As it is fairly certain neither would respond to me, my not being a constituent, perhaps one of their constituents would care to question what fees these advertisers pay; if one is being accepted; if accepted to whom does that fee go?
I have to question the ethics of a Member of Parliament's website, funded by the state or privately, carrying any form of advertising, whether paid or unpaid and whether surreptitiously or not 'pushing' a government policy. If it were not for their positions in our society they would probably not have the readership that they do and probably may not have secured any subsequent revenue stream.
Just saying.......................
Update: An email correspondent has forwarded two screenshots which show how Carswell's and Heaton-Harris' blog appears when viewed in Spain.
(Click on screenshots to enlarge)
One wonders if these MPs are aware of this and feel that it is acceptable their sites carry adverts for dating Chinese girls or news about vacancies in another land?
Should either of them arrive at this blog, perhaps they would let me and my readers know how they feel about this subject - and perhaps they would answer the question I posed?
11 comments:
This is indeed a serious matter. In similar vein did anybody else read the reports last week that Richard Branson is paying the overtime bill for a team of Metropolitan police detectives to investigate " video pirates" who are undermining the profit margins of one of his TV companies. Branson ( a UK tax avoider) has also given plod an undertaking that they can retain 25% of any compensation they can " screw out of the video pirate"
There was a little bit of a ripple in the media but not a single politician has had the guts to tell Branson to take a running jump. What is the hold that the odious Branson has over the establishment?
I hadn't noticed, because I run ad-blocking software. I do know that Carswell makes it clear that his site is not funded from the public purse, so one assumes that advertising money goes towards running the site.
To me, the question is whether the running costs of the site are more or less than the advertising revenue and if there's a surplus, what happens to it.
The simple fact is these MPs have Expenses provided by Taxpayers. Any Revenues they pick up through advertising or sponsorship should be offset against those Expenses
Oh another thought, do these MPs now have to declare an interest when speaking on any matters in The Commons that bear any relationship to those advertising on their Websites ? Or do they declare these interests to Voters at election time and in their Manifesto ?
Using Firefox and adblock I hadn't actually noticed, but it seems to me to open serious questions about whether MPs public activities should accept sponsorship or advertising.
If I were them I would not want adverts or seem to be in the pay of corporates however indirectly.
Anon: Yes it is!
DH: Whether a site is or is not funded from the public purse is beside the point - see TT's two points.
TT: Well spotted - have reposted those on RN's comments section.
W42: Good spot from you too - thanks!
I agree with the comments here but would also point out that our political elite are also quoted on Dun & Bradstreet as limited companies. I presume this is to reduce their tax bill but would anyone like to confirm please?
Anon: Ah, we need an accountant, methinks - above my payscale.....
I would hate to have adverts on my blog. It's so tacky, but then again so are most of our politicians.
I blog because I feel the need to say something, not because I want a few extra bob out of it.
Like Woodsy42 I run Firefox + Adblock + Flashblock and never see any of these adverts. However I turned them off and find Chris Heaton-Harris' blog carries ads for solar panels on the post about a letter to the PM re wind turbine subsidies!
They are every bit as disgraceful a waste of taxpayers money as bird mincers...
Sue: Agree with both points!
W42: A point RN made when linking to my post.......
Post a Comment