201 Responses to Open Thread

←Older Comments
  2. Sir Arthur Strebe-Grebling says:
    June 2, 2013 at 7:14 pm

    Another bBBC ‘elephant in the room’ article, trying to convince us that terrorism suspects ‘known to the security services’ can’t all be watched by MI5. They start from the premise that there are 2,000 such suspects and that would take ten times the number of MI5 employees (50,000) doing nothing but following suspected terrorists. The numbers don’t add up, the bBBC says.
    OK, instead of increasing the number of ‘spies’ (as the bBBC insists on calling MI5 staff), how about reducing the number of suspects by simple measures such as deportation?
    The bBBC article doesn’t even consider that.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22718000

       0 likes

  3. OldBloke says:
    June 2, 2013 at 8:56 pm

    *Bright*, I was this morning somewhat caught off guard when I heard the BBC local Radio news (Devon) commenting on the fact that some *peers* had also been caught in the sting. So I listened and waited to hear who they were…and waited …and waited and waited. Alas, they didn’t tell me, unlike when the conservative MP got stung then, the very first words issued by the bBBC was, A Conservative MP…etc. It took me three hours of listening to BBC radio to find out who they were. So, do you not think that this is biased reporting then?

       0 likes

  4. thoughtful says:
    June 2, 2013 at 9:31 pm

    The excellent polling site UK polling is carrying the following:

    Moving onto broadcasting bans, by 53% to 32% people think it was wrong for the BBC to interview Anjem Choudary so soon after the Woolwich murder, and more generally speaking 59% would support a ban on named Muslim radicals like Choudary from appearing on television or radio.

    Despite the support for such restrictions, people don’t necessarily think they would do any good (suggesting support for bans is perhaps more a way of people expressing their disgust at Choudary’s views than from people thinking it would do any real good). Only 38% think a broadcasting ban would be effective at stopping radical Muslims like Choudary from spreading their message, 49% think it would not. People are slightly more optimistic about the effect of mainstream websites like Google not linking to extremist sites, with 57% thinking this would be effective at stopping their message reaching people who may be influenced by it.

    Overall 36% of people think that broadcasting bans or being excluded from mainstream websites would be an effective way of fighting terrorism, as people who may be radicalised would be less likely to be exposed to extremist messages. However, the majority (56%) think such bans might make us feel better… but wouldn’t actually help fight terrorism in the internet age.

    So there you have it, but the BBC never admits it’s wrong. Wrong is simply in the eye of the beholder, and the beholder is wrong!

       0 likes

    • John Anderson says:
      June 3, 2013 at 12:47 am

      The BBC commits 10 or more reallymajor blunders *bad taste,/judgment , utter bias, factual lies, wastes of money etc, every year.

      Getting an apology – a REAL apology – for even one major blunder a year is like getting blood out of a stone.

         0 likes

  5. Cap'n Pugwash says:
    June 3, 2013 at 12:21 am

    Is it just me, or is it becoming impossible to contact the BBC to complain.

    Many presenters email addresses are “no longer available”.
    Go onto their main site and try and find “how to complain”.
    Have they retreated to the final bunker before the inevitable collapse.

       0 likes

    • John Anderson says:
      June 3, 2013 at 12:42 am

      Simples
      If you complain direct to a producer or to a programme, they are (within their de-haut-en-bas bubble) required to reply to you. And you can take their miserable reply to the BBC Trust. Even if they have failed to reply reasonably promptly.

      But if you try to use the labyrinthine “Complaints System” you are entering some kind of Purgatory. Time of reply – uncertain. Nature of reply – ,waffly. By the time you get any reply you have forgotten what it was all about., And the “System” does not even remind you of the text of your original complaint. It is deliberately designed to get you fighting with a blancmange.

      It is a measure of the arrogance of the BBC that they can find £100 million or more to lose on some hare-brained digital scheme, designing it themselves using expensive consultants as well as their own idle IT staff – a scheme that they could have bought of the shelf for relative peanuts and adapted as necessary.

      But their overvaunted IT capability finds it impossible to design a reasonably responsive and efficient complaints system. They have bent their “talents” to designing a system aimed at suppressing or losing or effectively ignoring complaints.

      On a scale of 1 to 10, John Lewis has a complaints remedy system of 15. Because it is so responsive, it has a high reputation – its electrical-goods sales went up over 20% last year. “You can swear by them”. They are responding to a competitive market.

      The BBC has a system rated at about minus 20. There is no sanction against them brushing aside any complaints – , especially when the BBC Trust mostly sees its job as defending the BBC rather than responding to the “market” – us poor suckers who pay for it

      The only answer is to abolish the BBC evil empire – or cut it right down to size and make it dependent on subscription revenues.

         0 likes

  6. David Preiser (USA) says:
    June 3, 2013 at 3:20 am

    Word out now that the White House would like Eric Holder to throw himself under the bus. He told Congress about not being involved in prosecuting journalists, yet we have the smoking gun of his signature on the warrant labeling Fox News’ Rosen a “co-conspirator” in an act of espionage. And this is only the latest fiascos Holder has laid at the President’s feet. Fast & Furious was just the biggest – until now – hassle among many. The longer this goes on, the longer the President looks bad and, worse, it distracts focus from pushing forward His domestic agenda.

    The White House, of course, sees all this as political attacks. Can’t wait to see how the BBC describes it.

       0 likes

←Older Comments