The rest of the media and blogosphere is doing enough BBC bashing without me adding my two cents worth, but I do just want to say one thing.
This morning I read that RDF, the company who made the film about the Queen supposedly stomping out of a photo shoot, has been banned from making any more programmes for the BBC.
This again shows how the BBC seems unwilling to take final responsibility for what it transmits. Yes, RDF cocked up, but the BBC checking procedures failed lamentably. Having been involved in making a few programmes with Channel. 4 I really don't think it would have happened with them. In my experience they check every second of footage they put out.
The BBC needs to take responsibility for its failures and not seek to put all the blame on RDF. It should also not victimise RDF, which has in the past made hours of excellent TV for the BBC. What the BBC is subliminally trying to do is create the impression that if they weren't forced to use independent production companies and could do everything in house, it would all be OK.
Of course the phone line scams have proved that not to be the case.
70 comments:
Iain - I think you'll find it is impossible to dump on the BBC as much as they deserve right now.
On the RDF sloping shoulder move - which could come right out of the the NuLabour spin book, they seem so familiar with NuLabour's ways - the controller of BBC 1 used attempting to damage the Queen's reputation to promote his own career. He should have resigned and as he is not man enough to do so he must be fired.
Fair point - many businesses use the old excuse 'Yes, but we have out sourced our HR/Transport/Cleaning/Catering to absolve themselves of responsibility.
They may have delegated the task, but they are still responsible, as many 'Health and Safety' cases have shown.
Mind you, let us not bash the BBC too much - if it disappeared we would be inconsolable in the same way as if we woke up and the NHS had been privatised. It would be too late to bleat then 'We didn't really mean it..'.
man in a shed 9.49 -
He should not resign, he should be sacked, quite frankly so should the DG.
This is far worse than anything Gilligan did, at least his was a mistake.
This has been calculated on a large scale, to defraud he public, even on bloody Children in Need.
Do they have no shame,
They will be blaming it all on poor Pudsey next.
W.W.
There is no excuse for the bloke who introduced the trailer to the media not realising its impact. He should have been sacked on the spot.
Anyone notice any similarity in the BBC reaction to that of the Labour government when confronted with a scandal. In the society created by this odious government it now perfectly acceptable to lie, cheat, screw-up, cover up and take no responsibility at all. All you need to do is apologise (or use words that could be equated to an apology) and carry on.
Why should anyone at the BBC resign when jowell, prescott, browne, bliar, brown etc didnt feel it neccessary??
The BBC is just an extension of the blatant corrupt government of the day.
The BBC did not learn the lessons of the Hutton report.
They were correctly identified as the main culprits by Lord Hutton but this finding was rejected by the BBC, it's staff and the public.
The result is that now the BBC have an incredibly arrogant attitude. They are cavalier with the facts and have very little respect for the public, whose support they (wrongly) take for granted.
Labour have hopelessly corrupted the BBC. The Iraq War and Andrew Gilligan's correct assessment that intelligence had been 'sexed up' by Campbell led on to the sacking of Gilligan and the whole of the top BBC brass, even though they were not directly involved.
Since then the BBC has given up trying to tell the truth about anything. It is completely supine and dares not take one step in any direction to influence or criticise the government's aims and desires.
Until we get a decent government that is not corrupted by falsehood from top to bottom, you cannot expect the BBC to stand up against the pitiful moral culture that Labour have created by their spin machinery.
Gordon Brown is even worse than Blair was.
As I understand it, this was the relevant statement from the BBC:
"We will work with RDF to understand the steps they propose to ensure there is no chance of a repetition of the incident involving the Queen. Until that is clear and we have the findings of the independent inquiry, we will pause in commissioning any new programmes from them."
That doesn't seem like 'banning' them to me. Nor could you construe any of the interviews Mark Thompson has given as an attempt to load the whole blame on RDF - as if that were possible anyway, given that RDF wasn't involved in any of the new incidents uncovered.
And what's the alternative? Would you rather the BBC had blithely carried on working with RDF regardless?
The Queen being lied against was done to please the government. It was not a mistake. RDF know what spin the Labour machine approves of and tried to create some for their masters.
But the Great Clunking Fist is so flipping hopeless, that he first helps the Queen by handing her a propaganda coup - just like dear old Tom Watson in Southall Ealing handing Tony Lit national news status and enhancing his standing amongst his constituents.
And don't tell me that Brown didn't know about the strategies being used in both cases.
