Anything Political


Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, HSR said:

What was that film? Something to do with a new commodity? Was it something to do with meat? Starred Peter Sellers if memory serves...

 

You may be thinking of 'I'm All Right Jack', which starred Ian Carmichael and Peter Sellers.  It was a satire on both trade unions and employers.  The product in question was a confectionary bar which IIRC as called a 'Yum Yum Bar'

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

HSR: Col is given a 'free rein to spout his opinions' for exactly the reasons you are, only he does so with more civility.   Recently there have been a couple of attacks on the validity of t

True enough but none quite so 'in your face' or as blatant. To paraphrase Mone "I didn't lie to hide the the fact we're making £60 million and hiding it in a trust, it was to to protect my family

Why do you feel the need to influence others? What is your motivation for so doing? Is it because you think you know better than they? Is it because it feeds your ego if and when you succeed?  Is it b

Swinson was literally on her own.

....zero audience responce or clap's..get my drift?

 

Jonab..you reminded me of an old film I last saw over forty years ago, political thread & your post brought it to mind..

 

Might be mixing two films together..both colour, One I think Peter Sellers'..plays an 'idiot' but adored by the establishment..very funny as a 14 year old..going on 59!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this will be viewable, but it is a twitter thing showing the original reaction, and the BBC faked reaction by Johnson to being challenged about honesty.

These are the actual clips run side by side, the BBC have quite obviously doctored the tape not "edited it", they have taken the same line Johnson used from another part of the show and tacked it on to the woman's question in order to falsify the reaction of the audience . During an election this is a criminal offence.

 

If the odd bits can't be opened, I've added the link as text below.

 

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

Also seems reasonable.  As I understand it, it is still difficult for many to get loans of any type at sensible interest rates.  Odd that the banks were so eager to 'profit' from the trade in 'Toxic' debt.. yet are now so reluctant to lend to 'normal' borrowers.  I'm also still amazed at the disparity between interest rates for savers. and those on loans.

 

They can't have it both ways, castigating banks for being profligate with loans to poor risks and then blaming them for being reluctant to make loans to those that don't meet a stricter criteria. Surely they are being prudent.

 

There is also a huge disparity is the interest rates too. Tesco offer 2.9% loans and Everyday loans are charging 93.6%

Link to post
Share on other sites

HSR .Your repeat viewing of the original may amuse you.. but it does nothing to excuse the subsequent doctoring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Brew said:

They can't have it both ways, castigating banks for being profligate with loans to poor risks and then blaming them for being reluctant to make loans to those that don't meet a stricter criteria. Surely they are being prudent.

 

No.  The original toxic loans were as I understand it from the US.  Traded as some sort of commodity, in ways I don't pretend to understand.  I can't see how that has anything to do with 'normal' lending to businesses, or on mortgages etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IF there was any bias on QT it was that the audience was leaning left and North. The editing trimmed a bit of excessive noise, not as much some claim, and probably to make Johnsons reply clearer.

There was probably editing in other parts we simply haven't noticed, or were not looking for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The toxic loans were from the US. They were made to SME's and a lot of mortgages. These loans were then sold to third parties, a practice I strongly disagree with, and then on and on gain. Some of the loans were bought by EU banks to the tune 90+ billion Euros

 

Our banks, also dragged through the mire by the knock on effect, have noted the financial catastrophe and taken a defensive position. Due diligence now requires a more robust lending model.

If, as Labour claim, it is taxpayers money I'd rather they didn't put my share at risk thank you very much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was this not a live QT broadcast? I know the standard Thursday broadcast's are about nearly two hours late.. admittedly two hours is more than enough to doctor footage. Scoundrels!  ;)

 

Not in it for amusement..good to get a feel..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice that on the BBC.com website the Conservative Manifesto is being given HUGE publicity. Wasn't so with the others by a long, long way.

 

Might be different back there. Do I detect a bias?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not noticed any bias jonab the reporting seems be fairly equal. If there was any noticeable favouritism someone would shout loud and long about it and none of the media I have read mention it.

Not knowing who is going to win the election do you really think the BBC could afford to get on the wrong side of those who control its destiny and finances? I would guess there is a whole team looking this and making sure such accusations are groundless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As per Brew, there will be hundreds of people with nothing better to do than chart how many minutes / lines of comment / Web pages each channel allocate to each Party.

