This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
BBC (again)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Stirlingsays  31 Jan 24 4.32pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by PalazioVecchio
The exact same happened in Ireland during the Penal Laws. Catholics were forced to pay for the upkeep of a Prod-Church they never attended. That's what happens when you got conquered. The Norman Churches in 1067, the Spanish conquistadors in Mexico, the Soviets in Eastern Europe. And the taxes on kuffirs in some of the Muslim World today. Good point.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| JRW2 Dulwich 31 Jan 24 4.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Answers are always heavily redacted to protect individuals from the release of personal information. My last request was to the VOA, took months to be answered and was so heavily redacted as to make no sense at all. When all I was trying to find out was how a particular valuation was handled it was very frustrating. There has to be a better way of finding out the facts behind actions. Some years ago I was writing an article on the brewing industry and requested some FOI documents. They supplied most of what I wanted, but in a section on Guinness the company's name was consistently deleted, and appeared as "The UK's largest stout producer, xxxxxxxx". Presumably this was done for reasons of commercial confidentiality. But, for goodness sake, what sort of civil service plonker thought that anyone interested in the brewing industry wouldn't immediately know what company he was referring to? Perhaps he'd only just found out himself.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 31 Jan 24 5.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Yeah the BBC could have stopped lying and prevaricating and done an honest investigation years ago but hey ho. I think the courts are largely sympathetic to the Diana supporters and the recent comments from the judge directed at the BBC were quite critical. It will take another court case but slowly this stuff will emerge and if the government is forced to turn over private communications I don't see why the BBC should be immune. Did they lie or prevaricate? Or are those just perceptions shared with those directly affected? Or were they were just as big a victim of deceit as everyone else? Is there anything left to emerge? In which circumstances do you think the government is being forced to turn over private communications? The Covid enquiry perhaps? Whose terms of reference are different to those of a FOI request. The first demands, the second requests.
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 a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 31 Jan 24 5.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by JRW2
Some years ago I was writing an article on the brewing industry and requested some FOI documents. They supplied most of what I wanted, but in a section on Guinness the company's name was consistently deleted, and appeared as "The UK's largest stout producer, xxxxxxxx". Presumably this was done for reasons of commercial confidentiality. But, for goodness sake, what sort of civil service plonker thought that anyone interested in the brewing industry wouldn't immediately know what company he was referring to? Perhaps he'd only just found out himself. He wouldn’t think for a moment you would not know who it was. He was just covering his own back by complying with guidelines
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 a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 31 Jan 24 5.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Makes you proud that the BBC is such an honourable organisation. One employee did. Acting alone and without authority. The BBC apparently found it hard to believe this could have been done in the way it was. It isn’t their way. I expect they aren’t as trusting now.
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 a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  31 Jan 24 5.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
One employee did. Acting alone and without authority. The BBC apparently found it hard to believe this could have been done in the way it was. It isn’t their way. I expect they aren’t as trusting now. Not according to Tom Mangold.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 31 Jan 24 5.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Did they lie or prevaricate? Or are those just perceptions shared with those directly affected? Or were they were just as big a victim of deceit as everyone else? Is there anything left to emerge? In which circumstances do you think the government is being forced to turn over private communications? The Covid enquiry perhaps? Whose terms of reference are different to those of a FOI request. The first demands, the second requests. Zzzzzzzzz
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| JRW2 Dulwich 01 Feb 24 9.32am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
He wouldn’t think for a moment you would not know who it was. He was just covering his own back by complying with guidelines Yes, you may well be right. Obsessive "covering his own back" certainly sounds like civil servant behaviour.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Spiderman Horsham 02 Feb 24 3.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
If this had been an employee tweeting transphobic or Islamophobic bike they would certainly be sacked, and I suspect referred to the police. Apparently this does not warrant either of those actions
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 georgenorman 02 Feb 24 4.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Dawn Queva, a scheduling coordinator at BBC Three, has posted on Facebook that white people are a "virus" and "mutant invader species", has described Jewish people as "Nazi parasites" that funded a "holohoax", and described the UK as "bigoted" and "genocidal" and white Europeans are "melanin-recessive parasites". Has she been sacked? Of course not. Imagine if she had used the same language about black people and Muslims. Her feet wouldn't have touched the floor and should would no doubt be in court for hate crimes.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 02 Feb 24 5.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Spiderman
If this had been an employee tweeting transphobic or Islamophobic bike they would certainly be sacked, and I suspect referred to the police. Apparently this does not warrant either of those actions How could anyone think this was alright? A person would need to be very twisted to even think this sort of thing but to come out and say it is just unbelievable. If hate crime means anything then this is it.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
cryrst  The garden of England 02 Feb 24 6.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Where’s wissie when it’s bbc negative.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.