“While the
Please enjoy the following exquisite moment of BBC humbuggery in the current OT:-
Jon S:
How can an organisation so full of gays and dykes beimpartial?
David Gregory:
Well as a rule of thumb being gay doesn’t actually impact onmy reporting on peregrine falcons or windfarms. But you know, it’s a struggle obviously.
hippiepooter:
There again David, I’m sure being homosexual didn’t do youany harm in getting a job at the BBC ,what with its huge imbalance in the number of homosexuals who work there, whichI’m sure has nothing to do with discrimination. ‘Hideously homosexual’? Forfend.
David Gregory:
It didn’t do any harm (but then why should it?) or any goodI would have thought. I guess whenlooking for a BBC science reportermy PhD and body of work carried more weight. Do you think I should wear a tighter shirt for my next interview?
Well, as someone pointed out, it seems he already hasdone. From David Gregory’s BBC bio:-
Let’s hope this isn’t pulled before it goes live on B-BBC !
One must give David Gregory his due though, unlike Dez/Scotthe does manage to express his views here in support of his employer the BBC with some grace and intelligence, and isn’tknown to have the hots for any genocidal anti-Semitic terrorists.
H/t to David Preiser for the ‘spot’, who no doubt would wantit stressed that he doesn’t want this post to lead to any bigoted commentsagainst homosexuals in general.
he’s not averse to a bit of “straw man” activity either
in an ealrier post he was waiting for someone here to liken “homosexuals to paedophiles” 😉
Itwf1964 I was here when it was all purple as far as the eye can see. I’m afraid you’ll have to do better than a strawman argument.
Wow. So basically every time I take part in the debate now I’m going to end up as a post on the main blog? *sigh*
As I said in response with the possible exception (I would hope) of my actual fiance I think it unlikely my flirting with anyone would secure me any advantage let alone an actual job. It was a joke. A long time ago on a website far far away.
Still lets not forget how this conversation started;
“Jon S how can an organisation that’s full of gays and dykes be impartial?”
So don’t worry about leading to any “bigoted comments”. Because that’s where you started.
It’s what’s called holding the BBC to account Mr Gregory. You have no objection when the BBC do it with ‘The Murdoch Empire’ in that entirely impartial, non agenda driven way they do, and I’m shocked! shocked! that a geneticially impartial BBC employee like yourself can’t see how he should be taken to account for such abject cant.
Oh hold on, maybe the BBC isn’t impartial after all, maybe they’ve been acting as Ed Miliband’s Press Officer to marginalise and do away with Murdoch so they can near monopolise British Broadcasting with their pernicious post-modern Marxist correctnick drivel.
Not here mate!
Hippie do you really believe I could flirt my way into a job? Have you seen me? There’s a tiny picture! It was a joke a very long time ago. I find it bizarre of all the stuff I could be trying to discuss about the BBC on here we end up with this?
It would be helpful David if you’d address the issue of the disproportionate number of homosexuals who work at the BBC and whether there exists a ‘homosexual mafia’ at the BBC. Whether, to paraphrase your ex-boss Greg Dyke, the BBC is ‘hideously homosexual’?
What’s disproportionate? There is of course a “homosexual mafia” at the BBC but sadly I never mastered the secret handshake.
Isn’t that taken from your bio on the Beeboid Corporation’s website? I remember this particular boast of having flirted in an interview being discussed on here a year or so ago. Why have you not updated and corrected your biographical details?
Millie. I believe it comes from the very first time I had a bio page on the BBC website. You can find it here; http://www.bbc.co.uk/midlandstoday/content/articles/2007/04/24/davidgregory_feature.shtml As you can see it’s not been updated since 2007. But as I recall it’s unchanged since I was first asked for it when we first had a programme website. So it’s more than ten years old. I’m 42, I think we can take it as read I no longer bother much with “clubbing in Birmingham”
David G, Yes, I know that. I looked at it. I commented about it last year as well. Still the same. I can’t understand why you haven’t updated it. I wouldn’t go around with a ten- or four-year-old-business card or entry in a business or professional directory.
