondon Well-Known Member

    I think you confuse nepotism with corruption.
    There’s a program some friend of mine watch called Blue Blood or something similar.
    Magnum PI is the commissioner, one of his sones is a detective his daughter is an assistant DA and his grandson is a beat officer.
    I think his father is an ex commissioner.
    According to you, it’s nepotism because he employs his son and grandson.
    To me, it would be nepotism if he promotes either of them unfairly.
     
  11. Muzungu

    Muzungu Active Member

    I go back to the definition of nepotism; in fact I will paste it in from the Oxford English Dictionary to which my original definition comes pretty close:

    "The practice among those with power or influence of favouring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs."

    It is quite clear that an MP or MEP being a person with "power or influence" (see above) giving a job (see above) to a "relative or friend" (see above) falls under the criteria of nepotism. It cannot be anything other than nepotism by its definition.
     
    WillyEckerslike likes this.
  12. spinlondon

    spinlondon Well-Known Member

    Another definition from the Cambridge dictionary:
    the act of using your power or influence to get good jobs or unfair advantages for members of your own family.
    Collins Dictionary:
    Nepotism is the unfair use of power in order to get jobs or other benefits for your family or friends.
    Business dictionary:
    Practice of appointing relatives and friends in one's organization to positions for which outsiders might be better qualified. Despite its negative connotations, nepotism (if applied sensibly) is an important and positive practice in the startup and formative years of a firm where complete trust and willingness to work hard (for little or no immediate reward) are critical for its survival.
    Wiktionary:
    The favoring of relatives or personal friends because of their relationship rather than because of their abilities.

    An MP employing their spouse to do a job, they don’t have the ability to do, would be a waste of time.
    The MP would either have to sack them, or pay someone else with the ability, out of their own pocket.
    To say that an MP shouldn’t employ someone who has the ability to do the job, just because that person is a relative is discrimination
     
  13. joinerjohn1

    joinerjohn1 Screwfix Select

    And,,, who tells us the relative they employ is qualified? That would be the politician. ( and following on from another thread, we all know politicians lie )
     
  14. Muzungu

    Muzungu Active Member

    You are making the analogy between a firm when starting up and an MP, a public servant, using public funds; as I have previously said when running a business it is perfectly acceptable for the business owner to employ who they want.

    All your quotes support my position; when the ability of the person is judged solely by the politician without recourse to any normal appointment process the opportunity for corruption could not be clearer which is why it is, as you say, now not allowed.

    For any organisation nepotism can be a poison that erodes trust and trust in politics is all important. That it is now not allowed in the UK (although I understand it is not retrospective) speaks volumes, I think, as to how it is perceived by the public.
     
  15. Muzungu

    Muzungu Active Member

    Just to quickly add, I think we have done this one to death and it would be better to just come to the conclusion we disagree and that's that. At least we didn't resort to insults which is always a positive (quite a rarity actually!) when debating on the internet.
     
  16. Harry Stottle

    Harry Stottle Active Member

    Good suggestion Muzungo. Unfortunately there are people who, when they run out of facts, resort to insulting. I enjoy a spirited debate when facts are quoted, but bad mannered insulting spoils things.
     
    dinkydo likes this.
  17. joinerjohn1

    joinerjohn1 Screwfix Select

    I refer the right honourable gentleman to the reply I gave earlier. Who says they are qualified? How do we know they are qualified, other than the MP telling us their employees ( relatives) are qualified? Would you buy a used car from your MP ? ( I know I wouldn't)
     
  18. kitfit1

    kitfit1 Well-Known Member

    My sister is a company secretary, by that i don't mean she takes shorthand and typing any more (she did until her mid 20's).......she runs a company on behalf of the partners.
    If i was an MP i would have no hesitation employing my sister within the office. My guess though is that she would not be the least bit interested in a 50% drop in salary. My guess like your's is nearly no MP's family members would get the same job anywhere else because they simply are not qualified to wash a car, let alone run the office of an MP.
     
    Bollerks likes this.
  19. peter palmer

    peter palmer Well-Known Member

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48583487

    I'm not sure I can apportion all the blame on the BBC for this one, not for the want of trying mid you. The government used to fund the over 75s licence, now they have made it the sole responsibility of the BBC and the BBC are going to start funding the licence for the most vulnerable so at least thats something, they could have just kyboshed the lot.

    I wonder if they will try to blame the non payers like me for giving them no option other than to charge pensioners. Sounds like a plan, maybe I should double my price for pensioners every time I miss out on a rewire.
     
    Jord86 likes this.
  20. kitfit1

    kitfit1 Well-Known Member

    I assume you do realise that most of the under 30's in the UK don't pay for the TV licence at all ? I'm over 60 and i don't pay for it either. Why ? because like most of the younger generation, i don't watch "Live Broadcast" tv.
    Even my mum and dad don't watch live broadcast tv and they are both in there 80's. The world of tv watching has changed..................the BBC needs to change with it. The licence fee needs to be dropped and the BBC needs to fund itself.
     

Share This Page