United Utilities'
directors earn £5.2m June 21, 2011
Read more at: http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/business/s/1424231_united-utilities-directors-earn-52m
Read more at: http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/business/s/1424231_united-utilities-directors-earn-52m
United Utilities
directors earned £5.21m in the 12 months to March 31, up from £4.24m
the previous year, new figures show. Departing chief executive Philip
Green received more than £2.8m in the period, made up of £812,000
base salary, a £959,100 bonus and £30,200 in other benefits,
including a car allowance and health insurance. Mr Green, who left
the company in March and is now a non-executive director at
construction giant Carillion, also received £827,000 as part of a
long-term incentive scheme and £203,000 in pension
contributions.
We have become a Nation of Wingers (the beauty of owning a blog is you can deliberately misspell words to everyone's annoyance)without Reason, but not in this instance. Here is another sample of disjointed rip-offs. An industry that charges it customers, legally, for rainwater falling on the roof when they don't have one? Can that be right? Whom do I address? The occupier of multiple occupancies, the flat dweller, the dweller of the high rise flat. No matter how we look at our bills, in this situation no ways can you say that such flat dwellers have a roof. Is this idiocy a matter of not being able to string together a series of words that can clearly define the nature of a bill? Water Bills are worded in such a way you would have thought it was meant for a thieving Westminster resident and not a semi literate, poor sighted pensioner with encroaching senility! The document contains this expression and is thus called a charge, with and for rainwater landing on the roof. In Blackpool it averages out at about £60 pa. per flat. If the Utilities need this money to pay the wages of the bosses, they should say so. This is not equitable as seldom can equability be achieved when dealing with poverty. No matter how you charge in a pseudo-socialist society, the bills will be disproportionate and in some cases unfair.
We have become a Nation of Wingers (the beauty of owning a blog is you can deliberately misspell words to everyone's annoyance)without Reason, but not in this instance. Here is another sample of disjointed rip-offs. An industry that charges it customers, legally, for rainwater falling on the roof when they don't have one? Can that be right? Whom do I address? The occupier of multiple occupancies, the flat dweller, the dweller of the high rise flat. No matter how we look at our bills, in this situation no ways can you say that such flat dwellers have a roof. Is this idiocy a matter of not being able to string together a series of words that can clearly define the nature of a bill? Water Bills are worded in such a way you would have thought it was meant for a thieving Westminster resident and not a semi literate, poor sighted pensioner with encroaching senility! The document contains this expression and is thus called a charge, with and for rainwater landing on the roof. In Blackpool it averages out at about £60 pa. per flat. If the Utilities need this money to pay the wages of the bosses, they should say so. This is not equitable as seldom can equability be achieved when dealing with poverty. No matter how you charge in a pseudo-socialist society, the bills will be disproportionate and in some cases unfair.
This is just part of
one utility that over rewards executives and gives scant service to
its customers. Perhaps some of the millions of gallon of water
gushing out of splinted mains pipes should be blocked with and by the
pay packets of the fat executive wallets. Also, it is time that
consumers learned that they have to pay for the goods and services
they use, but it has to be proportionate and not obscured by
sentimentality as so much is today.
No comments:
Post a Comment