Wonder what you make of this?
Cllr Brian Silvester, a Conserative councillor in Cheshire East, is calling on the BBC to hand over unbroadcast footage of the recent riots to the Police if it can be used to identify the culprits responsible for the looting and destruction and lead to their prosecution.
On the Media Show on Radio 4 the BBC’s Head of News Gathering, Fran Unsworth (about 17.30 minutes in), that if the Police wanted the footage the Police would have to apply for a court order to get it. She said:
“No. We don’t do that without a court order. It is a matter of principle for us.” She added that she didn’t want to “compromise our standards”. She said if the police “come up with a court order we will probably hand them over.”
“No. We don’t do that without a court order. It is a matter of principle for us.” She added that she didn’t want to “compromise our standards”. She said if the police “come up with a court order we will probably hand them over.”
Yep I posted that on the general thread earlier, it was picked up on Conservative home.
What gets me is why the Tories didn’t bring it up as a question in the Commons today during the live debate (so the BBC couldn’t edit it out).
Something along the lines of “Would the PM agree with me that ANY news organisation that refuses to voluntarily hand over all their footage to the Police should have any state funding suspended and will the PM take this matter up with the head of the BBC today?”
Sky and ITV will handover the footage. Remember it was Sky who had the footage of the halfwit throwing the fire extinguisher off the top of the building during the student riots, the BBC must have also had that footage, but we never saw it.
I suspect the BBC destroyed it just in case.
Sky and ITN would no more “handover the footage” than the BBC would. It’s against the law. To obtain unbroadcast footage the police must obtain an order from a judge under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
The judge has to balance the needs of the police with the needs of the free press.
And more than that, as Hippie points out further down to be seen as an official evidence gathering arm of the state would make life very dangerous for any journalist or camera operator.
Finally, let’s imagine a world where Martin is the leader of the British resistance and he gives a dramatic (although anonymous) interview to the Beeb. How would he feel if the BBC then handed over the unbroadcast footage which clearly allowed him to be identified?
So to sum up, it’s illegal, the police do need a court order, Sky and ITN are exactly the same.
Sky and ITN aren’t funded by the taxpayer though are they?
Since they are funded by the majority of the public maybe they should be using the footage we paid for to help the majority of the public, not protect the minority responsible…
All nice and dandy but we have will wait to see who does or doesn’t do what over the footage but I hope if requested the BBC will hand it over without appealing to the courts or the twitter army to stop it !
DG, I am very certain that you are wrong to say its illegal for the BBC to hand over their footage. Very certain. What I am also certain about is that it would be illegal if M/s Unsworth receives a Court Order and then *doesn’t hand over the material, which she indicated she might not do.
We’re talking a huge difference here between ‘protecting sources’ an cooperating with the law. From M/s Unsworth’s obfuscation I got the distinct impression she is one of the BBC’s many hothouse revolutionaries seeking to aid and abett the rioters as ‘victims of capitalism’. As you’re aware, the journalistic case I made for not handing over the material voluntarily isn’t the case she made.
I should perhaps have been clearer, Hippie I do apologise. All broadcasters will expect the police to get a court order to obtain unbroadcast footage. Although I can’t claim Ms Unsworth is a close personal friend or colleague from what little contact I have had with her I do believe the description of her as a “hothouse revolutionary” is somewhat wide of the mark.
I should say the police have indeed said they will look to obtain such a court order for footage in our newsroom and our editor has sent out an email to make sure all recorded footage is collated and kept in a safe place as part of the legal process.
DG, are you BBC West Midlands Science Correspondent, or official BBC Spokesman to B-BBC?
You weren’t at all unclear DG, you said something that was completely false. It is either “illegal” for the BBC to comply with a Police request for footage or it isn’t. Perhaps you could be “clear” about why you stated something so completely false?
You’ll see elsewhere that I did allow that M/s Unworth’s Pythonesque responses to releasing rushes may just be down to complete stupidity. If you would deny a) and b), what explanation would you offer for saying that only the Courts can say whether taking things from broken into shops that you have not paid for is a crime or not?