Tapestry
agree 100%. Are we seeing the end of this government? The BBC and NuLabour have been shamefully joined at the hip for over a decade. The total corruption ofgovernment is mirrored in the collapse of trust in the BBC. These two great currupting influences are exposed further with each passing day. Public opinion is now moving towards a more cynical view of both government and the BBC. A sustained protest of witholding the licence fee by the public would bring down the BBC and with it the government.
I doubt it was a "mistake". The BBC is a political organisation, whose policies include republicanism. They had some footage which supposedly showed how un-statesmanlike the Queen was so they rushed it out to undermine her standing.
What the lefties at the BBC can't get through their skulls (or can't bear it if they can) is that the Queen is hugely popular amongst nearly all sections of society.
Long may she reign over us.
The problem the BBC-hating rightwingers have, is that they're so out-of-touch with a majority of the population. Take a poll, the public adore the BBC - even if it is a statist device of the left. :D
The truly disgusting thing is that we are forced to pay for the BBC's spin and politicking with virtually nobody able to hold it to account.
The really sad thing is that some people still think the BBC is trustworthy and a deserving recipient of the TV poll tax.
The BBC has been pushing their world view, one that makes me sick, since I was a kid in the 60s. The sooner it is put down the better.
Tyger if the BBC is so popular then surely people would still choose to pay for it if given the choice. We aren't given the choice, that is the point that "BBC-hating right wingers" object to.
I think that this was well covered by both BBC1 News and BBC2 Newsnight last night.
What's your take on the Tory who released postal vote information to the Telegraph in relation to Ealing and Southall by-election against Electoral Law?
GIVE GREG HIS JOB BACK!!!!
Will jacqui smith get off more lightly by fessing up while canabis is still class c??
Tch. Don't think much of your top story today, Iain... especially as you note yourself that it's already getting plenty of coverage.
Where's your outrage over alleged breaches of electoral law? Normally, this is something that has you foaming at the mouth.
According to Quentin Letts in the mail Dennis Skinner was shouting "get back to the drugs" at Cameron at PMQs yesterday.
Will he be shouting the same to Home Secretary next week????
Don't think much of your top story today, Iain
Have your money back then! Why should a blogger be obliged to cover every story, by order of Tim Ireland?
The obvious answer to the alleged breaches of electoral law is: let the police investigate and bring any wrong-doers to justice. Same as any other alleged breach of any law.
bring back Dyke the Saviour. Was not that fellow Grade associated with this conglomerate a while back. Seems so to me.
Tim, like I care what you think. I never fail to understand why you ever bother commenting here or even reading my blog if you think it is so rubbish.
unless its cash for peerages when the police investigate, find the evidence and the politicians try and cover it up.
good for you Iain
how did you get on last night?
> let us not bash the BBC too much - if it disappeared we would be inconsolable in the same way as if we woke up and the NHS had been privatised
Hahaha! Great sarcasm. Scrap the extortion funded entertainment and scrap extortion funded treatment rationing.
This RDF debacle is the biggest non-story of the year.
In fact, it's more than pathetic.
I am glad to see the BBC caught out . Its insidious bias has corrupted politics in this country for years and there is no sign of any improvement. Robin Aitken`s book provides some astonishing statistics on the balance of interviews during the “Common Market” referendum and I noticed recently that little has changed.
Andrew Marr did not so much interview ‘New’ Gordon Brown as draw him a relaxing hot bath and tickle his tummy . He is after all a Scottish Socialist , Marr, that is, who worked closely with Polly Toynbee at the Independent .La Toynbee being one of the most remarkable BBC employees as Social Affairs Editor .
From the endlessly Liberal audiences of question time ( where do they find them ?) to the flabbergasting contrast between the treatment of the IRA and Protestant paramilitaries on their web site ( have a look) a persistently arrogant disdane for the views of the people paying for them informs everything they do .
There is now little purpose to this propagandist arm of the “Progressive” left . Public money is not required to put on entertainment it will happily pay for itself, although it sometimes bewilders me, neither is it required for News Reporting or cultural programming . R4 which is the usual excuse can easily survive commercially, in fact it would thrive .
