Re: You'll know Openreach is fully separated
"those "pension liablities" as well as "staggering losses" turned out to be accounting fictions cooked up to try and scare off regulators."
Unbelievable. Next thing you'll be suggesting that an accountancy company's preferred answer to "what's 2 + 2" isn't 4, or even 5 (respectful tip of the hat to user "2 + 2 = 5" here), the preferred answer is "who wants to know?" and (ideally) "what's it worth for us?".
I mean this is the kind of company the world trusts to open the correct envelope on Oscars night, right?
Check this out (via Google if necessary):
https://www.ft.com/content/80548842-e3c6-11e6-9645-c9357a75844a 26 Jan 2017
or various equivalents at less definitive sources elsewhere.
"BT is to bring forward a review of its auditors in the wake of a damaging accounting scandal in Italy that will end a relationship with PwC that dates back more than 30 years. [...]
BT will now accelerate that following the accounting scandal that has engulfed BT Italia and triggered a £530m write-off."
See also, from as recently as 2010 (but same names in the frame):
"BT asked PwC to move members of the firm’s audit team serving the telecommunications giant after the company was forced to writedown £1.6bn following a wrangle over profit assumptions.
The Financial Times reports that news of the reshuffle in the audit team was revealed by Sir Mike Rake, BT chairman and former head of KPMG International, during the company’s annual general meeting this week.
Though auditors are rotated it is rare for news of a client demanding staff changes to emerge in public.
The difficulties arose for BT in the accounts for the Global Services Division during 2008-09. The FT quotes Sir Mike saying that a complete review has been undertaken and that BT’s internal audit service has been strengthened.
PwC declined to comment to Accountancy Age. It remains unclear which staff may have been moved or whether changes involved the engagement partner on the BT audit."
Read this bit again: "BT's internal audit service has been strengthened".
May or may not have been true, but it was about as believable as "the cheque's in the post", and the auditors (internal and external) seem to have been rather less useful than a chocolate teapot.