Oh, and DG, as it appears that you are the BBC‘s official spokesman to B-BBC, would you care to share the BBC‘s official position on my assertion that Allan Little is a bare faced liar?
‘Unclarity’ is the new media reporting standard.
Maybe they should get Bill Clinton in to consult on events and write the news… ‘stories’ before they either end on the Newsnight cutting room floor or get stealth edited.
You have asked some very relevant questions.
Not sure that’s how it works chez Aunty.
“If we come up with a Court Order we will probably hand them over”.
Oh, please dont M/s Uppity Tuppity. I hope the Police use the same 24 hour expedition process that they’re using with charged scrotes to get this footage, and if Fran doesn’t immediately hand it over I hope to see her stepping out bleary eyed from a Police van at a special all night Court sitting to receive harsh medicine for complicity in these riots.
Fascinating insight also earlier into the BBC mindset on what constitutes ‘impartiality’. She claimed it was keeping an open minded about understanding the causes of the riots and not going one way or the other.
No it isn’t M/s Unsworth. It’s about getting the range of opinion across the democratic spectrum and leaving the public to make their minds up if there is anything to understand or not. Personally, it doesn’t take rocket science to understand why criminals commit crime and why they think they can pull this crap and get away with it.
One thing I’m noticing about many of those appearing in Court thus far. They seem to be the ‘stragglers’ who’d latched on to the rioting being committed by organised youth gangs. Hopefully, those who really need to be hit hard will get rounded up with CCTV footage. Hopefully, if Fran Unsworth makes any attempt to withold potentially relevant footage at the behest of a Court Order, the Police waste no time storming into White City to sieze it and frogmarch Franny and her accomplices in crime in handcuffs to the nearest sweatbox.
The gangs were the shock troops from the ‘dens’ out to ‘rinse’ (steaming expression).
The rest were idiots and neer do wells who latched onto to the confusion lacking in moral judgement. Easy finds from CCTV etc.
The gangs will have to be dealt with as they will be a harder nut to crack…their mums and neighbours won’t be shopping them or ‘snitching’ as the street puts it.
“Wonder what you make of this?”
What possible reason would any decent person have for not wanting to help police and catch criminals? There is no reason yet the BBC do this? More proof of treasonous behaviour, I say this not meaning to exaggerate, they are constantly putting down the country and now wish to help criminals.
The News Channel had a report about all the CCTV footage handed over to the police, explaining how important it was to ID the looters and bring them to justice. No mention of any relevant BBC footage.
I wish they would raid the BBC, very publicly. Just reading what that cow said makes my blood boil and I would hope it makes teh relevant policemens blood boil too.
Listening to it is even worse. I can understand a journalistic argument (which she didn’t make) that they’re there to report the news and if the people they’re filming think they’re actively working with the Police it puts them at risk – but strewth! She was even reluctant to hand the evidence over with a Court Order and dissembling about the basis that a request could be made. She really has shown the cancer that lives at the heart of the BBC if she says only a Court can determine if someone coming out of a broken into electrical store with a tv they haven’t paid for is a crime. She’s being deliberately obstructive on behalf of criminals, who no doubt she sees in her Marxist fantasy world as victims of capitalism she needs to aid and abett in any way possible. M/s Unsworth, in case you’re just extremely stupid, the Courts dont determine if a crime has been committed, they determine who is guilty.
This cries out for Government action, but yet again we will see a Conservative led administration being ‘weak on bias and weak on the causes of bias’.
Weak on everything not just BBC bias
I wonder what the reaction of the BBC would be if someone there leaked all the video they have?
I suspect the BBC wouldn’t be very happy.
I bet if the rioters had damaged BBC buildings they would have been quick to hand over that footage.
“No. We don’t do that without a court order. It is a matter of principle for us.”
Some principle. Disgusting. Just whose side are they on?
Nietzsche (a much misunderstood philosopher as he outed Wagner as an anti-semite which is not widely known) understood and analysed power in organisations.