 

I'm sure the BBC and other channels do it, so as to be able to answer criticism after, or in todays World defend themselves in the High Court.

I'm sure each Party will track how much both they and the others get.

The Electoral commission must also do it.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if some parties haven't already booked time in the High Court to challenge this after the election.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jonab said:

It's all academic to me, though, being now a French citizen.

 

Ah wer gunna say summat abaht that jonab but wasn't too sure how well the joke would travel!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another interesting piece on Facebook.  It shows the same chap who was very beligerent towards Corbyn on the 'Leaders' programme. BUT it shows him appearing on THREE previous QT programs in DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, each time being selected by the programme announcer to ask a question and each time attacking a Labour politician.  Local people?  Not 'plants'?  Who do they think they're kidding?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Yet another. A letter to OfCom by John Sweeney.

 

John Sweeney

November 4 2019

PRIVATE AND IN CONFIDENCE

To the Chief Executive, OfCom,
Dear Ms White,

I am writing to you as a reluctant whistle-blower to ask for a thorough investigation into BBC News and Current Affairs in regard to, firstly, a number of films relating to the far-right, Russia and Brexit that were not broadcast, secondly, films that were broadcast but were improperly compromised and, thirdly, a number of senior journalists who have been allowed to compromise BBC editorial values by taking financial inducements or benefits in kind.
At the outset I should say that I have been informed, entertained and educated by the BBC my whole life. I worked for the BBC for 17 years and left last month and I feel grateful to many of my extraordinary colleagues who do great work for the public good. I pay the license fee and passionately believe in the BBC’s mission.


It is exactly because of that belief that I feel compelled to share what I know from the inside of BBC News and Current Affairs. BBC management, led by Director-General Tony Hall, has become so risk-averse in the face of threats from the far-right and the Russian state and its proxies that due impartiality is being undermined and investigative journalism is being endangered. Films have been not broadcast or enfeebled. Senior journalists have taken money or benefits in kind from Big Tobacco, a dodgy passport-selling company, and proxies for the Russian state.
My concerns centre on the following programmes or films:

  • Our Panorama on far-right activist Tommy Robinson which should have been broadcast in February or March this year. It had fresh information on Robinson’s links with German far right sources and there was potential to explore how Robinson was being indirectly funded by Kremlin money. Robinson set out to intimidate the BBC. Not broadcast.
  • Our Newsnight investigation into Lord Mandelson which caused him to change his House of Lords’ register recording money he got from a Russian company connected to the mafia. After a direction intervention by Mandelson’s friend, then BBC Head of News, James Harding, the investigation stopped. Not broadcast.
  • Our Newsnight investigation into the dubious connections between former Culture Secretary John Whittingdale MP and Dmitri Firtash, the pro-Kremlin oligarch currently fighting extradition to the United States. Not broadcast.
  • Our Newsnight investigation into Henley & Partners, a dodgy passport-selling firm which sought to silence Daphne Caruana Galizia before she was assassinated. Outside a H & P event in London I was physically assaulted by security for the Maltese PM. Inside a BBC presenter was doing a paid corporate gig for H&P. Not broadcast.
  • A Newsnight investigation into the pro-Russian sympathies of Labour spin doctor, Seumas Milne. Not commissioned. Not broadcast.
  • A Panorama on Roman Abramovich: made and completed. I did not work on this but know of it. Not broadcast.
  • A BBC News investigation into Brexit funder Arron Banks. I did not work on this but know of it. Not broadcast.

     

Please note that roughly in the same time frame BBC News – not Current Affairs - did broadcast investigations into Cliff Richards and Lord Bramall and Lord Brittan on the basis of a fantasist. Both investigations should never have been broadcast.

