For betting opportunities, the New Statesman points out that three women being discussed as DG replacement are:
Alex Mahon (who has just left Channel 4 as as chief executive)
Charlotte Moore (ex BBC controller of BBC 1)
Jay Hunt (also formerly of the BBC)
As I explained in an earlier thread, the only realistic candidate on that list is Jay Hunt. North Moore or Mahon have the editorial/news background required to steer a ship like the BBC.
There is a vast difference between thinking that The Traitors may work as a programme and handling the fallout from an erroneous report from Gaza. Channel Four has always been cutting edge and willing to take risks. That approach and mentality will not fit at the BBC - especially if you’ve never worked there.
Never mind the BBC. ITV's 1% Club-gate was mentioned the other day. It looks like what happened was that after showing the first four episodes of this series, ITVx published episode 5 but ITV actually showed a previously-unbroadcast episode from the last series. ITVx has now removed episode 5 from its site.
Beware of family members offering to wager on next week's show.
Meta’s chief artificial intelligence scientist Yann LeCun, a Turing Award winner who is considered one of the pioneers of modern AI, has told associates he will leave the Silicon Valley group in the coming months
Your joking....not another one.
At what point does Zuck realise that these guys want serious equity in the business, not just a telephone number salary?
You would expect a report on bias in an organisation to be objective, and not itself to be massively biased. That's why I think the BBC board engaging a partisan hack as its bias consultant is a bigger problem than any of the issues he has identified. Any big organisation has issues that get resolved some how, but a leadership guided by consultants not acting in good faith is a leadership seriously adrift, in my view.
The idea that there's a room full of Plato's Philosopher Kings wing to be released upon the world to give us Pure Impartiality is... improbable.
In the real world, you get biases. It's a bit like working with a mill or lathe. Nothing is perfectly true. But with clever techniques, you can used a lathe to make *a more accurate lathe*.
No but there's already a review process in the BBC for bias, which is dealing with most or all of the genuine issues including the Panorama edit. This process appears to be much more rigorous and objective than Michael Prescott's hatchet job. So why not run with that?
I have no problem with Prescott having a personal view of how he would like stories to be reported but it's concerning the BBC board have delegated overall editorial judgement to an outsider with an agenda.
They haven't delegated editorial judgement to an outsider.
He wrote a report/memo on editorial judgement. Which, in among the partisan stuff, deals with a number of objective failures in meetings standards.
Which is why people resigned.
The sane approach is to prevent the same shit happening again.
I accept the report mentions a couple of genuine failings - the Panorama edit, some of the reporting on Gaza - which are being dealt with through the proper process already. The "partisan stuff' is the problem. Not even because it is partisan - anyone can have a view - but because the board has decided to make it their totem.
The problem is that "The Proper Process" is reactive and after the event.
What is needed is to prevent them happening again. Which means changing behaviour.
I'm not sure what "changing behaviour" would actually mean here. I think there's one with the BBC Arabic service where the journalists over identified with "their people" rather than reporting objectively. That's a specific issue the organisation is dealing with specifically, correctly in my view. The rest? The BBC is responsible for a huge amount of content and the number of incontestably wrong calls identified by the report is tiny. How do you generalise that in organisational, behavioural terms?
False claim again. The BBC might be responsible for a "a huge amount of content" but much of that is uncontroversial. We are not really concerned about Eastenders or Traitors. What we are concerned about is that BBC news is regarded as impartial and truthful. A couple of important labels it has lost (if it ever really had them).
The point is, you're wasting your time if you say lessons must be learnt, behaviour must change but you can't articulate what those lessons actually are and what behaviour needs to change.
So don't juxtapose two quotes without indicating the break. That's a no-no that no-one else as far as we know has done. What else?
Don't reverse footage to turn the victims of violence into the perpetrators.
Don't ignore the paedophiles and sex pests in your organisarion because they are your 'stars'.
Don't allow one of your main foreign language services to become a propagsnda base for anti-semitism and radical Islam.
There are three to start with. There are dozens more.
The second of these is an old issue and wasn't in the report. The third one was in the report, and as I said was being dealt with by the BBC, correctly in my view, as a specific issue in that service. Not sure what the first one is.
In general I think BBC leadership is poor. An example of their poor leadership is that they buy into this report. They should be objective and rigorous.
Meta’s chief artificial intelligence scientist Yann LeCun, a Turing Award winner who is considered one of the pioneers of modern AI, has told associates he will leave the Silicon Valley group in the coming months
Your joking....not another one.
At what point does Zuck realise that these guys want serious equity in the business, not just a telephone number salary?
Meta’s chief artificial intelligence scientist Yann LeCun, a Turing Award winner who is considered one of the pioneers of modern AI, has told associates he will leave the Silicon Valley group in the coming months
Your joking....not another one.
At what point does Zuck realise that these guys want serious equity in the business, not just a telephone number salary?
But doing that would mean less money for Zuck...
If AI is indeed the future, which Zuck clearly thinks is the case, then losing out will cost Zuck a whole lot more than investing properly today.
The government should name Trevor Philips as new BBC DG, give him a licence to clean house and bring back impartiality.
I think that is an excellent idea. I have a huge amount of time for Trevor Philips.
iirc the BBC Board decides the DG?
Indeed. And I am not sure Philips would be the government's choice anyway. Doesn't stop him being an excellent candidate.
Isn't Robbie Gibb likely to want someone like Richard Littlejohn as DG?
Sadly yes.
What about Andrew Neil?
He is going to run the BBC from his villa in the South of France? He seems to be there full time now, every time I see him commenting on Times Radio he is there.
He’s also 76, and presumably quite likes working a couple of hours a day from home somewhere sunny.
In fact most of the names suggested so far are well past retirement age, for what’s very much a full-time executive position.
Who do we have aged 55-65 in the running?
Gary Lineker (age 64). Lots of BBC experience. Worth it for the apoplexy that would be witnessed.
He’d hasten the demise of the license fee, so great idea
You would expect a report on bias in an organisation to be objective, and not itself to be massively biased. That's why I think the BBC board engaging a partisan hack as its bias consultant is a bigger problem than any of the issues he has identified. Any big organisation has issues that get resolved some how, but a leadership guided by consultants not acting in good faith is a leadership seriously adrift, in my view.
The idea that there's a room full of Plato's Philosopher Kings wing to be released upon the world to give us Pure Impartiality is... improbable.
In the real world, you get biases. It's a bit like working with a mill or lathe. Nothing is perfectly true. But with clever techniques, you can used a lathe to make *a more accurate lathe*.
No but there's already a review process in the BBC for bias, which is dealing with most or all of the genuine issues including the Panorama edit. This process appears to be much more rigorous and objective than Michael Prescott's hatchet job. So why not run with that?
I have no problem with Prescott having a personal view of how he would like stories to be reported but it's concerning the BBC board have delegated overall editorial judgement to an outsider with an agenda.
