Watch-dog watched. Snared. And bitten!

Sir John Bourn, Auditor-General.

So who is he? He is currently the head of the government's national audit office, essentially the spending watch-dog, whose role is to ensure that the government doesn't waste taxpayer's money on pointless, ridiculous or frivolous projects. (Not done much of a job really, if you ask my opinion!)

Why the mention? Well, Sir John has today announced (just been on radio 2) that he will resign in January 2008. So what's he done? Well, according to this from The Times, over the last three years he has run up a few bob on his expenses account.

So what's wrong with a civil servant blowing a few bob?

Well, if you are a civil servant, then how about these as examples to try and emulate:-

"Sir John travelled first-class with his wife on 22 occasions, including to San Francisco, Bahamas, Brazil, Lisbon and Venice, costing £76,000."

"164 lunches and dinners since 2004, including meals at the Ritz, Savoy, Dorchester, Wiltons, Mirabelle and Bibendum. The bills, nearly all for two people, vary from £80 to £301."

Do we need to mention "appearing to accept hospitality from companies such as BAE which compromises the independent and professional standing essential to someone in this post."?

Probably not, but racking up a total of £336,000 in expenses on various globe-trotting trips has just got to be taking the p*ss, so to speak, for someone in the role of a spending watch-dog.

As one of the posted comments states - 'he'll probably come out of it all with a big fat pension', and 'completely immoral'. Quite!

£110k+ per year in expenses only - now that's nice work if you can get it!

Icebergs

As a free public information website, I was as equally fascinated by what was in this piece - Government urged to improve Web sites - as what was not.

First up, tell us what we don't know: they are too complex and are difficult to navigate. Well, D'uh.

The we get to the provision of information about the cost and usage of government Web sites.

I find it MIND-BOGGLING that the government spends £208 million a year (of whose money?) on its Web sites... but knows little about who access them or how they are used.

If ever there was a case to get them out of the public sector's dead hands this was it. They don't know what they're doing. They patently don't know why they're doing it. And they don't seem to care whether it works so long as it looks like they are doing something. And the heck with any ROI, which any sane business would apply to its comms efforts.

These are tools. Their only value is in being used. Not just for being there. I mentioned recently about a site that was all excited about 7,000 'hits', which a kennelcam of a dead dog rotting would exceed.

I'd also love to know what the breakdown of costs of design , build, operation and maintenance are for some, especially in the enviro-arena.

I'm betting several have 'departments' (which explains them looking like camels), all on salary with pension. Junkk.com has one bloke... so far... plus a few nice mates helping. And as and when it does need to grow, it will be funded by ads.

Which is better value?

ADDENDUM

That'll teach me. Now, when the heck will I find the time to read it?

Report
Exec summary
Another thing - 89 pages!!!!