I would like to take this opportunity to invite any BBC staff who think we are unfair or plain wrong in our view of your employer to come along and express your opinions. You will receive a courteous and pleasant welcome from me. Biased BBC takes issue with much of the output the BBC produces and is unapologetic in flagging these concerns up. However we realise that there are many people who are passionate about the work they do for the BBC and this is a chance to engage with your fiercest critics in a civil manner. So, please feel free to comment here (I know more than a few of you do visit these pages) and help deepen the engagement.
BIASED BBC CALLING
Bookmark the permalink.
I fear that unless you offer the beeboids an incentive, comments sections like this one are gonna reek of tumbleweed.
How about a free Guardian newspaper, or a yearly subscription to the UAF?
Or possibly a free line of Charlie and a rent boy of their choice?
*sigh*
So have you never used either? Be honest now Mr “I enjoy clubbing in Birmingham”.
But do we actually need to hear from the Beeboids anyway? Surely we can take a leaf out of their book and interview each other about what they would say, if they were allowed to post here?
I’m joined now by DJ from the House of Dumb blog. Hi there, DJ. These allegations of left-liberal bias at the BBC appear to be incontrovertible, wouldn’t you agree?
I’m sorry, DB, I’m going to have to interupt you there to point out that yes, these allegations are completely incontrovertible. So that makes it a nice balanced debate.
We’re getting some breaking news though, from sources close to the previous Open Thread. They’re saying that the allegations of left-liberal bias at the BBC have not been controverted and will not be be controverted. It’s my understanding that this means that the allegations of left-liberal bias at the BBC are, as DB was saying earlier, apparently incontrovertible.
And now over to Grant for the weather. Grant, are we going to need to get our brollies out tomorrow?
I think we’re having a few problems with the weather forecast so we’ll move on for now. Coming up later – Evan Davis dresses as a clown and stuffs wet fish into his trousers while playing Buckaroo with a marathon runner. No reason – he just likes the attention.
And now let’s return to our main story. We’re joined on the line by our North America editor. Is it true that recent revelations about BBC left-liberal bias could just be the tip of the iceberg?
And it’s an iceberg that’s melting ever faster, thanks to climate change.
But can you confirm what we’re hearing from sources about the left-liberal bias? It’s out in the open now. Everybody accepts it. We’re short of time, so I must press you on this.
Thanks, Craig. Well I am in my shorts and flip-flops here in sunny Edinburgh, but the forecast for Morecambe today is rain, hail and snow and serves you right. Anything else we can chat about ?
And now over to B-BBC’s World Left-Liberal Affairs editor CJHartnett to tell us what it all means.
We’ll be hearing from our Middle East editor, our environment analyst and our chief interactive reporter in a moment for their take on the BBC left-liberal bias debate but first I think we can now go over to Grant for the weather. Grant, looks as if we’re going to have to wrap up warm today?
Now it’s time for the local news from here in the South. Reports are coming in that the BBC’s left-liberal bias is incin…inconatr…intoncover….oncon…inatroncoteble. In fact the allega……aggellatio…allegori…allouette….[cont for ten minutes]….
My view is that we should be the opposite of the BBC. We should provide people with the chance to argue their corner.
You’d be more believable in that wish if you weren’t so ready to make your own silly taunts, such as in this morning’s posts.
If this is an admission of your own failings in the past, then great. But don’t try and paint yourself as belonging on the moral high ground mere hours after you’ve demonstrated that you’re not.
Scott, I’d almost accept your point except that you don’t think anything anyone here says has any value. You’ve made plenty of comments here to that effect in the past. So we can’t win either way.
Scott
Which “taunts” were they, please?
As DG stated ‘we missed a trick by not using ‘Queen of Cant’.
Well no we didn’t. It’s precisely the fact that the post wasn’t a taunt that it didn’t even enter my head to use such a title. But that’s the BBC for you and its Gramscian apologists, always looking to play the victim card to dodge the issue.
