"Department of Health apologises over tax deals 'misunderstanding'"
Here's an excellent example of a national newspaper using biased reporting to whip its readership into a frenzy.
The basic story is that more than a few senior civil servants aren't being paid a salary as such but have set up personal consultancy companies and the government is paying those. This is very tax-advantageous for the individuals concerned. I think many people would consider this scandalous, especially contractors who were hounded by HMRC over IR35.
The Guardian obviously thinks so, and has this story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/15/department-of-health-tax-deals-misunderstanding
The headline is as above, with the subheading "Exclusive: Andrew Lansley faces questions after leaked emails reveal at least 25 senior staff have salaries paid to companies" and a photograph of Mr Lansley, the Health Secretary looking somewhere between sinister, smug and sheepish. There are 548 comments (and counting) on the webpage, mostly expressing outrage at the arrangements and at Mr Lansley.
The relevant union leader Mr Baume "said he believed such arrangements had allowed the Government to pay senior figures less and that cleaning up the system would mean salaries would have to rise."
The _minor_ detail that the Guardian article fails to mention, but which the Telegraph and the BBC do mention is that these contracts were awarded by the _previous_ government and that it is the current government that wishes to end the practice.
ETA: There's now another article as well as the first, which briefly quotes (in the seventh paragraph) the union leader saying "Under the last Labour government there was a big push to bring people into the senior levels of government, from in particular the private sector … At the same time, over quite a number of years, salaries have been held down. What we have found is that in certain cases because the market rate was so much greater than the salary that would have been offered in the civil service, various deals were being done and some of these are now being exposed." There are no comments on this article.
The basic story is that more than a few senior civil servants aren't being paid a salary as such but have set up personal consultancy companies and the government is paying those. This is very tax-advantageous for the individuals concerned. I think many people would consider this scandalous, especially contractors who were hounded by HMRC over IR35.
The Guardian obviously thinks so, and has this story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/15/department-of-health-tax-deals-misunderstanding
The headline is as above, with the subheading "Exclusive: Andrew Lansley faces questions after leaked emails reveal at least 25 senior staff have salaries paid to companies" and a photograph of Mr Lansley, the Health Secretary looking somewhere between sinister, smug and sheepish. There are 548 comments (and counting) on the webpage, mostly expressing outrage at the arrangements and at Mr Lansley.
The relevant union leader Mr Baume "said he believed such arrangements had allowed the Government to pay senior figures less and that cleaning up the system would mean salaries would have to rise."
The _minor_ detail that the Guardian article fails to mention, but which the Telegraph and the BBC do mention is that these contracts were awarded by the _previous_ government and that it is the current government that wishes to end the practice.
ETA: There's now another article as well as the first, which briefly quotes (in the seventh paragraph) the union leader saying "Under the last Labour government there was a big push to bring people into the senior levels of government, from in particular the private sector … At the same time, over quite a number of years, salaries have been held down. What we have found is that in certain cases because the market rate was so much greater than the salary that would have been offered in the civil service, various deals were being done and some of these are now being exposed." There are no comments on this article.