It's all kicking off on FB over a Q presenter* winning one of the Breast Cancer Care auctions - against the rules for staff to take part even though she did so on behalf of "a friend".
Her subsequent withdrawal has meant the charity are now considerably out of pocket.
It's just like that bloody Diamonique Crown Affair all over again!
*either Debbie Flint or her sister - I can't quite make out who - and many posts have been deleted to put QVC in a better light and make these allegations look like a witch hunt.
Shabby, ain't it!
Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to.
Post by Berry McPaper-cuts on Dec 18, 2014 8:50:44 GMT
From what I can make out QVC are accusing people on FB of bullying DF over this and deleting posts. It has also been implied that it is not the first time a staffer has bid when they should not- possibly the crown? if BCC have been denied money over this debacle Q should make it up to them as it is not as if they can't afford it.
I tried making head or tail of it yesterday. Whilst whoever it was shouldn't have bid, QVC should not have accepted the blinking bid either.
However to my mind ... what the hell ... if it was a fair fight and the winning bid was the highest so be it. Its all money for charity. I don't much care who's pocket it came out of.
The reason the QVC "staff" aren't allowed to bid is to make sure there's no question over them being given preference or an advantage.
I agree up to a point Tinks - it doesn't really matter IF the charity gets the highest amount of money possible but BCC have lost out again because QVC have allowed staff to flout the rules twice and viewers feel they have lost out to someone who is seen to be getting preferential treatment.
Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to.
I agree the charity has lost out because QVC have pulled it but if the highest bid was genuinely the highest bid then no one got preferential treatment. The trouble is proving that it was genuinely the highest bid, hence the rules.
I don't think the QVC staff should be allowed to bid because it is open to people thinking something underhand has gone on. But just because allowing staff to vote is open to abuse it doesn't mean there was any.
The one thing that confuses me though is the bit where the statement says that they were "unaware of the terms and conditions preventing QVC employees from entering charity auctions." I'm sure I'm not unusual in the fact that I always read the T&Cs before doing anything ....... whether it be a competition or buying something so how come they were all 'unaware.'. It all sounds a tad odd to me, but I do think that the amount that was bid should go to the charity irrespective of whose pocket the money comes.
It's unclear to me whether it was Debbie Flint or her sister. But whoever it was made a serious and generous bid. It wasn't like they got it for a fiver. £3000 is a lot of anyone's money. If it was in error ... why not offer it to the next highest bidder? Or auction it on Facebook?
The bidder is unlikely to pay that amount and walk away with nothing. And legally its not simple for a limited company just to give that kind of money to charity. The tax man don't like it.
Rules are rules, and I can't quite believe that the parties involved didn't know them. The fact they are the rules must mean that Q are aware that peoples perception of an employee winning could be construed unfavourably. As someone pointed out, it wasn't them that raised the money for BCC, it was their customers. Let's hope the charity don't lose out in this debacle.