They haven't delegated editorial judgement to an outsider.
He wrote a report/memo on editorial judgement. Which, in among the partisan stuff, deals with a number of objective failures in meetings standards.
Which is why people resigned.
The sane approach is to prevent the same shit happening again.
I accept the report mentions a couple of genuine failings - the Panorama edit, some of the reporting on Gaza - which are being dealt with through the proper process already. The "partisan stuff' is the problem. Not even because it is partisan - anyone can have a view - but because the board has decided to make it their totem.
The problem is that "The Proper Process" is reactive and after the event.
What is needed is to prevent them happening again. Which means changing behaviour.
I'm not sure what "changing behaviour" would actually mean here. I think there's one with the BBC Arabic service where the journalists over identified with "their people" rather than reporting objectively. That's a specific issue the organisation is dealing with specifically, correctly in my view. The rest? The BBC is responsible for a huge amount of content and the number of incontestably wrong calls identified by the report is tiny. How do you generalise that in organisational, behavioural terms?
False claim again. The BBC might be responsible for a "a huge amount of content" but much of that is uncontroversial. We are not really concerned about Eastenders or Traitors. What we are concerned about is that BBC news is regarded as impartial and truthful. A couple of important labels it has lost (if it ever really had them).
Which easily available general coverage news source would you trust more than the BBC?
Political Betting of course
That's not entirely a joke, though it's a good one. I'm increasingly aware how few places there are one can get a range of opinions and comments [edit] outwith the silos.
It wasn't really meant as a joke if I am being honest. Whenever I see an item of news interest appear on the wires, my first port of call is always PB rather than any official media website.
Another pressure campaign that has recently been launched is the government promised not to tax pays out for the blood scandal. The children of those effected are now campaigning that they should get IHT exemption on any of that money being pass to them.
Given how long it has taken ...
If they’re giving people in their 80s and 90s million-pound cheques, which they’ve waited three or four decades to receive, then wanting 40% of it back in IHT when they pass on does seem a little off.
Not necessarily in their 80s and 90s. The illnesses kindly conferred on them do AFAIK shorten life.
Meta’s chief artificial intelligence scientist Yann LeCun, a Turing Award winner who is considered one of the pioneers of modern AI, has told associates he will leave the Silicon Valley group in the coming months
Your joking....not another one.
At what point does Zuck realise that these guys want serious equity in the business, not just a telephone number salary?
Actually in this situation, LeCun isn't really 100% on board with LLMs. I am not going to say he has been left behind, but he isn't at the top of the tree anymore and he keeps on insisting on working on other things. Where as I have been told by people in the know, Zuckerberg is absolutely on top of all those working on the LLMs, demanding constant updates on benchmarks etc. Its become a huge obsession that they need to be in the mix with the SOTA.
And as soon as a new model comes out, he works out an trick question to make it fail. Also, he isn't a big Trump fan, no idea if that has any impact when Zuckerberg is all down with the UFC etc.
Hopefully the Ukrainians can keep chipping away at Russia's oil infrastructure and supply,
Indeed, the Flamingos appear to be flying well.
The other really interesting bit in the last couple of days is the European and Middle East operations of Lukoil and Rosneft being either taken over or nationalised by the countries in which they operate, depriving the companies of a significant flow of hard currency.
The question with the flamingos is still ultimate accuracy afaics.
Meta’s chief artificial intelligence scientist Yann LeCun, a Turing Award winner who is considered one of the pioneers of modern AI, has told associates he will leave the Silicon Valley group in the coming months
Your joking....not another one.
At what point does Zuck realise that these guys want serious equity in the business, not just a telephone number salary?
But doing that would mean less money for Zuck...
If AI is indeed the future, which Zuck clearly thinks is the case, then losing out will cost Zuck a whole lot more than investing properly today.
You know that, I know that, Yucky Zucky apparently doesn't.
Perhaps these tech titans are a bit greedy and short-sighted.
Reeves’ “fiscal headroom” is going to evaporate like an ice cube under a blowtorch at this rate. WASPI women are the most undeserving group of the lot - if Labour caves to them it really is all over & we’re just going to get an entire Parliament of payouts to aggrieved subgroups that can bend the ear of sympathetic MPs & nothing for investing in the future of the UK.
There’s nothing in this for Labour if they give these leeches money either. They’re hardly going to vote for them in their droves.
The government should name Trevor Philips as new BBC DG, give him a licence to clean house and bring back impartiality.
I think that is an excellent idea. I have a huge amount of time for Trevor Philips.
iirc the BBC Board decides the DG?
Indeed. And I am not sure Philips would be the government's choice anyway. Doesn't stop him being an excellent candidate.
Isn't Robbie Gibb likely to want someone like Richard Littlejohn as DG?
Sadly yes.
What about Andrew Neil?
He is going to run the BBC from his villa in the South of France? He seems to be there full time now, every time I see him commenting on Times Radio he is there.
He’s also 76, and presumably quite likes working a couple of hours a day from home somewhere sunny.
In fact most of the names suggested so far are well past retirement age, for what’s very much a full-time executive position.
Who do we have aged 55-65 in the running?
The The Rest Is Entertainment shortlist mentioned upthread;
Alex Mahon 52 Charlotte Moore 57 Jay Hunt 58
which puts them in the right sort of age frame for a Chief Exec running things. (I'm sure that part of our problem as a nation is the generational bulge resenting the idea that policemen, bishops, newsreaders and BBC Director-Generals can be younger then they are.)
The DG is appointed by the BBC Board and Board members are in place until their term runs out. So Robbie Gibb will have a say, and based on reported events, a very strong say as he appears to dominate the other members.
So anyone from C4 can be ruled out
Other potential runners James Harding (think he's ruled himself out) Will Lewis?
The government should name Trevor Philips as new BBC DG, give him a licence to clean house and bring back impartiality.
I think that is an excellent idea. I have a huge amount of time for Trevor Philips.
iirc the BBC Board decides the DG?
Indeed. And I am not sure Philips would be the government's choice anyway. Doesn't stop him being an excellent candidate.
Isn't Robbie Gibb likely to want someone like Richard Littlejohn as DG?
Sadly yes.
What about Andrew Neil?
He is going to run the BBC from his villa in the South of France? He seems to be there full time now, every time I see him commenting on Times Radio he is there.
He’s also 76, and presumably quite likes working a couple of hours a day from home somewhere sunny.
In fact most of the names suggested so far are well past retirement age, for what’s very much a full-time executive position.
Who do we have aged 55-65 in the running?
The The Rest Is Entertainment shortlist mentioned upthread;
Alex Mahon 52 Charlotte Moore 57 Jay Hunt 58
which puts them in the right sort of age frame for a Chief Exec running things. (I'm sure that part of our problem as a nation is the generational bulge resenting the idea that policemen, bishops, newsreaders and BBC Director-Generals can be younger then they are.)