“My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (its will to power) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement (“union”) with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power. And the process goes on”
BBC and the left-liberal Labour party. Partners in the Common Purpose, perhaps.
And why the BBC privilege has become so evidently ‘overbearing’ in the modern media landscape. It is a nationalised industry and its natural ‘partner’ is a statist actor.
That is why checks and balances and the prevention of monopoly is vital.
Strange that they didn’t have the same misgivings when they handed over to the police that secretly filmed footage of Nick Griffin adressing a BNP meeting a few years ago.
A very good point, David. Selective indeed.
Proof?
Proof?
Whilst I respect and value factual corrections, and recognise the inherent weakness of a two wrongs response, but dipping in and popping out a one word question demand is an interesting one, especially when answering legitimate questions being asked back is usually met with silence.
Just wondering, when the BBC across its vast news machine, and one degree of separation guests, spout all sorts of innuendo to see what may stick, are you happy in future for any being challenged to simply sit back and say: ‘Proof’?
Actually I’d support that on what is being served up across the board, but you can’t have it all ways.
By such increasingly selective, trite cherry vulture swoops, you merely highlight the moral vacuum and hypocrisy of your employer.
Demanding proof of claims is fine, but by vanishing when there are highly pertinent areas you could offer concessions (at the very least) upon, the role of one track apologist is one with little authority.
Hi My Site. Does anyone have a link that proves the BBC handed over unbroadcast footage of Mr Griffin?
Hi David,
‘Does anyone have a link that proves..’
No idea. But repeating demands for answers only is wearing thin. I suspect you are correct, and are only banging on because for once you know it. Well done. Point made.
Me, member of the public. You, paid BBC person who chooses to come on here to engage… only when it suits… on a dip and bail basis.
Trying to get me to answer for others i have no control over seems… silly.
But as you are ‘on line’, and speaking for the BBC, quick question after checking this out:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b013h0h8/Newsnight_11_08_2011/?t=36m18s
Given the last week, can you think why it is that around 80% of the miscreants now going through the court system seem to be white? And of them, some from the Daily Mail zone.
The pictures and footage seems astoundingly not what the media as a whole has been reflecting.
Is it that the arrest rate has been unrepresntative.. or the editors felt racial harmony will be re-established more quickly if certain groups were not as such given their moment on camera?
You are, i presume, in a better position to check with colleagues to answer that than I am folk I don’t know beyond these threads.
Trying to equate the two is trying to have it too many ways, too often.
To try and help, I have re-viewed that Newsnight story, and in a poor attempt at matching Craig offer the following on the basis of visual imagery (stills and footage):
B
W
W
W
B
W
W
[feature on how it’s all middle not underclass – no racial complement]
B – possibly
[feature on composition avoiding racial complement]
W (+mother)
W (family)
W x 3
W (father)
I stand ready to have that estimate corrected by the rebuttal team, but that is about 2 to 1 at least.
Is that an accurate reflection of who committed these crimes?
If not, why not?
In the spirit of enquiry, and balance, this from the Telegraph suggests that indeed the ‘mix’ is as portrayed, at least visually, by many in the MSM.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8696787/UK-riots-young-yobs-back-on-streets-despite-David-Camerons-pledge.html
I’d just like it borne out in fact.
And as I am only compelled to pay for one (loathing the entire MSM agenda equally), asking the BBC to do so seems fair.
It was striking in parts of the media yesterday where the mugshots did not seem to reflect the mix of people doing the crimes. I don’t know why it is. Did they deliberately select those photos from among all those published by the police? We just don’t know the reason for this. Could it reflect who was nabbed, who was put before the courts first or some other reason? It is odd though to be so at variance with what we know was going on. The same set of photos appeared in a few of the main papers.
‘ We just don’t know the reason for this.’
Seems like a fair question, therefore.
As it stands, it looked like the riots were confined to Chipping Norton and environs..
i was not sure if this was the case.
At a wild guess it may be an accurate reflection on those arrested, in which case it would accord with my theses that the hardcore yardie gangs mainly didn’t get caught because they were too street savvy, organised and violent. But very interesting to know for sure the ethnic breakdown of those arrested.
