Fatty Foulkes vents spleen at BBC reporter

[Bamba]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8045414.stm

Whether you agree with him or not, his arithmetic is appalling

[Allant1981]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8045414.stm

Whether you agree with him or not, his arithmetic is appalling


£92 grand to present the news, im in the wrong job

[Hibee-Bongo]

To be fair to the sweaty jambo he's got a point

[Future17]

To be fair to the sweaty jambo he's got a point

£92k is a lot of money for a job which doesn't involve nearly as much as it used to.

HOWEVER, journalists have a responsibility to represent the public in a quest for transparency from people like Foulkes and other MP's and it's tough that Foulkes doesn't like how this particular journalist has gone about it.

George Foulkes and Michael Martin are now both guilty of totally misunderstanding their role and their relationship with the taxpayers who pay their wages (and expenses).

Instead of going on the attack in this instance, how about a touch of humility?

The newsreader is asking the questions on behalf of all taxpayers so Foulkes should've answered it as if he were being asked by a billionaire playboy or a minimum wage delivery driver.

[McSwanky]

Instead of going on the attack in this instance, how about a touch of humility?

Nail. Head. On.

More diversionary tactics from the slavering fool who is widely known to be one of the largest claimants in the Holyrood system.

I'm sick and tired of politicians trying to deflect attention from their own flaws by attacking other individuals (usually opposition politicians, but in this case a journalist).

having said that though, £92k? That's a complete joke.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Didn't realise we had so many of the broadcasting community on board. Who knows if £92,000 is too much money to read the news, I don't.

I can imagine it is a highly stressful job, and that any mistake will be heard by lots of people, so maintaining credibility under pressure is a key skill. Try reading any passage of text out loud and keep your audience interested, and you'll soon find out how hard it is.

I also fancy Jackie Bird. :hi:

[McSwanky]

Didn't realise we had so many of the broadcasting community on board. Who knows if £92,000 is too much money to read the news, I don't.

I can imagine it is a highly stressful job, and that any mistake will be heard by lots of people, so maintaining credibility under pressure is a key skill. Try reading any passage of text out loud and keep your audience interested, and you'll soon find out how hard it is.

I also fancy Jackie Bird. :hi:

So, who do you think should be paid more? A back bench MP or a BBC newsreader? Or are you going to claim to not have an opinion on that either, but still manage to get a wee dig in? :wink:

Anyway, the first part of your post wasn't the bit that really got me. You've really outdone yourself with your last sentence. She's an absolute horror.

Edit: I've just been told that the journalist in question is also a producer with the BBC, so maybe that goes some way to justifying her £92k. I imagine that lowly newsreaders would only manage to gross about £65k. :wink: This does NOT change my opinion on Jackie Bird by the way.

[Beefster]

£92k? That's a complete joke.

Why? She's a producer, news reader, interviewer and journalist who has won awards. It's what the market dictates that the BBC has to pay for someone with those skills.


I also fancy Jackie Bird.

As in the 'Gandalf without a beard' lookalike? Dearie me....

[McSwanky]

Why? She's a producer, news reader, interviewer and journalist who has won awards. It's what the market dictates that the BBC has to pay for someone with those skills.

Yes, but the market dictates that to sign John Terry you'd have to pay him over £100k a week. Doesn't make it right though, does it?

At least we agree on Jackie Bird though...

[Allant1981]

Didn't realise we had so many of the broadcasting community on board. Who knows if £92,000 is too much money to read the news, I don't.

I can imagine it is a highly stressful job, and that any mistake will be heard by lots of people, so maintaining credibility under pressure is a key skill. Try reading any passage of text out loud and keep your audience interested, and you'll soon find out how hard it is.

I also fancy Jackie Bird. :hi:


She is a horror, that would defo be a taxi rank job

[ancient hibee]

I much prefer Sally Magnusson myself.:top marks

[--------]

Foulkes needs to have the facts of life explained to him.

He and a lot of his colleagues in Parliament have been skinning the tax-payer disgracefully.

A whistle-blower leaked the information to the press who have now published it.

Jamesie Cotter, the Speaker of the House (him what has a hard job reading any word with more than four letters and who's one of the worst con-men of the bunch) has set the Met hot on the trail of the person who leaked the info. This when some of us think the Met should be investigating people like Foulkes and their property deals first.

A journalist asks him a question about it. As a member of the House of Lords and an MSP he is answerable to the electorate. So he should answer the journalist's question, not start abusing her. My opinion of Foulkes's character and honesty is such that I would not trust him with my goldfish (if I had one). he is IMO a thoroughly dishonest and unbtrustworthy individual.

