The bbc, again.

[Badger11]

Aha, that's why he chose Florida.

Agreed.

It's why in Trump I Democrats chose to file suit in Hawaii over the Mexican border crossing and treatment of illegals. Because of course it's a big problem with Hawaii being so close to the border unlike Arizona.

It had nothing to do with an anti Trump Democrat judge.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Yes, they are loyal to this country.

As we all are. Most of us manage to do so without feeling the need to be provocative.

Showing it at times of national pride is perfectly acceptable. During counter protests is simply trying to stir things up. It’s political. Not loyalty. Claiming otherwise is like trying to disguise racism with a fig leaf.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Interesting angle. The BBC are defendant. They did not choose this suit. Any execs over there (if any) are required to be present for the purpose of the case. It is not an opportunitistic gravy train.

There won’t be any BBC staff there. They have retained a legal team to look after the case. Any consultations needed will be done by phone, video conference or document exchange.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

There won’t be any BBC staff there. They have retained a legal team to look after the case. Any consultations needed will be done by phone, video conference or document exchange.

Not according to Google.

...large media contingent of BBC reporters and technical staff will not be stationed there until the trial formally commences.

 

[Badger11]

Now I get that if you want to hire Kenneth Branagh for a major new drama series he aint gonna come cheap.

However 130 highly paid paper pushers ?

The DG needs to get a grip on this.

130 BBC execs are paid more than £178,000 annually

The largesse is the latest sign of runaway pay at the top of the BBC, where a record 130 executives now earn more than £178,000 a year.

www.dailymail.com

 

[silvertop]

It's quite funny that you also suspect there are a few execs in the Hilton.

But for the case - which they did not start - they would not be there.

 

[silvertop]

Agreed.

It's why in Trump I Democrats chose to file suit in Hawaii over the Mexican border crossing and treatment of illegals. Because of course it's a big problem with Hawaii being so close to the border unlike Arizona.

It had nothing to do with an anti Trump Democrat judge.

We call it forum shopping here.

 

[silvertop]

Now I get that if you want to hire Kenneth Branagh for a major new drama series he aint gonna come cheap.

However 130 highly paid paper pushers ?

The DG needs to get a grip on this.

130 BBC execs are paid more than £178,000 annually

The largesse is the latest sign of runaway pay at the top of the BBC, where a record 130 executives now earn more than £178,000 a year.

www.dailymail.com

What is the comparison with similar sized media organisations in terms of numbers and salaries?

If the BBC are on par I am okay with that.

Btw it's a Mail story. They have had it in for the BBC since time immemorial.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

What is the comparison with similar sized media organisations in terms of numbers and salaries?

If the BBC are on par I am okay with that.

Btw it's a Mail story. They have had it in for the BBC since time immemorial.

There probably aren't any that can be realistically compared because of the broadness of their output - national radio stations, regional programming, international dealings, etc.
But it does seem like a lot of highly paid executives.

 

[silvertop]

There probably aren't any that can be realistically compared because of the broadness of their output - national radio stations, regional programming, international dealings, etc.
But it does seem like a lot of highly paid executives.

It's not beyond the wit of a specialist who lives in that industry to conduct a comparative test.

That is not me.

I suspect, given the savage cuts, they may be under represented?!

Either they are a bloated waste of public money or this is yet another baseless politically angled attack from the Mail.

 

[Badger11]

What is the comparison with similar sized media organisations in terms of numbers and salaries?

If the BBC are on par I am okay with that.

Btw it's a Mail story. They have had it in for the BBC since time immemorial.

Difficult to do as the BBC employs 20,000 staff n the UK plus many more sub contractors.

It's not the salary that is the problem but the sheer number of managers. As the current DG has said there is a lot of duplication within the organisation e.g. separate news teams so he is trying to eliminate this.

Of course senior managers need to be paid well but do you need so many.

A common theme that the luvvies complain about is the commissioning of new programmes and the amount of levels of approval they need to go through at the beeb unlike other TV companies.

Some of our greatest shows from the seventies and eighties were put together on the agreement of one BBC manager. Which is how it should be, that person gets paid the big bucks and stands or falls on their decisions.

Today it is decision by committee all CYA.

 

[Stirlingsays]

What is the comparison with similar sized media organisations in terms of numbers and salaries?

If the BBC are on par I am okay with that.

Btw it's a Mail story. They have had it in for the BBC since time immemorial.

Similar to the BBC?

I'm struggling to think of media organisations that are given that amount of cash without having to earn it.

I don't like the Mail but compared to the smug liberals at the BBC....I almost like them.

 

[ASCPFC]

But for the case - which they did not start - they would not be there.