The DG is appointed by the BBC Board and Board members are in place until their term runs out. So Robbie Gibb will have a say, and based on reported events, a very strong say as he appears to dominate the other members.
So anyone from C4 can be ruled out
Other potential runners James Harding (think he's ruled himself out) Will Lewis?
James Harding wrote a very good article (actually his MacTaggert speech) in the Observer back in August. He has some very clear ideas about the future independence of the BBC.
EXCL: Downing Street has launched an extraordinary operation to protect Keir Starmer amid fears among PM’s closest allies he is vulnerable to leadership challenge in wake of budget.
I love all the ways politicians have of promising to do something about something without actually promising to stop it happening.
"BEAR DOWN UPON" is a new one on me. Bored of "tackle" and "get tough with' I suppose. Soon we'll see politicians promising to menace the immigration figures or be jolly rude to NHS waiting lists.
The government should name Trevor Philips as new BBC DG, give him a licence to clean house and bring back impartiality.
I think that is an excellent idea. I have a huge amount of time for Trevor Philips.
iirc the BBC Board decides the DG?
Indeed. And I am not sure Philips would be the government's choice anyway. Doesn't stop him being an excellent candidate.
Isn't Robbie Gibb likely to want someone like Richard Littlejohn as DG?
Sadly yes.
What about Andrew Neil?
He is going to run the BBC from his villa in the South of France? He seems to be there full time now, every time I see him commenting on Times Radio he is there.
He’s also 76, and presumably quite likes working a couple of hours a day from home somewhere sunny.
In fact most of the names suggested so far are well past retirement age, for what’s very much a full-time executive position.
Who do we have aged 55-65 in the running?
Gary Lineker (age 64). Lots of BBC experience. Worth it for the apoplexy that would be witnessed.
He’d hasten the demise of the license fee, so great idea
Well, at least if the licence fee goes people won't have to misspell it any more.
Unstupid question. Why are Labour doing this? Genuine change of mind? Incoherence?
It's a large issue to the women involved but not so large as to shift the dial on the polls. Of all the Hail Mary plays, this is not the one I would have picked.
I am happy for every Waspi woman to have a payout as long as they agree to a tattoo on their forehead saying “I’m too stupid to have kept abreast of my pension situation and am now in receipt of tax payers money because I’m stupid”.
I love all the ways politicians have of promising to do something about something without actually promising to stop it happening.
"BEAR DOWN UPON" is a new one on me. Bored of "tackle" and "get tough with' I suppose. Soon we'll see politicians promising to menace the immigration figures or be jolly rude to NHS waiting lists.
For one month, marshal the judiciary like we do after a riot - and have a judge look over the paperwork before any release, prisoner in the dock.
EXCL: Downing Street has launched an extraordinary operation to protect Keir Starmer amid fears among PM’s closest allies he is vulnerable to leadership challenge in wake of budget.
I suppose Streeting must go early, because he's nowhere just now - he's seen as an insider and the one who gets it is likely to be someone who stands as a break with the Starmer era.
Hopefully the Ukrainians can keep chipping away at Russia's oil infrastructure and supply,
Indeed, the Flamingos appear to be flying well.
The other really interesting bit in the last couple of days is the European and Middle East operations of Lukoil and Rosneft being either taken over or nationalised by the countries in which they operate, depriving the companies of a significant flow of hard currency.
The question with the flamingos is still ultimate accuracy afaics.
Unstupid question. Why are Labour doing this? Genuine change of mind? Incoherence?
It's a large issue to the women involved but not so large as to shift the dial on the polls. Of all the Hail Mary plays, this is not the one I would have picked.
I am happy for every Waspi woman to have a payout as long as they agree to a tattoo on their forehead saying “I’m too stupid to have kept abreast of my pension situation and am now in receipt of tax payers money because I’m stupid”.
After the problems I had working out my own pension situation with DWP, I have to say I'm not at all sure that would be fair.
For years, recently, DWP would do a nice pension forecast for you; and then at the same time say it was only projected and didn't necessarily match reality.
TBF the commercial firms contracted to do civil service pensions seemed at times to have that same habit.
I love all the ways politicians have of promising to do something about something without actually promising to stop it happening.
"BEAR DOWN UPON" is a new one on me. Bored of "tackle" and "get tough with' I suppose. Soon we'll see politicians promising to menace the immigration figures or be jolly rude to NHS waiting lists.
For one month, marshal the judiciary like we do after a riot - and have a judge look over the paperwork before any release, prisoner in the dock.
I don't see a need for that, when there are several more levels of rhetorical severity that Lammy's action plan could progress to.
He could:
Have cross words with release errors Do a two-footed tackle on release errors Inflict a vulcan death grip on release errors
The government should name Trevor Philips as new BBC DG, give him a licence to clean house and bring back impartiality.
I think that is an excellent idea. I have a huge amount of time for Trevor Philips.
iirc the BBC Board decides the DG?
Indeed. And I am not sure Philips would be the government's choice anyway. Doesn't stop him being an excellent candidate.
Isn't Robbie Gibb likely to want someone like Richard Littlejohn as DG?
Sadly yes.
What about Andrew Neil?
He is going to run the BBC from his villa in the South of France? He seems to be there full time now, every time I see him commenting on Times Radio he is there.
He’s also 76, and presumably quite likes working a couple of hours a day from home somewhere sunny.
In fact most of the names suggested so far are well past retirement age, for what’s very much a full-time executive position.
Who do we have aged 55-65 in the running?
Gary Lineker (age 64). Lots of BBC experience. Worth it for the apoplexy that would be witnessed.
He’d hasten the demise of the license fee, so great idea
Well, at least if the licence fee goes people won't have to misspell it any more.
Unstupid question. Why are Labour doing this? Genuine change of mind? Incoherence?
It's a large issue to the women involved but not so large as to shift the dial on the polls. Of all the Hail Mary plays, this is not the one I would have picked.
I am happy for every Waspi woman to have a payout as long as they agree to a tattoo on their forehead saying “I’m too stupid to have kept abreast of my pension situation and am now in receipt of tax payers money because I’m stupid”.
After the problems I had working out my own pension situation with DWP, I have to say I'm not at all sure that would be fair.
For years, recently, DWP would do a nice pension forecast for you; and then at the same time say it was only projected and didn't necessarily match reality.
TBF the commercial firms contracted to do civil service pensions seemed at times to have that same habit.
The way the issue is portrayed is all these poor woman were at their retirement parties and a man in a grey suit turned up and told them to go back to work for x more years. It’s bollocks. Changes were reported in the media, on TV, radio. It’s basically down to not taking responsibility.
The government should name Trevor Philips as new BBC DG, give him a licence to clean house and bring back impartiality.
I think that is an excellent idea. I have a huge amount of time for Trevor Philips.
iirc the BBC Board decides the DG?
Indeed. And I am not sure Philips would be the government's choice anyway. Doesn't stop him being an excellent candidate.