Millie,
But David G. isn’t in business or a profession. He works for the BBC.
Naughty, naughty! 😀 😀 😀
It’s a mothballed page. There’s a link to click to explain all that http://www.bbc.co.uk/help/web/mothballing/
David G,
If only we could so easily mothball the BBC !
Zzzzzzzzzzing!
“The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias”,
Andrew Marr
that’s top (paid) BBC “talent” speaking there 🙂
Which was taken out of context. It was supposed to represent a view that would shock managers during an away day about bias. Next!
While I agree with others who are a bit baffled about the point of this blogpost, I don’t think you’re correct about Marr David G. I’ve just re-read the transcript of his “Seewaw to Wagon Wheel” speech that opened the 2006 impartiality seminar. In it Marr gives a straightforward account of his views about impartiality, fairness and the “wagon wheel” of opinion. He develops his argument and the supposedly “out of context” quote fits exactly with the sentiments expressed immediately before and after:
So these, the wagon wheel is simply that the need for fairness and the range of debate that we have to have is much greater than it used to be, which causes I think particular problems for the BBC, because the BBC I would argue is not an impartial organisation, any organisation which thinks it’s neutral is, is barking.
The BBC is a publicly funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people than the population at large.
It depends on the states [sic] approval at least for its funding mechanism and all this creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC and I think if we pretend there isn’t an institutional liberal bias of that kind which is much more clearly expressed as a cultural bias than as a party political bias, because as I said at the beginning, the party political bit is relatively speaking, dead easy. Complicated, fiddly, infuriating at times, but fundamentally easy. The liberal bias that we deal with, I think is harder.
You state that he was trying merely to shock BBC managers. That’s not the way the speech reads at all and if that’s what he has since claimed I would take it with a big pinch of salt.
Good for David. Flirting can get you a long way!
Talking of the Arab/Muslim world, our lesbian and gay brothers and sisters are going where angels fear to tread: it is they who taking the lead against Islamic extremists in Tower Hamlets and at the East London mosque.
Many here may disagree with Peter Tatchell’s politics and identity politics in general but his relentless, hugely courageous campaign against domestic and international Islamists puts all ‘progressives’ and liberals to shame.
Mr Tatchell, a guy i quite like, and if that is so, i applaud him 100%,
actually, i did (quite a while ago), question his “brave” peter tatchell moniker, think it was before the idea of the pope visit, stating he should wake & smell the coffee & never mind arresting the pope, get himself outside the mosques in the e.end to face the REAL & PRESENT danger to gay/lesbian people & use his influence in the media/otherwise there, & to oppose the rahman mafia
if he is now doing so….i cannot commend him enough…
Here, as the blogger so aptly puts it, are the entirely unrecanted words of Peter Tatchell on paedophilia, from a letter to the Guardian 1997.
any condoning of paedophilia…..
better rephrase that Mr Tatchell, a guy i thought i quite liked
until……
I’m not employed by the BBC, and never have been.
And the last time I attempted to engage in a serious debate, ltwf1964 called me a cunt and told me to fuck off (his only contribution to the discussion at hand).
If you want to see where the moral high ground is, you’ll have to find a strong pair of binoculars, becausse Biased BBC sure isn’t standing on it.
As ever Dez/Scott, you’re looking through your binoculars in the wrong direction!
If it is the case that ltwf1964 has used such invective against you, one might feel more sympathy for you if you haven’t gratuitously resorted to it yourself enough times. … Now where’s my set of binoculars?? …
Have I ever called anybody a cunt on here, hippiepooter? No. True, I think anybody who continues to believe that Dez and I are one and the same is only demonstrating that they’re incredibly stupid, but that’s hardly the same.