Well at the moment it appears posters like “John” think “deepening engagement” involves me declaring I have not had sex with a rent boy or used cocaine. I have done neither. But really, is this what you want?
And as you are well aware John is not representative. Your boorish idea of ‘engagement’ has of course already been addressed – I’d be amazed if by you though, I shall read on and see.
Scott M; Well i suppose YOU regard yourself as holding the ‘moral high ground’, yes? If you are of the ‘left’ then i’m sorry to have to inform you that you do not. But that is my opinion as a right winger, and no, i do not drag my knuckles on the ground. To expect un-biased reportage from the national broadcaster should be a right. We do not get it, period, and you do not provide any constructive criticism of this forum to enable YOU to take the ‘moral high ground’. Sure, some of the posters are less than eloquent, but that is probably anger and frustration. I’ve seen plenty of foul, ignorant stuff on the guardian’s CIF, and was banned for too many pertinent posts lambasting Toynbee and Monbiot et al. They just can’t take well directed flak, like the nazis they are.
Scott, great non-sequitur; you make no sense. Moral high ground? DV is offering others a chance to rebut his arguemnt/debate/posts. It makes no difference whatsoever if he has posted taunts (has he?)
Hi Scotty. Seen any “hot looking Islamits” lately then?
David ,
I quite agree.
Can you just confirm this website’s policy on “moderation” ? I assume it is still very lightly moderated, if at all.
Which, of course, would be a contrast with the BBC’s heavy censorship at all levels.
Also a plea to cut out the personal abuse between some posters here.
I realise that I do use some “bad words” about some public figures, but I try and avoid it directly to people who post here, however tempting.
Grant
Moderation is very light. I don’t like abusive language from any quarter and appeal to everyone to keep it to the point. Full marks for good humour, zero marks for swearing.
David,
Agreed. But can you confirm under what circumstances a post would be prevented from appearing ( if that is possible ) or removed after appearing ?
I certainly know that none of mine have ( so far ! ), but would be interested.
I can’t remember when I last removed a post. I’m a liberal at heart 🙂
David V,
That’s fine. I would hate this website to ever lower itself to the level of the BBC !
I think you deleted me having a go at Atlas Shrugged back in the days when doing so was the most fun ever!!
I can’t recall that but my memory isn’t good enough to be sure!
Hey, Chuffer, well remembered ! What happened to Atlas ? Did David Vance liquidate him or did he disappear of his own accord ?
I am innocent of the liquidation of Atlas! O:-)
I always assumed Atlas Shrugged just went John Galt on us.
Disappeared somewhere dark, brown, moist and smelly…
Atlas is alive and kicking @ ArchbishopCranmer. (Don’t know what we did to offend 😀 )
DV: “My view is that we should be the opposite of the BBC. We should provide people with the chance to argue their corner.”
I’m not sure that assertion entirely holds water with relation to the BBC. On the whole as I’m always saying, 5Live is a good example of what the BBC should be, people to get the chance to ‘argue their corner’ there.
However, over ‘hackgate’, the corporate position of the BBC has been to act as Ed Miliband’s Press Officer – even Nicky Campbell, for a period, was in on the act – and it’s precisely that type of democracy destabalising partisanship that we’re here to expose, and the likes of Dez/Scott, and yes, David Gregory, here to hide.
I agree and I hope people won’t be put off coming here by some of the language and insults deployed from time to time. It helps if they have a fairly thick skin and if they don’t come in with fists up and feet kicking out before anyone has even said “Boo!” to them, like a certain non-Beeboid who visits from time to time. It’s not easy at the best of times to have a civil and constructive discussion between people of strongly held and strongly felt opposing views.
I mean that I agree with David V’s approach.
Tell you what, Millie. Post under your real name. I think that would raise the level of debate a bit.
David gregory, it doesn’t seem to have raised your debate much.
Heh heh…unfortunately the smile icons have gone missing.