Yes I heard this stupid woman, I just wonder how differant her outlook might be if theiving evil sub-human scum had just burnt her house down?
Helping the looters could be BBC-NUJ’s ‘hacking’.
No news organisation will hand over its footage, no photographer hands over his or her images, no reporter reveals his or her sources. Even if a court order is issued no reporter will revel sources, and many have gone to jail for contempt rather than comply.
The footage from Sky on the student protest was broadcast as was the footage of Nick Griffin.
I don’t agree, releasing unbroadcast material is hardly endangering reporters is it? Especially if it’s involving criminal activity.
I can accept that where for example a person was interviewed so long as their anonimity was maintained that there is an issue there, but that SHOULD be down to a judge to make that decision if needed. But the majority of filming should be made available.
Also regarding the Sky footage, I think you will find some of the film Sky later released was not broadcast live at the time (one of their helicopter cameras followed him around on the roof afterwards).
Oh and you leftists had no problem showeing the film of the American helicopters taking out the people in Iraq, despite the fact that film was stolen from the US military.
You can’t have it both ways beeboid.
It is endangering if people think that reporters and camera crew are simply doing the work of the police.
As for the particulars of the Sky case, my understanding is that all of the footage was broadcast, if not live, then at some other point.
The BNP footage was, as far as I recall, all broadcast.
Of course it is down to a judge to make the decision, but you don’t have to agree with a judge. You will, of course, go to jail, but that might be the price you have to pay.
The BNP footage was, as far as I recall, all broadcast.
So is the BBC footage in question today.
No, David. Let’s be very clear. This is about unbroadcast footage. The police will ofcourse be recording programmes and they can certainly take images from that and from cctv.
But if they want unbroadcast footage they need to to a judge and get an order. It’s the law.
You are correct. The state must be subject , like all of us, to the law.
For who knows what state will come into being down the road. However these are abnormal times and perception is all.
These riots have changed England. Dangerous times for all of us.
In the small towns and villages of the shires we may not like London and often resent it’s power and influence but it is our capital city and what has happenend looks very much like a war waged against all of us.
It is a deep national humiliation and those that carried it out must be made to pay. Punishment not understanding is the need. The liberal political ascendancy has forgotten that ruthlessness and a real deep down patriotism is very much a part of the English character. Not understanding this the ascendancy has taken refuge in a narrow legalistic approach that will not play well with millions and is still desperately clinging to the old ideas of re engineering England to fit their doomed agenda.
The traditional right – those who follow the principles of Burke- have long been marginalised which was a terrible mistake and now the way is left open for all sorts of demagogues.
The BBC was very much part of the liberal establishment and is as much in denial as the rest.
The tapes should be released. It is the sensible course of action. It might offend tender consciences but it is necessary .The alternative is not good and I am sure the BBC would not wish to be seen to flout the expressed will of millions.
DG, once again I’m sure you’re wrong about this – 100% in fact. It’s only the law that the Police have to get a Court Order to obtain unbroadcast material if the broadcaster refuses a Police request to hand it over voluntarily. As already stated, I’m aware some here are saying that ITV and Sky are handing over footage voluntarily, but I’m not aware on what basis they say this.
David Gregory
No, David. Let’s be very clear.
As opposed to the previous unclarity clearness?
I do appreciate knowing what is what, but it is tricky when it may, or may not be.
Any clarity to hand yet on the footage that seems to present the rioters as over two to one in a direction almost reversed to what one has seen on footage from the riots?
Maybe it is an accurate reflection of who has ended up in court, but that begs a bunch of other questions that deserved raising.
According to claims here ITV and Sky have agreed to hand over footage?
There’s a difference between a journalist protecting a source and footage of crime.