I dont recall your expletive selection including that particular choice, but you are certainly no stranger to invective.
for someone who expressed a homosexual liking for a muslim terrorist,count yourself lucky i didn’t get seriously insulting
Yes, I should have added “This is a joke, for any hard-of-thinking stalkers contemplating saving a screen grab of this for months before mentioning it on a blog that’s supposed to be about BBC bias, but is just as likely to be used by people in an attempt to settle petty personal scores”.
But Twitter has a 140 character limit, and I also like to assume that my followers on there are more intelligent than that.
Stalker – heh, you flatter yourself Scott. I saw your comment when reading tweets about “Faisal Shahzad” and took a screengrab because I thought it might come in handy one day to wind you up. Worked a treat.
Wind me up? Now who’s flattering themselves?
Still, at least you admit that was the reason. Kind of confirms that the post in which you did it was the petty act of an immature little brat.
Funny though.
(And are you sure you’re not just a teeny bit wound up about it?)
Well, you used a whole post to slag me off personally, ensuring that a site likes to think of itself as a serious attempt at holding the BBC to account is pretty much admitting that one of its contributors uses it to settle personal scores with people who’ve never so much as worked for the corporation.
And yes, that irked me a little at the time. But then I realised that outside Biased BBC’s little world of juvenilia, nobody but nobody actually cares what you think.
So I did wind you up, then?
From my “Little World of Juvenilia” folder:
Only on Biased BBC would acting like a less-than-intelligent ten-year-old be seen as something of a badge of honour…
I know you are but what am I?
Apparently we can’t make jokes any more.
Ermm, no. DG’s defence of ‘it was only a joke’ might meet plausibility criterias, but yours no. It was a well worth recording moment by DB to show just what sort of people like you support BBC bias.
“People like you” eh?
Sorry, I do not like the focus or tone of this post.
Join the club. Sheesh.
Thirded. I can’t see how asking a question such as ‘How can an organisation so full of gays and dykes be impartial?’ can make for a constructive debate on media bias.
Without ‘Jon S’ comment being included the post wouldn’t make sense. The germaine point is the existance or not of a homosexual mafia at the BBC. From what I see of the number of homosexuals who work there and the overtly correctnick way the BBC covers the issue of homosexuality, I would say emphatically yes.
I can certainly understand the feeling that it might not be entirely cricket to single out DG’s comments like this, but the cant is so richly exquisite that on balance I would say the inclusion is justified.
Hopefully now, DG can address the issue that I raised and that he sidestepped with what to all intents and purposes is an abject piece of cant.
Let us not forget that oftentimes the BBC has been reporting as fact that an NotW investigator hacked the phones of Milly Dowler and 7/7 victims and the widows of British soldiers. From what we know I think its a fair assumption to make, but in the midst of Police investigations and an impendiing judicial inquiry, the BBC should not be reporting assumptions as fact, as well grounded as they may be. Likewise the evidence that exists that DG was talking arrant cant when he claimed that his homosexuality had nothing to do with him getting a job at the BBC is so strong that it is more than a safe assumption that it is the case.
So just to be clear, posters on B-BBC believe about 50% of BBC staff are gay and that there is a “homosexual mafia” which controls things at the top.
Fourthed. There’s more important things to discuss than whether David G did or did not flirt to get his job.
Neither would I want to discourage him from posting here, as the BBC perspective is important, even if we don’t agree with it. We don’t always get it right here and it’s good to be corrected if that happens. Likewise Mr Gregory might also take on board our point of view if we continue to have reasonably civilised discussions.
Yeah this post seems a bit unnecessary to be too, whilst I agree there is a unusually high amount of homosexual people in the BBC (or I at least perceive there is) I don’t see how a throw away comment on a website can warrant such a post. It’s the kind of low hanging fruit approach that dez/scott is renowned for in fairness.
David Gregory responded with good humour to a quite offensive post and continued to banter afterwards, he didn’t flounce out like some others may have. The amount of “likes” under his post compared to none under Jon S’s also show the way the land lies here in my opinion.
