Is taking illegal drugs mandatory for top BBC Radio presenters? The reason that I ask is the news that BBC Radio One’s drum and bass DJ Raymond Bingham, AKA ”Grooverider”, has been handed a four year stretch in a Dubai jail for possession of cannabis. His BBC bosses said he had paid a “very high price” while his lawyers insisted he had simply forgotten he was carrying a tiny amount of the drug for personal use.
The conviction comes after BBC Radio 4 presenter Nigel Wrench spent time in the dock the other week answering a charge of drug fuelled homosexual rape. Wrench, who is HIV+ has previously used a Guardian interview to encourage gay men not to use condoms, was a presenter on the Beeb’s prestigious PM news programme. He was cleared of the rape charge but admitted cocaine snorting during what he called “boisterous horseplay.” (Animals were not involved on this occasion)
To have one presenter on drugs related charges is unfortunate; two might be a coincidence but a third will look like a corporate culture. Surely not?
I love your blog and read it daily. Perhaps unfortunately for me, I’m a gay cannabis smoker. Do I need to say that this entry is scraping the barrel a little in view of the fact that you don’t have to be biased to smoke cannabis and you don’t have to be straight to recognise the problems with, as Andrew Marr confirms, an organisation with a disproportionate number of gays?
Don’t squeeze people like me out of the equation or your following will only decrease.
Focus on the last sentence – it kinda makes the point.
Good on Dubai.
The most shocking thing is that all the BBC people and lawyers seem to think it is acceptable. They seem to think his crime was the mistake of not removing the spliff before he travelled, not even considering that it was illegal in the UK too, and he shouldn’t have it here either.
His excuse was that he wouldn’t even have been prosecuted in the UK. Well that is wrong, had he been caught with it in the UK he should have been prosecuted. That reluctance to prosecute has very obviously made people think that this is alright.
I’m neither gay nor a drug user, but this does seem a little stretched. I’d never heard of him, but given that he’s called DJ Grooverider, I think I would have assumed he used drugs. Are you seriously arguing that an organisation that plays such a huge part in the entertainment industry isn’t going to have some staff drug use? And since he’s been handed four years for possession of cannabis I think I’d agree he’s paid a high price. Even the Mail doesn’t seem to have the heart to really stick the boot in.
suprised Al Beeb havnt draged out Marjory Wallace from pressure group Sane to tell the nation that even looking at a splif will cause pernament psychosis, which is what they normally do when cannabis is in the news
Hang on, what has this got to do with bias? Ok, so you could maybe argue there’s a pro-taking-a-shitload-of-drugs bias, but that just means we’re dealing with the media doesn’t it?
Its not just him (Wrench) though is it?
To think that we have also paid through the nose (scuse the pun) for the following shower of coke-addled shite, and these are the ones we KNOW of:
Frank Bough
Angus Deayton
Johnnie Walker
Richard Bacon
This is the reason the BBC is now so pisspoor – all that shit that their senior staff have been shoving up their noses made their brains fall out long ago.
Alex
It IS very much to do with bias.
You really think that taking that stuff is NOT going to affect your decision-making?
An interesting glimpse of the social lives of BBC pseudo-sophisticates:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/from-groucho-club-to-rehab-one-womans-battle-to-beat-cocaine-addiction-468765.html
“You really think that taking that stuff is NOT going to affect your decision-making?”
I don’t see how it would turn it right or left of centre. And I don’t see how DJs really fit into the vast Islamocommugreenist conspiracy.
Alex,
I said decision-making, not your political stance.
It’s a proven fact that people who take this stuff make crap decisions. Would you want your friendly local dentist or heart surgeon to be gagging for a sniff at some crucial moment? No you wouldn’t.
Nobody has mentioned any conspiracies. The point Vance was making is that there is clearly a culture of this kind of activity at the BBC.
So the relevance to bias is…?