The BBC did broadcast films I made that were weakened by management. They include:

  • A series of Newsnight films into Arron Banks, the man who helped fund Brexit and Nigel Farage. Some were broadcast but the strength of the journalism was enfeebled by management. One, exploring Nigel Farage’s worries about Mr Banks’ connections to Russia, was not broadcast. A second, on Katya Banks and how she came to the United Kingdom, was not broadcast.
  • A Panorama on Russia called Taking On Putin. This was broadcast last year. In the course of making it the acting head of the BBC Moscow bureau told our Panorama team to leave the bureau though we had sensitive rushes on us and were being pursued by Moscow police. He then informed the Foreign Ministry that I had been filming without a press pass. Not giving me a press pass is a routine piece of administrative harassment by the Russian state. Our fixer was forced to leave Russia for good. It felt like our BBC Moscow colleagues saw the Kremlin as their friend and us as the enemy.

On all the films above I worked on, I sought to complain to BBC management about failures to broadcast or weakening of editorial stance. Most did not seriously engage with my complaints. One senior manager did not reply to four emails I sent asking for a meeting so we never spoke.

To be fair, BBC management have an extraordinary difficult task. Brexit has split the country and maintaining fairness and due impartiality under ferocious pressure, accelerated by social media, is exhausting. The problem is this exhaustion has led to corporate risk aversion and this is destroying investigative journalism at the BBC.

Separately, I fear that BBC values have been undermined by the following senior editors and presenters. Jon Sopel, BBC North America, doing a paid corporate gig for US tobacco giant Philip Morris this year. Justin Webb, Today programme presenter, doing a paid corporate gig for Henley & Partners on two separate occasions.

Sarah Sands, editor of the Today programme and Amol Rajan, BBC Media Editor, receiving benefits in kind from their former employer, Russian oligarch Evgeny Lebedev. They attended parties thrown by Lebedev in his Italian palazzo. A third guest was Boris Johnson, now prime minister. It seems impossible for any reporter on the Today programme to fully investigate widely reported stories that as Foreign Secretary Mr Johnson was seen as a “security risk” because of his attendance at Mr Lebedev’s parties if their editor was also a beneficiary of Mr Lebedev’s generosity. Amol Rajan as BBC Media Editor has reported on Mr Lebedev’s business affairs and he too has been a beneficiary of the oligarch’s generosity.

None of this non-BBC work or benefits are for the public good.

It is a characteristic of someone in my position to overstate the significance of their complaints. I do not want to do this. The vast majority of the BBC’s output is excellent.


But the sorry history of investigations not broadcast I report above demonstrates a general pattern of risk aversion and fearfulness. This is a common complaint of BBC journalists. My particular concern is the ability of the Russian state and its proxies to cramp the BBC’s journalism when it investigates what the Kremlin & Co are up to. You cannot make a series of Panoramas on Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump without seeing the evidence of the Russian state and its proxies interfering with democratic politics around the world. That interference includes the United Kingdom. I note that Number Ten has indicated that blocked the publication of the Commons select committee on Russian interference today.

Beyond these points there is a wider issue of the effective non-regulation of social media. The experience of being attacked by Tommy Robinson’s supporters – they behave like a cult – whilst the BBC did not broadcast our Panorama on him was maddening for me, literally so. A freelance colleague made a radio programme about one of his supporters. The stress of being a victim of the far-right online hate machine caused my colleague, who was heavily pregnant at the time, to have a panic attack so intense she mistakenly feared it was a miscarriage. Happily, mother and baby are fine. My observation as a front-line investigative journalist is that public interest broadcasting is over-regulated and social media hardly at all. Social media must be brought within the rule of law or our democracy will be poisoned.

I have evidence to back up every point I make in this letter and practical suggestions to reform and develop the OfCom code if you decide to take the matters raised here further. Please let me know what your response is. I am separately writing to the chair of the House of Commons select committees on the media and copying in the chairs of the intelligence and foreign affairs committees.
Yours sincerely,

John Sweeney

 

 

Smoke... fire...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And has thus scupperd any chance of a fair hearing. So far we have one mans opinion which may be nothing more than innuendo, or it may be the tip of an iceberg.

It's trial by social media  conducted by a man who courts controversy. Strangely enough these allegations supposedly took place whilst he worked for the BBC but he saw fit to not complain to OfCom until after he was sacked.

 

He was

not a direct employee after 2014

effectively sacked by the BBC.

sued for slander

Fined 3000 Euros by a French court after alleging corruption

Won numerous awards for journalism

Been guilty of inappropriate behaviour more times the you can shake a stick at.