Isn't Robbie Gibb likely to want someone like Richard Littlejohn as DG?
Sadly yes.
What about Andrew Neil?
He is going to run the BBC from his villa in the South of France? He seems to be there full time now, every time I see him commenting on Times Radio he is there.
He’s also 76, and presumably quite likes working a couple of hours a day from home somewhere sunny.
In fact most of the names suggested so far are well past retirement age, for what’s very much a full-time executive position.
Who do we have aged 55-65 in the running?
Gary Lineker (age 64). Lots of BBC experience. Worth it for the apoplexy that would be witnessed.
He’d hasten the demise of the license fee, so great idea
Well, at least if the licence fee goes people won't have to misspell it any more.
License 😉
There are times when I wonder if a PB poster is a bot. And Yanklish spellings such as license are a big red warning sign, like a remove before flight tag still on your airliner's pitot tube as it takes off.
For betting opportunities, the New Statesman points out that three women being discussed as DG replacement are:
Alex Mahon (who has just left Channel 4 as as chief executive)
Charlotte Moore (ex BBC controller of BBC 1)
Jay Hunt (also formerly of the BBC)
As I explained in an earlier thread, the only realistic candidate on that list is Jay Hunt. North Moore or Mahon have the editorial/news background required to steer a ship like the BBC.
There is a vast difference between thinking that The Traitors may work as a programme and handling the fallout from an erroneous report from Gaza. Channel Four has always been cutting edge and willing to take risks. That approach and mentality will not fit at the BBC - especially if you’ve never worked there.
Zanny Minton Beddoes (who is 58), Editor in Chief of the Economist ? I've only ever heard good things about her.
I did wonder about Fiona Hill, but she does not have the journalistic background.
Are there any other University Chancellors / Vice Chancellors who have the background?
Nick Clegg? (For the LOLs, and the fits it would cause at GB News).
The government should name Trevor Philips as new BBC DG, give him a licence to clean house and bring back impartiality.
I think that is an excellent idea. I have a huge amount of time for Trevor Philips.
iirc the BBC Board decides the DG?
Indeed. And I am not sure Philips would be the government's choice anyway. Doesn't stop him being an excellent candidate.
Isn't Robbie Gibb likely to want someone like Richard Littlejohn as DG?
Sadly yes.
What about Andrew Neil?
He is going to run the BBC from his villa in the South of France? He seems to be there full time now, every time I see him commenting on Times Radio he is there.
He’s also 76, and presumably quite likes working a couple of hours a day from home somewhere sunny.
In fact most of the names suggested so far are well past retirement age, for what’s very much a full-time executive position.
Who do we have aged 55-65 in the running?
Gary Lineker (age 64). Lots of BBC experience. Worth it for the apoplexy that would be witnessed.
He’d hasten the demise of the license fee, so great idea
Well, at least if the licence fee goes people won't have to misspell it any more.
You would expect a report on bias in an organisation to be objective, and not itself to be massively biased. That's why I think the BBC board engaging a partisan hack as its bias consultant is a bigger problem than any of the issues he has identified. Any big organisation has issues that get resolved some how, but a leadership guided by consultants not acting in good faith is a leadership seriously adrift, in my view.
The idea that there's a room full of Plato's Philosopher Kings wing to be released upon the world to give us Pure Impartiality is... improbable.
In the real world, you get biases. It's a bit like working with a mill or lathe. Nothing is perfectly true. But with clever techniques, you can used a lathe to make *a more accurate lathe*.
No but there's already a review process in the BBC for bias, which is dealing with most or all of the genuine issues including the Panorama edit. This process appears to be much more rigorous and objective than Michael Prescott's hatchet job. So why not run with that?
I have no problem with Prescott having a personal view of how he would like stories to be reported but it's concerning the BBC board have delegated overall editorial judgement to an outsider with an agenda.
They haven't delegated editorial judgement to an outsider.
He wrote a report/memo on editorial judgement. Which, in among the partisan stuff, deals with a number of objective failures in meetings standards.
Which is why people resigned.
The sane approach is to prevent the same shit happening again.
I accept the report mentions a couple of genuine failings - the Panorama edit, some of the reporting on Gaza - which are being dealt with through the proper process already. The "partisan stuff' is the problem. Not even because it is partisan - anyone can have a view - but because the board has decided to make it their totem.
The problem is that "The Proper Process" is reactive and after the event.
What is needed is to prevent them happening again. Which means changing behaviour.
I'm not sure what "changing behaviour" would actually mean here. I think there's one with the BBC Arabic service where the journalists over identified with "their people" rather than reporting objectively. That's a specific issue the organisation is dealing with specifically, correctly in my view. The rest? The BBC is responsible for a huge amount of content and the number of incontestably wrong calls identified by the report is tiny. How do you generalise that in organisational, behavioural terms?
False claim again. The BBC might be responsible for a "a huge amount of content" but much of that is uncontroversial. We are not really concerned about Eastenders or Traitors. What we are concerned about is that BBC news is regarded as impartial and truthful. A couple of important labels it has lost (if it ever really had them).
Which easily available general coverage news source would you trust more than the BBC?
Political Betting of course
That's not entirely a joke, though it's a good one. I'm increasingly aware how few places there are one can get a range of opinions and comments [edit] outwith the silos.
It wasn't really meant as a joke if I am being honest. Whenever I see an item of news interest appear on the wires, my first port of call is always PB rather than any official media website.
It's quick, one-stop, up to date and an excellent filter, filtering out trillions of bits of micro detritus and getting to enough interesting stuff to keep up.
Speaking of which, have we covered the new interactive Roman Roads website which shows a Roman road going through the middle of my back garden (literally):
EXCL: Downing Street has launched an extraordinary operation to protect Keir Starmer amid fears among PM’s closest allies he is vulnerable to leadership challenge in wake of budget.
I suppose Streeting must go early, because he's nowhere just now - he's seen as an insider and the one who gets it is likely to be someone who stands as a break with the Starmer era.
Streeting is a good communicator but is sitting on a very small majority . If Starmer really needs protecting this early into the parliament then that says everything . Starmer is a politician who manages to be loved by no one and hated by most . Even in winning the election he was seen as meh . Starmers strong point was supposed to be dependable , boring , and we wouldn’t be seeing the constant dramas of the last government. It’s been a shambles , rudderless , passionless and no one has a clue or really cares anymore what Starmerism is .
And without Rayner who was the natural heiress to the throne it’s looking decidedly bleak for Labour .
Number 3 is important and worth highlighting. If the devil catches you with your pants down, you can't claim innocence by attacking the devil.
The 'sinister Reform/Boris Johnson/far right/Jewish Chronicle/etc (delete where appropriate) agenda within the BBC board' argument is only relevant to this particular matter if Robbie Gibb himself edited the Panorama footage, promoted Stonewall talking points as gospel, and ordered BBC Arabic to favour Hamas. Otherwise the original criticisms need to be addressed.