No they haven’t. Sky and ITN are the same as the BBC. The police need to follow proper procedure and it’s up to a judge. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/11/broadcasters-cameron-riots-footage-police
DG, it seems from this Guardian piece that you are correct to state that ITN and Sky will only had over unbroadcast material to the Police with a Court Order, but the comment below from The Newspaper Society does confirm that you are completely wrong to state it would be “illegal” for the media to hand over unpublished material without a Court Order:-
“A spokesman said: “The police cannot just demand editorial material nor do editors have automatically to comply with police requests. If the police are asking for unpublished material, then newspaper editors may well refuse to supply any material unless ordered to do so by a court, under the procedure laid down by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Pace).”
I think DG you are trying to spin away the fact that regardless of the circumstances, such as they exceptional circumstances of this unprecedented lawlessness, the BBC is not prepared to set an example as Britain’s public service broadcaster by voluntarily handing over this material. They may have a case for this, for reasons mentioned above, but they haven’t been making it. They’ve just been making obstructive and disingenuous comments (like yourself viz “illegal”) which to the layman like myself I submit makes it sound that it is for subversive reasons the BBC dont want to hand the material over.
‘I think DG you are trying to spin away’
Well, as my question of the reasoning behind the mug shot selection seems to have been passed over*, at least this one has been cleared up.
The use of ‘illegal’ is an interesting one, especially by various state bodies. Trying getting a coherent view on why you can’t take a picture in the open any more.
*’Now it’s over to David on location… David… David? Oh, well, we seem to have lost that feed. We’re sure he’ll be back later.’
*stares blankly down the camera lens*
*stares blankly down the camera lens*
Refreshing in honesty at least.
When the mic works again, and hate to emulate Mr. Paxman, but a few questions back from many that could warrant replying to.
Dead air may be better than any filled with enhanced or cherry-picked narratives, mind.
Cheaper, too.
Oh heck I have to agree with the Beeboid, ANY news organsiaiton that puts itself in the position as being pervieved as a CCTV service for the police is putting its staff at risk. A court order should not be hard to obtain and the police should go quickly down that route. There may be a bit of cheorograpy at play
If the BBC drag their heels after the court order is in place or is then seen to apply different standards – voluntarily handing over material in other cases – then their agenda will be exposed.
Fair point. But there is that apparent double standard already, viz Nick Griffin.
David, do you have any proof of that statement?
(oh and thanks so much for the mug!)
Nothing I’ve found says specifically unbroadcast footage. I’m also wondering about the recent deal with that care home. Probably have to seek out the details of the police investigation about it, which means we’re back where we started. I’m withdrawing the statement for now. I assume the BBC won’t actually fight a proper request or anything.
Hope nobody gives you too much grief over the mug. =-X I wanted to get one with Palin holding a big gun, but the artwork was lousy on all of them.
This idiot woman’s sentiments will play well with the chattering classes of N. London. Nowhere else.
Disconnection from reality. it’s in their DNA.
The BBC already put their staff at plenty risk…FoI obtained the number of cases of bullying/criminal activity and assaults/drug cases that the Met had to be brought in for…so ther`s been plenty precedents!
Think Damien Green ought to remember what happened to him when he was not in the Government-Labour called Plod in to ransack his offices…so hope he`ll be itching to do the same to the BBCs offices!
Nah…course not…which is why this Government is unfit be described as Conservative…merely treading water as the storms gather-to wash them away!
I have to say that the Beeb’s stance on this surprises even me.
Utterly shocking and shameful behaviour from “Auntie”.
Hugh Orde on Newsnight, god help London if that prat gets the top job.
‘Hugh Orde on Newsnight, god help London’
Agree. And have to say Emily M. filleted him. The comment about the Met being frozen until a bunch of wet pols got back from hols really stung.
I also have to say she really was not helping Mili. E much either, though frankly when he opens his mouth it really is only to put his foot in it.
But there were some howlers that could have been hunted down to coup de grace point if the will was there.
One could almost hear the producers in the edit suite screaming ‘don’t go there any more!’ down the ear piece.
That, sadly, is all we have time for.
Beeboid mindset. Male beeboid on News 24 on paper review points to story in Guaridan ‘6 months in prison for stealing £3.50 bottle of water’
“A lot of people won’t like that ” says male beeboid. Paper reviewer states “well only Guardian readers won’t like it, I think you will find that most people will approve”
Yep, as usual BBC out of touch with reality.
