Page 1 of 2
Who watches the watchdogs?

Posted:
20 Feb 2009, 13:11
by Decker

Posted:
20 Feb 2009, 13:19
by Slipperman
Naive Virgin employee who didn't realise that their activities would easily be detected. [ii]

Posted:
20 Feb 2009, 13:20
by Kraken
Tut tut (if the allegations are true).

Posted:
20 Feb 2009, 13:29
by Scrooge
The sister will take the fall, along with the employee of course.

Posted:
20 Feb 2009, 13:37
by Darren Wheeler
Will all be dropped. After all, Virgin don't have First Class as she cannot have taken them [:w] [:D]

Posted:
20 Feb 2009, 14:07
by DarkAuror
Mmmh, did she get the FF miles when she was working on Rough Guide series for Five.[:?]

Posted:
20 Feb 2009, 14:12
by Nottingham Nick
Interesting that it was Virgin contacted the police. Wonder how it all came to light? [:w]
Nick

Posted:
20 Feb 2009, 14:13
by DMetters-Bone
Does make me laugh that people think they can get away with it! [:o)]

Posted:
20 Feb 2009, 14:21
by Darren Wheeler
They must have some kind of internal audit/reporting tool to show who allocated how many, to whom and when. Someone got greedy and got caught, allegedly.

Posted:
20 Feb 2009, 16:01
by Slipperman
quote:Originally posted by Darren Wheeler
They must have some kind of internal audit/reporting tool to show who allocated how many, to whom and when. Someone got greedy and got caught, allegedly.
Indeed. It is almost certain they would have profit protection routines in place that would identify usually patterns of transactions. A customer burning a million miles would have likely shown up on an exception report. The employees activities would have been audit trailed in the database.

Posted:
20 Feb 2009, 22:03
by buns
If you ask me it was the ability to redeem rewards to so many places must have raised some suspicion[}:)]
We all know how difficult it can be at times
buns

Posted:
21 Feb 2009, 02:26
by mcnaugha
If we assume she really took 10 UC reward flights then she must have had 1,000,000 miles added to her account. That's just stupid. Did she really think it would go undetected!?! If she'd stuck to just a couple she might have gotten away with it.

Posted:
21 Feb 2009, 23:36
by RichardMannion
Time does catch up with people, there are measures in place to identify unusual activity like this, or when an unusuall large number of miles are added as 'compensation'.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/ ... 496441.eceGiven her income stated, I can't see her having racked up the 1m miles on her AmEx either.

Posted:
22 Feb 2009, 11:06
by Sealink
Why couldn't it have been Nicky Campbell?

Posted:
29 Mar 2009, 13:02
by Darren Wheeler
Can't have been that bad as the lovely Julia is back next weekend on Countryfile. [:X]

Posted:
15 Apr 2009, 16:49
by Decker

Posted:
15 Apr 2009, 17:23
by DarkAuror
When has she been on The Gadget Show? I think the reporter meant Rough Guides.

Posted:
15 Apr 2009, 18:08
by Bazz
A very uninformative piece [n] So did the person who worked for VAA credit miles to Bradbury's account, miles which Bradbury was not entitled to but miles that Bradbury then chose to use or not?
If Bradbury did use theses miles to take up to ten free flights she must have known she had more miles than she was supposed to have, no one is that naive - or are they?
WTF

Posted:
17 Apr 2009, 09:18
by Decker

Posted:
17 Apr 2009, 09:42
by Nottingham Nick
Thanks for the Times link, Decker. [y]
A MUCH more informative piece of reporting - especially with so many lines to read between. [}:)][;)][:w]
Nick

Posted:
17 Apr 2009, 09:59
by Bazz
The BEEB is making a laughing stock of itself by allowing her to remain on Watchdog - the credibility of the program is at stake here. If the BEEB wants to keep her on the payroll she should be moved to a program that does not deal with consumer affairs.

Posted:
17 Apr 2009, 10:07
by Neil
quote:Originally posted by Bazz
The BEEB is making a laughing stock of itself by allowing her to remain on Watchdog - the credibility of the program is at stake here. If the BEEB wants to keep her on the payroll she should be moved to a program that does not deal with consumer affairs.
I can't agree with that, why should she lose her job, which I personally think she is very good at, when she has, in the eyes of the law done nothing wrong? The police have said she is not a suspect so I can't understand why she should be punished if her travel agent and a VS employee have done some 'dodgy' deals.
Maybe I am being naive, and maybe she was the brains behind the whole scam, but I stick by the innocent until proven guilty line.

Posted:
17 Apr 2009, 10:36
by jaguarpig
quote:why should she lose her job
It looks to me like she used fraudulently obtained miles for flights.Oh but it was the sister who did it and Jules knew nothing about it[:?],thats ok then.[:D]

Posted:
17 Apr 2009, 10:40
by mitchja
I'm also not convinced she's total innocent in all this and I don't believe for one minute she was unaware of what was going on.
Regards

Posted:
17 Apr 2009, 10:52
by mdvipond
She's paid VS back 120,000 miles for 'flights that had been wrongly gifted'? Wrongly gifted?? C'mon people, is there anyone on here who wouldn't notice such a convenient and beneficial 'irregularity' with their FC account? Even Neil?? I think not...