I wouldn’t worry about his decision making – he’s a Drum and Bass DJ. That’s like the lowest form of music (we’ll call it music for sake of argument). Lower even than Indi/Britpop/give it a name.
And notwithstanding that a £10 baggy of weed is a nominal amount, this is Dubai – which although is basically a rich man’s playground and all of the vices that entails – is still an Arab state.
So, in other words, silly mistake on Bingham’s part.
Alex
“So the relevance to bias is…?”
That the senior staff are the guys we trust to provide us with well-sourced, impartial UNBIASED facts about what’s going on in the world.
It’s unlikely you will get that if they are drug-users, given the narrow outlook on life they tend to have, and their continual urge for a fix.
My gut feeling is that coke use is widespread at the BBC, and their ought to be random drug tests.
Seems to me, they need to install “central bong”.
Wrench, who is HIV+ has previously used a Guardian interview to encourage gay men not to use condoms, was a presenter on the Beeb’s prestigious PM news programme.
I’m sure this has been mentioned before, but Wrench also used the BBC PM news programme as well to advertise “bare-back riding”, as he called it. I still remember hearing it live and thinking , what , it’s not yet 6pm and the BBC is broadcasting this!! It was one of the low-points for the BBC- please don’t simply quote a Guardian interview.
I wouldn’t worry about his decision making – he’s a Drum and Bass DJ. That’s like the lowest form of music (we’ll call it music for sake of argument).
Gibby Haynes | 20.02.08 – 8:05 pm |
cough cough…
says a fan of the butthole surfers ?
Does seem to be a bit forced this. Unless there is some significant third case pending?
Hugh said:
Are you seriously arguing that an organisation that plays such a huge part in the entertainment industry isn’t going to have some staff drug use?
and Alex said:
Ok, so you could maybe argue there’s a pro-taking-a-shitload-of-drugs bias, but that just means we’re dealing with the media doesn’t it?
No, no, no. The BBC is funded by a poll tax and has been given tax farming powers by HM Government. The BBC is, therefore, supposed to be an arm of the state.
One may therefore have thought that, to be worthy of this tax raising power, the BBC should be a paragon of virtue and that its employees should behave accordingly and discreetly.
Rather the BBC steals the people’s money and then its employees behave like the promoters of illegal parties held in abandoned warehouses and promote such life-styles through the programming.
If the BBC was privately funded that would be a matter for it. But it isn’t. It’s funded by a poll tax non-payment of which will see you in gaol.
“It’s unlikely you will get that if they are drug-users, given the narrow outlook on life they tend to have, and their continual urge for a fix.”
Now that is scraping the barrel.
“Nobody has mentioned any conspiracies. The point Vance was making is that there is clearly a culture of this kind of activity at the BBC.”
2 out of how many employees?? Also, just because a Radio 1 drum and bass DJ takes drugs, should we assume that the whole corporation is equally likely to take drugs?!?!
From my experience, I would hardly say whatever culture DJ Grooverider was part of is likely to be prevailent among the journalists etc.
What’s the latest with CBBC’s Mark Speight? PC Plod no longer considered him a murder suspect but wasn’t there supposedly a drug angle to the death of his girl friend?
2 out of how many employees??
Well a bit more than two, but remember these are the on-air staff that are known to the public not the anonymous monkeys who haunt this blog or who run the carbon footprint reduction seminars, whose out-of-hours proclivities are unknown to us even if they appear in court.
The fact is not the number of users, it is the attitude of the BBC and its employees to drug abuse.
“2 out of how many employees?? Also, just because a Radio 1 drum and bass DJ takes drugs, should we assume that the whole corporation is equally likely to take drugs?!?!”
I’ll bet its a far greater number than you think it is.
The media industry in general is infamous for its abuse of stimulants. The BBC particularly so because it is self righteous, left leaning, and suffering from serious moral and cognitive impairment if “Radical Impartiality” is anything to go by.
Grooverider’s a nice bloke, I met him years ago. Four years is too long.