Most of all I resent the deadening hand of the state in the defining popular artistic output of the nation . Comedy, once a triumphant source of joy and pride, has never been so poor and drama remains stuck in a stodgy regurgitation of tired formulas. Young people now look to the US with envy at the thrilling accomplishment in vernacular drama 24 to the piquant nuance of Frasier , Will and Grace Zeinfeld and the glut of gleeful worlds that put our pathetic attempts entirely to shame . WE are approaching the condition of the subsidised Film Industry ( according only to EU rules ,...don`t ask). So poor is its reputation that Four Weddings and A Funeral was avoided on principle until it had conquered America and came back as an American Film that was made here. Think of the talent that a free media would unleash , think how much funnier fuller and nourishing life would be .
Death to the BBC , death to its cohorts of Oxbridge paternalists and damnation to its left wing thought control.
Huzzah !
Absolutely, Iain. Mr Fincham chose to stand up in front a group of journalists and make disparaging comments about the Queen's behaviour. He then showed a video clip for their amusement and as a teaser of what they might expect in the new 'documentary' series. Meanwhile the Queen was hosting possibly the last private reception for WW1 veterans and was due to make possibly her last visit to the WW1 battlefields (to Passchendaele, no less).
That the head of BBC1 could do such a thing at the same time that his channel was covering these news events is appalling. One suspects that the man has an anti-monarchist agenda. Nevertheless, he should have appreciated the significance of the Queen's engagements. That the BBC should sink so low is a sad indictment of our times.
Iain dale said: "Tim, like I care what you think."
It's not me you have to worry about, Iain m'lad... but thanks for unwittingly letting me know where you stand.
RDF also asked the BBC on a number of occasions if they could check the footage before the BBC showed it to any press. The BBC's response to this is that their requests to check the footage were not 'insistent' enough
David Anthony said...
This RDF debacle is the biggest non-story of the year.
In fact, it's more than pathetic.
July 19, 2007 10:52 AM
It is not a debacle it is a can opener......now we see the worms squirming inside the BBC can and very unedifying it is indeed
Incidentally, why did it take the mother of a child traduced by Blue Peter to expose this, and then Buckingham Palace ?
Has the BBC no management control ? What does Mark thompson do for £600,000pa ?
Why are there no undercover reporters with hidden cameras exposing these things at the BBC ? No Secret Policemen programmes exploring the rotten side of broadcasting ?
Iain, do you think it's worth issuing a clarification to explain that RDF hasn't actually been "banned from making any more programmes for the BBC" as you suggest. The situation is clearly that there has been a "pause" while an investigation goes on, which is a very different thing and a much more proportionate response.
Wouldn't want people accusing you of deliberately spreading misinformation. Or was this just a lapse in your checking procedures?
What crap Iain. Channel 4 have put out a huge amount of ridiculous and unchecked crap down the years. Often produced by independents.
Endemol anyone?
RDF will be making programmes for the BBC again before too long. But this post is just silly.
Probably Channel 4 do check whatever you have a hand in with a fine tooth comb. If only you had someone fact checking your blasted blog.
Anonymous, if you know something I don't then feel free to post it under your own name. It has been widely reported in various national newspapers that RDF will not be making programmes for the BBC any longer. I have seen no reference to a "pause". Perhaps you would like to reference your claim.
Yes, come on Iain. There's a by-election going on and the Tories have been caught "at it for Lit" again and again and again. Even claiming a rival has committed suicide.
Where is your coverage? Where are Grant Shapps' excuses for his continuous sharp practice and for Lit's ridiculously sharp Saville Row suits.
He dresses for Kensington and Chelsea, not Ealing Southall. Too slick. And with Schweppes a stop-at-nothing-but-get-caught-at-most-of-it by-election disaster.
I recommend this short article about the BBC on the First Post website.
It is subtitled: "Deception at the Beeb proves it has abandoned all its original values"
Iain, do you want to confess your connections with RDF before they're outed?
Oh Iain! You've made a claim without reference. Don't expect anonymous to prove you wrong. Prove yourself right. Like a potentially award winning political commentator should.
In a hole ... etc
Let us hope that the 'inquiry' also looks into the relationships that exist between the BBC and its various production co. suppliers. RDF is probably not alone in being staffed by ex BBC execs. It all looks rather too cosy and these production cos. are raking in the profits.
In my neck of the commercial woods, these relationships would be under constant scrutiny, auditors would be scrutinising contracts and staff would be frequently rotated. One wonders what the procedures are at the BBC?
The papers today are awash with stories about quiz shows, but one suspects that these may be a smokescreen for some more serious issues of managerial integrity!
anonymous 10.09 is correct with this quote "We will work with RDF to understand the steps they propose to ensure there is no chance of a repetition of the incident involving the Queen. Until that is clear and we have the findings of the independent inquiry, we will pause in commissioning any new programmes from them."
