boboafc Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Revealed: How Oldham council spent £100,000 on frozen food in three months ...fat councillers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macca Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 What if it was for the council canteen? The staff do need feeding! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 I bet it's subsidised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creepy Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 how many council staff is that bill between? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Revealed: How Oldham council spent £100,000 on frozen food in three months ...fat councillers meals on wheels? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosa Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 It's a better use of the money than the 'drowning Polo' logo rebranding, i suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I'll tell you what I'd like to see. A published list of expenditure on staff expenses from every single FTSE 100 company - and possibly all listed companies. You want waste? There it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Revealed: How Oldham council spent £100,000 on frozen food in three months ...<a href="http://menmedia.co.uk/oldhamadvertiser/news/politics/s/1406699__revealed_how_oldham_council_spent_100000_on_frozen_food_in_three_months" target="_blank">fat councillers </a> I wonder how much they spent on Microwaves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Revealed: How Oldham council spent £100,000 on frozen food in three months ...<a href="http://menmedia.co.uk/oldhamadvertiser/news/politics/s/1406699__revealed_how_oldham_council_spent_100000_on_frozen_food_in_three_months" target="_blank">fat councillers </a> I wonder how much they spent on Microwaves? If its just a list of expenditure, could it not have been bought in for resale and therefore they might not be making a loss. Like the fireworks, won't they have made money for selling permits to catering concessions etc etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 I'll tell you what I'd like to see. A published list of expenditure on staff expenses from every single FTSE 100 company - and possibly all listed companies. You want waste? There it is. Please, Mr. T, FTSE 100 companies are answerable only to their shareholders. This is a different argument, every council tax payer in Oldham directly and every UK taxpayer indirectly has contributed to this supposed waste and therefore should be aware how this revenue is spent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Please, Mr. T, FTSE 100 companies are answerable only to their shareholders. This is a different argument, every council tax payer in Oldham directly and every UK taxpayer indirectly has contributed to this supposed waste and therefore should be aware how this revenue is spent. No, they are all southerners, bankers and posh people and should be castigated at every opportunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Please, Mr. T, FTSE 100 companies are answerable only to their shareholders. This is a different argument, every council tax payer in Oldham directly and every UK taxpayer indirectly has contributed to this supposed waste and therefore should be aware how this revenue is spent. Answerable to shareholders is fine, but sunlight is still the best disinfectant. Anyone saving for a pension indirectly finances those companies. Anyone paying money into a bank finances those companies. The money involved in those companies and their significance as employers, real estate consumers, lobbyists and so on means that the public have an interest in them, whether or not they own shares directly or indirectly. There's no reason why they can't disclose expenditure on expenses above £500 and remain accountable solely to shareholders. No, they are all southerners, bankers and posh people and should be castigated at every opportunity. I'm not castigating anyone. Team-building exercises featuring all senior staff flying first class to Barbados are a waste of money - some of which is mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Answerable to shareholders is fine, but sunlight is still the best disinfectant. Anyone saving for a pension indirectly finances those companies. Anyone paying money into a bank finances those companies. The money involved in those companies and their significance as employers, real estate consumers, lobbyists and so on means that the public have an interest in them, whether or not they own shares directly or indirectly. There's no reason why they can't disclose expenditure on expenses above £500 and remain accountable solely to shareholders. I'm not castigating anyone. Team-building exercises featuring all senior staff flying first class to Barbados are a waste of money - some of which is mine. If you don’t like how your pension company manages it’s expenses, salary packages ,bonuses, paper clip procurement or drinks cabinet replenishment, then take your money out. There are a number of different businesses providing pension services, some of them making claims to have various ethical approaches, some of them not for profit. Or you could keep your money in a sock under the bed, or buy shares in companies yourself, or put it on the horses, or invest in property. If you don’t like what taxes are spent on, you still have to pay them. And therein lies the difference. If "your money" is spent flying people to Barbados, that's because you chose to put your money there. Stop crying about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Answerable to shareholders is fine, but sunlight is still the best disinfectant. Anyone saving for a pension indirectly finances those companies. Anyone paying money into a bank finances those companies. The money involved in those companies and their significance as employers, real estate consumers, lobbyists and so on means that the public have an interest in them, whether or not they own shares directly or indirectly. There's no reason why they can't disclose expenditure on expenses above £500 and remain accountable solely to shareholders. You can choose where to bank, whose disinfectant to buy and in some cases where to put your pension pennies! If you don't like the way that business is run, take your business elsewhere....that's called choice! If the company is run well and sales satisfy the shareholders and the product offered satisfy the consumer, then there