Balen Out

After dancing on the head of a pin for pages and pages, the conclusion is that “The Balen report was held for purposes of journalism. On the premise that it was also held for purposes other than those of journalism, it was not predominantly so held. That is why I consider that the report lay beyond the scope of the Act; and why I agree that the appeal should be dismissed. LORD PHILLIPS”
Read the full judgment through the link at the

Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Balen Out

  1. Umbongo says:

    So the political class – this time the judiciary – has protected its mouthpiece.  Now there’s a surprise.


  2. ltwf1964 says:

    all we need now is for some helpful insider to to a wikileaks and release it onto the net

    all contributions to an encouragement fund gratefully received 😉


  3. ian says:

    The beeb likes Lord Phillips because he’s a lefty, and no doubt antisemitic with it –

    “….In 2006 he called for more use of community sentences on the grounds that the jail population in England and Wales neared capacity and made it difficult to ensure inmates could be rehabilitated.

    Lord Phillips went undercover to take part in a community prevention scheme during which he helped clean up a council estate.

    He also said support for terrorism will grow if immigrants feel their human rights are not being respected….”


  4. John Paul Jones 7 says:

    Are well black deeds are best down in the dark. Take my money and then spit in my face by telling me Ihave no right to know what an internal investigation concluded, after all am just one of the great unwashed that the olypian gods (arrongant pricks) at the BBC hsve the brief to ‘educate and inform’ 


  5. Merlin says:

    Alas, whilst we all live in the real world and appreciate fictional correctness, the politically correct state controlled media, journalists and politicians live in a virtual reality and promote politicial correctness. What was that wonderful quote from the great Spanish painter, “the sleep of reason brings forth monsters’ 


    • Merlin says:

      I was meant to type ‘factual correctness’ lol! I really must turn the light on when i type


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      I think “fictional correctness” might be a more accurate term for what’s gonig on…


  6. London Calling says:

    Silver-tongued apparatchiks of the liberal-elite ruling class: 1
    Long-suffering people of the real world who pay for everything:0

    Remind me , who appointed Phillips? Wouldn’t be one of St Tony’s Lord Chancellors packing the judiciary with red pigs in wigs?
    What a disgrace.


  7. Teddy Bear says:

    I see the BBC have this to say about the verdict
    The BBC said in a statement: “We welcome the Supreme Court’s judgment, which upholds the rulings of other courts in this case, and will ensure that the BBC is afforded the space to conduct its journalistic activities freely. This 
    apparently means without anybody questioning the veracity of what they report. And

    “Independent journalism requires honest and open internal debate free from external pressures. This ruling enables us to continue to do that.”

    ‘Honest and open internal debate’ meaning have they pushed their narrative far enough or could they get away with more.

    Basically, the public that pays them shoudn’t get in the way of judging what they do.


    • cjhartnett says:

      Pompous asses aren`t they?
      I expect their noses extended by the minute as they spewed forth this tosh.
      They have conceded that their art and journalism are incorporated into their literaure production…and it`ll be up to us to sift what truth and what is “art and fiction”.
      Pretty damning evidence of their contrived news agendas.
      When you can`t blend fact from fiction, it`s called delusional behaviour…so in the words of the fine Phil Lynott…”Don`t believe a word”


    • PacificRising says:

      The public really ought to consider withdrawing funding from the BBC.  I have. It makes me feel a little better to think that at least I’m not feeding it.


  8. deegee says:

    Lawyers, is this the last shot in a battle we have lost? What now?


  9. My Site (click to edit) says:

    Noting, on SKY at least, a bit of a fuss about Locog using FoI… as a private company… to avoid sharing much on where Olympic tickets got apportioned.

    Be interesting to see how the BBC… a public service.. handles the reporting of this.

    Public suspicion and anger could have been avoided had Locog been open and transparent from the start’

    On flogging some tickets.

    How a £4Bpa media monopoly skews reporting on the most volatile region iun the world… not so much.


  10. Nota Sheep says:

    I think we can draw our own conclusions, as to what the Balen Report found, from how resolutely the BBC has fought to keep its findings from reaching our eyes. I wonder how the BBC would react if the Balen Report was leaked, after all they do favour such leakings when it helps the interests of their friends on the left of politics.


  11. cjhartnett says:

    Shouldn`t be THAT difficult to get a copy should it?
    If so, it would only do good in that the BBC could then spend the next few years searching for the Zionist moles(they`re everywhere you know-run by Mossad, so I understand).
    And if they spent the next few years searching for said moles….we could leave the journalism and analysis to the grown ups, who actually seek the truth…complex though it turns out to be.


  12. Natsman says:



  13. RCE says:

    As I’ve posted many times before the only way to take on the BBC is to stop paying the licence fee.  There are more of us than there are of them.


  14. Glen Slagg says:

    They weren’t so shy about publishing the Jones report confirming what a sterling job they are doing with their “science” coverage.


    • cjhartnett says:

      Ah…the impartial Steve Jones…the Science Guy.
      I`ve not seen him for at least two weeks now on the BBC.
      Thankfully I heard a bit from Lesley Riddoch about Cameron and devolution before I turned her off…we can expect to hear alot more about this Guardian SNP trougher from the nicer part of Edinburgh.
      I do like to count them as they go out on manoevres…and then count them back in again…need to check on Polly and Shami now!


  15. Alan Harper says:

    Suggest these magnificent “judges” and “lords” read the BBC Editorial Code (truth, transparency and honesty ideals etc, etc, etc etc,) followed by the BBC Trust Publication “From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel”.
    They may then get some idea of what we believe we are paying for which does not need caveats in law (excluded from the FOI Act if for the purposes of “journalism, art or literature”) to get the BBC out of biased positions it gets itself into because of the lack of impartial judgement and bias of some of its personnel.
    We seem to face judgement problems whichever way we turn including in Europe. Judges are supposed to interpret the Law, as far as I am concerned, for the benefit of the people and not as they personally see fit.


  16. My Site (click to edit) says:

    ‘On the premise that it was also held for purposes other than those of journalism’

    On reflection, that is a fair summary of what the BBC attempts to portray as factual, impartial reporting across the board.


  17. RCE says:

    I was mulling this over last night.  I can’t be arsed to hack through the full report, but basically if an internal review has involved interviews with staff who have answered honestly (in this case to the effect that the BBC has an inherent anti-Israel bias) then it could be argued that these views should indeed not be made public, as this would prejudice future reviews in that staff would fear their views would also be made public and they could receive unfavourable treatment as a result.

    I know this may not go down well but I would actually, in this instance, agree with not releasing the report; an opinion that I only changed to yesterday having previously been enraged at the refusal of the BBC to allow publication.

    Now, I should add, this means I agree with the ruling.  This is in no way a defence of the BBC; indeed, the BBC remains the problem, but this hoo-ha about the Balen report is merely a symptom of the problem.

    So I’ve done a 180′ on this in the last 24 hours.  If anyone thinks I’ve got it wrong I’d welcome the debate!


    • Demon1001 says:

      They should publish the reports and leave individuals’ names out of it.  It should endeavour to hide anything that could implicate an honest responder.

      The only people it should name are the guilty.  So I disagree with you RCE as I am convinced that the report should be published in full with only the names of the inocent witheld.