|
|
Post by RM5chris on Jan 16, 2013 15:27:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by IanF on Jan 16, 2013 15:31:30 GMT
Over 300k as wages if I was paid that much I wouldn't make expenses claims as I'd feel guilty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2013 15:34:45 GMT
398 trips? Best for him to get a bus.  |
|
|
|
Post by IanF on Jan 16, 2013 15:40:05 GMT
398 trips? Best for him to get a bus. He owns a routemaster  |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 16, 2013 17:33:05 GMT
Over 300k as wages if I was paid that much I wouldn't make expenses claims as I'd feel guilty. We need to be very careful in jumping to conclusions here. This headline is off the back of a FOI request from a website that exists simply to dig around about how much money the public sector spends. By making a headline based on the financial totals only there is a nasty hidden subtext that somehow the expenses are not justified or "crooked". Regardless of how much Mr Hendy earns where is the requirement that he spend his own money on things that are required as part of his job and which the rules allow him to claim? If his job requires him to attend meeting after meeting and taxis are the only practical way of getting between venues why should he personally pay for that? The fact is that the expenses have to be reviewed and signed off, even for Mr Hendy, to make sure they are legitimate and within the applicable rules. One politician has already jumped on the bandwagon about "he should use the bus or tube" but, of course, no one has asked for Mr Hendy's Oyster card details to find out how much or little he uses TfL services. It's just left hanging in the air that because he uses a taxi he therefore does not use public transport or Boris bikes at all. The other issue here is that the same politicians harping from the sidelines also use taxis as do thousands of Londoners - whether in a hurry or not. I'm not a fan of taxis myself but I am sensible enough to appreciate that someone like Mr Hendy will have a nightmareish schedule and will need to use a taxi to get between meetings. If Mr Hendy was claiming thousands for taxis between work and home or for personal journeys outside of work then the criticism would be legitimate. This sort of "journalism" exists just to create "scandals" out of nothing and to breathe life back into the burning embers of the MPs expenses debacle. It is all based on envy and greed and winding people up so they feel "angry" and "disgusted" about any money being spent on anything even when within the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by romfordbuses on Jan 16, 2013 19:20:09 GMT
398 trips? Best for him to get a bus. He owns a routemaster And a very nice one at that! |
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Jan 16, 2013 19:50:15 GMT
We have access to company cars and I know I have been critised before, by external people for not using buses. I use buses all the time but sometimes with the amount of meetings and the diverse locations and close timings between meetings its the only practical way to get about. As we all say if we don't have that facility (and are vehicles are being reduced year on year) then we just won't be represented at so many meetings and important decisions will be taken without our input.
|
|
|
|
Post by RM5chris on Jan 16, 2013 20:16:48 GMT
Seeing as Taxi's come within TfLs remit, can he not be given some sort of special card/pass etc that allows free travel? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by mre81 on Jan 17, 2013 22:32:27 GMT
Over 300k as wages if I was paid that much I wouldn't make expenses claims as I'd feel guilty. We need to be very careful in jumping to conclusions here. This headline is off the back of a FOI request from a website that exists simply to dig around about how much money the public sector spends. By making a headline based on the financial totals only there is a nasty hidden subtext that somehow the expenses are not justified or "crooked". Regardless of how much Mr Hendy earns where is the requirement that he spend his own money on things that are required as part of his job and which the rules allow him to claim? If his job requires him to attend meeting after meeting and taxis are the only practical way of getting between venues why should he personally pay for that? The fact is that the expenses have to be reviewed and signed off, even for Mr Hendy, to make sure they are legitimate and within the applicable rules. One politician has already jumped on the bandwagon about "he should use the bus or tube" but, of course, no one has asked for Mr Hendy's Oyster card details to find out how much or little he uses TfL services. It's just left hanging in the air that because he uses a taxi he therefore does not use public transport or Boris bikes at all. The other issue here is that the same politicians harping from the sidelines also use taxis as do thousands of Londoners - whether in a hurry or not. I'm not a fan of taxis myself but I am sensible enough to appreciate that someone like Mr Hendy will have a nightmareish schedule and will need to use a taxi to get between meetings. If Mr Hendy was claiming thousands for taxis between work and home or for personal journeys outside of work then the criticism would be legitimate. This sort of "journalism" exists just to create "scandals" out of nothing and to breathe life back into the burning embers of the MPs expenses debacle. It is all based on envy and greed and winding people up so they feel "angry" and "disgusted" about any money being spent on anything even when within the rules. I totally agree with most of what you have said. However, with the advent of new technologies, face to face meetings are becoming less necessary, when most of them can be conducted via various online methods. My company have just invested in a new system which does away with the need to meet face to face, and can conduct meetings with numerous delegates. If we (a charity) can afford to do it then I'm sure an organisation such as TfL can well afford it! |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 17, 2013 22:48:46 GMT