Off topic: I’m still having these strange intermittent faults with the formatting on here – very small print for the comments, the “Like” names appearing in a lefthand column format, the icons disappearing now and again. Is there any clever technical person who can tweak something to sort this out?
I just disagree. Look Millie’s post “I hope people won’t be put off coming here by some of the language and insults deployed from time to time.” shows the problem. When you post anonymously you can say what you like AND act all hurt that BBC staff might not want to join in with that. I can’t use “language and insults” of the kind Millie enjoys so much. So it’s always a one sided argument.
Go on. We won’t tell. 😉
‘I just disagree. Look Millie’s post… So it’s always a one sided argument.’
Great to have an opportunity to disagree, at least here. Isn’t it? Maybe the BBBC owners should create some ‘House Rules’ or pull out a convenient closing? True press freedom, like democracy, may not be perfect, but better than the alternative.
Especially that being peddled in some quarters.
I had thought it was agreed that the use of ad homs, insults, etc undermined the author more than the target. That individual‘s cross to bear. Some here do, especially some in the BBC glee club. Most don’t. The association won’t wash. Nicknames on blogs are a standard. And it doesn’t matter who you ‘might’ be if what you write adds up. Hence I could care less if Daisy is a 50yo male biker if ‘her’ points stand. This is a facile direction to pursue.
Moaning that you don’t get the same opportunity to get in the gutter because of your avowed high-profile affiliation smacks of a two-wrongs, both-ways combo.
Now, if the subject of a BBC questioning in future, can I or anyone else under a spotlight dismiss any enquiry or critique by claiming ‘a poster on Nick Robinson’s blog was mean to me so your entire network is obviously tarred with all sorts of ‘isms and I’m off unless I know where you live and I fancy coming back with the boys from Capita, or until my next voluntary cherry vulture swoop’. Maybe the Murdochs can simply keep schtum on Tuesday because of Prezza’s ‘thoughts’ on Newsnight?
Argue your case, but this hole digging is counter-productive.
I would say that he got in the gutter with his slap in the face to her over her post.
Nobody is acting all hurt except you and you’ll even go so far as to smear me in order to do it by perversely pretending that I enjoy insults and language when I worry that they may put off people posting on the blog and support David Vance’s invitation to civil and courteous dialogue. And to cap it all, you do it while posting under your own name which just goes to show what a non-point (and red herring, as sue already said), that little ploy was. No, the fact is I see no concern on your part about language, insults or what goes on on this blog, other than the special case of what narrowly affects yourself and on which point you are prepared to deploy the low tactics you have used here to shore up your sense of grievance. I’m not playing your games and I see no prospect of constructive discussion with you. But do carry on on this free blog, if it suits your purpose, which isn’t positive and genuine dialogue, it’s plain to see.
Very well put Millie. Frankly, from time to time we’ve had BBC ‘regulars’ here under their real names or not, and i very much get the impression that the BBC perceives enough threat in this site to assign someone to try a bit of damage limitation. Oh dear, do try harder Mr Gregory.
DG: ” I can’t use “language and insults” of the kind Millie enjoys so much.”
Have you been taking lessons from Humphrys or something? You have falsified what Millie has said 180º to suit your own agenda. A ‘King of Cant’ indeed.
How would that follow, DG? I mean, look at Scott and tell me about the level of debate! Besides, I haven’t said anything to you, as far as I know, or to Beeboids here, that I wouldn’t say when and if I post on the Beeboid blogs or message boards or when (rarely) I send a complaint to the Beeboid Corporation.
As stated, DG “usually” is civil and constructive in tone, but this type of ad hominem from him is not that infrequent.
DG, as you well know, it’s standard internet etiquette to post under ‘nics’, indeed, when this whole ‘blog show’ scene got off the ground it was strongly recommended by the providers.