“A lot of people won’t like that ”
Once again the BBC sharing their “opinion”. What evidence do they have to support the statement? How many people were asked their opinion?
It is these sweeping statements that really are irritating. We have no interest in a reporters opinion just the facts.
The problem with such opinion is that it a springboard for further action.
It has taken a few days to sink in, but I am now seeing a bunch of ‘Look Mum, I’m on TV’ Kenny from South Park ‘innit clones trotting out what they heard they need to say to justify they actions a secure a slot on national TV.
Well, we know what always happens to Kenny!
Littlejohn in The Mail has a few things to say about the Beeboid Corporation’s liking for masked criminals:
Frankly, I don’t know what’s worse: Harriet Harman on Newsnight disgracefully trying to blame the Tory ‘cuts’ for this week’s robfest, or the rolling news channels giving airtime to masked criminals.
Why have producers been prepared to allow young thieves to shelter their identities beneath face masks, sunglasses and hoodies while they complain about the police?
The BBC and Channel 4, in particular, have been anxious to portray these violent thugs and looters as victims.
We’ve heard the usual garbage about social exclusion and police hostility to minorities.
Every lame excuse has been trotted out, from lack of job opportunities to tuition fees.
A couple of other mentions of Beeboidery in the article. He refers to a local news item in which a Beeboid tries to pretend that closed playgrounds and football pitches that he was shown by a social worker, were the result of “the cuts”, when the reason they are closed is because they have been vandalised and colonised by drug dealers.
The final dishonourable mention for the Beeboids is when he urges David Cameron to call an election, noting that he will have the weight of the Beeboid Corporation against him but will win anyway.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2025021/UK-riots-2011-The-politics-envy-bound-end-flames.html#ixzz1UlisBfj0
‘the Beeboid Corporation’s liking for masked criminals’
To be fair, SKY seems now to see merit in this feature too.
Just watched a merry band of Robbing Hoodies speaking down their furry face megaphones, for some reason interviewed on a Thames shoreline.
Maybe the theory is to let them damn themselves from their own words.
One clown, claiming age 16, reckoned he just popped out to loot some nappies and formula, presumably as the various benefits don’t cover such.
Speaking of damning from own words, just watching yet another Labour Harridan trying to spin things on behalf of Mili.E and failing. Of course it does need an interviewer who challenges as opposed to acts in concert.
Well, the Beeboid Corporation does sometimes pray in aid what the rest of the media has done, when Beeboids have been criticised for coverage of something. Nobody is saying that Sky or whoever else hasn’t also done something like it. Littlejohn is saying that the Beeboids and Channel 4 seem particularly keen on portraying these masked criminals as victims. And on this blog we are concerned with the Beeboids, mainly. They do hold themselves sniffily above others and we on this blog do of course regard them as the unique (!) national broadcaster curiously afflicted with various un-national peculiarities and leanings.
We should always remember that it was a deliberate policy decision from the outset that Channel 4 news should have a leftwards slant.
BBC in tune with leftie Channel 4 – but BBC is impartial ?
Give us a break !
“Robbing Hoodies”
Love it! š
š
i’d like to think I thought of it.
But I am sure it was already well out there before popping into my mind.
Just in case, you better patent it before someone else does :p
Published and already damned to become open source:)
If it serves a valid purpose… worth it.
I insist that the BBC hand over all that they have on these scum.
If we get a few liberal arts graduates fewer at the next “liberation scenarios” because they get a bit of shoe behind a bin-for being “grasses” last time-then all to the good!
Not that the cabbages that did this stuff will remember-skunk and adrenalin in an enclosed “hooded environment” does play havoc with things like getting receipts,licenses and insurance needed for their “voluntary upgrades.”
To be positive -for that`s the game in LibLand- we can all “imagine no possessions” now…won`t John be pleased?