I want the BBC to survive as a national broadcaster. I pay the licence fee and am happy to continue to do so. I value its output and consider it a national asset. But to keep its status it needs to meet certain standards.
The BBC is not claiming innocence though is it? Indeed, as far as I am aware, the BBC has not mentioned the agenda of those leading the attack.
For betting opportunities, the New Statesman points out that three women being discussed as DG replacement are:
Alex Mahon (who has just left Channel 4 as as chief executive)
Charlotte Moore (ex BBC controller of BBC 1)
Jay Hunt (also formerly of the BBC)
As I explained in an earlier thread, the only realistic candidate on that list is Jay Hunt. North Moore or Mahon have the editorial/news background required to steer a ship like the BBC.
There is a vast difference between thinking that The Traitors may work as a programme and handling the fallout from an erroneous report from Gaza. Channel Four has always been cutting edge and willing to take risks. That approach and mentality will not fit at the BBC - especially if you’ve never worked there.
Zanny Minton Beddoes (who is 58), Editor in Chief of the Economist ? I've only ever heard good things about her.
I did wonder about Fiona Hill, but she does not have the journalistic background.
Are there any other University Chancellors / Vice Chancellors who have the background?
Not chancellors - they are the figureheads (such as the Duke of Edinburgh at Bath).
Reeves’ “fiscal headroom” is going to evaporate like an ice cube under a blowtorch at this rate. WASPI women are the most undeserving group of the lot - if Labour caves to them it really is all over & we’re just going to get an entire Parliament of payouts to aggrieved subgroups that can bend the ear of sympathetic MPs & nothing for investing in the future of the UK.
There’s nothing in this for Labour if they give these leeches money either. They’re hardly going to vote for them in their droves.
My pension age has moved from 65 to 67
Where’s my handout ?
I sympathise somewhat with their position but their complaints annoy me. I've said before on here that at first, I thought I would be one of the people affected. It turned out that I was one year older than their dividing line, but the matter was more than adequately publicised at the time. I wouldn't have noticed it myself if it hadn't been.
Number 3 is important and worth highlighting. If the devil catches you with your pants down, you can't claim innocence by attacking the devil.
The 'sinister Reform/Boris Johnson/far right/Jewish Chronicle/etc (delete where appropriate) agenda within the BBC board' argument is only relevant to this particular matter if Robbie Gibb himself edited the Panorama footage, promoted Stonewall talking points as gospel, and ordered BBC Arabic to favour Hamas. Otherwise the original criticisms need to be addressed.
I want the BBC to survive as a national broadcaster. I pay the licence fee and am happy to continue to do so. I value its output and consider it a national asset. But to keep its status it needs to meet certain standards.
The BBC is not claiming innocence though is it? Indeed, as far as I am aware, the BBC has not mentioned the agenda of those leading the attack.
John Simpson @JohnSimpsonNews First Trump attacks the BBC, now the Russians: ‘Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova criticised the BBC as "beyond redemption," accusing it of falsifying Russia-related stories. She says the BBC "fabricated" its coverage of events in the Ukrainian town of Bucha.’
John Simpson @JohnSimpsonNews And now Israel. Here’s part of a statement from its London embassy: ‘For years, we have repeatedly warned about the BBC’s consistent failures to uphold the standards of accuracy, impartiality, and integrity expected from a public broadcaster.’
Unstupid question. Why are Labour doing this? Genuine change of mind? Incoherence?
It's a large issue to the women involved but not so large as to shift the dial on the polls. Of all the Hail Mary plays, this is not the one I would have picked.
The WASPI campaign is very well organised so I'd imagine that Labour's many first-time MPs will have received a lot more contact from constituents about the issue than most others, and they may not recognise that this is due to the organisation of the campaign, rather than a groundswell of public support.
Plus, any sense of fiscal realism on the backbenches seems to have broken down after the winter fuel payment and PIP defeats for the government. There seems to be no recognition that to govern is to choose.
My most charitable interpretation of this would be that ministers have promised backbenchers that they will reconsider this just to fob them off in a way that disarms opposition, rather than creating another focus for it.
There are so many things that the government doesn't have money for that I think it's impossible they will find £billions for this campaign.
EXCL: Downing Street has launched an extraordinary operation to protect Keir Starmer amid fears among PM’s closest allies he is vulnerable to leadership challenge in wake of budget.
Reeves’ “fiscal headroom” is going to evaporate like an ice cube under a blowtorch at this rate. WASPI women are the most undeserving group of the lot - if Labour caves to them it really is all over & we’re just going to get an entire Parliament of payouts to aggrieved subgroups that can bend the ear of sympathetic MPs & nothing for investing in the future of the UK.
It's not clear from the story, but there seem to be some hints that it might be "avoid the judicial review by re-taking the decision and coming to the same answer". If it is that, then add it to the pile of "pressure groups can use the legal system to delay and increase the costs of practically any decision" evidence. If it is the precursor to a u-turn then I agree entirely with you...
Sadly it is, without doubt, “an attack by those with an agenda.”
This is not some staff member within the organisation whistleblowing.
Those who can't see that it's part of a concerted cultural attack by the right just don't want to see.
True- though that doesn't mean that the criticisms are wrong, or even silly. (Though some, like the 'where was the balancing documentary on what's bad about Harris?' surely were.)
Yes agreed. The Panorama edit was poor but hardly a 'phone-hacking' level crime. You'd think maybe a retraction and apology would be in order.
I'm reminded of a comment made by a Private Eye hack that many newspaper corrections add to the inaccuracy of the newspaper publishing the correction. (Yes, that seems paradoxical, but consider that the correction will be steered by one participant in the story.)
I suspect that the Prescott report, by highlighting certain imbalances that some people see in BBC coverage, is having much the same effect.
Classic attacking the messenger there. Basically there are far too many people on here who either believe the BBC can do no wrong or, if they do wrong it is only against people you don't like anyway do it doesn’t matter.
You are just another bunch of apologists for your own special interests and it is amusing that you end up using many of the excuses Cyclefree highlights in her excellent article.
Cyclefree lists a bunch of things she's not really going to allow in defence of the BBC. Well that's like charging someone with a crime and then saying we're not allowing any of the usual defences like an alibi, CCTV, DNA evidence, witness statements, lack of motivation or opportunity, etc.
Just because @Cyclefree has listed them in a pre-emptive strike, it doesn't invalidate genuinely important points. Indeed most of her headlines have some validity in this case.
Most of all this was without doubt: 3. An attack by those with an agenda.
The so-called defences, that @Cyclefree are disallowing, are the generic bullshit reactions of organisations trying to shrug off problems.
Sorry, Timmy, you can't use "The Dog Ate My Homework" as an excuse.