As can be seen from this Nazi nutter, its not difficult to throw up my real name from my nic, and when I’ve had posts put up here likely to stir up controversy, I’ve posted under my real name. In the current political climate of ‘Political Correctness Uber Alles’ engineered by the Ministry of Truth at the BBC, there’s nothing you need to worry about posting under your real name.
When a commenter here – Millie Tant – makes such a constructive, good willed contribution, and your only response is to take such a cheap shot, it really does show how much mean spirited cant prevails at the BBC and how well worth putting up was my post by DV.
It’s true, I had seen you post under your name before but I had forgotten that and completely forgotten your real name. That’s how much interest it is to me and, I suspect, to others on here. But everyone knows that it can be unwise to post real idenity details online.
With DG, I have noticed that his method is to start off civil and constructive but it not infrequently degenerates from there as you have noted. Personal attacks can appear, seemingly at random, as with the one on me, which as you said, followed a post in which I was supporting dialogue and acknowledging the difficulties there can be on both sides. So much for my trouble. Oh, well…
‘Oh, well…’
I believe the mot du jour is now *sigh*.
Means about as much as ‘YAWN’, which still gets deployed a fair bit on CiF, but can result in a purging by the mods when folk take the usually bulletproof ‘regular’ commenter to task for having sod all argument or substance on show.
That, and ‘I’ve been tipped off by the author and am on here first to say that anyone disagreeing with what they have written is… a Daily Mail reader’.
Always one to treasure. Then ignore.
David G,
For some people, to post under their real names may get them into trouble with their employers or others. Of course, you have no such problem. But , imagine what might happen if you post anti-BBC comments here under your real name.
David Gregory,
The ‘real name’ attack is a red herring. You’d probably be none the wiser if most of us posted under our real names. If Millie Tant or anybody else wishes to use a moniker what difference does it make?
It is awkward when people mischievously use several different IDs, or impersonate other people with intent to confuse, but regular, consistent bloggers acquire an online ‘personality’, which in its own way is just as accountable as using a ‘real’ name. Which couldn’t really be verified in any case.
As others have said, those of us who aren’t trying to make or mar a career through blogging may have good reasons for using a moniker.
A while ago someone who said he was from the BBC told us he was afraid to comment on this website, because it was kind of against the rules. He said he was frightened that he’d be found out. Does that ring true?
In the unlikely event that you came across something critical of the BBC that you agreed with on this site, would you feel free to say so? Or are you acting as council for the defence, who couldn’t admit a weakness?
Can something be a non sequitur and a red herring at the same time? It was certainly an odd fish anyway, coming as it did, not out of a debate but following a post and a comment advocating civil dialogue and discourse.
Millie, as always when DG has a point about his conduct or the BBC that he can’t answer, he’ll just ignore it. He’s the BBC’s resident ‘hit and run’ merchant on this site.
There is no debate at the BBC – you are either red or green anyone else is a raving fanatic. The BBC are the guardians of the acceptable. We did once have free speech in this country, until the BBC decided not to read the news but employ hundreds of socialist commentators to tell us what we should think.
You could compare the BBC to Pravda but some people still believe the BBC.
green & red like this you mean 🙂
Three Welsh Palestinian activists home after protest
leader greenies, leader soc lab party etc
(maybe gaza is twinned with broadcasting house)
just check the other bits to this story, & the,
(only slightly..titter), biased links, on the page
perfect example.
yup! green red & fanatic, fulfils all your criteria
oops trouble with the link
Welsh Palestinian activists put on plane home
Sue we’ve covered this again and again. Given DV got a post out of a weak joke on a mothballed, decade old bio you might not be surprised to learn I do think long and hard about what I post on here. I’m not going to go on record as being critical of colleagues or my employer. But I can try and give insight into how the BBC works and why decisions might have been made. I’d encourage other staff to post, but given how a lighthearted attempt to politely correct something I found offensive ended up in all this… well I can’t blame BBC people for not bothering.