Don’t let this blog be totally Daily Mail orientated. Some of us hate the BBC & smoke a spliff from time to time. Give us some slack.
Re : Grooverider
” Lifes hard. It’s even harder when you are stupid ” – John Wayne
I would suggest the BBC is divided into two camps (scuse the pun):
Producers/Directors who snort, and dream up the programmes.
And presenters, who would not (normally) be allowed to do so on account of dilated eye-balls & copious dribbling etc.
This apartheid is clearly a form of Bias.
You need to be on drugs to be able to take the BBC’s news output seriously.
Don’t let this blog be totally Daily Mail orientated. Some of us hate the BBC & smoke a spliff from time to time. Give us some slack.
Clive | 20.02.08 – 11:20 pm |
Spot on!
but the BBC thinks cannabis is a dangerous nasty drug thats 20 times more stronger than the stuff that was grown 20 years ago (very untrue 😉 ) so when one of their own get nicked they deserve flak
The link which Andy posted to the Independant story about the Beeboid cocaine addict is a classic.
Middle class family, ran away to Greenham Common wymmyns peace camp, University, the Beeb, meteoric media career goes pear shaped, had a few tens of thousands of pounds spare to spend on rehab, now working for the Turkey Army as a holistic drugs counsellor.
Never spent a single minute of her life in the real world, still suckling from the public teat as she embarks on her new career, being patronising to smackheads in hoodies.
As Obergefreiter Porta used to say ” It’s enough to make a cat laugh “
Pure ad hominem. Contemptible post.
Peter Risdon,
What is contemptible is a corporate culture that appears to turn a blind eye to the use of illegal narcotics when those caught in the possession of such as senior presenters. The BBC should have had the guts to SACK those concerned. How can we rely on it to editorialise on a topic where it clearly shows a pro-illegal drugs mindset? You need to understand that there is nothing ad hominem about reporting facts. Now get over it.
Maybe it’s media types in general, along with investment bankers, musicians, HR, marketing or practically most professional people that have attended university that will have sampled drugs or used them at some stage in their career.
I find it rather silly to single out the BBC on this point.
That said, not all these people have the lack of commonsense to travel to a country in the middle east without thoroughly checking themselves beforehand.
If this sentence is passed this will be a big loss both to the BBC and music in general.
“Rather the BBC steals the people’s money and then its employees behave like the promoters of illegal parties held in abandoned warehouses and promote such life-styles through the programming.”
That is my sentiments pinned down exactly, though it wasn’t my intention to get all Daily Mail on people.
It seems that taking illegal drugs is regarded by some at the Beeb as being merely a lifestyle choice. In reality it meansd choosing to break the law. If we are to be allowed to pick and choose which laws we obey, I suggest some people might like to disobey the law on the Tellytax. After all, choosing not to watch the BBC is just another lifestyle choice, no?
Post to the mods:
Are you aware that by the activity on the “General BBC-related comment thread” dated Tuesday, February 19, 2008 your site is being rendered useless by the deliberate wrecking activities of BBC agency workers operating as trolls?
“Hillhunt” posted at least 23 times or so starting at 12:20 in the afternoon and ending at 12:52 in the morning.
“John Reith” posted some 22 times.
The level of their contribution is abuse, sarcasm, bullying, deliberate misunderstanding of a post, aggression, ridicule and childishness. They will back each other up as they hunt in packs.
They level this performance at anyone expressing any view disapproved of by the BBC.
Moral support was given by “Sarah Jane”. There are others too.
This is a deliberate coordinated attack presumably paid for by the BBC to stifle debate thought to be threatening to the interests of the BBC – it just shows what a really dangerous organisation the BBC has become and how urgent it is that it is reformed. The efforts of these feeble BBC trolls are the clearest evidence of this.
It seems very similar to the orchestrated abusive chanting attacks of the Brownshirts, the ignorant and primitive thugs that Nazi party used in Germany in the early 1930s to take control of the streets and stifle debate.