@Benpointer is I am sorry to say talking nonsense because he has done what so many organisations do: formed his opinion (a right wing attack) without any regard to the underlying facts relevant to the criticisms. Also he thinks only an employee can be a whistleblower. Not true.
What I have set out are not in any sense "defences". They are the very common reactions to criticisms. They are hopeless. The best defence is evidence which shows the criticism to be wrong. That is precisely what the BBC is not doing. It is being its own worst enemy by not engaging properly with the criticisms and either accepting them, where valid, and putting matters right or explaining why they are wrong. It is a great pity.
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. The conflict of interest determining how women's rights should be discussed is much more serious both because it has been longer lasting but also because such conflicts are always by definition more serious and harder to resolve. It is notable that it is the one area which the BBC and many of its defenders have ignored in their responses. What's the agenda there?
I wrote this as a critical friend. It pains me to see organisations make such a hash of their responses to problems like this. It is not hard to get it right. It is so easy to get it wrong and it shouldn't be because so much should have been learnt from others. And there are lots of people who could help them get it right professionally. But too many organisations are too arrogant, stupid or panicky to realise that they need help. And so we see the shitshow we've been seeing in the last few days.
And those who will do anything to destroy the best of the BBC will get their chance. It is so important to distinguish between the destroyers and critical friends. The BBC needs critical friends right now. The John Simpsons and others are not being critical friends. They are reinforcing the impression of an arrogant aloof organisation which thinks it knows best. It is a great pity.
Thank you for your considered and detailed response @Cyclefree - those points help me understand your position better.
I wish I had your skill and dedication to argue my views more persuasively. I do feel it is relevant that the attack is orchestrated by those who, unlike us, are anything but friends to the BBC.
Sadly, the way society is going it seems to me that those wishing to destroy the BBC will win out in the long run. And our media balance, openness and fairness will be severely diminished as a result.
Keir Starmer has privately vowed to face down any leadership challenge post-budget or May elections
Allies warn MPs of market chaos and say he won't quit if ministers demand he goes – but dare them to find 80 MPs and trigger a contest he'd fight
This is why I question wherher he is financially motivated. This is just a white knuckle death grip on the doorframe of Number 10. Staying in every minute he can seems to be something he is prepared to abandon all dignity and personal reputation for.
For betting opportunities, the New Statesman points out that three women being discussed as DG replacement are:
Alex Mahon (who has just left Channel 4 as as chief executive)
Charlotte Moore (ex BBC controller of BBC 1)
Jay Hunt (also formerly of the BBC)
As I explained in an earlier thread, the only realistic candidate on that list is Jay Hunt. North Moore or Mahon have the editorial/news background required to steer a ship like the BBC.
There is a vast difference between thinking that The Traitors may work as a programme and handling the fallout from an erroneous report from Gaza. Channel Four has always been cutting edge and willing to take risks. That approach and mentality will not fit at the BBC - especially if you’ve never worked there.
Zanny Minton Beddoes (who is 58), Editor in Chief of the Economist ? I've only ever heard good things about her.
I did wonder about Fiona Hill, but she does not have the journalistic background.
Are there any other University Chancellors / Vice Chancellors who have the background?
Not chancellors - they are the figureheads (such as the Duke of Edinburgh at Bath).
The positions are figureheads for the University, but the people occupying the position are often serious people.
The government should name Trevor Philips as new BBC DG, give him a licence to clean house and bring back impartiality.
I think that is an excellent idea. I have a huge amount of time for Trevor Philips.
iirc the BBC Board decides the DG?
Indeed. And I am not sure Philips would be the government's choice anyway. Doesn't stop him being an excellent candidate.
Isn't Robbie Gibb likely to want someone like Richard Littlejohn as DG?
Sadly yes.
What about Andrew Neil?
He is going to run the BBC from his villa in the South of France? He seems to be there full time now, every time I see him commenting on Times Radio he is there.
He’s also 76, and presumably quite likes working a couple of hours a day from home somewhere sunny.
In fact most of the names suggested so far are well past retirement age, for what’s very much a full-time executive position.
Who do we have aged 55-65 in the running?
Gary Lineker (age 64). Lots of BBC experience. Worth it for the apoplexy that would be witnessed.
He’d hasten the demise of the license fee, so great idea
Well, at least if the licence fee goes people won't have to misspell it any more.
License 😉
There are times when I wonder if a PB poster is a bot. And Yanklish spellings such as license are a big red warning sign, like a remove before flight tag still on your airliner's pitot tube as it takes off.
Well, if they acquiesce in the BBC giving a big payday to Trump, that will be me ending the TV licence. Along with a significant slice of the remaining licence payers, I suspect.
"The price of defending the BBC from right wing media.
'Fleet Street' is running hatchet jobs on me, so it seems. Fair dos. Every error I made at The Sun is piled in - I took responsibility years ago for my errors - but what about the decency I bought to the paper? Also: if they are going to call me an alcoholic, please also give me the credit for 20 years of continuous recovery both from my addiction and from the toxicity I escaped. Today is day 7,419. Thank God I got out. https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1987997758373196239"
Give me strength! He was editor from 1998 to 2003. During that time it still had Page 3 girls. It was not until 2015 that this stopped.
Bringing decency to the Sun, my arse. Not for women he wasn't. But then like so many commenting on this, they presumably didn't count.
If we're going to mention agendas, perhaps Yelland should be pointing out the programme he has on Radio 4 - a thinly disguised plug, frankly for his PR advice - and the fact that his wife was for a while a senior HR director at the BBC.
Reeves’ “fiscal headroom” is going to evaporate like an ice cube under a blowtorch at this rate. WASPI women are the most undeserving group of the lot - if Labour caves to them it really is all over & we’re just going to get an entire Parliament of payouts to aggrieved subgroups that can bend the ear of sympathetic MPs & nothing for investing in the future of the UK.
There’s nothing in this for Labour if they give these leeches money either. They’re hardly going to vote for them in their droves.
My pension age has moved from 65 to 67
Where’s my handout ?
I sympathise somewhat with their position but their complaints annoy me. I've said before on here that at first, I thought I would be one of the people affected. It turned out that I was one year older than their dividing line, but the matter was more than adequately publicised at the time. I wouldn't have noticed it myself if it hadn't been.
I’m afraid I have no sympathy, this was first mooted in 93 and passed into law in 95.
Reeves’ “fiscal headroom” is going to evaporate like an ice cube under a blowtorch at this rate. WASPI women are the most undeserving group of the lot - if Labour caves to them it really is all over & we’re just going to get an entire Parliament of payouts to aggrieved subgroups that can bend the ear of sympathetic MPs & nothing for investing in the future of the UK.
It's not clear from the story, but there seem to be some hints that it might be "avoid the judicial review by re-taking the decision and coming to the same answer". If it is that, then add it to the pile of "pressure groups can use the legal system to delay and increase the costs of practically any decision" evidence. If it is the precursor to a u-turn then I agree entirely with you...