And it should be a criminal offence to put a picture of anyone as fat and ugly as Foulkes up on a screen that size. Not without a warning: "We are about to show a graphic image of Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. If you do not wish to lose your supper, please look away now."

[Phil D. Rolls]

So, who do you think should be paid more? A back bench MP or a BBC newsreader? Or are you going to claim to not have an opinion on that either, but still manage to get a wee dig in? :wink:

Anyway, the first part of your post wasn't the bit that really got me. You've really outdone yourself with your last sentence. She's an absolute horror.

Edit: I've just been told that the journalist in question is also a producer with the BBC, so maybe that goes some way to justifying her £92k. I imagine that lowly newsreaders would only manage to gross about £65k. :wink: This does NOT change my opinion on Jackie Bird by the way.

I think it probably takes more skill to be a newsreader than a back bench MP, so I reckon the newsreader should get more.

You have obviously never met Jackie Bird. :wink:

[Phil D. Rolls]

I much prefer Sally Magnusson myself.:top marks

You've taken that too far. :tsk tsk:




:greengrin

[Jonnyboy]

To be fair to the sweaty jambo he's got a point

No he hasn't. He did what all politicians do and deflected the debate away from what was asked of him. How much the BBC newsreader earns is not material. Nor is it material how much an MP earns. What IS material is the fact that MP's have or had an expenses system that allowed ridiculous claims to be paid out. The BBC newsreader made the point that all of the things highlighted as having been claimed for by MP's like tampons, phone bills, council tax etc she pays out of her salary and not by using taxpayers money.

The sweaty fool is not just a Jambo, and dear God that in itself is enough to make you loathe him but he is also an apologist for those elected to serve the country

Rant over :wink:

[Jonnyboy]

Didn't realise we had so many of the broadcasting community on board. Who knows if £92,000 is too much money to read the news, I don't.

I can imagine it is a highly stressful job, and that any mistake will be heard by lots of people, so maintaining credibility under pressure is a key skill. Try reading any passage of text out loud and keep your audience interested, and you'll soon find out how hard it is.

I also fancy Jackie Bird. :hi:

Or as I call her, scrawny bird - given that turkey like neck she sports :greengrin

[(((Fergus)))]

I think it probably takes more skill to be a newsreader than a back bench MP, so I reckon the newsreader should get more.

You have obviously never met Jackie Bird. :wink:

Since there are numerous media channels available, a news journalist/producer's salary is dictated by market forces.

There is no alternative to the UK parliament (yet) and the members decide their own salary (and add-ons).

Which is the fairest? :cool2:

[hibsbollah]

Foulkes needs to have the facts of life explained to him.

He and a lot of his colleagues in Parliament have been skinning the tax-payer disgracefully.

A whistle-blower leaked the information to the press who have now published it.

Jamesie Cotter, the Speaker of the House (him what has a hard job reading any word with more than four letters and who's one of the worst con-men of the bunch) has set the Met hot on the trail of the person who leaked the info. This when some of us think the Met should be investigating people like Foulkes and their property deals first.

A journalist asks him a question about it. As a member of the House of Lords and an MSP he is answerable to the electorate. So he should answer the journalist's question, not start abusing her. My opinion of Foulkes's character and honesty is such that I would not trust him with my goldfish (if I had one). he is IMO a thoroughly dishonest and unbtrustworthy individual.

And it should be a criminal offence to put a picture of anyone as fat and ugly as Foulkes up on a screen that size. Not without a warning: "We are about to show a graphic image of Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. If you do not wish to lose your supper, please look away now."

Absolutely right:top marks

[Tomsk]

According to his Lardship, journalists who ask awkward questions that serve to reveal just how craven and corrupt our political masters are 'undermine democracy'. But freeloading simultaneously as an unelected peer and list MSP (:wtf:) it would appear does not.

The noble Lard has not won an election directly but serves in two parliament and takes over £100k (plus expenses) in two salaries from the public purse. Now that's what I call democracy!

I have another awkward question of his Lardship. If he is able to divide his time between these two jobs could it be there is not sufficient work in either of those of jobs to justify the salaries awarded.

The man's every utterance, his very existence undermines democracy. But we could always vote him out ... oh no, right enough, we can't. That would be called democracy. So, instead we have to rely on overpaid hacks to get at him. Better than nothing I suppose.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Since there are numerous media channels available, a news journalist/producer's salary is dictated by market forces.

There is no alternative to the UK parliament (yet) and the members decide their own salary (and add-ons).

