I won’t attempt to take issue here with the morality or practicality of Labour AM Christine Chapman’s campaign to abolish prostitution by criminalising the evil customers and ignoring the poor victim-of-society dealers – except to point out a marked contrast with a drugs policy which ignores the poor victim-of-society customers and focuses on the evil dealers. She’s perfectly entitled to her views.
The Guardian’s Nick Davies, a brilliant reporter (although IMHO a lousy analyst of what he reports) has recently published Flat Earth News, in which he suggests that news stories increasingly consist of regurgitated stuff provided by third parties. I think even he’d be gobsmacked by the platform Ms Chapman’s been given – a BBC “news” article which is a straight political piece by the Labour AM.
Only last week a Scottish assembly member, the SNP Justice Minister no less, was given a similar platform to explain how the public would be protected by a tough new policy of not sending criminals to prison. Somehow I missed the “balancing” pieces – which I’m sure the BBC published.
Poor reporting from the BBC. Haven’t they just started doing what Blair and Campbell did, which is copy stuff stright off the Internet?
Seems to me the BBC’s main source of information these days appears to be Wikipedia.
In relation to the specific article from the McLabour droid, nothing is new here. I commented on another post that the BBC appear to simply spout McLabour “Policies” or proposals as facts, there is often no analysis of them, no attempt to pick them apart with reasoned argument.
One of the worst aspects of 5 live is that Mclabour will spin some proposal in the morning, yet we are expected to believe (according to Victoria Derbyshire) that by 9AM that same morning, the BBC crew have analysed this and are ready to debate it on the airwaves.
This in my view is clearly bollocks and plays into the hands of McLabour. By the end of the day, the whole thing is forgotten about (anyone remeber Caroline Flint and her plan to boot out dossers from Council houses?) but McLabour have hogged the BBC all day and the opposition get a tough time getting airtime as they are often looking at the proposal before wanting to give an answer.
Radio 5 is by far the worst for this. They simply parrot what some dopey McLabour MP or Minister has said, get a few McLabour sympathisers to give it a “critical analysis” (usually someone from the Grauniad or Indy) and then churn it out across the airways for the whole day.
A fine article by Christine Chapman. She is a credit to the Welsh Assembly and the BBC is quite correct to publish her valuable insight into prostitution.
Christine’s position is clear: prostitution is bad and something must be done about it. Apart from educating people and stuff, she is not quite sure what actually
Nuts. Half of my posting has failed to appear. How very weird.
At last… a BBC drama that is kind to Thatcher
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=512766&in_page_id=1773
Deafening silence from the usual rent-a-Beebs here
BBC are often mere conduits of Labour spin, when it comes to domestic policy. That is not just lazy jornolism, and nobody will pretend that the BBC is the most energetic and dynamic broadcast news organisation, but it is just that critically analysing anything Labour do, just goes completely against the grain and is at best very minimal. TV economics editor, Robert Peston’s father, is a Labour peer!!! I wonder if Mr jnr. has ever held a Labour Party membership card as well??
The relationship between the Labour party and the BBC is similar to that between Sinn Fein and the IRA in the late 20th century.
Or Pravda and the Soviet Untion. All those “brilliant” Government announcements.
Look, tractor production really is up, why don’t you just take our word for it ? Is it ‘cos u is, ( bad word) Torys ????
Excellent stuff. This is a new thing for BBC news and so far it’s been an SNP politician and one from the Welsh Labour party putting their views on causes that, while perhaps admirable, are particularly dear to the left. No doubt, UKIP’s article on why the EU constitutional treaty is a disaster for Britain is being edited as we speak. No doubt they’ll publish it without a response from the alternative point of view. And, to be honest, even if that happens, the BBC publishing these pieces will remain an extraordinarily bad idea.
David Vance, we’re still waiting for your response to this http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/5317609803633089194/?a=32863#383361
Now stop ducking and weaving with yet tiresome extreme rightwing conspiracy theories and answer the questions. Let’s see how much David Vance can duck and weave when it comes to national independence, civil rights and defaming someone without any evidence.