They are clearly agency workers employed by a PR company used by the BBC to spread deliberate disinformation and stifle debate.
Because of the total lack of effective moderation on this site they will win. That is a pity because David Vance’s initial articles are good and interesting.
Why do you let them wreck your site?
You are letting these agency workers kill any usefulness of your site – and the BBC wins, again. Shame.
.
To suggest that having a couple of staff who indulge in recreational drugs constitutes a ‘corporate culture’ is ludicrous. By that reasoning pretty much every corporation in the country has such a culture. Why is an that the corporation’s concern as long as people are performing up to expectations at work – are you suggesting that bosses should follow staff home, drug test them or frisk them?
That having been said most professional organisations would sack an employee who was convicted of any sort of criminal activity (or admitted in publicly) so I agree that they should be binned
Meanwhile, the BBC continue their Government sanctioned hate campaign on tobacco smokers:
Smokehouse
Thu 21 Feb, 4:35 pm – 5:00 pm 25mins
CBBC. Six children take their nicotine addicted parents on a quit smoking course where the kids are in charge. The children reveal the secret ingredients of cigarettes that make them so dangerous.
Go to Dubai, live by their rules. Simple as that really.
However, I really don’t see why anybody should lose their jobs over their weekend activities. Whether it be druggies, BNP bus drivers, etc.
I agree with Stiletto the work of Hillhunt, Reith et al transcends debate and is sabotage. Can’t we just ban the pricks?
That having been said most professional organisations would sack an employee who was convicted of any sort of criminal activity (or admitted in publicly) so I agree that they should be binned
Cockney | 21.02.08 – 11:51 am |
Right. No company large or small I know of, would ignore criminal activity like BBC does.
Folk,
On the moderating side of things, I am very limited in the time I can allocate to this. Essentially I devote 99.99% of time to writing – as you may know I also maintain my own site A TANGLEE WEB, which I do moderate rather more than here. Had I more time I would moderate more – though disrupting good debate is to be avoided. I’m doing my best to provide content and apologise if the moderation is less than some expect. It’s not deliberate, it just works out that way!
“That having been said most professional organisations would sack an employee who was convicted of any sort of criminal activity (or admitted in publicly) so I agree that they should be binned
Cockney | 21.02.08 – 11:51 am”
It would be a good point but strangely I see that Graham Norton was rewarded not binned…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/oct/08/bbc.drugs
Perhaps the culture problem is not so imagined after all.
The BBC loves a druggie. The crap that they pump out over the airways proves that.
Defending their drug users is equally important… especially their over-payed, over-crap, and over-dosed twats called Graham Norton:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5416220.stm
Didn’t Grooverider get the memo about respecting Islam,multiculturalism and Sharia law?
“It seems very similar to the orchestrated abusive chanting attacks of the Brownshirts, the ignorant and primitive thugs that Nazi party used in Germany in the early 1930s to take control of the streets and stifle debate.”
Yes,it’s called the BBC now,they don’t have to go out ant more.
You have it the wrong way round,your’s is the class with the Gestapo and the Gauleiters,detention without trial,secret courts,suspension of habeus corpus.We are the oppressed.
You have the usual inversion and projection of your class.You are “The Man”.
Cockney:
“To suggest that having a couple of staff who indulge in recreational drugs..”
With the very greatest of respect me old mucker, do us a favour. Have you ever socialised with the BBC mob? At he sort of level we’re discussing here, in other words missing out the typists & accountants, it’d be harder to find a couple of staff who didn’t have the occasional spliff. To be fair, it’s an industry thing. It’s not just confined to the BBC. It’s what you get with an peer group that’s mostly arts graduates & drama school students. In a sense Mr Vance is being a bit disingenuous by broaching the subject at all. He knows it’s not news. Unless Northern Ireland media is a whole different culture to London that is.
…are you suggesting that bosses should follow staff home, drug test them or frisk them?
Cockney | 21.02.08 – 11:51 am
You mean so they can confiscate the drugs for their own use?