‘not be surprised to learn I do think long and hard about what I post on here’
Pity. I try to. Saves having to scrabble around for a ‘just joking’ all the time if (ok, when the odd one misfires.
However, it is a fast moving blog, so slack needs be cut.
However, not sure if the same professional standards should be allowed to prevail with much of the BBC’s news ‘reporting’… or at least what it gets from a stringer who has cut and pasted from another media’s story that happens to suit, be it from a Middle Eastern rag to the Guardian.
BBC people not bothering seems a pretty big problem all round. Especially when is compelled to pay no matter what.
David Gregory,
I can understand that the occasional deviation from the serious points we usually make might put you off a bit, but it’s disappointing if they really made you regard this whole website as a no-go area.
I’d hope you and your colleagues would be grown up enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I’d appreciate insight into how the BBC works etc, but not in the patronising unsympathetic way that for instance ‘John Reith’ would do. (In the old, late lamented purple days.)
Now there’s an example of someone posting in his real name! 😉
I will just add that when you say “not bothering” in that way, it doesn’t look good. It makes you sound aloof, nay, ivory-towerish, perish the thought.
DG, the way you’ve responded to Millie gives us all the insight we need into how the BBC mind works – confirming what we already know. You’ve spoken with such cant on this thread that I believe more than ever that the ‘flirting’ ref in you BBC bio isn’t just a joke, it’s something that lets the cat out of the bag about BBC culture.
‘Tell you what, Millie. Post under your real name’
Currently there are folk, emboldened by the BBC’s modding policies, demanding of others (with nicknames like Fluffy) to ‘out’ who they really are.
The irony that most of these seem to have equally non-real nicknames, mostly modelled on guys who charged families for the bullets used to top their questioning relatives, seems a tad lost.
Careful waht you wish for.
The way this is going, you may find the knock at the door comes from within.
As Stalin proved, a genuine, stout defence was seldom enough to save a soldier if it failed, and especially if it made the high command look bad.
Smart move.
And we’re off and running with this one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8637867/Official-BBC-Twitter-rules-tell-staff-Dont-do-anything-stupid.html
Link to original document contained within. My question to anyone who cares to answer is: if the BBC is balanced and fair, why is this guidance necessary? Surely any beeboid tweets betraying a non-neutral stance on an issue will be balanced by an equal number of an opposing viewpoint!
*Chortle*
So the BBC has issued new Twitter rules for its employees.
Heh.
I’m sure I read a comment in one of the threads earlier today stating that nobody ever takes a blind bit of notice ever about what goes on here at Biased BBC ever (or words to that effect) but for some reason it seems to have been deleted by the author. I wonder why.
They will take no notice of any rules. The BBC don’t even abide by their precious guidelines. Until the BBC is set free from the public teat they will continue to employ children who sit all day at their desks “tweeting” to one another.
It’s actually quite surprising what little questioning the BBC get over their programming, if you want to complain you send a complaint to….. the BBC who then takes weeks to reply and when they do it’s a standard response often not even reflecting the comments in the original complaint.
The BBC need to be regulated by Ofcom not the BBC itself.
I sent a complaint in the other day about the complaints rigmarole and the merry-go-round you have to negotiate in finding out how to contact the Beeboid Corporation. Normally, I end up not bothering and retire, defeated by the obfuscation but this time I got angry and let them know. .
The only method of complaining about the BBC?
Do not pay the crapita thug enforced tax, withold the thing most dear to all leftist parasites, and that is money. Without this thug enforced taxation they are nothing, without the lies and the blackmail and the vile threatening ads they have nothing.
Want to really hurt these vile leftists? You know what to do and they cant touch you for it.
I tried that, and got away with it for a year or two, but the wife got a little unsettled by a letter which dropped onto our door mat one EVENING. Just a normal envelope with “we told you we’d call” emblazened across the front, in a handwritten style font. opened it up and it was a letter from TV Licensing about our lack of a license. She bottled it and bought one the next day…..women!