And no, I don’t work for the BBC.
Aussie Bystander:
David Vance, we’re still waiting for your response to this http://www.haloscan.com/comments…? a=32863#383361
From your original post.
…………a foreign government has accused him of being aider of terrorism without showing a scintilla of evidence.
How do you know there is no evidence?
How do I know there is no evidence? Because if there was, then there’d be something that the defendant could challenge in a court AND because the extradition treaty doesn’t require any.
How do I know there’s no evidence? Because NO-ONE has provided any, least of all David Vance.
How do YOU know there is evidence? You seem awfully relaxed about this actual legal requirement, but maybe you just don’t care because the accused is a) a Moslem and b) has a brown skin.
Now let’s get David Vance defending unlimited imprisonment without trial, bugging of all communications including ones which are meant to be privileged and no legal redress to being handed over to a foreign government without any evidence presented to a judge over here. Let’s see his defending it in the case where the accused person is White, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant and the foreign government is, say, France, or Turkey.
Any quibbles on the civil rights then?
Any questions to be asked as to why a British subject is summarily jailed pending shipping off to a foreign country without defending his civil rights?
Anything at all from Vance or will it be more of the same conspiracy theories about the make-up of audiences on Question Time?
It’s the balance that does it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232398.stm
And who do you think the BBC ask for comments.
Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary-general of the Muslim Council.
Mohammed Shafiq, from Muslim youth organisation the Ramadhan Foundation.
What about a comment for balance from a non-Muslim view point. For example someone who lost a relative to extremist Muslim terrorists on 7/7.
And a Tory politicians political points scoring doesn’t count.
Aussie Bystander:
How do YOU know there is evidence? You seem awfully relaxed about this actual legal requirement, but maybe you just don’t care because the accused is a) a Moslem and b) has a brown skin.
Aussie Bystander | 07.02.08 – 1:02 pm | #
I never said there was evidence. However it’s interesting that you jump to the conclusion that I am racist without any evidence – funny that isn’t it?
“I never said there was evidence. However it’s interesting that you jump to the conclusion that I am racist without any evidence – funny that isn’t it?”
I have no evidence either way, yet the Anonymouses on this blog appear to be solidly relaxed the idea with detention without trial and handing over that person to a foreign government without any legal challenge to evidence that no-one even knows exist.
Now put Vance on and lets interview the organ grinders and not the monkey.
Aussie Bystander: I have no evidence either way, ……..
Aussie Bystander | 07.02.08 – 1:17 pm
| #
Exactly so why do you accuse me of being a racist?
Dear Anonymous.
I have exactly as much evidence that you are a racist as you have that the brown guy locked up in jail without trial to be extradited to a foreign government has anything to do with terrorism.
Now put Vance on.
Aussie Bystander
Where do you get the idea that the guy was locked up because he is brown?
Aussie Bystander:
Dear Anonymous.
I have exactly as much evidence that you are a racist as you have that the brown guy locked up in jail without trial to be extradited to a foreign government has anything to do with terrorism.
Now put Vance on.
Aussie Bystander | 07.02.08 – 1:25 pm | #
But I have not made any comments about the locking up of the gentleman nor his involvement with terrorism. You are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. Jumping to conclusions without any evidence. That’s my point. You are talking out of your anitpodean crack.
I’m afraid this is what you get when NuLabour numpties are in charge of the shop.
The new extradition treaty between the UK and US is highly asymmetrical. If the UK wants someone from the US ‘due process’ is still necessary and the UK has to provide prima facie evidence that an offence has been committed. All right & proper. However, if the US wants to extradite you no evidence is necessary, all thanks to the Blair/Brown stupid party.
Kevin Marsh, editor of the BBC College of Journalism, posts on this book. And gets some well aimed replies.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/02/journalism_not_churnalism.html
This is a silly one.
Now what kind of idiot would dispute that, with drugs, the dealers get more fun out of the arrangement than the customers and with prostitution, the customers get more out of the arrangement than the dealers.
Well, if it’s the opposite party that suffers, surely it requires the opposite policy?