I am sure you will have read that the BBC has been fined £400,000 by media watchdog Ofcom for misleading its audiences by “faking” phone-ins. The Comic Relief, Children in Need and Sport Relief TV shows were caught up in the scandal, along with Liz Kershaw on 6 Music and Jo Whiley’s Radio 1 show. Now then, leaving the issue of the derisory size of this fine to one side, the bit that caught my eye was the pompous comment from the BBC Trust that “Our concern now is ensuring that the highest editorial standards are maintained to safeguard the public’s trust” But hang on – the systematic abuse of public trust which this investigation has revealed is incompatible with these alleged “highest standards” and so the idea that these can be “maintained” is a nonsense on stilts. The point is that the BBC has conducted a verging on the criminal abuse of public goodwill. It has shown utter contempt for the public. Does it face into this awkward reality? Does it hell! Instead it uses the entire shameful episode to spend even more of our taxes running a “training programme” for 19,000 employees on how not to rip-off the public!
WHAT STANDARDS?
Bookmark the permalink.
“I am sure you will have read that the BBC has been fined £400,000”
So just to get this straight.
The BBC misleads its “customers”, some of whom complain to OFCOM…
The BBC is investigated by this quango that is funded by those same customers via their taxes…
The BBC is fined by that publicly funded quango…
The BBC pays that fine with the money from the customers who complained in the first place.
Sure THIS ALL MAKES GREAT SENSE.
Whichever way you look at it, we are screwed from all sides.
All these people who have deliberately and repeatedly lied to the public still have their jobs. As long as this is the case, the BBC deserves no respect, and should not be trusted.
Instead, they run a “training programme” (guess who pays for that?), which is tacet admission that their employees don’t realize it’s not okay to deceive the viewers.
Ignore the anti-gay remarks, Beeboids, and talk about this amongst yourselves in your little in-house discussion forums. Do you think there’s a chance for any real discussion on this issue?
It’s funny that the BBC hate capitalism and free markets, and like to paint how bad they are for people. But at least when you lose trust with your mobile phone company or supermarket, you can take your business elsewhere.
Oh, and someone in those companies would get fired for doing something as fraudulent as this. Don’t hold your breath over the BBC.
Like I said. James Whale got sacked for far less.
Under the current, very sympathetic to beeb, rules a fine of £2m could have been levied (£250K for each of the 8 programmes involved in the fraud).
How Ofcom can only issue fines totalling £400K for such serious crimes is bambuzzling.
moonbat nibbler:
Yes, but as with “corporate” taxes the only people paying are the customers: you and me!
You could fine them £20 million. It’s irrelevant. They’ll just cancel series 2 of Bonekickers.
The only “punishment” that counts is the order of the boot.
Great now we have to pay their bloody fines for them.
19,000 bbc employees sent on a course to learn the difference between artifice and fakery,i wonder what that cost us? and why so many?
It begs the question, what kind of cretin do the bbc prefer to give these non jobs to?
The only fair way,(that`s fair to the licence payer) to penalise these
half arsed numpties would be disemployment for the perpetrators and a licence fee reduction.
So now law abiding people have to pay the OFCOM fine instead of the crooked lying cheats at the BBC?
What kind of perverted alice in wonderland justice is this? One rigged QUANGO(OFCOM) can connive with another rigged QUANGO(BBC) to piss all over the public and laugh at them and get the mug taxpayer to foot the bill? I hope these crooked self serving smug scumbags dont last any longer than their comrades at NuLabour!
Agreed.
It’s no good the Beeb using the defence that their employees did not set out to personally make money from their deception. Remember, their staff (some quite senior) set out to intentionally con the public. People spent their hard earned money on entering competitions that they couldn’t win. Who is going to compensate them? No-one it seems.
Instead, the license fees of 2850 people will go towards paying a fine. So the victim i.e. the public, pays twice – while the offenders get off scott free.
Meanwhile, senior Beeb exceutives continue to recieve bumper bonuses. Shouldn’t these monies have been used to pay the fine?
8 dishonest beeboids need jailing
Instead of a training course designed to inculcate basic standards of honesty, which should have been present in any case, why not sack all 19 000 employees?
£400000 what that about a weeks wage for a Jonathon Ross?
The bbc managers should be asked to pay the fine from their own pockets.
Just heard that silly cow off Radio 5 live (Anita Anand – she who uses Islamic pronunciation) getting all upset over the Serious Fraud Office having it’s decision upheld to stop the investigation into the Saudi Royal family.
The neck of the BBC is amazing. Perhaps it should be the BBC that the Serious Fraud Office should be investigating and their telephone scams?
Of course as we know the BBC spent a lot of time (and our money) on this investigation. Perhaps they’d be better off investigation Muslims in their Mosque’s and root out the preachers of hate?
I won’t hold my breath.
The BBC even managed to make the news in the Netherlands with it’s latest fine.
http://www.nu.nl/news/1679971/21/BBC_krijgt_boete_voor_fraude_met_belspelletjes.html
You will note that the Dutch are not afraid to call the BBC’s actions criminal.
BBC staff training days are bizarre. Stomping around and on top of each other covered in jelly = teambuilding.
I wonder what this one will invove.
Classic bbc tactics at the foot of of the story of their own failures;-
“The penalty comes after ITV was fined a record £5.68m by Ofcom for abusing premium rate phone services in viewer competitions in May.
TV shows Ant and Dec’s Saturday Night Takeaway, Gameshow Marathon and Soapstar Superstar were all found to have “serious editorial issues”.
the sort of blame game you might expect from a schoolchild but maybe not from a public service broadcaster caught bang to rights.
Yes. I will be making a complaint to my MP.