Indeed, but as has thus far studiously been avoided in well intended but overplaced displays of sympathy towards DG: Is the disproportionate amount of homosexuals in the BBC due to discrimination?; how does it effect the BBC’s coverage of the issue of homosexuality?; Is the climate of correctnick intolerance by those in authority towards Christians over the issue of homosexuality largely set due to that coverage?
Simples folks. All very heartening to see the repititions of the defence of DG already contained in the post itself, but is it really the case that B-BBCers are themselves so brainwashed over the issue of homosexuality by the BBC that they can’t recognise the bias issue here and the relevance and mirth in how DG hoisted himself on his own petard in the way he sought to avoid it?
I thought the point of the post was that someone was trying to have it both ways but was caught out.
I thought the point was B-BBC can’t recognise a ten year old “joke”?
Millie,
You mean like AC/DC ?
Shadddaaaap, Grant!
‘the last time I attempted to engage in a serious debate’
Speaking of standing on various grounds, this time shaky…
I hold no truck with playing the person (ok, let’s make an exception… just joking) , and have no control over any who do… from any ‘side’. But the blogosphere (at least the one that is not ruthlessly modded into tribal navel-gazing) is Wild West and robust.
There will be excesses. So let those who cast the first ad hom and all, be judged accordingly.
However, there does seem to be a bit of a disconnect between what is said and done… and suddenly retreated behind… depending on how the wind is blowing.
Do I think Jon S’s ‘original’ was well phrased? No. Was it relevant to the representation of UK society by the largest media monopoly in the country? Well, being reminded of Mr. Marr’s views… kinda. I also thought Dr. G’s riposte was funny and apposite. Said all that need to be said.
Once we get into *sigh’ territory pre-flounce, not so much. This thread seemed a little OTT as a topic, but then we are talking Crystal Palace-sized glass houses at the moment especially, and you should not be cut slack for fear of… well…. censure from our new twitter-governed legislature.
I was going to avoid this, but precedent is a key issue in media now.
Can we expect the BBC to respect and back off their spotlight victims on the basis of ‘but he started it’ when the issue raised is topical and germane, and the sore is well and truly scratched by the main protagonist?
I will retain what I wrote in conclusion in all innocence until a ligtrbulb went off that a whole quangoload of hypocrisy could end up being deployed in support of the various standards at play: you can’t have it both ways, guys.
One of the oft quoted moans at B-BBC is that the BBC and it’s staff just don’t engage here. I have said again and again one problem is the general tone of the debate. I thought the original comment that lead to all this pretty typical of that. I was looking to (with good humour) perhaps try and point out the original comment was a bit off. I thought the further responses were amusing too. But to end up being called the “King of Cant” (really David? That’s not even subtle) and dragged onto the main page? I can’t quite believe a joke from more than a decade ago is what qualifies for “BBC Bias” these days.
By the way, where is Martin? He does seem to avoid me on here!
Fair enough. I agree on the tone, and even the need for a full thread. But there we are. It’s here. Were that mere pawns in the machine not seized upon to tarnish the organisation in all of today’s media.
Can’t speak for Martin or others. It’s a big blog, comprised of individuals.
If folk feel that raising non-pertinent personal issues will assist their viewpoints, let them live or fall on their own words.
I would, however, suggest not raising personal issues too often in support if one does not wish them to return in a less attractive form later when disconnects become apparent.
As Mr. Brown and his glee club is discovering across news and commentary media not under tight control of message merchants.
The ‘just joking’ meme can wear thin and, as the BBC is discovering, if one deals in communication, sadly I fear even the BBC does not seem to cut much slack to those who might try a ‘what it was supposed to represent’ explanation.
And on precedent, again, might we expect full context in BBC stories in future?
Blimey, I’m baffled by this post, too. I feel that I’ve stumbled across the last two minutes of a two-day argument! Wossit all abaaaat?
I agree.
David Gregory deserves criticism when he sidesteps issues, but in general he debates politely. I am not in the slightest interested in his private life.
I would expect to find a high level of “gays” in an arty-farty entertainment business like the BBC , so long as there isn’t any positive discrimination and it doesn’t affect the renowned objectivity and lack of bias of that august body .