If Labour are clever, they will try to delay it and then put it in their manifesto. If they actually do it, the Waspi women will say thanks and turn round and vote for someone else.
You would expect a report on bias in an organisation to be objective, and not itself to be massively biased. That's why I think the BBC board engaging a partisan hack as its bias consultant is a bigger problem than any of the issues he has identified. Any big organisation has issues that get resolved some how, but a leadership guided by consultants not acting in good faith is a leadership seriously adrift, in my view.
The idea that there's a room full of Plato's Philosopher Kings wing to be released upon the world to give us Pure Impartiality is... improbable.
In the real world, you get biases. It's a bit like working with a mill or lathe. Nothing is perfectly true. But with clever techniques, you can used a lathe to make *a more accurate lathe*.
No but there's already a review process in the BBC for bias, which is dealing with most or all of the genuine issues including the Panorama edit. This process appears to be much more rigorous and objective than Michael Prescott's hatchet job. So why not run with that?
I have no problem with Prescott having a personal view of how he would like stories to be reported but it's concerning the BBC board have delegated overall editorial judgement to an outsider with an agenda.
They haven't delegated editorial judgement to an outsider.
He wrote a report/memo on editorial judgement. Which, in among the partisan stuff, deals with a number of objective failures in meetings standards.
Which is why people resigned.
The sane approach is to prevent the same shit happening again.
I accept the report mentions a couple of genuine failings - the Panorama edit, some of the reporting on Gaza - which are being dealt with through the proper process already. The "partisan stuff' is the problem. Not even because it is partisan - anyone can have a view - but because the board has decided to make it their totem.
The problem is that "The Proper Process" is reactive and after the event.
What is needed is to prevent them happening again. Which means changing behaviour.
I'm not sure what "changing behaviour" would actually mean here. I think there's one with the BBC Arabic service where the journalists over identified with "their people" rather than reporting objectively. That's a specific issue the organisation is dealing with specifically, correctly in my view. The rest? The BBC is responsible for a huge amount of content and the number of incontestably wrong calls identified by the report is tiny. How do you generalise that in organisational, behavioural terms?
False claim again. The BBC might be responsible for a "a huge amount of content" but much of that is uncontroversial. We are not really concerned about Eastenders or Traitors. What we are concerned about is that BBC news is regarded as impartial and truthful. A couple of important labels it has lost (if it ever really had them).
Which easily available general coverage news source would you trust more than the BBC?
Political Betting of course
That's not entirely a joke, though it's a good one. I'm increasingly aware how few places there are one can get a range of opinions and comments [edit] outwith the silos.
It wasn't really meant as a joke if I am being honest. Whenever I see an item of news interest appear on the wires, my first port of call is always PB rather than any official media website.
It's quick, one-stop, up to date and an excellent filter, filtering out trillions of bits of micro detritus and getting to enough interesting stuff to keep up.
Speaking of which, have we covered the new interactive Roman Roads website which shows a Roman road going through the middle of my back garden (literally):
Keir Starmer has privately vowed to face down any leadership challenge post-budget or May elections
Allies warn MPs of market chaos and say he won't quit if ministers demand he goes – but dare them to find 80 MPs and trigger a contest he'd fight
I still think Starmer will retire early. It would be ironic as well as bad for my wagering if the effect of discontent were to cement him in place as he would probably want to choose his own timetable. As it is, MRDA.
Reeves’ “fiscal headroom” is going to evaporate like an ice cube under a blowtorch at this rate. WASPI women are the most undeserving group of the lot - if Labour caves to them it really is all over & we’re just going to get an entire Parliament of payouts to aggrieved subgroups that can bend the ear of sympathetic MPs & nothing for investing in the future of the UK.
It's not clear from the story, but there seem to be some hints that it might be "avoid the judicial review by re-taking the decision and coming to the same answer". If it is that, then add it to the pile of "pressure groups can use the legal system to delay and increase the costs of practically any decision" evidence. If it is the precursor to a u-turn then I agree entirely with you...
Meta’s chief artificial intelligence scientist Yann LeCun, a Turing Award winner who is considered one of the pioneers of modern AI, has told associates he will leave the Silicon Valley group in the coming months
Your joking....not another one.
You wouldn't want autocorrect let loose on that name
Reeves’ “fiscal headroom” is going to evaporate like an ice cube under a blowtorch at this rate. WASPI women are the most undeserving group of the lot - if Labour caves to them it really is all over & we’re just going to get an entire Parliament of payouts to aggrieved subgroups that can bend the ear of sympathetic MPs & nothing for investing in the future of the UK.
It's not clear from the story, but there seem to be some hints that it might be "avoid the judicial review by re-taking the decision and coming to the same answer". If it is that, then add it to the pile of "pressure groups can use the legal system to delay and increase the costs of practically any decision" evidence. If it is the precursor to a u-turn then I agree entirely with you...
If Labour are clever, they will try to delay it and then put it in their manifesto. If they actually do it, the Waspi women will say thanks and turn round and vote for someone else.
I very much doubt that the government would spend even £1bn on WASPI compensation, but if they did do so then it is even less likely that the amount of compensation offered would satisfy the campaigners who are collectively demanding a vast sum.
Reeves’ “fiscal headroom” is going to evaporate like an ice cube under a blowtorch at this rate. WASPI women are the most undeserving group of the lot - if Labour caves to them it really is all over & we’re just going to get an entire Parliament of payouts to aggrieved subgroups that can bend the ear of sympathetic MPs & nothing for investing in the future of the UK.
It's not clear from the story, but there seem to be some hints that it might be "avoid the judicial review by re-taking the decision and coming to the same answer". If it is that, then add it to the pile of "pressure groups can use the legal system to delay and increase the costs of practically any decision" evidence. If it is the precursor to a u-turn then I agree entirely with you...
If Labour are clever, they will try to delay it and then put it in their manifesto. If they actually do it, the Waspi women will say thanks and turn round and vote for someone else.
I imagine most Waspi women will vote whichever way they want at the next election, based on a whole host of issues, not limited to any proposed or actual payout.
I have a friend who feels very aggrieved at the Waspi situation. We have debated it amicably several times but will I suspect never agree. But I believe she would alter her vote based on which party does or does not promise to pay out any Waspi money.
Funnily enough lots of people vote in ways not driven by their own financial gain.
Keir Starmer has privately vowed to face down any leadership challenge post-budget or May elections
Allies warn MPs of market chaos and say he won't quit if ministers demand he goes – but dare them to find 80 MPs and trigger a contest he'd fight
He may have made a vow, but not a private one. A private vow is one you don't tell Patrick Maguire about.
On a related question, a sensible move for Labour would be thus: a) Reeves to add about 100 bn to the tax take in the budget, breaking all the promises but including some biggish taxes on the very wealthy to give a bit of red meat to their dafter back benchers, and slashing borrowing and giving a bit of budget headroom b) at the end of the budget speech resign forthwith as a matter of honour, having broken the promises c) Darren Jones CoE d) Starmer gets ready to be next to leave.