I’d like to know why the Police haven’t been called in?
The wanker from Ofcom was pathetic. Why impose a fine?
There should have been sackings and people suspended without pay.
Ofcom up the bum of Nu Liebour and the BBC.
So the BBC lied and lied and lied and lied, it fabricated and misled it’s taxpayer customers.
The taxpayer gets fined.
The BBC pays no consequences.
Then the BBC assures us of it’s integrity.
Have I missed anything?
This site makes me laugh.
“I’d like to know why the Police haven’t been called in?”
Possibly because no crime was committed. If ITV avoid prossecution for their scams, why shouldn’t the Beeb?
And besides, isn’t this reeeaaally old news? There was always going to be a fine, and nobody at the BBC actually made any money directly from this… unlike other channels (yes, yes, we don’t have to pay for the other channels, yaaawwwwn).
In the case of comic relief and children in need, they did it to keep the programming running smoothly, and as for the other programmes it’s just presenters getting too big for their own egos. They’re idiots, they shouldn’t have done it, but I couldn’t honestly care. Frankly I’d rather my tax money go to Ofcom or even Wossy than another episode of Shitkickers or whatever it’s called.
Okay, flame away. I’m sure I deserve it.
I’m stunned. The BBC is giving dishonest staffers a “training class” on being honest.
They don’t know the differece already?
They weren’t aware of their fraud?
Do we tell bank robbers to take classes on NOT ROBBING BANKS too?
Do liberals EVER fix a problem.
joseph (the Netherlands) | 30.07.08 – 5:56 pm |
You will note that the Dutch are not afraid to call the BBC’s actions criminal.
Excellent, as it’s fraud, old news or no. I especially like the second-to-last sentence:
Also the Executive Board has offered excuses and issued a new code of conduct.
That sounds pretty accurate to me.
Devil’s Advocate: Perhaps because this is a website about the BBC?
I don’t give a toss about the phone scams on ITV. I don’t take part.
However, the £400,000 fine is being paid in part by MY TV tax. The fact you can’t see that says it all.
The ITV fine will come out of THEIR profits. Where does the £400,000 BBC fine come from?
The BBC are always wanking on about their integrity.
Martin,
Don’t waste your breath. This Devil’s Advocate has already totally bought into the BBC line of defense:
It wasn’t really lying.
It wasn’t very much money, so not important.
The show must go on, regardless of technical problems.
It was done by people who generally mean well, so it’s not important.
It wasn’t actually lying.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Devil’s Advocate:
Devil’s Advocate | 30.07.08 – 7:01 pm | #
Sadly it’s views like yours that encourages the BBC to continue to behave in the absurd manner that it does. Its bias now encroaches upon all manner of output where it believes it has an obligation to slag off the Western world per se and in particular the USA. Take for example Spooks, Bonekickers, Burn Up, White to name but a few of their efforts. Each riddled with exampls of anti western, anti christian, anti Israeli, pro Islamic, pro Iranian, Pro Arabic instances. This site contains lots of excellent examples. And I’m sure contributors can come up with many more.
The BBC is biased. It doesn’t even pretend not to be now.
Biased BBC. It’s how we are.
David Presier: I know, but stupidy must be challenged whenever it rears its ugly head.
If people don’t like what ITV did, they can either not watch or take part.
That does not apply to the BBC due to that unique way it’s funded (pay up or you’re fucking banged up)
can i fake paying my tv license
The BBC can fake off as far as I’m concerned.
What about BBC relief?
There are plenty at the BBC that enjoy hand relief.
Does anyone really believe that a fine on an organisation is any deterrent? The fine is paid for by the shareholders, in the case of a private organisation, and the taxpayer or licence payer in the case of a public organisation. Certain individuals carried out the illegal acts they should either be fined personally, or even better jailed. How many more scams would broadcasters get up to if they knew they would spend several years in prison?
Dagobert,
In the case of a private company, it is correct to fine the institution/shareholders. It has an impact in that it hurts the shareholders, and therefore they will take steps to either alter their own, or their workers behaviour in this regard.
In the case of public services, you have little choice but to personally punish the person responsible in terms of cutting bonuses/demotion/sacking. It is ridiculous that an organisation that is part of government (eg National Rail) has to pay a fine to the organisation that ultimately funds them.
“Yes, but as with “corporate” taxes the only people paying are the customers: you and me!”
Depends on how the BBC ‘pay’. You could easily knock 2p of a future years license fee. The BBC are penalised, the taxpayer benefits.
moonbat nibbler | 01.08.08 – 4:30 pm |
Depends on how the BBC ‘pay’. You could easily knock 2p of a future years license fee. The BBC are penalised, the taxpayer benefits.
Now that is an excellent idea. Even if the amount deducted doesn’t add up to much, the symbolism of the penalty would speak volumes. A penalty on the BBC which is directly connected to the taxpayer is a direct reminder of the BBC’s responsibility towards them. And a reminder to the license fee payers that the BBC ought to be held accountable to them.
“off” not “of” & “year’s” not “years”, my blonde moments are frequent 😉
Thanks David!
As a long-serving member of the b-BBC ( why does Vance stammer so? spittle and spleen? ) it was indeed truly mind boggling to be taken off my job and sent into a training session to be told that it is, er, not right to rip off little children. Sheesh; who are we employing these days?
HC | 03.08.08 – 11:15 pm |
Sheesh; who are we employing these days?
The people who made these bad decisions were not youngsters just out of one of the feeder colleges. These were experienced bosses, and some did this repeatedly, even after their superiors knew about it.
And it was across the spectrum of programming, really. That says quite a lot about hiring practices and in-house policy.