The bbc, again.

I know somebody who most definitely watched THAT episode of Panorama!
What folly !
I wonder how many other Panorama episodes, over the years, can stand up to robust scrutiny?
 
PalazioVecchio said:
Criminal behaviour.
Even George Orwell's 1984 didnt go that far........
Click to expand...
Indeed, methinks Trumps threat of massive legal action, unless the BBC took action was the main driver and there'll no doubt be massive severance pay. Who's funding that ? Another reward for failure that is going to come out of the TV licence fund.
Self-regulation ? After broadcasting falsified news ? They need to weed out the editing crew responsible, and f ck them off too.
 
Lombardinho said:
I know somebody who most definitely watched THAT episode of Panorama!
What folly !
I wonder how many other Panorama episodes, over the years, can stand up to robust scrutiny?
Click to expand...


Indeed.

Where I truly struggle is that this misrepresantation was so blatent that they MUST have known they would get a capture. Its not even subtle. Splicing together two segments of speech that are 50 minutes apart, given how much scrutiny is around these days is just mind boggling.

And for what? The BBC has to simply now be consigned to the history books. It simply cannot even pretend to be impartial now on anything because its credibility, as low as it was, is just nonexistent now.

If it wants to be biased then fine but don't force us to pay for it. Just like I don't pay for GB news or CNN or a host of others the BBC claims to be somehow superior to.
 
Matov said:
Indeed.

Where I truly struggle is that this misrepresantation was so blatent that they MUST have known they would get a capture. Its not even subtle. Splicing together two segments of speech that are 50 minutes apart, given how much scrutiny is around these days is just mind boggling.

And for what? The BBC has to simply now be consigned to the history books. It simply cannot even pretend to be impartial now on anything because its credibility, as low as it was, is just nonexistent now.

If it wants to be biased then fine but don't force us to pay for it. Just like I don't pay for GB news or CNN or a host of others the BBC claims to be somehow superior to.
Click to expand...
That list of "reputable sources" is rapidly dwindling away.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Why would I worry? The BBC will continue. It will continue to do the job we expect to do.

I just watched a Times Radio interview with Roger Bolton, who is a former Panorama editor, on this issue. It presents an informed and interesting perspective.

All who are genuinely interested in understanding are encouraged to look at it:-

Click to expand...
You should worry as it comes out of public funds. I don't get a pay off if I fail in my job and resign. Why should have Hugh Edwards and why should these? You want to justify it - go ahead. There is no one else in the country, the world or the universe that would agree with you.
 
It should not have been necessary for these 2 individuals to have resigned.

Someone approved the original concept, whoever approved it should have reminded the programme makers that it was a controversial subject so make sure you get your facts straight and be bullet proof.

Having made the programme I assumed it wasn't just aired without some form of approval.

I would not expect the DG and the other one to be hands on so the question really is who was responsible for making it and who approved it. Whoever those people were are the culpable ones.

The BBC choose to sit on the report and do nothing until it was leaked to the Telegraph. If they had acted sooner then the top resignations would not have been necessary.

Instead the BBC and their friends in the media are using language like plots and ambush, so no real contrition other than they got caught.
 
Badger11 said:
It should not have been necessary for these 2 individuals to have resigned.

Someone approved the original concept, whoever approved it should have reminded the programme makers that it was a controversial subject so make sure you get your facts straight and be bullet proof.

Having made the programme I assumed it wasn't just aired without some form of approval.

I would not expect the DG and the other one to be hands on so the question really is who was responsible for making it and who approved it. Whoever those people were are the culpable ones.

The BBC choose to sit on the report and do nothing until it was leaked to the Telegraph. If they had acted sooner then the top resignations would not have been necessary.

Instead the BBC and their friends in the media are using language like plots and ambush, so no real contrition other than they got caught.
Click to expand...
In the DGs case maybe he wanted to?
 
Badger11 said:
It should not have been necessary for these 2 individuals to have resigned.

Someone approved the original concept, whoever approved it should have reminded the programme makers that it was a controversial subject so make sure you get your facts straight and be bullet proof.

Having made the programme I assumed it wasn't just aired without some form of approval.

I would not expect the DG and the other one to be hands on so the question really is who was responsible for making it and who approved it. Whoever those people were are the culpable ones.

The BBC choose to sit on the report and do nothing until it was leaked to the Telegraph. If they had acted sooner then the top resignations would not have been necessary.