And, I too , rather enjoyed the light-hearted original posts.
“the BBC and it’s staff just don’t engage here. I have said again and again one problem is the general tone of the debate.”
At least it is a debate! full of sometimes ribald comments and opinion not one I can find anywhere on or in the BBC sphere of influence, any offence I am sorry to say is yours to bare as I would rather we had the free and open comments then allow endless appeals for moderation/censorship of this and that and become C.I.F?? lol from one side of the coin also it should be pointed out that as the BBC so often says that Powerlessness breeds anger and compared to the 49+% total media control of the BBC we are all powerless !
With such personally targeted posts (attacks), anyone would think you were trying to discourage BBC staff from taking part in B-BBC discussion
Can I add, it’s good to see though that there are many here who feel the same way.
Whilst also happy that so many are able to separate a variety of parameters in making clear their personal boundaries, may I take this opportunity to ask a question that is perhaps erring into ‘multiple wrongs’ territory but still possibly relevant…
What do you think the mindset is of BBC senior staff when going beyond tolerating contribution of critics (which, via editorial selection is all too easy to omit or curtail), but actively inviting on folk with the intention of either springing a left-fielder (Glinner) or going on to enhance one on the edit suite (Delingpole)? Not personal, but rather underhand. There may even be instances when the BBC has brought out a personal card from the deck bottom if it suited, but I am sure rare.
We are the topic of variable standards here, after all.
So, should kid gloves apply all round, not at all, or… ?
“One of the oft quoted moans at B-BBC is that the BBC and it’s staff just don’t engage here.”
Is it? I have never read anybody make such a comment, never mind “oft quoted”; although (given that this a forum for free debate) it is theoretically possible.
A BBC producer “engaging” with those who draw attention to his Leftist assumptions?
Why would they want to do such a thing?
Since when has the Left been about engagement in any sense other than closing down debate?
Certainly informed engagement in debate is to be welcomed, in particular in ‘horse’s mouth’ from a protagonist.
However, the level of cherry picking, especially when a barrage of questions demanding answers goes silent when they come back in a form that doesn’t suit can be telling.
And if a vulture lands to pick at a bone, it surely can’t screech ‘vulturists!’ with much credibility of gorging and nailed whist too burdened to retreat?
That does rather smack of positive discrimination for the sake of appearance’s sake, and not a comfortable playing field to be expected to play on.
As the the BBC’s contribution to debate, just check out ‘The Editors’ or a Pesto/Easton/Robbo thread. Closed or modded to the hilt.
Many babies lost with ‘ism modded bathwater there.
Well here’s a main post with Sue bemoaning how little B-BBC had achieved. http://biasedbbc.tv/2011/04/reflections-on-theme-of-time-management.html And it does come up again and again in the comments over the years. I’ve seen several people drift in and out, demand some sort of more concrete action and then drift off again.
David Gregory,
You’re quite right, I do wish BBC spokespersons would take me seriously enough to engage with my points.
Granted, you do occasionally comment on one of my threads, but last time you did so you admitted you don’t know much about Israel, and then completely misunderstood the humorous references in my reply – to the ‘mother-in-law email’ which had been highly publicised at the time – even though I laid it on with a trowel.
I know one man’s humour is another man’s poison, but still.
Another thing you often do, which indicates you’re not sincerely engaging, is provoke me into replying to your criticism, then ignoring the reply. If you conceded any of my points, or came back with a return serve, then that would be something. Like a game of tennis, you know.
I have no interesting views on homosexuality, though I do still find men doing effeminate things quite comical (in a way that masculine women somehow aren’t)
The other thing I’d just like to mention, now I’m here, is that B-BBC contributors are separate entities. The only thing they definitely have in common is a shared antipathy to BBC bias.
When we disagree with one another, in the interest of harmony and unity, we rarely make a fuss. No, make that an “I” not a ‘we’.
I speak for myself.