.....................   it goes on and on.

You can make your own mind here:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sweeney_(journalist)

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

It shows the same chap who was very beligerent towards Corbyn on the 'Leaders' programme.

 

Turns out it's Billy Mitchell, a former UKIP candidate. There is no limit to the number of times you can appear but somebody should have their backsides kicked.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As I keep on saying.. it is very shoddy practice by the BBC.  Much of what they get wrong could be classed as 'sins of omission'. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't take much convincing if someone said he was a deliberate plant. He could be there a dozen times and not noticed if he asked questions in a reasonable manner. We have said before the programme thrives on conflict and a rent-a-gob like him is just the way to do it. There's no such thing as bad publicity

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Brew said:

And has thus scupperd any chance of a fair hearing. So far we have one mans opinion which may be nothing more than innuendo, or it may be the tip of an iceberg.

 

Well yes. Can't disagree with you and I also know Sweeney's reputation.  He seems to have a genuine desire to expose wrong doing, but also a short fuse which gets him into scrapes.

 

All of which is why I asked 'Smoke? Fire?  He does say he's reluctant to take it to OfCom and has a lot of affection for the BBC, but can't let certain things go.  I feel very much the same.

 

I don't know if the 'leaking' (?) of a supposedly confidential letter is a deliberate move to publicise his views, or a mistake.  I suspect the former.  He's right to get people to be more wary of BBC political reporting in any way he can.. as we keep on seeing the BBC getting it wrong and he offers a plausible explanation.. that the BBC is fearful and risk averse in some areas.

 

It's what he says here:

 

Quote

But the sorry history of investigations not broadcast I report above demonstrates a general pattern of risk aversion and fearfulness. This is a common complaint of BBC journalists. My particular concern is the ability of the Russian state and its proxies to cramp the BBC’s journalism when it investigates what the Kremlin & Co are up to. You cannot make a series of Panoramas on Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump without seeing the evidence of the Russian state and its proxies interfering with democratic politics around the world. That interference includes the United Kingdom. I note that Number Ten has indicated that blocked the publication of the Commons select committee on Russian interference today.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

But the sorry history of investigations not broadcast I report above demonstrates a general pattern of risk aversion and fearfulness.

 

Strange to say most of those are programmes HE worked on and editors, for some reason, decided not to run with. did you not notice his list? 'our progamme, our progamme, our progamme,our progamme … 

 

Obviously I have no idea whether this a genuine concern or merely a journalistic prima donna having a bit of a strop, a fit of pique that his stuff has been shelved and he has been sacked.

He's a prize winning journo so I don't think he would dropped by the BBC unless they had good reason.

 

There's a complaint in there somewhere about control of social media, then he uses it to castigate the BBC and make allegations that should laid with the proper authorities not Facebook.

 

There is also a bit in there to Ofcom about his ideas that reads suspiciously like 'gis-a-job'. oh, and to make sure you don't ignore me I'm raising Cain with everyone I can think of.

 

Just playing devils advocate... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said Brew.  Not disagreeing with you and I posted his diatribe for info. He does raise some interesting points though and I think they deserve answers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Brew said:

I wouldn't take much convincing if someone said he was a deliberate plant. He could be there a dozen times and not noticed if he asked questions in a reasonable manner. We have said before the programme thrives on conflict and a rent-a-gob like him is just the way to do it. There's no such thing as bad publicity

 

The trouble is.. he painted a picture of an event the vast majority of people will not have seen, or even been aware of.  Many will be all too willing to believe his version of events.  It's a pity Corbyn didn't appear to know who he was.  If he had, he could simply have replied along the lines of 'I'm not taking lessons on racism or anti semitism from a former Ukip candidate masquerading as an ordinary member of the public.  Next question please'.

 

I've looked up Billy Mitchell and I'm not sure it's the same bloke.. although Mitchell is the subject of controversy since at least February of this year for repeat appearances on QT and the BBC is AGAIN criticised for editing answers etc.. to favour the right.  The one I recall looked younger and I thought I detected a bit of a South African accent... maybe I'm wrong..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Cliff Ton changed the title to Anything Political

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...