Instead the BBC and their friends in the media are using language like plots and ambush, so no real contrition other than they got caught.
Click to expand...
Hilariously, they use Trump's tactics of bluster when incorrect but are far too stupid and biased to notice. They are now trying to convince people it's all a conspiracy theory. They are the victims. Laughable.
Starmer and the Home Office need to order them, in no uncertain terms, to shut up and take it on the chin. There are no excuses for what they did. Sackings will be happening in a few days now.
But, as already stated, I want to see how people take these employees' pay offs. I don't think people are just going to sit there and take it. News of those incoming soon.
At the very least, the majority will cancel their licence.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
So, as I suggested yesterday, the real story has not yet been heard, but will come out. It’s beginning to. A story that’s much more important than just how one BBC programme decided to emphasise Trump’s behaviour during the storming of the Capitol. Something we have seen many reports on, watched live ourselves and already have opinions on.

It seems there is a huge rift between the BBC Board and its Executive. The Board has seen its make up changed by the last government and is now politicised. The current government, with so many other priorities, hasn’t yet corrected this.

Badger quoted part of the insightful Katie Razzal piece a few posts back, whilst being, as usual, sarcastic and disdainful about it. It’s a good read. I recommend it, as it comes from the inside:-

www.bbc.co.uk

Katie Razzall: A seismic moment that shows rift at top of BBC

There may be more to this than meets the eye, says the BBC's culture and media editor.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

There’s more. The Observer says the BBC has been ambushed. I agree:-

observer.co.uk

The Observer view: political interference at the BBC | The Observer

observer.co.uk observer.co.uk

For those unwilling to read the complete article these are the first paragraphs:-

“If the BBC was able today to report what it thinks, it would say this: there has been a coup. Tim Davie, the BBC director general, and Deborah Turness, who runs BBC News, have been forced out. Their resignation statements don’t communicate much.

That is because neither can say what has happened here, namely a group of politically-appointed directors has forced the hand of Samir Shah, the chair, and the departure of the two most senior people in the organisation. Their resignations should be called out for what they are: political interference that will inhibit the work of BBC journalists and undermine the public’s trust in BBC news.“

They aren’t alone in their analysis. A former Sun editor agrees:-

www.theguardian.com

BBC resignations are result of internal ‘coup’, says former Sun editor

David Yelland says Tim Davie and Deborah Turness were undermined by people close to BBC board
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

This is the real story. One that is in its infancy and could go in a variety of directions.
Click to expand...
Ah the guardian, another bastion of impartiality 😂
 
DANGERCLOSE said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1987850696897568830
Click to expand...

I think Farage is 100 percent right on this.

Frankly I think his thoughts on this is the only viable future for the BBC now. It's going to happen.

The people to blame? 100 percent it's the weak management going back to the 90s who refused to balance the employment intake at the BBC to ensure that both right and left were represented properly.....It was discussed at the time and BBC management took the decision not to do it.....They chickened out on the necessary fight to save the BBC when it could be saved long term.

I thought at the time that this would result in the end of the BBC and that a timer started then.....Just think of how much these people were paid....the status they had.....Yet any old pleb could understand that they had doomed the very thing they said they loved.....and been paid handsomely for it.

It's a far too common story with socially liberal elites.

The left wing activists were always going to be at the BBC.....as a balance I'd welcome them.....as basically most of the organisation I reject them and the licence fee as a result.

Panorama (which has always been far left) simply hammered the last nail into the coffin.

The BBC website reporting on this is somewhat amusing....considering some of the worst activists edit and write on it. They are also responsible for a situation where roughly only far left talking points are given a fair hearing on the BBC platform and where the TDS has been extreme.

Most of them should be sacked as well.......Collectively the left have hollowed out and destroyed the BBC.

Ultimately the left...if you let them take charge (instead of being a conscience) bring to ruin everything they touch.
 
chris123 said:
In the DGs case maybe he wanted to?
Click to expand...
That's certainly the gossip in which case he's even more of a weak fool.

A good man might have thought damn I was just about to go anyway but the optics will look all wrong, rats and sinking ships. So I will have to stay sort this mess out and then go.

It reminds me of Cameron's resignation, leaving it to some other poor sod to sort it out.
 
Somebody needs to tell Nick Robinson to shut up. He is not doing the BBC any favours with his comments. If I was the BBC senior management I would be livid with his plots and conspiracy comments.

The BBC should just take this on the chin and sort out the mess they are in, the more the staff deny there is a problem the more ammunition they give to their critics.
 
Badger11 said:
In case you've forgotten. An interesting timeline of DG's time in power.
Click to expand...

and none of them knew about Jimmy Savile ? not even David Attenborough when he was BBC boss ?

Anyhoo............getting rid of the old BBC boss will give Keir a good opportunity. A chance to put a real hardcore Liberal-commie into the driving seat. Any suggestions ?

- Jess Phillips ?
- Sadiq Khan ?

- Gary Neville/Jamie Carragher/ Gary Lineker ?
- Graham Norton ?

any others ?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top