Sue I ALWAYS say I know nothing about Israel when I do occasionally comment on your posts! I’m sorry if I don’t follow up as the one live BBC person I’m always inundated with points and questions and (despite what some believe) BBC staff are not paid to post here. So my job does take precendent (day off today before you ask)
David G. I can’t resist.
As the one live BBC person?………..you don’t mean……please accept my condolences.
Sorry. It had to be done.
No-one I know thinks the BBC staff are paid to post here. They used to do it out of pure altruistic conviction. I’m not paid either by the way. Shame, that.
But why does the BBC give disproportionate time to homosexuality? Almost on every subject we seem to get the ‘gay’ angle, but of course it’s the BBC gay angle the left wing Guardian reading gay angle as if there are no other types of gays (say like Tory ones)
Whilst no one can be certain homosexuals in the general male population are probably 1 in 100 and nothing like the 1 in 10 gay groups claim.
At the BBC I’d guess that homosexuals are almost 50/50 or even a majority and that inbalance must have an effect on output.
Other ‘minority groups’ get ignored, try being left handed in a right handed world or being very tall or very short.
The BBC is very keen to ensure it’s output is reflective of society, but it seems to think society ends in an Islington wine bar.
“At the BBC I’d guess that homosexuals are almost 50/50 or even a majority and that inbalance must have an effect on output.” Do you really believe that, Martin? I am genuinely curious.
“I am genuinely curious.”
But I thought you were gay. (Rim shot. Er, no hang on, I mean badum tish.)
Martin,
I doubt if “gays” are 1 in 10000 , let alone 1 in a 100 in the general population. But , who knows, impossible to find out.
I’m not sure if this contribution is appropriate here, but then again some have questioned the appropriateness of the thread….
It’s an old chestnut but there’s a theory that BBC’s Dr Who emits leftist propaganda.
In an interview with the Metro today Russell T Davies (the man credited with reviving the Dr Who brand) is quoted as saying “The coalition Government is doing terrible things to the BBC….”
Really? Terrible things? I suppose it all depends where on the spectrum you stand. The point is that the BBC and its people stand well to the left of the spectrum.
They do say ‘sex’ sells in media, and throughout an MSM driven by ratings I can’t see the BBC is much different, bar being in denial of its own obsessions.
I recall during the expenses scandals that such a focus often reared its irrelevant head, taking matters away from the actual crimimality.
How many slants were taken (or suppressed) because of Mr. Laws’ private preferences, vs. those, say, of Mrs. Smith and her husband?
Not sure any are on the highest of grounds here. But this site is free, whereas others might be held to a better standard.
Just to be clear. This post was a request from a b-bbc contributor, not mine. Unlike the BBC, I am happy to post different points of view.
David Gregory
I don’t believe I have ever posted anything that could even vaguely critical of your engagement here. I wish more of your colleagues would follow your example. Of course in the big bad world we all take the slings and arrows, don’t we?
No I accept that. But I think if you want more staff to engage you have to treat them with a bit of respect. As ever I post under my own name and in the name of my organisation in many ways. Most people on here are responding under a psuedonym.
I’ve said before it’s a bit frustrating to be taking part in a rough and tumble internet debate when you can’t really respond in kind.
And surely “Queen of Cant”? You missed a trick there.
David – the heading is not mine so I missed nothing.
On topic, I would like to ensure that any BBC staff posting here are afforded civility and courtesy. I take issue with the BBC but have done my best to be pleasant to staff – ask Stephen Nolan for further evidence! I see no value in rudeness, I see every merit in robust debate.
DG: “And surely “Queen of Cant”? You missed a trick there.”
This is why it is such a pleasure to have you on the site DG, even if you dodge issues you have no answer to.
The B-BBC Contributor’ was obviously myself, but as always with what I submit to DV it’s on the basis he deems it merits inclusion.
The original headline by DV was a typo by him, which he has now corrected. I used the title ‘KINGS OF CANT’ because I thought that marvellous ‘gotcha’ moment on your hypocrisy was a splendid smoking gun illustration of the ‘culture of cant’ that pervades the BBC.