It is what I heard on both BBC1 and BBC2 news. Therefore, no ban as such.
No doubt had it been Labour or LibDem who leaked the information to the Telegraph, Iain would have been very quick to blog about it.
No doubt had it been Labour or LibDem who leaked the information to the Telegraph, Iain would have been very quick to blog about it.
Now we wait to see if Iain will refute this, give it a sniffy 'so what?' or simply wait for someone to yell "Axe murderder!" for him.
Oh, and Iain, the issue isn't about your blog being rubbish... it's about your content and its presentation being insidious... and that's what keeps me coming back.
Yep, the BBC has been caught bang to rights and it's noticeable that all the presenters are going through the motions of righteous indignation whilst interviewing the well-entrenched hierarchy. That charade will last for two days, maximum.
The real indication will be who and how many of its senior managers pick up their P45s and 'redundancy packages'. These guys commissioned external companies to produce programmes. Now what they want to do is offload the blame onto them as well. So one has to ask, what is the point of all these managers within the BBC? They make no decisions and bear no responsibity. Sack these mindless incompetents and save us all some of our money. Life for them is one giant gameshow, anyway. It's about time the BBC stopped trying to compete and started trying to produce excellence.
Anon 11.38
i suspect you are correct. The hand wringing over 'competitions' that nobody really cares about takes the sting out of the Queen scandal and deflects from the REAL disgrace that is its blatant political bias.
There is mor eto come in this scandal, just keep digging. That guy thompson comes across as a slimy scumbag. Ideal for a NuLabour minister.
This is the relevant excerpt from the official statement from the BBC. Full statement here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/07_july/18/thompson.shtml
“The BBC will commission a full and independent inquiry into the incident involving BBC One and the Queen. The report will be submitted by the Director-General to the BBC Trust in the Autumn. The findings of this inquiry will be made public.
We will work with RDF to understand the steps they propose to ensure there is no chance of a repetition of the incident involving the Queen. Until that is clear and we have the findings of the independent inquiry, we will pause in commissioning any new programmes from them.”
A couple of articles in today’s Guardian and Telegraph also talk rightly about a suspension rather than a ban:
“At the same time an independent inquiry was launched by the corporation into the circumstances that led to the clip of the Queen appearing in a press launch and, subsequently, on the front of newspapers worldwide. It said it would not commission any more programmes from the documentary's producer, RDF, until it reported in the autumn.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2129709,00.html
“The company has been dropped until the result of a separate inquiry into the misrepresentation of the Queen is completed in the autumn.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/19/nbbc119.xml
I don’t think this is just semantics. By using the word ‘ban’ you make your original article sound much more powerful and the BBC’s actions much more unreasonable. It’s not over the top to suggest that it’s exactly the kind of loose approach to the truth that you accuse the BBC of.
Why is it that people tend to pick on something in a blogpost which is tangential to the main point - the main point being that the transmission of this trailer was noone's responsibility apart fromn the BBC's. They can try to make RDF their scapegoat but they and they alone are responsible. It's like government ministers publically blaming a cock up on civil servant rather than take the responsibility themselves.
Ban, suspension, whatever. A suspension is still a ban on commissioning any new programmes. No time limit has been put on this.
It doesn't alter the point that the BBC are trying to shift the blame when they should be big enough to hold their hands up and say, yup, our fault, we take responsibility for it. They've done that on the phone scam, why can't they do it on this.
Iain Dale said... when they should be big enough to hold their hands up and say, yup, our fault, we take responsibility for it.
*sniff-sniff*
Is that irony I smell... or something altogether spicier?
Jailhouselawyer,
A ban by any other name is still a ban? Wordplay, silly wordplay! A pause if inflicted by decree because of a fault not yet proven can still be called a ban? You of all people should know the fluid and transient nature of legal inference!
Now to the matter in hand! Chris Paul, Do you think that a public service like the BBC should be biased in the way it is? When the pendulum swings to the right as you know it will tell me honestly will you be watching for any sign of right wing bias like a hawk? When the boy king gets his hands on power and strips the BBC down to its component parts and rebuilds it in his own image, the blame must lie with the leftists who did so much to pervert it in the first place!
Come on Iain, it’s not a tangential point. The whole thrust of your article is that this “ban” by the BBC shows that they’ve decided RDF are to blame and not them.
