Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Poor 'evver
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
mogga
Mar 30, 2012, 3:14:20 AM3/30/12
to
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:51:33 +0200, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2122053/EastEnders-axe-Heather-REFUSE-pay-stars-leaving-months-shy-years.html
That's licence payers money they're saving.
--
http://www.voucherfreebies.co.uk
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2122053/EastEnders-axe-Heather-REFUSE-pay-stars-leaving-months-shy-years.html
That's licence payers money they're saving.
--
http://www.voucherfreebies.co.uk
Waldo Centini
Mar 30, 2012, 5:25:22 AM3/30/12
to
Op 30-3-2012 9:14, mogga schreef:
> That's licence payers money they're saving.
And it's standard policy in a lot if not most companies.
--
Waldo Centini
*** He Who Lives Longest Drinks Most ***
> That's licence payers money they're saving.
--
Waldo Centini
*** He Who Lives Longest Drinks Most ***
Message has been deleted
Waldo Centini
Mar 30, 2012, 6:45:42 AM3/30/12
to
Op 30-3-2012 11:47, Martin schreef:
>>> That's licence payers money they're saving.
>>
>> And it's standard policy in a lot if not most companies.
>
> What is standard policy? The point is that it isn't standard policy in
> the BBC and should be whatever.
In most companies it's standard policy to have some conditions on which
someone can have a party: whether it's celebrating XX years with the
company, or a goodbye party.
Apart from that you're free to organize something with your mates: have
a booze up or go out for a bite, whatever.
I don't see why the BBC should be different in that respect. Or rather I
do see: they're funded with the license payer's money, that's why.
And it's not exactly that we're talking about underpaid, malnourished
and mistreated workers, is it?
>>> That's licence payers money they're saving.
>>
>> And it's standard policy in a lot if not most companies.
>
> the BBC and should be whatever.
In most companies it's standard policy to have some conditions on which
someone can have a party: whether it's celebrating XX years with the
company, or a goodbye party.
Apart from that you're free to organize something with your mates: have
a booze up or go out for a bite, whatever.
I don't see why the BBC should be different in that respect. Or rather I
do see: they're funded with the license payer's money, that's why.
And it's not exactly that we're talking about underpaid, malnourished
and mistreated workers, is it?
Message has been deleted
Waldo Centini
Mar 30, 2012, 7:35:01 AM3/30/12
to
Op 30-3-2012 13:05, Martin schreef:
>>>>> That's licence payers money they're saving.
>>>>
>>>> And it's standard policy in a lot if not most companies.
>>>
>>> What is standard policy? The point is that it isn't standard policy in
>>> the BBC and should be whatever.
>>
>> In most companies it's standard policy to have some conditions on which
>> someone can have a party: whether it's celebrating XX years with the
>> company, or a goodbye party.
>>
>> Apart from that you're free to organize something with your mates: have
>> a booze up or go out for a bite, whatever.
>>
>> I don't see why the BBC should be different in that respect. Or rather I
>> do see: they're funded with the license payer's money, that's why.
>
> but not yours.
And why would I not be allowed to be concerned about license payers' money?
Apart from that: the money is supposed to be spent on TV programs, so if
those programs suffer from misspending, I as a viewer suffer from that
as well.
>> And it's not exactly that we're talking about underpaid, malnourished
>> and mistreated workers, is it?
>
> What has that got to do with anything?
A lot, if not everything. They can pay for their own fun.
>>>>> That's licence payers money they're saving.
>>>>
>>>> And it's standard policy in a lot if not most companies.
>>>
>>> What is standard policy? The point is that it isn't standard policy in
>>> the BBC and should be whatever.
>>
>> In most companies it's standard policy to have some conditions on which
>> someone can have a party: whether it's celebrating XX years with the
>> company, or a goodbye party.
>>
>> Apart from that you're free to organize something with your mates: have
>> a booze up or go out for a bite, whatever.
>>
>> I don't see why the BBC should be different in that respect. Or rather I
>> do see: they're funded with the license payer's money, that's why.
>
And why would I not be allowed to be concerned about license payers' money?
Apart from that: the money is supposed to be spent on TV programs, so if
those programs suffer from misspending, I as a viewer suffer from that
as well.
>> And it's not exactly that we're talking about underpaid, malnourished
>> and mistreated workers, is it?
>
A lot, if not everything. They can pay for their own fun.
Message has been deleted
Waldo Centini
Mar 30, 2012, 7:55:22 AM3/30/12
to
Op 30-3-2012 13:42, Martin schreef:
>> And why would I not be allowed to be concerned about license payers' money?
>
> TV licence?
>
> There are far more important things for you to be concerned about at
> home.
I'll be bothered about domestic issues when I see fit. I do not do so now.
>> Apart from that: the money is supposed to be spent on TV programs, so if
>> those programs suffer from misspending, I as a viewer suffer from that
>> as well.
>
> You are focusing on trivia. Let the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph
> lead you to far bigger BBC wastes of money.
I have my subscription to the Private Eye for that.
>>>> And it's not exactly that we're talking about underpaid, malnourished
>>>> and mistreated workers, is it?
>>>
>>> What has that got to do with anything?
>>
>> A lot, if not everything. They can pay for their own fun.
>
> Miserable git :-)
Yes, indeed. Me no party, they no party.
>> And why would I not be allowed to be concerned about license payers' money?
>
>
> There are far more important things for you to be concerned about at
> home.
I'll be bothered about domestic issues when I see fit. I do not do so now.
>> Apart from that: the money is supposed to be spent on TV programs, so if
>> those programs suffer from misspending, I as a viewer suffer from that
>> as well.
>
> lead you to far bigger BBC wastes of money.
I have my subscription to the Private Eye for that.
>>>> And it's not exactly that we're talking about underpaid, malnourished
>>>> and mistreated workers, is it?
>>>
>>> What has that got to do with anything?
>>
>> A lot, if not everything. They can pay for their own fun.
>
Yes, indeed. Me no party, they no party.
Message has been deleted
0 new messages