Just how much work does the BBC put into researching any subject in preparation for an interview? When interviewing someone about a report that criticises the interviewee severely it might be well to read that report and test what the interviewee claims against what that report actually says.
On the Today programme today Jill Finney, former deputy chief executive of the Care Quality Commission claimed that:
‘As soon as Grant Thornton were appointed to this inquiry the first thing I did was to advise them of the existence of this report and I made it available to them and urgerd them to read it.’
Grant Thornton says different, it says the fact that there had been an internal report and that it had been ‘hidden’ was unknown to them for a long time:
During the course of our enquiries it was brought to our attention by an internal CQC source that in the latter part of 2011, during the period of “Gold Command” and other activity that culminated in CQC launching its Investigation into UHMB, an internal review of regulatory decision making and activity had been conducted by Mr J, a senior CQC individual. The source commented that a report had been produced (the “Mr J report”) but that it had not been disseminated or circulated within CQC, despite the fact that it was understood by the source that one of the main purposes of the review was to identify lessons to be learnt from the regulation of UHMB.
6.2 Hitherto we had not been advised of an internal review having been conducted along the lines described to us, which we considered unusual given there appeared to be a clear parallel with the work we had been instructed to do.
We raised the issue with Mr G who indicated some recollection of a report prepared by Mr J. He advised that he did not have a copy of the report but would make enquires and suggested Mr F, another senior CQC individual, might have a copy.
6.4 On 18 September 2012, Mr G emailed us a copy of a report entitled: “Summary of the internal review of the regulatory decisions and activity at UHMB” and advised that this was the Mr J report418
.
Finney claimed that the CQC did not address the report’s concerns because it actually praised the CQC and the CQC could see that that conclusion was obviously wrong….they were not trying to hide anything.
Again Grant Thornton seems to differ on that conclusion:
Having considered the report’s findings and explicit criticisms, we recognised the potential parallel with the Whistleblower’s concerns and therefore sought to determine why its existence had not been drawn to our attention earlier. We were not convinced by the explanation that the report was poorly written and unfit for disclosure and, in any event, its substance was, in our view, of key relevance to our investigation.
When I read the report by Grant Thornton those passages stood out immediately….shame the world’s finest news broadcaster doesn’t have the time to research it’s interview subjects and dig out the relevant material that might actually make an interview worthwhile and enlightening if it actually can challenge what an interviewee claims.
Finney claimed that the CQC was going to rewrite the internal report….did the BBC ask her where then is the rewritten report? No.
What was the point of the interview other than an opportunity for Finney to deny any fault on her part?
Amazing, you are now a leading journalist. In hindsight of course.
No, just a taxpayer, who gets to pay for people to be killed by the NHS and the story covered up by the BBC.
An ex-copper’s suggestion that 20 years ago he was told to keep an eye out for criminal activity is far more important than the NHS causing thousands of deaths.
rock on tommy.at least alan unlike the left is not denying you your freedom of speech to be critical and launch a personal attack on him
Point is – will the BBC get Finney back on to challenge her apparent lie ? I bet not.
Thank you Alan for pointing out this very serious apparent deception by Finney. Has the BBC done anything to publicise what Grant Thornton say ? They are a leading City law firm – they would not be saying these things if it was all a slight misunderstanding.
Oh – and Tommy;s comment shows how shallow he is. Straight on to “Ignore” for him, I think. Especially in view of the various vacuous comment he has already made on other issues.
It’s just another rebranded same old same old troll.
Trolls ought not to be fed , but sometimes hard to resist.
Grant Thornton are a firm of accountants who branched out into quality assurance, nothing to do with law .
Just how much work does the BBC put into researching any subject in preparation for an interview?
Another example showing either complete lack of professionalism or blatant deception to suit their agenda, you decide, concerns statements made to the BBC at various times by Omar Bakri Mohammed, the Islamic leader of al-Muhajiroun along with his mate Anjem Choudary.