The replies never relate to the complaint. It’s almost as if they had a policy of gaffing you off at first so that you give up! It probably works; if you’ve got a real job (ie private sector) you can’t sit at your work desk all day following up their illiterate, irrelevant responses.
And of course if you’re in the public sector, when you would be able to spend all day on the internet, you’re unlikely to disagree with the socialist propaganda the BBC pushes out.
They’ve got all the bases covered!
News is an immediate matter – by definition. So when we complain about news bias we look for pretty quick review of the complaint – because if the BBC has started on a story with clear bias, it will continue its coverage of the story with clear bias.
But no – the BBC’s complaints machinery takes a long time to deal with complaints. And then they typically give an anodyne stock reply. AND worse – if your complaint was by email, they do not “reply” in the sense of sending their email with your original email attached. By which time they hope you have forgotten the key points and the detailed grounds of your complaint.
Also – their email usually says you should not reply to it – if you wanht to proceed further, you need to go to the Trust or whatever.
This is a procedure DESIGNED to kick the can down the road, to delay and obfuscate. There is no justification for such long delays, and no proper reason why they should not facilitate an email reply to their initial response if you are dissatisfied – and your second email should have their email AND your original email attached so the matter can be properly reviewed.
The general idea seems to be to get you to give up on your complaint.
All part of the BBC culture. Deny bias, censor the few editorial or reporter blogs, play it long.
……………….
As a comparison with how a market-sensitive big company reacts – one of my daughters today collected a camera from John Lewis that had been purchased at Christmas for her daughter. It had taken a week to examine it elsewhere, to replace the faulty shutter mechanism, and to return it, All for no charge, and with great courtesy. THAT is how complaints ought to be treated – fess up if something is wrong, fix it – and keep the customer happy.
That ‘Complaints’ website is really not worth bothering with, unless you grit your teeth and stick with it for the long haul. They don’t even give you a reference number for your complaint – that’s how contemptuously they treat it.
I’ve had some modest results by contacting journalists and editors directly, eg:
lefty.propagandist@bbc.co.uk
That method, namedotsurname, will probably get you through to any BBC individual bar the janitors. They used to give out these e-mail addresses on blogs such as The Editors but started to hide them some time back, the sneaks.
Unfortunately for them, some of us have long memories.
‘Unfortunately for them, some of us have long memories.’
Plus in the age of computers and the internet, easy means to store pages (especially ones that get stealth-edited) along with programmed diary prompts to revisit and resend.
I even do this with the few long-term blogs that get kicked into the long grass.
Unfortunately they seem to be on a ‘closed for comments’ kick on anything that is heading off message these days.
But, one hopes, should it come to a court case on a personal basis, a judge may be unimpressed that when served claims of impartiality in product but ruthless defence of a single view that is anything but when dealing with paying customers, the ‘contract’ between BBC and public will be seen to have been well and truly broken repeatedly over a long period.
For instance, not sure how to military families the affront of hacking calls compares with providing enemies trying to kill loved ones active in-theatre intelligence, from Argentine bomb settings through to Libyan rescue missions.
Thanks for reminding me of that I may try and chase up Mr kafala.
I had an almost identical experience with John Lewis with a laptop I bought there. Excellent service, courtesy and communication. Also my bank paid me a few hundred pounds six months ago for their acknowledged errors, poor service and an inability to correct a problem that had been brought to their attention and should have been put right promptly but wasn’t for several months and many attempts on my part to get them to sort it out.
The complaints websirte is a joke. One of my complaints has been almost a year in the process without a resolution. A year, if the BBC ever did admit bias now it will be ancient history.
Hi there one and all. May I assure you this blog is read VERY widely within the BBC. We ALL loathe what this place has become. All the lefty lefty horseshite, all the diversity, all the bias about global warming. We loathe it all. Most of my colleagues are looking to escape this vile operation. Keep up the good work!
Jim Smith
Rather puts the ‘all comment is only valid once we know who we’re talking with’ in context.