If you actually report the slightly more nuanced truth, which is that new commissions from RDF have been suspended pending an inquiry into what happened and who was to blame, then the whole thrust of your article falls down. Because it shows that, far from leaping to conclusions, the BBC is responsibly looking into what happened before deciding on what action to take – ban or otherwise.
The BBC could equally come out and complain that, instead of enjoying the unveiling of its autumn schedule, people have leapt onto a ‘tangential’ point about the Queen footage being in the wrong order. A mistake's a mistake, especially when it's in the context of criticising others for their lapses.
Anon 12:07
Yes, funny is it not, that a whole raft of dodgy phone-in practices were identified and revealed at short notice and yet nothing substantive could be disclosed about the Queen episode. One suspects that the phone-in 'investigation' was in-hand before last week.
It looks like there is a dispute between RDF and Mr Fincham and his team about who is in the wrong. Looks pretty straightforward to me - they both are, but for different reasons (RDF for dishonest editing and Fincham for appalling timing).
But, I suspect there is a deeper issue here concerning the relationship between the BBC and the 'independent' production cos. What is happening now could be interpreted as an attempt by the BBC to deflect attention away from this issue.
olJust about the whole of the BBC output has been commissioned, edited and censored by Herr Goebbels' propaganda department. No news, documentary, comment, drama, lifestyle or entertainment is without its purposive 'spin'.
The BBC has not yet worked out how to 'recreate' a Beethoven symphony (school children in Camden bashing castanets and drums? Might unfairly be dismissed by critics), but anything that can be twisted, is.
PS I went to the Telegraph comment on this issue and who was the first poster? Yes, your right, Verity.
Anonymous 12.25. You can't have read my last comment properly. The BBC broadcast the clip. it is their responsibility and they should just accept that and move on. Of course RDF shouldn't have done what they did but defective BBC management allowed the clip to go out without proper scrutiny. It is therefore entirely down to the BBC. Am previous commenter has said that RDF actually pointed out the clip to the BBC but the BBC said they didn;t do it "insistently" enough. If this is true, it's a slam dunk case. And RDF's blame is diminished even further.
I am afraid heads are going to roll.
Deflectors on maximum! as Capt Kirk would say! A typical NULAB trick that the BBC lackeys have been taught by their NULAB masters!
The lefties have been caught with their pants round their ankles so instead of commenting on the facts they piss around with silly semantics about ban Vs pause! Come on lefties you know the BBC has been caught bang to rights!
MiaS: "Iain - I think you'll find it is impossible to dump on the BBC as much as they deserve right now."
Yep.
Iain - Anon 12.25 here. At no point have I suggested that the BBC haven't cocked up monumentally by broadcasting what they did. As have RDF. However, the thrust of your article isn't about the broadcasts themselves, but about what you see as the BBC's attempt to shift all the blame onto RDF by banning them.
I guess (or hope) you will acknowledge that you were mistaken in calling it a ban and that this skews your article somewhat. After all, if that article you read this morning (which you still haven't named) had said 'temporary suspension pending an inquiry' instead of 'ban', would you still have felt compelled to write your article?
I also don't think you can seriously watch any of the interviews Mark Thompson has done and read them as an attempt to shift all the blame onto RDF and not accept any on behalf of the BBC.
The one theme in this whole thing is about accepting responsibility for your mistakes. I think RDF have done that. I think the BBC are doing that. I think you're not.
But I've made my point and I'll leave it there.
I think anonymous 11:24 had this about right. A blogger and propagandist without a fact checking or proper referencing bone in their body has ... wait for it ... made a huge mistake in this story about fact checking etc. But won't own up.
It is not the slightest surprise to me that Channel 4 ran a fine tooth comb over stuff you have been involved in Iain because sadly it just isn't up to scratch facts wise. Even on your own blog.
I just wish you would do what you project on others yourself. This is an influential and often interesting blog. Why let yourself down by not fact checking, and now apologising when something slips through?
You have a chance through your prominence and (unlike GuF) serious intention to set the standards and make the pace on blog quality and reliability. But performance is ragged.
Please take this as it is intended rather than as an excuse for some cheap out down.
Not rather than now. Ooops. Sorry everyone.
'banned, dropped, no further commissions, suspended' - all terms which have similar meaning and don't warrant 300 blog entries of hair splitting.
let's try to establish the big picture, or we'll end up with a pig's breakfast as muddy as Gordon Brown's tax code.
The BBC knew perfectly well that the Queen had been stitched up. They are entirely responsible for the result. The government approve of anti-monarchist propaganda, so that's what the BBC makes.
