The bbc, again.

[HKOwen]

When the Head of News appeared before the board she claimed they had done nothing wrong. The board of course disagreed and made it clear that if she could not see how serious this was then the board had lost confidence in her. I suspect the same applied to the DG. Anyway both felt compelled to resign (before they were sacked).

Big pay offs fat pensions

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Big pay offs fat pensions

Barrow loads of our money.

 

[Spindle]

Have you ever signed a NDA. I have and remain bound by them. It isn’t convenient but it is pragmatic to avoid long drawn out tribunal hearings. Executives always possess company information that would be valuable to a competitor. That’s why it’s done.

No but I've signed the OSA many times. That's a loyalty to the nation, not to some corporate pickle I've got myself involved with

 

[silvertop]

When the Head of News appeared before the board she claimed they had done nothing wrong. The board of course disagreed and made it clear that if she could not see how serious this was then the board had lost confidence in her. I suspect the same applied to the DG. Anyway both felt compelled to resign (before they were sacked).

It was collective responsibility. I suspect they didn't do a thing wrong save insufficient oversight and effective process.

Once again the 2 issues of error and defamation have become conflated.

The BBC erred. Their internal investigation concluded as such; they issued a public apology; and 2 very senior officers were given the jump or push option by way of contrition.

But they did not defame Trump for a whole number of reasons.

1. There was no malice, being a critical element to establishing defamation. No malice. No case.
2. Those who invaded the Capitol have pretty much said to a man that his speeches and messages drove them to it.
3. He may not have intended the consequence, but was reckless as to whether it would happen.
4. No financial damage flowed directly from the broadcast. The $10B he initially claimed was borderline fraud/embezzlement and has been withdrawn.
5. His claim is now reduced to one of loss of reputation and the value a court would place against that. Given the totality of his conduct, is there one?
6. It is the opinion of the objective average person who actually saw the broadcast that decides whether his "reputation" was damaged i.e. almost nobody.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

It was collective responsibility. I suspect they didn't do a thing wrong save insufficient oversight and effective process.

Once again the 2 issues of error and defamation have become conflated.

The BBC erred. Their internal investigation concluded as such; they issued a public apology; and 2 very senior officers were given the jump or push option by way of contrition.

But they did not defame Trump for a whole number of reasons.

1. There was no malice, being a critical element to establishing defamation. No malice. No case.
2. Those who invaded the Capitol have pretty much said to a man that his speeches and messages drove them to it.
3. He may not have intended the consequence, but was reckless as to whether it would happen.
4. No financial damage flowed directly from the broadcast. The $10B he initially claimed was borderline fraud/embezzlement and has been withdrawn.
5. His claim is now reduced to one of loss of reputation and the value a court would place against that. Given the totality of his conduct, is there one?
6. It is the opinion of the objective average person who actually saw the broadcast that decides whether his "reputation" was damaged i.e. almost nobody.

The key to this though is how many other times have the BBC "edited" a story to fit a narrative? Leave Trump out of it and say this was GB News who'd done the same thing to Burnham - how much credence would the "honest mistake" claim receive?

 

[Spindle]

The key to this though is how many other times have the BBC "edited" a story to fit a narrative? Leave Trump out of it and say this was GB News who'd done the same thing to Burnham - how much credence would the "honest mistake" claim receive?

It's called mental gymnastics.

These ideological virtue signalling suicidal empathists haven't had the penny drop on how they are destroying our nation from within. When they do it'll be too late. Right now they are the ones who are really the most destructive because they are STILL clinging on and arguing for the ideology.

They haven't understood the paradox of integration whilst defending their important imported cultures and condemnation of ours. How do you square that circle in your head? How can you juggle such a conflict and still spout it as truth?