Anything Political

[jonab 1,643]

Perhaps it is different on BBC.com rather than BBC.co.uk. They may be trying to get the ex pats interested.

 

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

[Brew 5,007]

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!

[DJ360 6,385]

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?

[DJ360 6,385]

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...

 

[Brew 5,007]

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)

 

 

[Brew 5,007]

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.

[DJ360 6,385]

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'. 

[Brew 5,007]

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

[DJ360 6,385]

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.

 

[Brew 5,007]

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... 

[DJ360 6,385]

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.

[DJ360 6,385]

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..

[DJ360 6,385]

At least they finally acknowledge one out of many.. but they still claim an innocent 'mistake'.  Yeah right.. just like the 'mistake' when Johnson laid a wreath upside down at the Cenotaph and the BB went and found a years old film of him accidentally getting it right and broadcast that instead... by mistake...

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50546115

 

 

 

 

 

[DJ360 6,385]

 

Interesting viewpoint on the state of Capitalism in the UK.  And no.. it's not just a lefty diatribe!!

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50562518

 

It ceretainly picks up on several issues I'm concerned about.. but in the present climate I don't expect it to see the light of day.

[Brew 5,007]

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Interesting viewpoint on the state of Capitalism in the UK.

 

I agree with most of it and have always considered shareholders have very little say unless they hold a sizable percentage.

Some companies take Friedman to the nth degree and eschew any sense of corporate responsibility beyond legal requirements. In the 80's the buzz word for business was 'mission statements',  then came 'stakeholders' and now we have 'visions'. Meaningless buzz words that the pursuit of profit hides behind.

 

Will it see the light of day? Would it make difference if it did?  You may gather a few moans and groans but within a few days it will be gone the same as the outcry about big salaries and bonuses for failure.

 

I do not agree though that Corbyn is suggesting a better way. The only industries that should have never been privatised are Water and Electric, two of which have just buggered off to Switzerland to escape his clutches. 

[ValuerJim 277]

I see that a tory election candidate is being investigated by the police for a 'hate crime', after telling a Sikh rival that he was 'talking through his turban' at a hustings event. Let that be an object lesson; the correct, legal expression is 'talking through his arse'. 

[Brew 5,007]

43 minutes ago, ValuerJim said:

I see that a tory election candidate is being investigated by the police for a 'hate crime', after telling a Sikh rival that he was 'talking through his turban' at a hustings event. Let that be an object lesson; the correct, legal expression is 'talking through his arse'. 

 

I've just read the article and it's makes for very sad reading. We can't mention turbans now without bringing down the full weight of the law. The Tories are now automatically guilty (according to the Labour candidate) of racism if, when receiving a complaint, they do not immediately deselect, expel and strip any honours earned. No waiting for the result of any inquiry, no sir, guilty as charged straight away.  I wonder how far a complaint would go if the Sikh had accused his opponent of talking through his hat?

 

This, in my  mind, is reverse racism. The Sikh is taking advantage of his opponent  being a Caucasian and daring to mention his turban. Note the accusation is racism, not a religious hate crime. He's using an off the cuff remark to blow it up out of all proportion trying to score points and discredit the Tory party and their candidate..

Comes under the heading 'low blows and dirty tricks' IMHO 

[philmayfield 5,504]

Easy meat for the police. Beats having to face up to serious criminals any day.

[Brew 5,007]

37 minutes ago, philmayfield said:

Easy meat for the police. Beats having to face up to serious criminals any day.

 

True, no door knocking, legwork, expense or detectives required.  Just some office junior to fill in a form and off to the CPS.... next.

[Oztalgian 2,922]

OK own up! How many of Nottstalgia's Corbynistas went to listen to his speech near the statue of Robin Hood or were you warming your ar$e$ near the fire over a pint in the Trip?

[Brew 5,007]

No and no... I find it easier to pick holes when I read it rather than listening to a speech. I'm slowing down and struggle to bring facts and figures to mind without having think for awhile.

I wold love a pint in the Trip, it would bring back many memories. Unfortunately it would also bring back any and  all food eaten in the previous few hours.

[DJ360 6,385]

I would have gone to see him if I still lived in Nottm.  As I've said many times..he wouldn't be my first choice as Labour Leader.. but I'd sooner see Labour in power.. trying to get us closer to my idea of an ideal society.. than Boris Johnson playing lap dog to Trump and finishing this country off for good.

 

I genuinely cannot believe the number of previous Labour voters who would sooner vote for a party which wants to screw them and is led by a lying thieving crook like Johnson, than for a Labour Party led by Corbyn.

 

I also cannot believe the number of honest ( but obviously wrong..  ) Conservative voters.. who are willing to have an Olympic Standard liar and buffoon as their party leader.

[DJ360 6,385]

4 minutes ago, Brew said:

No and no... I find it easier to pick holes when I read it rather than listening to a speech. I'm slowing down and struggle to bring facts and figures to mind without having think for awhile.

I wold love a pint in the Trip, it would bring back many memories. Unfortunately it would also bring back any and  all food eaten in the previous few hours.

 

Well Brew.. you have my genuine sympathy if a pint has that effect.  In my case, it would be listening to an endless stream of bumbling lies and waffle from Johnson that would most likely do that.  Love or hate Corbyn.. he does not lie.

[Brew 5,007]

34 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

 

Well Brew.. you have my genuine sympathy if a pint has that effect.  In my case, it would be listening to an endless stream of bumbling lies and waffle from Johnson that would most likely do that.  Love or hate Corbyn.. he does not lie.

 

Sadly it's true. I can feel the effect of a half pint, 3/4 and I'm not fit to drive. A pint or a pint and half and I am unwell.

 

'Corbyn does not lie', raises an interesting conundrum. If someone makes a statement and believes it, but it is in fact wrong - is it a lie?

Does he truly believe the impossibly large sums of money he and McDonnell want to spend are going to benefit the country and not leaves in debt for years to come? Or is it just so much hot air and few if any of the promises will come about.

 

The buffoon at least has sense to not follow him in what is a seemingly stupid and unrealistic bidding war that has even dragged Jo Swinson in.

[Brew 5,007]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

I genuinely cannot believe the number of previous Labour voters who would sooner vote for a party which wants to screw them and is led by a lying thieving crook like Johnson, than for a Labour Party led by Corbyn.

 

All I can say is they have watched, listened, learned and made the right choice. Many of them may well be saying they cannot believe those who can't see through Corbyn, McDonnell, Momentum etc. and the fact they want to lead us into penury for the next half century or so.