Letter: The pros and cons of John Birt Productions Ltd

Mr S. Greggains
Tuesday 02 March 1993 19:02 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: The revelation that John Birt has used a limited company as a vehicle to receive earnings from the BBC is surprising in one aspect. The surprise is that Mr Birt and his wife (the co-director) obviously do not appear to have taken advantage of sections 246 and 247 of the Companies Act 1985. These permit directors of small companies (such as John Birt Productions Ltd) to file an abbreviated set of accounts, which would only show a balance sheet, together with certain notes.

There would, if these abbreviated accounts had been filed, have been no way of discovering what the turnover or expenses were from Companies House records.

Yours faithfully,

S. GREGGAINS

Richmond, Surrey

1 March

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in