is no problem, that is business, consumerism or economics....call it what you will. However, you can't opt of paying your tax. And as such, we have the right to know that "PUBLIC SERVANTS" are spending the revenue raised and entrusted to them is spent in a manner that satisfies the general public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 If you don’t like how your pension company manages it’s expenses, salary packages ,bonuses, paper clip procurement or drinks cabinet replenishment, then take your money out. There are a number of different businesses providing pension services, some of them making claims to have various ethical approaches, some of them not for profit. Or you could keep your money in a sock under the bed, or buy shares in companies yourself, or put it on the horses, or invest in property. If you don’t like what taxes are spent on, you still have to pay them. And therein lies the difference. If "your money" is spent flying people to Barbados, that's because you chose to put your money there. Stop crying about it. Thanks kids but perhaps I can put it better than I did before. It's in the public interest for listed companies to publish their expenses of more than £500 a pop. How about that? What are they scared of? More to the point, what do you two have against the idea? Why do you two have big brown gobs of corporate :censored:e on your tongues? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 ...and big black arse hairs stuck between your teeth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Thanks kids but perhaps I can put it better than I did before. It's in the public interest for listed companies to publish their expenses of more than £500 a pop. How about that? What are they scared of? More to the point, what do you two have against the idea? Why do you two have big brown gobs of corporate :censored:e on your tongues? It might make a few juicy headlines for the Daily Mail and help whip up even more anti-business hysteria amongst those who like that sort of thing, but actually I don't think it's a good idea for the Government to be passing laws forcing people to publish private information that is actually not any of the general public's :censored:ing business. And where does your concern for, "your money," come from, anyway? You don't even have a private pension, yours is going to be paid for out of general taxation taken at the point when you receive it. Now that is something that the public have a right to be concerned about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Thanks kids but perhaps I can put it better than I did before. It's in the public interest for listed companies to publish their expenses of more than £500 a pop. How about that? What are they scared of? More to the point, what do you two have against the idea? Why do you two have big brown gobs of corporate :censored:e on your tongues? Why is it in the public interest? If the shareholders don't have a problem, why should you? Sounds like you are suffering from a big dose of "envy", Mr. T!!! But well done you have temporarily diverted the thread away from Oldham Council's profligacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Answerable to shareholders is fine, but sunlight is still the best disinfectant. Anyone saving for a pension indirectly finances those companies. Anyone paying money into a bank finances those companies. The money involved in those companies and their significance as employers, real estate consumers, lobbyists and so on means that the public have an interest in them, whether or not they own shares directly or indirectly. There's no reason why they can't disclose expenditure on expenses above £500 and remain accountable solely to shareholders. Reddit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Sure the council is profligate, and we'll agree to differ on the public interest case for corporate's disclosing their expenditure, but the question stands: what's in it for you two? Arse hairs and poo, or something else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 And where does your concern for, "your money," come from, anyway? You don't even have a private pension, yours is going to be paid for out of general taxation taken at the point when you receive it. Now that is something that the public have a right to be concerned about. I think they call it a Ponzi Scheme, but you knew that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Sure the council is profligate, and we'll agree to differ on the public interest case for corporate's disclosing their expenditure, but the question stands: what's in it for you two? Arse hairs and poo, or something else? I think it's an unappealing aspect of modern political debate that many people think it's their right to know other people's business, and I also think it's a matter of regret that this encourages politicians to stuck their nose into other people's business in pursuit of a headline. I don't want to give some minister the excuse to spend my tax money on an office of civil servants deciding whether some business is spending it's shareholder's money in ways that you approve of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 ...and big black arse hairs stuck between your teeth? Bastard.....I've had to go and brush my teeth at that thought! I've worked for over 25 years for building contractors, some large and some small and have benefitted, on occasion, from generous expenses but that is between the directors and me.......not the people who bought our houses or industrial units etc. And with each company, the company from top to bottom tightened their belts when business was tight. Now to bring it back on thread, public bodies during the recession carried on as if it didn't exist and only reluctantly looked inwards at savings when the threat of reduced income became a reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Now to bring it back on thread, public bodies during the recession carried on as if it didn't exist and only reluctantly looked inwards at savings when the threat of reduced income became a reality. Don't forget though Mikey Baby - to emerge from recession you're supposed to spend money you haven't got! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Don't forget though Mikey Baby - to emerge from recession you're supposed to spend money you haven't got! And the last lot did to the point of almost losing our Standard & Poor AAA international credit rating!!! 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.