I speak as one who so far has been shoved by the system through two name incarnations… so far.
But as folk seem to be cool on the content of what I write as opposed to needing the name and address of my kids’ school, I am none too fussed. The consistency over time has value. Otherwise, meh.
I recall one of the triumphs of democratic process on this country was the secret ballot, which removed the chance of thugs of the landowners (sort of pre-capita to pre-monopoly media) identifying and then beating the bejesus out of those in the town square if the show of hands from the peons was not the way the ‘elite’ fancied.
On the risible BBC pre-modded, vetted and often early closed system, I have seen comments now appear that demand folk ‘out’ themselves with name, rank and serial number for daring to not conform to the hive will. And getting a) through the house rules and b) a ton of ‘likes’ from those whose day jobs seem to be ticking BBC supportive boxes.
All things considered, reading that repeated here by some BBCphiles, given poor historical precedents with phobias, is pretty darn ironic.
As Sue has indicated, its extremely brave of DG posting here under his real name in support of the BBC that employees him. I’m sure there’s no vested interest in it for him at all.
Come off it, the idea that he’s going to get brownie points for posting comments on a blog is about deluded as the allegations that the BBC employs staff to come here to defend it.
Given the personal nature of some attacks he’s a lot braver than you hiding behind your moniker.
Ben,
There are very good reasons for not placing any personal details in the public domain unless strictly necessary. Can you think of any ?
“you hiding behind your moniker ” i’m mat i live in wales so whos hiding ?
‘a lot braver than you hiding behind..’
This user has opted to keep his comment history private
Don’t judge you for the action. Not so sure about the various standards being applied.
‘Ben’ … Ohhhh, *that Ben … Well, at least DG give a like to you not posting under your real name and showing how he is a true representative of BBC cant and hypocrisy.
Jim Smith,
Welcome. But something tells me you won’t be back !!!
Are we sure this is real?
My first thought was that it might be a fake but I clicked on “like” hoping it might be real. I hope I’m not doing Jim a dis-service but the comments seem to fit almost too snugly yet too vaguely into the majority thoughts on this site. Almost as if he is saying what he thinks we want to hear, yet can give no more detail as he doesn’t really believe it himself.
Jim, if you are genuine then I offer a complete and unreserved apology, but you must realise that we all know how dirty, devious and dishonestly the BBC play and how there are no depths they will sink to in order to push their left-wing agenda. I still hope you are genuine and will forgive my understandable caution in this.
Hi there again one and all…. Well yes i am what you call “genuine”… I have been at the wretched BBC for nearly 20 years now. I work on the technical side of “news”…. When I joined the BBC there was still a degree of proper programme making. There was still a degree of technical competance… ALL that has gone. Output now is worse than youtube.
I retire in a few years. I won’t miss any of it.
Regards
Jim
In that case, my apologies, Jim. And my sympathies.
Any insights you could give into newsgathering practices – without compromising yourself or insulting your colleagues, of course – would be most welcome.
What do you think David?
I think it’s a Moby, Ben. Your comment adds to my suspicion.
Given that 5Live is supposed to 75% news do we assume the likes of Richard Bacon as news presenters and hence bound by these guidelines?
Does Richard Bacon qualify even as human?
Errm, Martin, lovely to have you back, but for me at least, comments like this haven’t been missed.
Richard Bacon has to be the exception to any rules. Surely one of the biggest cretins ever to walk the face of the earth and deserving of any, repeat any, comments that might come his way.
Those vulgar Americans just can’t get it right can they?
A Alistair Sooke presented “The World’s most Expensive Paintings” on Sunday evening.
He spent most of the time complaining that having paid £millions for paintings, the owners failed to understand that they should be on permanent public display.
However going to that awful money-grubbing place, Las vegas, Sooke finds Picassos on the walls of a restaurant in the Bellagio casino. So he then complains that this is art relegated to the role of wall paper.