I see you still haven’t addressed the issues raised.
I think I’ve done nothing but address the issue of a poor joke in a ten year old bio on a mothballed part of the BBC website which is apparently what passes for BBC “bias” these days.
You know what I’m referring to. I guess working at the BBC you get hooked on cant.
I should qualify that “like”. I liked it all except the last comment.
I for one do appreciate visits from those whose views won`t be mine!
If the BBC are paying for you, it won`t be easy to think for yourself re media bias etc-any more than a teacher would dare talk about abolishing education…like a fish in water, it`s just a chosen medium of getting paid to be a good boy or girl. It`s a given!
That said, I heard Jenni Murray commentating on how a summer pudding was being created before her eyes…Richard Dimbleby in Belsen-Birkenau did NOT spring to mind.
THis was followed by some sniff the glove show called Crossing Continents. The Beeb lady was both paid and privileged to hold Hilary Clintons handbag and trail her round the world in a nice plane-no DVT or oiks to queue up with in Burundi/Shannon or wherever.
No doubt our critics here might tell me how many poplars those responsible for commissioning Clintons capers need to plant in Battersea Park this weekend to compensate Gaia for her so-sad loss!
Maybe they can stand in the shade of the Barnsley Blimp if we offer her Sumer Pudding…or sandi Toksvig as she is known to her chums!
This hour mid-morning(when real life distracts from what puffery the BBC choose to pad out the schedules) tells me enough about all things Beeb.
At least Rupert wouldn`t dig my pocket to peddle such pish!
“sandi Toksvig” ah yes the one who had us rolling in the aisle with her ‘c’ joke about a democratic political party and anyone who has a conservative view now which bunch sanctioned it I wonder ? still no collective responsibility at the ministry so it’s defenders don’t get tarred with the same brush! mind she is a amateur compared to the today show and it’s rampant but wholly accidental??pmsl! use of the big ‘;C’ word !
I wonder how Sandi would get her tongue around
“The King of Cant ” ?
As I say, am happy for David etc to be free to say what they will. I like this about the blog!
Yet you`ll be on a sticky wicket to defend much of the BBCs output…the brain seems to have rotted; and the antennae for what the mass of British people require of a compulsory funded monoploy provider of state truths and sentiments-they seem to have gone!
Just the latest example-the BBCs slant on the death of five blokes in Boston, Lincs seems to be that the Poles should chip into to Customs and Excise in stead of brewing their own hooch…becaue your health and safety can`t be assured if you do so!
Now I`m not up there-but the BBC are getting their information from somewhere and it`s not pretty to see the conjecture.
With Murdoch getting assailed for doing similar, the BBC really ought to shut up until they have confirmation of what happened…and for them to say that”everybody knew” that illegal vodka was for sale locally rather makes my point about the BBC being the States little shitzu…as opposed to a fearless watchdog for the people who have to fund the poop scoopers that are employed by them and the Guardian
To David Gregory:
I apologize for this getting out of hand. I meant to show that your own official bio contradicted your statement, and highlight the appearance of a double standard that many people here have long claimed exists at the BBC. As I said earlier, I didn’t want to bring it up for fear of unleashing some upleasantness which has nothing to do with the point in the abstract. If, as you now claim, it’s not even true (which doesn’t say much for the standards at the BBC, if they’re just making stuff up in bios now), then it should be changed. The copy editor responsible for it should be sent on one of those online training courses. As it is now, it’s an own goal.
Of course, I realize that anybody reading the bio without knowing which way you swing could just as easily think it was heterosexual flirting which got you that job. But that would also be rather inappropriate, and a violation of workplace standards in any case. Just more evidence of the free love, far-Left socially liberal attitude so many people here say is endemic at the BBC. Want a job at the BBC? Either get out the coke, or drop ’em. The jokes write themselves, really. So either way, it’s not a respectable, professional way to run an official state broadcaster.