They are so used to the practice of deception that they think it's perfectly normal part of their jobs. That's why they won't apologise. They'll be lying about something else right now. It's the BBC, NuLab way of life.
Muddy away as you like, but it's as clear as daylight to most people.
OK - it's an age-old practice when you've lost the argument to accuse the other side of 'hair-splitting'. Presumably you also think the 'pause' and 'eject' buttons on your video are one and the same.
I'll say it again, although Lord only knows why. The BBC explicitly referred to a 'pause' which is much less draconian than a ban. The source (their own press release) has been referenced above. Iain still hasn't referenced the source that was apparently the inspiration for his article ("This morning I read that RDF... bas been banned")
It's pretty pathetic to watch someone dodging the issue like this, when a simple clarification is all that's needed. But given the many layers of irony involved, it's also quite hilarious.
Regarding the phone line scams, I cant help thinking that the Theft Act might be relevant. It is nicely explained here on the BBC website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A580312
why is your definition of the word ban imply permanence? Don't you have a driving licence?
What is so typical of todays senior management is the BBCs DG who appears to give the impression that it is nothing to do with him. Why was auditing not taking place of how things are being run in each department.I think the BBC is rotten to the core and this is only the tip of the iceberg.
The DG has lost control of his organisation and needs to be replaced by a non media person who could bring in normal reporting and auditing structures to the BBC.
There has been criminal deception and the BBC needs to take corporate resposibility as they are always telling everyone else
Of course the BBC has decided RDF are the culprits. That was done several days ago. This delay and 'Inquiry' is merely part of the process which ultimately will lead to complete exoneration of everyone in the BBC.
You have to understand that there is a plan in action here. The object of the exercise is Business As Usual. In order to achieve that it is possible that some junior heads may roll, some contracts be terminated and so on, but this is a big business and can easily survive a small skirmish like this. Naturally the 'managers' of this shambles will not be affected. The overseers never are.
But don't anyone expect a change of corporate culture. That's just not going to happen. After all, if all these goons (and many hundreds have been involved in the scams reported so far) can not see immoral and/or illegal acts for what they are, there's no chance whatsoever that things will be different.
The BBC, like so many other of our great institutions, is fucked.
johhny - how do expect anyone running the bbc to be honest when the government is a known practitioner of deception at every turn? The fish rots from the head.
Jailhouse Lawyer - no one is interested in your contributions based on legal lessons you had at the taxpayers' expense while banged up for murder. Resist the temptation to give us your considered opinion.
Strange that no one has heard you suggest taking an axe to the licence fee.
Anon [9.59 AM] You say "The result [post Hutton] is that NOW the BBC have an incredibly arrogant attitude." [My emphasis]
Not just post-Hutton, surely? Arrogance has been the defining characteristic of the BBC since the 1960s, if not before.
I blame the licence fee. I have seen single mothers, living with two or three kids in crummy tower blocks, threatened with imprisonment because they have failed to divi up the licence fee which Guardian-recruited arts graduates, knocking back the claret at Islington dinner parties, regard as their birthright.
Richard Kay in The Daily Mail 19 July 2007
BBC director general Mark Thompson's decree — in the wake of the brouhaha over the Queen's contretemps with photographer Annie Leibovitz — that all corporation staff must attend a "Safeguarding Trust" course has, I hear, caused discontent among underlings.
Many at Television Centre feel an executive should have been sacked over the affair in which production company RDF Media wrongly edited a trailer of the Queen's photoshoot.
"It's being whispered that two senior BBC people saw an early version of the RDF footage and complained it was just like any other documentary about the Royal Family," I am told.
"The RDF people were sent away after being told to 'sex it up'."
Vera Titty: I have already axed the TV Licence fee, I don't pay it. At least I challenged it unlike the likes of yourself, too busy sucking on foreign members. Isn't it time you got a blog of your own and just see how many people are interested in what you have got to say? As Tim Ireland says, you're just a sock puppet.
The BBC is chock full of self-loathers.
Nothing short of a flame-thrower will resolve that.
I imagine being a Libertarian or Conservative in the BBC is like being one of the Marines in "Aliens" trying to rescue Newt. As many as you kill they keep on coming and Auntie Beeb sits deep in the bowels of Broadcasting House laying hundreds and thousands more of them.
"Game over, man...Game OVER!"
as far as i am aware, the bbc DID NOT broadcast the offending clip...
Post a Comment