according to the Times.
Bear in mind that the trial is still continuing. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. In any case the most damaging aspect of this story to the BBC is not the paintballing. The worst that happened there is that they were fooled. No, the most shocking thing is this:
Nasreen Suleaman, a researcher on the programme, told the court that Mr Hamid, 50, contacted her after the July 2005 attack and told her of his association with the bombers. But she said that she felt no obligation to contact the police with this information. Ms Suleaman said that she informed senior BBC managers but was not told to contact the police.
“That is because the BBC is for everyone,”
Slight correction,everyone who wishes to pay the BBC protection money.
“How about this then, the BBC did give you the Discovery Channels.”
“Give”,isn’t exactly true is it?
BTW,Anyone costed Nicam streo
[deleted – but see below]
WoAD (UK) | Homepage | 10.12.07 – 5:09 pm | # ”
Lovely.
Ben, having just deleted WoAD’s insulting comment, it would render the exercise futile not to delete your quotation of it also, so this is what I have done. This is not a criticism of you, since your intention was obviously benign. – Admin.
Edited By Siteowner
David Gregory:
“Oh yes, uncovered by PBS in the states. And yes you could have found it on the web. But which radio station apart from a BBC one would have broadcast it? Heart? Smooth? Kerrang?”
But David, NONE of those stations are public service broadcasters. PBS is, so it would stand to reason if PBS have broadcast then perhaps the Beeb should have too. So your point seems to have evaporated.
And yes I do have a Nicam stereo TV. And I know that your next point is that the BBC were the first to broadcast in it. So what? They’ve got enough of our money to throw at frivilous technology so why shouldn’t they?
Nicam stereo,the many subsidising the few?
Yeah well it’s still a pretty fair description of him and the BBC, who regarding multiculturalism say: “We believe in it and promote it”.
Simone de Beauvoir (Cultural Marxist and extra-empirical Utopianist)
[On the elimination of the “category of the oppressed”]
Simone de Beauvoir: “Neither the aged nor women, nor anyone by virtue of their race, class, ethnicity or religion would find themselves rendered inessential.”
By ‘rendered inessential’, they mean alienated in the Hegelian sense. This will only really ring a bell if you have read the Philosophy of History.
Sorry to skip off topic, but do you know who else subcribes to this belief system? George Bush.
From a speech taken in 2002: “Tonight’s Iftaar also sends a message to all Americans: our nation is waging a war on a radical network of terrorists, not on a religion and not on a civilization. If we wage this war to defend our principles, we must live up to those principles, ourselves. And one of the deepest commitments of America is tolerance. No one should be treated unkindly because of the color of their skin
OR THE CONTENT OF THEIR CREED.
No one should be unfairly judged by appearance or ethnic background, or religious faith. We must uphold these values of progress and pluralism and tolerance.”
Even if the content of someones creed can have a remarkable effect on “the content of their character” by which we shall judge them.
This means even George Bush has been taken in by Cultural Marxism.
I apologise for using the “s” word, but everything else was a fair description of David Gregorys completely unexamined beliefs. I challenge you tell me it isn’t true.
George Bush has declared war on the BBC?
It is going to be a close run thing,we even live to see John Simpson liberating Washington
“George Bush has declared war on the BBC?”
Not bad. Touche.
David Gregory: I agree that for the BBC to properly fulfil its motto of “Nation shall speak peace unto nation” a Muslim reporter would benefit Midlands Today. But please don’t ghettoise him or her as a Muslim Affairs Correspondent or similar. Just let them be an ordinary reporter. The wearing of hijab or full veil might cause problems for some viewers and blog posters. Personally, I have known well two women who wore veils but whose opinions and senses of humour were no different to our non-veiled colleagues. They just chose to wear veils. As one told me (I won’t name her to protect her privacy) “At least you won’t get my colds.” Such a threat to the British way of life, etc! But equally I have met devout Muslim, Hindu and Christian women happy to wear western dress. If a Muslim reporter increases tolerance from all sides then everyone wins.
But my best idea is to bring back Tomorrow’s World. David Gregory could be the new James Burke and Konnie Huq, well… I’m sure we’ve all agreed already to commission the series. Oh, and try to find some new inventions to report about.
WoAD(UK) But my beliefs have to remain unexamined. I am just a cypher. I can explain the reasoning behind decisions the BBC makes. How a newsroom function. But posting under my own name on this blog I cannot discuss my own beliefs or ideals. I am denied them, quite rightly, because I am a reporter for the BBC and I strive to be impartial.
Now you may think, and clearly do, that what I neglect to say or leave out is obvious. That I clearly must be… oh I dunno an Islington dwelling, Oxbridge, Muslim loving, Multi-cultural obsessed, limp wristed shell of a man.
Some of that may be true, some may not. But without the cloak of anonymity you enjoy I have to bite my tongue (which I manage for the most part).
Please don’t mistake this posture on my part for a lack of passion or guts. But if you could respect the constraints I work under when posting here it would make life slightly more pleasant.
Reg: But that was my point. No public service broadcasting, no Gettysburg Address.
Gallimaufry: I agree with that too. It’s a complex issue. But I was appointed to improve farming coverage (amongst other issues) perhaps we can find away to improve coverage of other issues too.
As for Tomorrow’s World. Agreed. Give it time, these things are cyclical.
“WoAD(UK) But my beliefs have to remain unexamined. I am just a cypher.”
Yes, it is much cypher that way.
“Now you may think, and clearly do, that what I neglect to say or leave out is obvious. That I clearly must be… oh I dunno an Islington dwelling, Oxbridge, Muslim loving, Multi-cultural obsessed, limp wristed shell of a man.”
