Best Of

Ha!

The BBC's "anti-bias" dossier that called out Panorama for splicing together disconnected quotes itself spliced together disconnected quotes.

According to Michael Prescott Trump actually said the following, which indicated there was no incitement to riot:

We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.

What Trump actually, actually said it appears was the following, with the bit that Prescott cut out in italics and a clear incitement to riot;

We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.

Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.

I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

https://bsky.app/profile/jamesrball.com/post/3m5gxauahck2e

Did Mr Prescott not use ellipses - [...] most explicitly?

Mind it doesn't always work. Slab once put out a press release bitterly attacking the SNP for misquoting someone or other by leaving stuff out full stop. Slab hadn't realised what the funny characters meant.

He did not. No indication that these were disconnected quotes. He based his assertion that there was no incitement and that Panorama was misleading the viewer on his misquotation when the full quotation would have made clear there was incitement.

Arguably worse than what Panorama did.

Thanks. How utterly extraordinary.

Not really, it was a politically motivated hatchet job.
The Newsagent podcast on this is the most revealing about what has been going on inside BBC news.
Clearly they're not impartial, but their accounts have not been rebutted (just ignored).

The News Agents podcast is an excellent rebuttal of @Cyclefree's BBC critique from yesterday.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-news-agents/id1640878689?i=1000736136498

The irony is we are criticising the BBC for a poor edit, the biased dossier which raised this does itself have a similarly poor edit; and the subject of complaint is the most egregious liar in democratic political history.

The tail is not so much wagging the dog, it is throttling it.

The dossier is not simply about the Trump documentary. This is a point that you and others repeatedly ignore. It certainly suits the BBC and those defending it to pretend that it is. But it is a mistake.

I said yesterday in the header this -

"It is not possible to say whether all or any of the criticisms made are justified or not." about the report.

And this BTL -

"As for having an agenda: all whistleblowers and complainants have an agenda. But an investigator who allows that agenda to stop them investigating properly is a very bad one indeed. An organisation who does that is an organisation in denial. That is their agenda and it is a harmful one.

I cannot assess the validity of the Prescott criticisms. Some seem a little overblown; others much more serious. The Trump Panorama one seems to my mind less serious than some of the others."

And again this -

"As to your second point, I am not convinced by all the accusations Prescott makes. But there are statements of fact he makes from which he draws conclusions of bias etc. So were I being asked what to do, I would investigate those statements of fact, interview the relevant people etc. review the applicable policies, guidance and so on and establish exactly what happened and why and what he (Prescott) may have left out and whether this shows no issue or a breach of guidelines / policies or laws, or, potentially, a problem with internal policies/scrutiny/governance/training etc. This is standard investigative stuff. There will also be mitigating factors, which he does not consider."

So all they are doing is pointing out that Prescott has an agenda and may well have got his facts and allegations wrong, both of which I pointed out yesterday. That is the case in pretty much the majority of whistleblowing investigations and I have done far more of them than Lewis Goodall or Emily Maitlis or Jon Sopel or all 3 of them combined. Allegations are simply that - allegations. Some are untrue, some are made up, some are misunderstandings, some have answers, some are true and a problem and some are true but not a problem because ..... It is the investigation that gives you that information not evidence that the allegations come from someone with an agenda.

What those journalists have not done is investigated the entirety of the claims made and proved that they are - each and every one of them - wholly untrue. Instead they are doing a version of no 3 in yesterday's list. Prescott may well be a dubious or partisan source but that is neither a complete nor a sufficient answer to all the claims made in what he writes.

Oh and @kinabalu is someone who does not understand what a whistleblowing is. Like most people.

But I understand what it isn't.

I am afraid you don't. On this topic I really really know my stuff and you do not.

The BBC would be and do so much better if it actually answered its critics with substance. Instead of this wailing about how unfair and horrid it all is.

Question for @Foxy if you have time and inclination to answer..

Please could you tell me, how high is a C-Reactive Protein level of 279 mg/dL?

High enough that you should be seeing someone not posting on here

Without wishing to worry anyone - if I was seeing that number, it would go straight to hospital. Right now.

Where are you getting it from?

That was what my reading was when I was in hospital just over three weeks ago. They gave me loads of antibiotics and I feel better, but I don't know if I'm well

When I went to hospital, it was because I had excruciating pain in my chest; I didn't think I felt otherwise unwell. The follow up from the hospital was to tell me to get a chest x-ray in eight weeks, but nothing about a follow-up blood test, which my Dad thought was insane

After many long phone calls, I finally managed today to get my doctors surgery to get my GP to look at the details and get me booked in for a blood test. They offered me their earliest appointment for a blood test - in nine days time; I'm hoping to go back to work a week today

After some slightly terse discussion about the practicalities of their earliest appointment, they've booked me in for 7:30am tomorrow

If you have any doubt about your condition, go to A&E.

The cost, to the NHS, of 5 minutes with a doctor saying you are actually OK is small.
The cost, to the NHS, of catching a problem early is vastly less than if you get to the 999/Ambulance stage.

My faith in A&E has somewhat diminished since they took very good care of me when I'd been hit by the car

Even with the CRP of 279 it took them over twenty hours to give me a bed and antibiotics

I did have a really lovely thing happen in A&E, that I haven't yet reported on

About an hour after my arrival, an older lady sat down in the waiting room about five yards away from me, in quite a huge and busy waiting room. I thought I recognised her and tilted my head and frowned.. She looked up and we both said each others' names at the same time. She's a really sweet lady who I deliver mail to, and have chatted to loads of times

Then her daughter sat down next to her, having brought her to the hospital. I also deliver mail to her, she has one of my favourite dogs on my route (a lovely lady Lab called Muddy). I chatted to them, and then just the Mum after the daughter had to go, for about three hours

She got a room much sooner than me, but I somehow bumped into her three more times while we were both in the hospital. We're now friends, and I've met up with her three times in the three weeks since we've been out of hospital

A couple of days ago I mentioned that I was mystery shopping the Forest of Dean heritage railway wrt accessibility.

This is the reply, to which I give about 7.5 out of 10 - that is, quite good, especially around prompt individual attention given to my query. So well done the FODway. I'll copy to the other project I was talking about, and ask them to make sure that latest accessibility standards are a foundational aspect of their project.

There are other things for a 9/10 or 1 10/10, such as secure, inclusive parking for adapted cycles and mobility aids, gradients, offsite safe routes to get there etc, but I'd need a more detailed conversation to explore those.

-----------------
Good morning, Matt

Many thanks for your enquiry.

We are able to accommodate both manual and electric wheelchairs. We provide a ramped access to the train for boarding and disembarking at our stations, and there are disabled toilets at our main station, Norchard, and also Lydney Junction and Parkend. Our porters will be happy to assist.

If you are thinking of visiting, especially during busier days, or booking an experience such as a Santa Special, we ask that you let us know when booking so we can check availability of wheelchair spaces and reserve these for you, as there is limited room on board. For those who are able to transfer from wheelchair to a seat, we are happy to store wheelchairs and reserve tables closest to the ramped access.

We regret there is no wheelchair access for the First Class saloon, due to the nature of the carriage.

Finally, we recommend starting your journey at Norchard station, as we have a large car park including disabled spaces, plus a wheelchair accessible museum, shop and café. There are also half price discounts for carers for our steam train rides, and an £8 discount per carer for our Santa Specials.

Please let us know if you have any further queries, or need help booking something.

Kind Regards