I saw that. No sense of his own contradictions.
To which ONE, of the following four, has BBC- NUJ given its political support?:
1.) Rupert Murdoch, newspaper proprietor;
2.) Tommy Robinson, of English Defence League;
3.) Geert Wilders, Dutch MP;
4.) Binyam Mohamed, Ethiopian Muslim Al Qaeda trainee
“Binyam Mohamed: The false martyr”
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/02/binyam_mohamed_the_f.php
If anyone at the BBC could tell me why Jenni Murray gets paid to describe the making of a summer pudding on radio as she did this morning , do tell us!
If they can account for how following Hilary Rodham Clinton through duty free at Shannon constitutes current affairs-as opposed to melting the ice caps that they tell us about the rest of the time-again I`m all ears( as Andrew Marr might say!)
Finally-if You and Yours continue to bewail all these scams and frauds without once being any part of the solution-and continue to let any old fool with a kite to charge whatever they like for us to powerour digital radios that we`ve been forced to buy-then do tell!
As things stand, the BBC is a raging mass of hypocrisies and contradictions with absolutely NO conscience or no obligation to those of us forced to pay for it…
And that`s where Rupert comes in…end elder abuse NOW!
No wonder they`ve been obsessed with euthanasia/assisted suicide of late…
“…this video has been been getting wide circulation on TV networks, or as he says “…every TV bulletin ran this”.”
Except you won’t see it on the BBC.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/13/give-this-lady-an-order-of-australia-medal/#more-43405
I wonder if the Correctnicks in Oz will find some excuse to charge this lady with ‘political crime’ as they have with Andrew Bolt?
Ms. Gillard makes Mr. Miliband seem statespersonlike.
How, on earth, did she ever get voted in?
Wait a minute… who did vote for her to gain this position?
It’s End of Days for the BBC and they know it.
Just as it became unenforceable to have a licence for a radio in 1971 due to the proliferation of portable radios, so it is now unenforceable due to the changing media such as iPads, mobile devices, streaming content, pay per view, on demand and other modern technologies.
Look, the licence was fine when we huddled around a large CRT with two channels and an oscillator that gave off enough energy to heat a home and an RF signal to guide a Paveway guided missile right onto your house, but today, anyone can watch live TV without having to worry about paying for a licence.
It’s impossible to enforce nowadays: they get a private company like Capita acting as TV Licensing on behalf of the BBC to keep sending the fake threatening letters and making those ridiculous threatening adverts hoping they will succumb you into buying one.
But we’re all a little wiser now, and more informed. Search the net for so much easy info.
You might feel warm and secure watching good old Auntie in the evening, churning out their stale and stilted broadcasts, slaved to their schedules, but millions of kids simply do not watch media like that anymore. Like these viewing habits, it’s outdated, made obsolete by technology.
We’re miles behind in media technology and media infrastructure compared to other countries that don’t have a telly tax. And a lot of it is due to the telly tax holding us back.
I cancelled my licence some time ago – I can still watch live broadcast if I choose from any device, whether it be a conventional TV, smartphone, PC or streamed to my living room Plasma.
And nobody, least of all TV Licensing, can stop me. They can’t even make sense over their desperate demands on whether you can watch live broadcast iPlayer on a mobile device that’s charged or not charged, as if it makes a difference.
Wake up, it’s jumped the shark already. Nobodies interested any more.
So, everybody save yourselves £146 a year and do something fun with your lives with the savings: go on holiday, have a nice meal, take the kids for a week’s break.
And if your miss your favourite programme, simply watch it on iPlayer, ITV Player, or record it on your PVR and watch it later in your own time, knowing full well that you will not be fined, or caught, or prosecuted.
Because they can’t catch you anymore.
It’s over.
If you complain about the BBC and expect governments to abolish the licence fee, you’re wasting your time.
If you complain about the BBC and still pay the licence fee, you are prolonging the problem.
Licence free for over 2 years and loving it!