Saturday, 2 March 2019

"The BBC has a strict expenses policy and the drinks bill in this video was paid for in full by John"

I'm betting you all remember this (until you've downed far too many glasses of Kir royale and drowned all memories of it)...

Well, according to the BBC:

"The BBC has a strict expenses policy and the drinks bill in this video was paid for in full by John".

So, John Sweeney was lying when he told Lucy Brown that he was "on expenses" then? Is that what the BBC's saying here?


  1. Laughable in so many ways...

    Usually they are only too happy to mention the several names of a certain individual...Stephen Tommy Yaxley-Lennon-Robinson-ex-Mr.-EDL but when it comes to who caught out Sweeney, they are satisfied with "Third Party". :)

    This complaint has been dealt with in record time it would seem! Doesn't bode well for Sweeney.

    The "denial" is not a denial. That's how expenses pay the bill and then you claim on expenses. We don't know exactly how the system works in the BBC. Is it a monthly submission? Or per programme? Are BBC journalists on Panorama given some sort of allowance to cover working lunches?

    This "denial" does not say anywhere that "John Sweeney was full expecting not to make any claim for expenses in relation to this bill and did not receive any sort of allowance to cover such expenditure".

    1. Yep. They definitely do not say he didn't claim the expenses from either the bBC or his own company against corporation tax (assuming he's like so many a 'freelancer'). Very weasily.

  2. Craig, this is just too much. Even as it is scouting around desperately to try to defend itself against the magnificent sting by Tommy Robinson, the foul BBC still feels compelled to reveal Tommy's "real name," in case anyone who wants to do him harm has still not heard the BBC reveal it.

    And it is still insisting that, "BBC Panorama's investigation will continue." (I note there's mention of the investigation of Tommy Robinson continuing. I imagine that because the BBC has no idea right now of how carrying on as normal will possibly effect any damage control.

    The BBC, since it is the BBC, will never tell the truth about Sweeney's expenses. But we can entertain a few possibilities:

    *Full of remorse, Sweeney tells his bosses that he never intended to submit the bill for that boozy lunch as expenses.

    *Sweeney did in fact claim that expense, before he knew he'd been busted by Lucy Brown.

    *When he goes boozing, Sweeney hides the fact by paying for the booze himself.

    Sweeney claimed the money, the BBC chastised Sweeney and said they would not pay it. Almost certainly they would usually pay without querying it, after all it's only licence-payer's money. But now they are trying to create the impression that all is above board (pun intended) and neither the BBC nor John Sweeney would ever expect the public to finance the excesses of an alcoholic.