It starts as far back as 1998 with his showing support for the US Embassy bombings, then a death fatwa for the writer of the Gay Jesus play writer, sending money and Pakistan trained volunteers to fight in Chechnya, leading up to October 2000, following the intifada, when the BBC report:
“A Syrian-born activist has called for Muslims in Britain to join a holy war against Israel following the outbreak of violence between Palestinians and Israelis in the Middle East.
Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed said it was the duty of all Muslims to give support to the Palestinians.
“They are obliged to support their Muslim brothers in Palestine by raising funds, giving them complete moral support and even some of them going abroad to be joined with their Muslim brothers fighting against Israel,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “
Following 9/11 and Bakri’s support for the US attacks we get this:
He (David Blunkett) has been urged to silence radicals such as cleric Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, the London-based leader of Al Muhajiroun, which has issued a decree calling for the murder of “those who wage war against Allah”.
Until 7/7
Then the BBC interview Bakri and allow him to state without any argument to the contrary:
‘….But Mr Bakri Mohammed, a spokesman for the al-Muhajiroun group, said …”We are an ideological, political party. We do not recruit people to go and fight on behalf of anybody or to indulge in any military activities.”
IN TOTAL CONTRADICTION to all his previous quotes above, and others made to the BBC, AND NO-ONE there picks up on it.
You can find all the articles referred to on a search of the BBC website using his name. Is it pathetically poor journalism or purposeful cowardly ‘looking the other way’ to appease the militant Islamists?
I know what I think. 😈
Yet, Tommy Robinson?
Every action, quote, police incident….ect, all picked up, and launched at him with gusto.
I noticed in that series of attacks on Robinson, the 1st brought up Sharia courts in Britain, claiming they either did not exist, or affect him, he swatted it away like a fly by saying “British Muslim WOMEN are subject to Sharia law courts”
Next attack?
No mention of Sharia law courts at all…hoofed into the long grass, as always with Al Bebajeera.
Scumbags.
BBC-NUJ’s political intelligence:
-its third top story on ‘Politics’ page:-
“Karren Brady: I’d like to be an MP.”
The BBC give no weight to independence and research at all.
Just highlighter pens and the Guardian to keep them on cue all day…on message since Kinnock won the Labour leadership back in 83.
The medium is the massage-providing glib,cliche-ridden, anodyne, cheap and easy solutions to the questions that only the liberal elite think we give a fig about….such as was Bin Laden killed unfairly?
Vogues, poses and postures….but well-padded and paid for their bleeding heart idiocies, courtesy of the parasitic leeches and ticks that bleed the body politic dry…by compulsory taxation.
Burn the buggers off!…£145.50 to this site please instead!
Having lost any trust in the BBC I no longer believe anything (perhaps too long coming to this site for the truth?) Whenever I hear anyone interviewed whose views coincide with the BBC/Left I just know that they have some connection to the Labour Party and that their true credentials will not be given to the listeners. Today at 12 noon on Radio 4 You and Yours had a special phone in on the ‘squeezed middle’. With the BBC’s record I am sure some were given their brief well before they phoned the programme. Unfortunately several let slip that they had between 3-5 children leaving me thinking that it was not surprising they didn’t have the money for foreign holidays etc (what is wrong with camping if money is short?). One or two people did suggest that people should ‘cut their coat according to their cloth’ but they also had on I think (I was listening in the car and it wasn’t clear) the wonderful Owen Jones complaining that Alan Sugar was receiving winter fuel payments – he wasn’t asked how much it would cost to means test such payments. Besides much of what Mr Jones (or whoever it was) spoke such a lot of tripe – but to argue with him was a woman from a child poverty charity – so not much argument there. A false programme designed to be an hour of anti-government propaganda around ‘the cuts’.
I would get proper quotes and accurate examples of the rubbish spouted but visited this through the You and Yours web page and there appeared to be no facility to move the play-back quickly forward and I really could not face listening to the whole programme again.