How obvious is it that there is no requirement to be there. They'll be milking it, the lawyers will be milking it. And they did the edit and admitted it. You're blindly supporting people wasting your money. A massive arse licking apology and a donation to the Trump Foundation would have stopped this.
But instead it's a crusade. Funny how they couldn't crusade against their own proven paedos. Instead paying them off. People should be far more suspicious as to why that is. Non disclosure orders by any chance? Of course there are.
They are loving this.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

Funny how they couldn't crusade against their own proven paedos. Instead paying them off. People should be far more suspicious as to why that is. Non disclosure orders by any chance? Of course there are.
They are loving this.

David Attenborough used to be the boss of the BBC. I always wondered if he heard any rumours about Jimmy Savile et al ?

 

[silvertop]

How obvious is it that there is no requirement to be there. They'll be milking it, the lawyers will be milking it. And they did the edit and admitted it. You're blindly supporting people wasting your money. A massive arse licking apology and a donation to the Trump Foundation would have stopped this.
But instead it's a crusade. Funny how they couldn't crusade against their own proven paedos. Instead paying them off. People should be far more suspicious as to why that is. Non disclosure orders by any chance? Of course there are.
They are loving this.

The alternative argument is this was pure extortion from Trump and media oppression

He has form for this from US media giants who paid him off and thereafter towed the line.

Is that what you wished the BBC had done?

I do not.

Btw the BBC have already stuck their tongue where the sun don't shine and he still sued. Do you honestly think a charitable donation would have stopped him? Trump's lawyers would have taken that as evidence of admission and cited it in their claim.

 

[Eagleman13]

#defundthebbc

 

[ASCPFC]

The alternative argument is this was pure extortion from Trump and media oppression

He has form for this from US media giants who paid him off and thereafter towed the line.

Is that what you wished the BBC had done?

I do not.

Btw the BBC have already stuck their tongue where the sun don't shine and he still sued. Do you honestly think a charitable donation would have stopped him? Trump's lawyers would have taken that as evidence of admission and cited it in their claim.

They admitted it with the apology already. What's not admitted is costing him that much financially. However, reputational damage he'll already win. I don't know if it would have worked but if people think poking the bear works then I guess that's up to them. This is a waste of money crusade, largely to look good. But pretending to be in the right after everything they've done is frankly white washing history.

 

[silvertop]

They admitted it with the apology already. What's not admitted is costing him that much financially. However, reputational damage he'll already win. I don't know if it would have worked but if people think poking the bear works then I guess that's up to them. This is a waste of money crusade, largely to look good. But pretending to be in the right after everything they've done is frankly white washing history.

No, they admitted poor editorial licence not a malicious lie which is what is required to prove defamation in the jurisdiction he chose.

To put it another way, they do not admit that Trump did not incite the riot which he most obviously did.

There is no crusade about it. If they were the claimant I might see that view. However they are defending this action in which, save complete capitulation, Uncle Donald is wholly in charge.

 

[Stirlingsays]

They admitted it with the apology already. What's not admitted is costing him that much financially. However, reputational damage he'll already win. I don't know if it would have worked but if people think poking the bear works then I guess that's up to them. This is a waste of money crusade, largely to look good. But pretending to be in the right after everything they've done is frankly white washing history.

Correct.

I'm not fan of Trump 2.0, however, anyone objective who has watched BBC coverage on Trump since 2016 would be appalled by this media organisation's claims to be objective. The BBC is a political organisation that is dishonest about that reality and because it's publicly funded I regard its lack of balance as unacceptable.

In my opinion your summary is correct. The BBC are responsible for what goes out and this whole situation is down to the one sided political nature of their employees. They didn't spot this for exactly the same reason that they didn't spot what 'Bob Villian' was saying was beyond the pale to broadcast......It's because it's what they believe or have sympathy with.

The BBC can't be corrected, it needs to go.

But the establishment won't get rid of it because when it also acts as a pipeline for their cultural propaganda.....where its politics align it fully carries out its bidding, as seen with Covid and Ukraine.

 

[Stirlingsays]

No, they admitted poor editorial licence not a malicious lie which is what is required to prove defamation in the jurisdiction he chose.

To put it another way, they do not admit that Trump did not incite the riot which he most obviously did.

Fully disagree with the idea that he intended for a violent protest at the capital.

It's unprovable either way and so should never be accepted as something factual that informs how media organisations present information.

If it's suggested then the alternative view that this is contested should also be presented.

There is no crusade about it. If they were the claimant I might see that view. However they are defending this action in which, save complete capitulation, Uncle Donald is wholly in charge.