To be honest I never thought of you in terms of emotions, nor did I imagine a physically repellent person. Incidently I pictured you as my old science teacher. Who was normal. And bearded.
“WoAD(UK) But my beliefs have to remain unexamined. I am just a cypher. I can explain the reasoning behind decisions the BBC makes. How a newsroom function. But posting under my own name on this blog I cannot discuss my own beliefs or ideals. I am denied them, quite rightly, because I am a reporter for the BBC and I strive to be impartial. ”
Amazing and frightening. But in that case in future I will strongly refrain from personal insults.
Yet a question remains, if you, David Gregory, are only playing the part of BBC employee here and therefore only parading a persona of views that are not your own, how can insulting that persona hurt you as a person? I think it’s because the official persona and the real David Gregory are colliding and merging. Which must be horrible; the heart refuses where as the mind is being lost. Which just goes to show
“Please don’t mistake this posture on my part for a lack of passion or guts.”
Oh not at all.
David Gregory, if you COULD post anonymously do you think you would end up all gnarly and twisted like John Reith? 🙂
Reg: I think if I did post anonymously I’d be a damn site more robust!
WoAD: No I think you’ve missed the point. It’s not that I agree with every decision of my employer, but lets face it I’m no Jeremy Paxman and I can’t go slagging of the BBC willy nilly, especially not on this particular blog! I personally think if specific issues are critised then those BBC staff responsible can defend themselves for the most part they don’t need me.
So I try to restrict myself to issues I know about or can offer something constructive on (the main exceptions at the moment being Spooks just cause I love it and the Liverpool Nativity because if it’s half as good as the Manchester Passion it will be great.)
But there’s nothing “amazing” or “frightening” about all this. I don’t get paid to post here by the BBC but I do do it from home and from work (during breaks!) and the least I can do is respect my employer. And indeed respect B-BBC and the debates we have here.
“Reg: I think if I did post anonymously I’d be a damn site more robust! ”
“Damn site”,a freudian slip Greggers?
PeterUK; lol.
David Gregory:
Another programme idea – Celebrity Gettysburg Address: each week slebs recite a famous speech, Gettysburg, I Have A Dream, Never in The Field of Human Conflict etc and points are awarded by a panel of politicians. The lowest scorer is voted off by the phone-in audience.
More seriously, if viewers had a fair idea of a reporter’s background and opinions they would be better able to evaluate the content and possible bias instead of having to trust BBC editorial impartiality. If they didn’t agree they could find another news outlet.
Less seriously, is it true Nick Owen buys boxes of crackers just for the jokes?
Gallimaufry: Hmmm, so would B-BBCers like me to post a sort of personal/political cv complete with salary? It’s a thought and I can see your point. It does kind of assume my political beliefs are set in stone though.
Less seriously. No. He WRITES the jokes you get in crackers.
David Gregory:
Could I respectfully ask you some questions David?
Are you aware of other BBC staffers reading this web blog? If so, roughly how many and why don’t they post here?
My assumption is what doesn’t support the Beeb is automatically ignored.
And what do you hope to achieve by posting here that the rest of your colleagues don’t seem to care less about?
No trick questions here David, honest!
Reg: I just enjoy the debate. I think some staffers do read this blog, but they may not have any knowledge about the points that are often raised (I really think only Matt Frei can post in response to so much stuff about him for example!) and so don’t post. They may all be busy on Facebook of course 😉
As a journalist I can at least offer some insight into how things work. I also think its important to correct misconceptions and errors. Plus of course I’m used to staying calm, being balanced and seeing all points of view. Useful skills for posting on here when it gets a bit heated.
And if I’m honest I’ve been physically attacked and spat at so in the scheme of things what’s the worst that can happen?! (I do prefer polite debate though, I’m a nice middle class boy after all). Plus I’m fairly senior so I can contribute with a little bit of authority, although I’m not a Paxman!
To be honest I’m driven to post for exactly the same core reason you do. Well sort of. You can’t believe anyone can like or trust the BBC. I believe pretty much the opposite. I’d imagine if we discussed any other topic we’d have a reasonable chat, but on this point we are polar opposites and more than that we both want to convince the other of our point of view!
As for other staff, it just happens my job is a good fit for posting on here, it’s probably less the case for others.
Thanks for that reply David. I think the bottom line is that we have differing ‘convictions’ regarding the BBC rather than ‘beliefs’. And convictions are unshakeable.
Therefore debates with the opposition will always result in stalemate.
However, I would hope that others who read the examples and opinions posted here would make their own minds up concerning the BBC.
If only we could be given ten minutes to air our views on the BBC for once. That would be verrrrry nice.
We are after all a MINORITY are we not? 🙂
Reg: There is although the framework I am posting within. Once again do remember I am an employee and if nothing else I think it bad form to critise other parts of the BBC on this blog. But please don’t assume I disagree with every post!
That said I think it unlikely I’ll join in with your anti-licence fee protest. Turkeys voting for Winterval and all that.
“That said I think it unlikely I’ll join in with your anti-licence fee protest. Turkeys voting for Winterval and all that.”
Have you no confidence in the BBC then Greggers? Do you think that without threats of fines and imprisonments nobody would pay for the services of the hallowed BBC or particularly, you are worthless on the open market? Have more faith.
Winterval? – Scrooge!
Peter (UK): Whooooooooooooosh!
David Gregory:
Well thank goodness your beliefs aren’t set in stone. People who don’t change opinions when facts change are a bit dim.
And please don’t post your salary details – everyone on Midlands Today is worth more than 0.1% of Ross even though, like Nick Owen allegedly, they have second jobs to earn it.
It would be nice to think that as some poor little chavess stands in court for not having a license to sate her addiction to Coronation Street and to keep her brood quiet,that Jonathon Wuss leaps forward to pay her fine.