Which is the fairest? :cool2:

Depends whether you're an MP or a news reader I guess.


According to his Lardship, journalists who ask awkward questions that serve to reveal just how craven and corrupt our political masters are 'undermine democracy'. But freeloading simultaneously as an unelected peer and list MSP (:wtf:) it would appear does not.

The noble Lard has not won an election directly but serves in two parliament and takes over £100k (plus expenses) in two salaries from the public purse. Now that's what I call democracy!

I have another awkward question of his Lardship. If he is able to divide his time between these two jobs could it be there is not sufficient work in either of those of jobs to justify the salaries awarded.

The man's every utterance, his very existence undermines democracy. But we could always vote him out ... oh no, right enough, we can't. That would be called democracy. So, instead we have to rely on overpaid hacks to get at him. Better than nothing I suppose.

Shoorly Lord?

[Beefster]

The whisky-addled, PC-punching auld scrotum has just been on BBC News 24 once more claiming that Michael Martin was forced out for being a Catholic and that it's all a sectarian campaign against him.

Wharratit.

[--------]

The whisky-addled, PC-punching auld scrotum has just been on BBC News 24 once more claiming that Michael Martin was forced out for being a Catholic and that it's all a sectarian campaign against him.

Wharratit.


I thought that was obvious, Beefster.

That, and snobbery. I believe he doesn't stick his pinkie out when he drinks tea.... :wink:

The truth is that the man was shown to be incompetent, and he was trying to shield the incompetence and dishonesty of his Commons colleagues. He had to go, and that's all there was to it.

[GhostofBolivar]

Foulkes is at it again on BBC News right now.

He's just throwing casual insults about without any semblence of argument behind them. He shouldn't even be there, for ****'s sake. He's not an MP, so his viewpoint - as the voice of Parliament - is irrelevant in this context.

I don't think he even realises that the only reason they're letting him on TV is because no minister wants to get within a half-mile of a journalist. Labour're only letting nonentities be interviewed at the moment.

[Hibbyradge]

Luvly!

http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs139&d=09212&f=jb789.jpg

[EskbankHibby]

The whisky-addled, PC-punching auld scrotum has just been on BBC News 24 once more claiming that Michael Martin was forced out for being a Catholic and that it's all a sectarian campaign against him.

Wharratit.

Bumped into gorgeous George on Sunday morning at Queen Street station in the weedge. If it's any consolation i don't think we will be subjected to his written/spoken drivel for much longer.

A more unhealthy looking individual i have yet to see, actually felt a wee bit sorry for him!

[lucky]

Nail. Head. On.

More diversionary tactics from the slavering fool who is widely known to be one of the largest claimants in the Holyrood system.

I'm sick and tired of politicians trying to deflect attention from their own flaws by attacking other individuals (usually opposition politicians, but in this case a journalist).

having said that though, £92k? That's a complete joke.

Not a fan of George Foulkes but I do believe you may have slandered him with allegation about Holyrood expenses. Have you any proof that he is one of largest claimants? If not you should retract it.

[Andy Bee]

Not a fan of George Foulkes but I do believe you may have slandered him with allegation about Holyrood expenses. Have you any proof that he is one of largest claimants? If not you should retract it.

I don't see the problem with the statement Lucky, He's certainly one of the largest I've seen :agree:, fat bollox of a man, as much use as a roof rack on a helicopter

[Beefster]

Not a fan of George Foulkes but I do believe you may have slandered him with allegation about Holyrood expenses. Have you any proof that he is one of largest claimants? If not you should retract it.

It's not like it is private information.

http://mspallowances.scottish.parliament.uk/MSPAllowances/Results.aspx

For info, Foulkes gets (rounded to the nearest £1k):

£54,000 in allowances from the House of Lords
£36,000 as a 'parliamentary consultant' for a private company
£3,000 in Scottish Parliament expenses
£57,000 in salary as an MSP

For a grand total of £150,000 as a public servant.

And in case you think I'm a stalker of the tit, this all came out when he was running for Rector at Edinburgh Uni.

[McSwanky]

Not a fan of George Foulkes but I do believe you may have slandered him with allegation about Holyrood expenses. Have you any proof that he is one of largest claimants? If not you should retract it.

OK, I retract it. I got it wrong.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Labour-MSP-Foulkes-defends-Lords.4826272.jp

Still doesn't paint him in a very good light though, does it? Value for money for the taxpayer? You decide.

[Future17]

For info, Foulkes gets (rounded to the nearest £1k):


Also for info, Foulkes gets rounder every time I see him!