You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > BBC (again)
September 20 2024 3.58am

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

BBC (again)

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 364 of 435 < 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 >

  

Teddy Eagle Flag 11 Dec 23 2.52pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Who then got damages when the truth came to the light. Why the managers involved came to the now proved incorrect conclusions isn’t known to me. If they were fully aware themselves then I hope and expect them to have been sacked as a result.


Unlikely since they didn't sack Bashir. They rehired him.

[Link]

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Badger11 Flag Beckenham 11 Dec 23 3.14pm Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle


Unlikely since they didn't sack Bashir. They rehired him.

[Link]

Lies were told by BBC staff and then covered up by management, this should not be in dispute as the BBC has admitted as much.

The latest court case is about the BBC refusing to hand over emails it originally said didn't exist and now admits does.

The court has ordered them to do so although the BBC may appeal the decision.

Quite why anybody can defend the BBC over this whole sorry saga is beyond me.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
silvertop Flag Portishead 11 Dec 23 7.14pm Send a Private Message to silvertop Add silvertop as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

Lies were told by BBC staff and then covered up by management, this should not be in dispute as the BBC has admitted as much.

The latest court case is about the BBC refusing to hand over emails it originally said didn't exist and now admits does.

The court has ordered them to do so although the BBC may appeal the decision.

Quite why anybody can defend the BBC over this whole sorry saga is beyond me.

Who is defending them? The BBC are reporting as is.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 11 Dec 23 9.05pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle


Unlikely since they didn't sack Bashir. They rehired him.

[Link]

Only because they believed his contrition was genuine and the mistakes were down to inexperience. He fooled people who themselves have now shown their own contrition.

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 11 Dec 23 9.10pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

Lies were told by BBC staff and then covered up by management, this should not be in dispute as the BBC has admitted as much.

The latest court case is about the BBC refusing to hand over emails it originally said didn't exist and now admits does.

The court has ordered them to do so although the BBC may appeal the decision.

Quite why anybody can defend the BBC over this whole sorry saga is beyond me.

Were they covered up, or were people given the benefit of doubt? That depends who is looking at things. There is no definitive answer.

Nobody I can see is either defending the BBC or needs to defend them. They are responding to a FOI request in the way that all big organisations do. Via their legal department.

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Teddy Eagle Flag 11 Dec 23 9.12pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Only because they believed his contrition was genuine and the mistakes were down to inexperience. He fooled people who themselves have now shown their own contrition.

They've shown contrition but not, as suggested, been fired.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 11 Dec 23 11.29pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

They will always carve out excuses, protestations of good intent and Schmittian exceptions for themselves and those they support, while condemning and attributing the worst intentions to those they don't.

It couldn't be more transparent so you can't take really take them seriously.

[Link]

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Dec 2023 11.31pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 11 Dec 23 11.54pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

What is transparent is that there is a campaign by the right to undermine one of our remaining great national assets by amplifying every issue and seeking to position it as just another broadcaster.

The truth is that the BBC is adapting well to the fast changing world in which it operates without compromising itself.

Its independence is as vital a protection against authoritarian government as is the monarchy and those who wish its destruction are fools. It’s fact checking and news verification makes it the most reliable source of information we have. Be careful what you wish for.

I have no issue with it withdrawing from areas in which commercial broadcasters can supply a worthwhile service. That’s evolution. If that enables it to do what’s really important even better I am content. So less “Strictly “, which I hate as total garbage, and more Panarama, Life on Earth and Radio 4.

And we all need to pay for it. Whether we use it or not. National assets aren’t opt outs. We must all pay our share. Even if that is to provide reliable information to our children.

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
eaglesdare Flag 12 Dec 23 12.47am Send a Private Message to eaglesdare Add eaglesdare as a friend

Go woke go broke. The BBC are no different.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 12 Dec 23 4.44am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by eaglesdare

Go woke go broke. The BBC are no different.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Teddy Eagle Flag 12 Dec 23 6.41am Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

What is transparent is that there is a campaign by the right to undermine one of our remaining great national assets by amplifying every issue and seeking to position it as just another broadcaster.

The truth is that the BBC is adapting well to the fast changing world in which it operates without compromising itself.

Its independence is as vital a protection against authoritarian government as is the monarchy and those who wish its destruction are fools. It’s fact checking and news verification makes it the most reliable source of information we have. Be careful what you wish for.

I have no issue with it withdrawing from areas in which commercial broadcasters can supply a worthwhile service. That’s evolution. If that enables it to do what’s really important even better I am content. So less “Strictly “, which I hate as total garbage, and more Panarama, Life on Earth and Radio 4.

And we all need to pay for it. Whether we use it or not. National assets aren’t opt outs. We must all pay our share. Even if that is to provide reliable information to our children.


If the BBC is determined not to take advertising and they can't attract enough subscribers then why not fund it out of general taxation?
Threatening prosecution over people watching football on another channel on a laptop isn't the action of a national treasure.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Badger11 Flag Beckenham 12 Dec 23 8.49am Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

What is transparent is that there is a campaign by the right to undermine one of our remaining great national assets by amplifying every issue and seeking to position it as just another broadcaster.

The truth is that the BBC is adapting well to the fast changing world in which it operates without compromising itself.

Its independence is as vital a protection against authoritarian government as is the monarchy and those who wish its destruction are fools. It’s fact checking and news verification makes it the most reliable source of information we have. Be careful what you wish for.

I have no issue with it withdrawing from areas in which commercial broadcasters can supply a worthwhile service. That’s evolution. If that enables it to do what’s really important even better I am content. So less “Strictly “, which I hate as total garbage, and more Panarama, Life on Earth and Radio 4.

And we all need to pay for it. Whether we use it or not. National assets aren’t opt outs. We must all pay our share. Even if that is to provide reliable information to our children.

Seriously?

Both TV and radio figures keep going down for their headline shows.

Each year hundreds of thousands of people are deciding to not to pay their licence either because they can't afford to and risk prosecution or more likely they see the BBC as irrelevant to their lives.

Meanwhile the most loyal demographic of BBC viewers (retired) are largely ignored when it comes to programming as the BBC chases the youth who are not interested.

The BBC complains of lack of funds whilst their staff and unions fight any reforms. The BBC pension scheme is gold plated and better than most of ours. There is a huge overlap of resources between departments due to empire building.

So far any changes the BBC has made have been fought tooth and nail and are not exactly deep cuts.

So no I don't think the BBC is doing well with change.

Edited by Badger11 (12 Dec 2023 8.51am)

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 364 of 435 < 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > BBC (again)