Now if only the kids in school could hear that polished turd of a tune a few MORE times “instead/by way of assemblies”
Now we are being treated to various talking heads (pop stars, odd 20-something Oz or SA white wimmin ‘think tank’ directors, community ‘leaders’) offering their expert analysis on what it all means, the meme du jour seems to be to play up the ‘diversity’ of those nabbed bang to rights.
Indeed a broad spread, though one has to wonder if the ‘One white one, one black one, and one with a ‘Lympic hopeful on’ is reflective of actual % representation, or more an editorial desire to divert attention from other stats like % of population to % in the chokey.
However, given we do seem to have an eclectic spread, it may be interesting to survey their choice of media to see if there are any commonalities.
Doubt Newsnight will feature high on the list, but what’s the betting many have gained their moral compass from Bill, Sian and the various guests trotted out on the Breakfast sofa? I doubt reading (anything, save Heat) will be a huge source of influence.
Either from there or from East Enders, probably.
I used to work for a company that had a policy of only providing the authorities with data if its provision was mandated by that authority or accompanied by a court order (or equivalent) and I can understand the BBC’s position over that. One rule, for all, everywhere has the benefit of at least being clear and easily followed, and there are jurisdictions where the BBC (like my former employer) operates where you might not want the authorities to have access to records too easily.
But: if the police “come up with a court order we will probably hand them over.”
“Probably”? She says that, faced with a court order, the BBC would contemplate failing to comply and thus put itself in contempt? Someone needs to remind Ms Unsworth that the BBC is not above the law.
Fran Unsworth’s statement is in line with Guidelines One would have hoped that she would have expressed herself in a manner that didn’t seem so contemptuous of the police and the general non-looting public but that is another issue. Give the benefit of the doubt that she was speaking off-the-cuff.
It does lead to an interesting question. If the BBC was in possession of information that might lead to conviction of a criminal and the police were unaware of it would the BBC feel obligated to inform the police of it? A court oder is a technicality.
A quick Google didn’t really help. The BBC is well aware that most don’t report crime but I never saw a single report suggesting this is a civic obligation to report crime.
That’s a really interesting question. If we were filming another story and happened to film an accident I’d have no compulsion in coming forward as a witness. But if something was caught on tape, I think my bosses would prefer the proper process was followed by the police. That said if we caught something newsworthy on tape surely we’d show it anyway?
I must stress once again this isn’t unique to the BBC, both ITN and Sky are the same. And you must appreciate the irony that it’s a BBC programme grilling a BBC executive that has exposed how uncomfortable this position taken by broadcasters appears in the wake of the riots.
That said if we caught something newsworthy on tape surely we’d show it anyway?
Newsworthy in whose interest? You know you weren’t going to get away with that one. š
Something “Newsworthy” and something “criminal” caught on camera, why the distinction?
The public are asked to “shop a looter” (a poor mixed metaphor if ever there was) why not the BBC? Do you not want to see the criminals put away? As much as we all do, us, the public, your paymaster?
Is there some post-modern relativism here, that the victim and the perpetrator are moral equals to the BBC? Mustn’t take sides, must be impartial “between good and evil”? A subtext that looters are victims of society and not wicked.
Yeah, we know the Beeboid Corporation would never withhold or censor anything newsworthy, don’t we?
I heard Channels 4s Jon Snow Mini-me corrall the Childrens Commissioner into the pen marked”don`t think- just tell us it`s the cutz”.
Oh and what do you think about Camerons soundbites the other day?
Tonights “Any Questions” featuring Dimbleby Minor is doing much the same-forget the rioters and all that stuff…is Hugh Orde still friends with Theresa May?…no other sheep pen allowed if you don`t mind!
So both the BBC and Channel 4 journalists are in the same game-for a game is what it is!
No addressing the root causes, no looking at anything the left/liberal losers might embarrass them( they`re beyond shaming of course!)…our Twin Towers of the Media are one and the same. Tittle tattle and driving worthless wedges between todays talking heads!
This is the mileau of media action now. Mud wrestling and oiling nonenties while the country slides into the shit!
That is ALL the MSM now want…they`ll not even look at all that they have done these last thirty years.