You mean the EU have sacked more of their rule breakers than Tesco would have? I doubt it. £4 billion plus was spent in error in 2016. How many of the guilty or incompetent parties who spent it, have been sacked?Greenmile wrote:Because the EU hold themselves to higher standards than Tesco. Now, are you going to withdraw your lie?
As for withdrawing my "lie", that can't be done, because there is no lie. Here's a quote from the article: "This meant that, for the first time since 1994, the accounts were given a “qualified”, rather than “adverse”, opinion. The auditors found that: “A significant part of the 2016 expenditure audited was not affected by a material level of error”."
A qualified audit report means that the audit report is not clean. It means it is qualified. There's no reason necessarily why you should know that. But as a matter of fact, there are three types of audit report: clean, where the auditors say the accounts are correct; qualified, where they say the accounts are correct apart from certain aspects; and adverse, where they say the accounts are not correct. These accounts, as specifically stated, are qualified - not clean.
The fact of your misunderstanding does not mean that the words you dodn't understand are not true. This audit report in 2016 was qualified.