I hope this doesn’t affect any further engagement here.
David, apology accepted. Don’t worry about it. It’s a mothballed webpage for a ten year old “joke”. A moments thought would lead anyone to realise that I’d need industrial strength flirting to charm my way past the three different people you usually get on a BBC interview board! Of course it wouldn’t be appropriate. That’s the “joke”. Such as it is. And I can assure you I have never been asked to either “drop them” or “get the coke out” in a BBC interview of otherwise!
If we count the old purple website this is about the third time this has come up. I humbly submit it’s really not a gotcha moment.
(Well,not for me. But that bit about Martin thinking half of all BBC staff are gay was interesting…)
DG: I’d need industrial strength flirting to charm my way past the three different people you usually get on a BBC interview board!
—————————————
With your seeming inability or reluctance to answer a question (I mean the question you were asked, not a different one), I cannot for the life of me see how else you would get past three people on an interview panel!
<joke>
DG, it’s still really not appropriate to have in your bio, and if you and the BBC don’t see it that way, I still think it betrays a disconnect. Inside jokes should stay just that: inside.
BTW, Sarah Palin mug will be on the way as soon as I receive my order. Couldn’t get the online store to ship internationally.
Well I’m not presenting the Ten o clock news! The only people who have ever had a problem with it are B-BBC. I’m more than happy to come on here and debate about it. But it’s ten years old and mothballed. It clearly says so. We can discuss it all you want. Perhaps we should measure my actual flirting skills? (It’s the scientist in me) Why don’t we lock me in a room with Martin and see what happens?
If it is just a joke – plausible – then I dont think we should be too po-faced about the humour, albeit given the composition of BBC staff and its record of promoting correctnick homosexual intolerance, it is clearly a hostage to fortune. As DG hasn’t addressed the issue of BBC ‘homosexual mafia’ and the pervading bias at the BBC on the homosexual issue, I regard DG’s BBC bio as more a ‘letting the cat out of the bag’ moment as to BBC culture rather than merely ‘a joke’.
Hippie, where does it say if I flirted with a man or a woman? The implied homosexuality is all in your mind…
Oh strewth David, you really need to do better than that. You have referred to yourself as homosexual so it’s hardly likely you would have been flirting with a woman. To coin a word .. *sheesh*.
Oh yes, and the tumbleweed is still blowing on you addressing the issue of the BBC’s homosexual mafia. Hit and run, hit and run.
Like the unemployed canary, I can warn you away from a “Right On alert” coming up at 6.30 this evening.
The show will be described as a “comedy”-but I`m thinking more Ted Rodgers than John Cleese.
The bloke is Indian-gay-and most suited to the BBC-just not funny.
Perfect then for the BBCs box ticking for the diversity it craves!
Oh yes-it will be about Norman Tebbits ” cricket test as patriotism test” aimless controversy-they seem to qoute this of Norman but none of the deep sense he comes up with these days.
Paul Sinha…unthreateningly, reassuringly unfunny!
I pine now for Stu Francis, Jim Davison…and even Jimmy Tarbuck when all the Beeb wants are Sinhas and Whitehalls!
This is the BBC
Barely 48 hours after almost 6000 Americans were murdered, we see the BBC’s Question Time with its carefully hand-picked audience of morons telling ex-US ambassador Philip Lader that “the world despises America.”
http://thinkofengland.blogspot.com/2007/04/anti-anti-americanism.html
And since then anyone who represents an organisation that can do that has my contempt. Not even the NOTW stooped that low. They hacked phones, they did not condone the murder of thousands of inocent people.
If the percentage of gays in the BBC is so high (how do you measure?) why is it so difficult to persuade the BBC that the one country in the Middle East where a gay person can live openly and safely should not be constantly pillaried by the BBC?
deegee,
Good point. I wonder how many “openly gay” Beeboids are sent to muslim countries ? Does the BBC have a policy on this ?
Because they’re left wing homosexuals: malign, intolerant, .. ‘Kings of cant’.