We need to be very careful in jumping to conclusions here. This headline is off the back of a FOI request from a website that exists simply to dig around about how much money the public sector spends. By making a headline based on the financial totals only there is a nasty hidden subtext that somehow the expenses are not justified or "crooked". Regardless of how much Mr Hendy earns where is the requirement that he spend his own money on things that are required as part of his job and which the rules allow him to claim? If his job requires him to attend meeting after meeting and taxis are the only practical way of getting between venues why should he personally pay for that? The fact is that the expenses have to be reviewed and signed off, even for Mr Hendy, to make sure they are legitimate and within the applicable rules. One politician has already jumped on the bandwagon about "he should use the bus or tube" but, of course, no one has asked for Mr Hendy's Oyster card details to find out how much or little he uses TfL services. It's just left hanging in the air that because he uses a taxi he therefore does not use public transport or Boris bikes at all. The other issue here is that the same politicians harping from the sidelines also use taxis as do thousands of Londoners - whether in a hurry or not. I'm not a fan of taxis myself but I am sensible enough to appreciate that someone like Mr Hendy will have a nightmareish schedule and will need to use a taxi to get between meetings. If Mr Hendy was claiming thousands for taxis between work and home or for personal journeys outside of work then the criticism would be legitimate. This sort of "journalism" exists just to create "scandals" out of nothing and to breathe life back into the burning embers of the MPs expenses debacle. It is all based on envy and greed and winding people up so they feel "angry" and "disgusted" about any money being spent on anything even when within the rules. I totally agree with most of what you have said. However, with the advent of new technologies, face to face meetings are becoming less necessary, when most of them can be conducted via various online methods. My company have just invested in a new system which does away with the need to meet face to face, and can conduct meetings with numerous delegates. If we (a charity) can afford to do it then I'm sure an organisation such as TfL can well afford it! In general terms and for most people fair enough. Unfortunately Mr Hendy is the figurehead and will be expected to turn up because of his profile and knowledge. He couldn't do a meeting at City Hall with the Assembly by video - the LA members would want him there in person. Similarly TfL will want to make sure the Commissioner is representing them at certain very important meetings. Similar concerns will apply to other senior managers and directors where their attendance would be expected. It might seem a bit sad but that's the world works. Oh and I suspect your IT system might be a bit more flexible than I recall the TfL one being! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Jan 17, 2013 22:48:57 GMT
Agree - however, we have alot of site meetings whereby we are actually at roadside saying to i.e. Gas you are having x traffic management can a bus make that turn. You can't/or shouldn't do that from an office. We need to be very careful in jumping to conclusions here. This headline is off the back of a FOI request from a website that exists simply to dig around about how much money the public sector spends. By making a headline based on the financial totals only there is a nasty hidden subtext that somehow the expenses are not justified or "crooked". Regardless of how much Mr Hendy earns where is the requirement that he spend his own money on things that are required as part of his job and which the rules allow him to claim? If his job requires him to attend meeting after meeting and taxis are the only practical way of getting between venues why should he personally pay for that? The fact is that the expenses have to be reviewed and signed off, even for Mr Hendy, to make sure they are legitimate and within the applicable rules. One politician has already jumped on the bandwagon about "he should use the bus or tube" but, of course, no one has asked for Mr Hendy's Oyster card details to find out how much or little he uses TfL services. It's just left hanging in the air that because he uses a taxi he therefore does not use public transport or Boris bikes at all. The other issue here is that the same politicians harping from the sidelines also use taxis as do thousands of Londoners - whether in a hurry or not. I'm not a fan of taxis myself but I am sensible enough to appreciate that someone like Mr Hendy will have a nightmareish schedule and will need to use a taxi to get between meetings. If Mr Hendy was claiming thousands for taxis between work and home or for personal journeys outside of work then the criticism would be legitimate. This sort of "journalism" exists just to create "scandals" out of nothing and to breathe life back into the burning embers of the MPs expenses debacle. It is all based on envy and greed and winding people up so they feel "angry" and "disgusted" about any money being spent on anything even when within the rules. I totally agree with most of what you have said. However, with the advent of new technologies, face to face meetings are becoming less necessary, when most of them can be conducted via various online methods. My company have just invested in a new system which does away with the need to meet face to face, and can conduct meetings with numerous delegates. If we (a charity) can afford to do it then I'm sure an organisation such as TfL can well afford it! |
|
|
|
Post by mre81 on Jan 17, 2013 22:56:29 GMT
I totally agree with most of what you have said. However, with the advent of new technologies, face to face meetings are becoming less necessary, when most of them can be conducted via various online methods. My company have just invested in a new system which does away with the need to meet face to face, and can conduct meetings with numerous delegates. If we (a charity) can afford to do it then I'm sure an organisation such as TfL can well afford it! In general terms and for most people fair enough. Unfortunately Mr Hendy is the figurehead and will be expected to turn up because of his profile and knowledge. He couldn't do a meeting at City Hall with the Assembly by video - the LA members would want him there in person. Similarly TfL will want to make sure the Commissioner is representing them at certain very important meetings. Similar concerns will apply to other senior managers and directors where their attendance would be expected. It might seem a bit sad but that's the world works. Oh and I suspect your IT system might be a bit more flexible than I recall the TfL one being! ;D Agreed, as a figurehead there'd probably be some questions raised in the Daily Mail if he wasn't represented in person at certain occasions. Hey, he probably does do a lot of 'video conferencing' too. I'm just being devil's advocate- I think it's probably 6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other ;D (and I wouldn't be too sure about out I.T systems  ) |
|
)