91Èȱ¬

Shame on them for reporting such un-newsworthy items. Surely

"91Èȱ¬ takes on 2nd-rate journalist"

and "91Èȱ¬ wastes Licence Fee payers' money"

are hardly modern developments.

How did The Sun get such detailed, private information?

Notice Murdoch's Sun making such a fuss about "cabs", and using a London Black Cab for illustration. Then put it in context that Murdoch owns the largest "minicab" company in London, the "alternative" to the Black Cab. Murdochs' media are always anti-Black Cabs.

With a newspaper ghetto and printworks in Wapping, in east London, and a television empire in a business park way out in west London, convenient for nothing but Murdoch getting there from Heathrow, it might be interesting to see the Murdoch empire's cab bill. They certainly use their fair share, but no doubt the figures are lost in "internal" accounting.

Jenny, I expect you are right that Murdoch's media empire also spends a lot of money on cab fares. However, the big difference is how they earn their money. They get their money from selling their product not as a "tax" on tv owners.

As the 91Èȱ¬ is funded by the tax payer then it has a duty to be responsible with "our" money. The Murdoch group only has to answer to their shareholders NOT the public as a whole.

And the editor in chief of the Sport is moving to the 91Èȱ¬? Perhaps if they spent less on taxis they could get a proper journalist.

Nothing there about Hammersmith City Council deliberately restricting the provision of parking spaces in new construction at White City. Also nothing about public transport in London being less than 24/7 or the fact that staff on 91Èȱ¬ salaries can't all afford to live in London. If the 91Èȱ¬ has to operate in the nation's capital, then taxis and hire cars are part of the necessary cost.