Keir Starmer has privately vowed to face down any leadership challenge post-budget or May elections
Allies warn MPs of market chaos and say he won't quit if ministers demand he goes – but dare them to find 80 MPs and trigger a contest he'd fight
To be fair to him, unless Burnham returns to Parliament he is right. Streeting is a Starmer loyalist and won't run unless Starmer resigns, Rayner had to resign after an ethics breach on her part. So that leaves Ed Miliband, to whom if he challenges Starmer can say with some reason he won a landslide majority and 411 Labour MPs last year, while Miliband led Labour to just 232 MPs and its second worst general election defeat this century
Keir Starmer has privately vowed to face down any leadership challenge post-budget or May elections
Allies warn MPs of market chaos and say he won't quit if ministers demand he goes – but dare them to find 80 MPs and trigger a contest he'd fight
To be fair to him, unless Burnham returns to Parliament he is right. Streeting is a Starmer loyalist and won't run unless Starmer resigns, Rayner had to resign after an ethics breach on her part. So that leaves Ed Miliband, to whom if he challenges Starmer can say with some reason he won a landslide majority and 411 Labour MPs last year, while Miliband led Labour to just 232 MPs and its second worst general election defeat this century
I think that's a good summary HY. I could only see Starmer going if he decides he's had enough; I think he'll face down any unwanted challenge fairly easily.
My mum's a WASPI woman, fairly well-off otherwise and didn't even realise it was a thing until her U3A friends convinced her it was the greatest injustice in history and had to be shouted about at every opportunity... I wonder how much of this 'vitally important movement' wouldn't have had a clue either way, had they been left to their own devices...
The GP Surgery set up a whole screed of 1 minute appointments on the online system, which I assume was to manage numbers as they allowed me in half an hour early. Quite an effective system. Availability is over-75s and immunocompromised.
Interestingly, the pharmacy next door are also offering them, but they open one vial (5 jabs) in the morning, as they don't last very long once opened.
My mum's a WASPI woman, fairly well-off otherwise and didn't even realise it was a thing until her U3A friends convinced her it was the greatest injustice in history and had to be shouted about at every opportunity... I wonder how much of this 'vitally important movement' wouldn't have had a clue either way, had they been left to their own devices...
True, it’s a movement that has only really gained any momentum in the last decade
Number 3 is important and worth highlighting. If the devil catches you with your pants down, you can't claim innocence by attacking the devil.
The 'sinister Reform/Boris Johnson/far right/Jewish Chronicle/etc (delete where appropriate) agenda within the BBC board' argument is only relevant to this particular matter if Robbie Gibb himself edited the Panorama footage, promoted Stonewall talking points as gospel, and ordered BBC Arabic to favour Hamas. Otherwise the original criticisms need to be addressed.
I want the BBC to survive as a national broadcaster. I pay the licence fee and am happy to continue to do so. I value its output and consider it a national asset. But to keep its status it needs to meet certain standards.
The BBC is not claiming innocence though is it? Indeed, as far as I am aware, the BBC has not mentioned the agenda of those leading the attack.
John Simpson @JohnSimpsonNews First Trump attacks the BBC, now the Russians: ‘Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova criticised the BBC as "beyond redemption," accusing it of falsifying Russia-related stories. She says the BBC "fabricated" its coverage of events in the Ukrainian town of Bucha.’
John Simpson @JohnSimpsonNews And now Israel. Here’s part of a statement from its London embassy: ‘For years, we have repeatedly warned about the BBC’s consistent failures to uphold the standards of accuracy, impartiality, and integrity expected from a public broadcaster.’
Could TrumpUSA , Russia and Israel be described as an axis?
The GP Surgery set up a whole screed of 1 minute appointments on the online system, which I assume was to manage numbers as they allowed me in half an hour early. Quite an effective system. Availability is over-75s and immunocompromised.
Interestingly, the pharmacy next door are also offering them, but they open one vial (5 jabs) in the morning, as they don't last very long once opened.
I got a flu jab as usual (cardiac risk) but don't qualify for Covid this year, whereas I did last year
Number 3 is important and worth highlighting. If the devil catches you with your pants down, you can't claim innocence by attacking the devil.
The 'sinister Reform/Boris Johnson/far right/Jewish Chronicle/etc (delete where appropriate) agenda within the BBC board' argument is only relevant to this particular matter if Robbie Gibb himself edited the Panorama footage, promoted Stonewall talking points as gospel, and ordered BBC Arabic to favour Hamas. Otherwise the original criticisms need to be addressed.
I want the BBC to survive as a national broadcaster. I pay the licence fee and am happy to continue to do so. I value its output and consider it a national asset. But to keep its status it needs to meet certain standards.
The BBC is not claiming innocence though is it? Indeed, as far as I am aware, the BBC has not mentioned the agenda of those leading the attack.
John Simpson @JohnSimpsonNews First Trump attacks the BBC, now the Russians: ‘Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova criticised the BBC as "beyond redemption," accusing it of falsifying Russia-related stories. She says the BBC "fabricated" its coverage of events in the Ukrainian town of Bucha.’
John Simpson @JohnSimpsonNews And now Israel. Here’s part of a statement from its London embassy: ‘For years, we have repeatedly warned about the BBC’s consistent failures to uphold the standards of accuracy, impartiality, and integrity expected from a public broadcaster.’
Could TrumpUSA , Russia and Israel be described as an axis?
The GP Surgery set up a whole screed of 1 minute appointments on the online system, which I assume was to manage numbers as they allowed me in half an hour early. Quite an effective system. Availability is over-75s and immunocompromised.
Interestingly, the pharmacy next door are also offering them, but they open one vial (5 jabs) in the morning, as they don't last very long once opened.
I got a flu jab as usual (cardiac risk) but don't qualify for Covid this year, whereas I did last year
Wise to have the flu jab - it's predicted to be a bad flu season this winter:
I'm for once slightly less than fully convinced by a Cyclfree header.
In particular, this: What is needed now is a proper investigation into the concerns raised. What would that mean ?
The BBC spat seems to me (FWIW) significantly different to "the Met Police, the NHS, the Post Office and the City", in that what is being argued about isn't so much matters of fact, or even criminal malfeasance, as matters of contested political opinion on how a public news operation should be conducted.
I'd be interested in Cyclefree expanding on this.
I have a copy only through a gift article in the Telegraph. I have made a copy so if you really want to read it DM me.
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.
I don't think it at all hard to breakdown his accusations into factual matters which can be investigated and simple matters of opinion.
Then in the report you lay all that in detail and set out your conclusions and the reasons for them. It needs to be robust and evidenced. But a good investigative team can do that. And it would be a much better response to the accusations.
@Benpointer has made the point that it is all a right wing attack etc. I think he ignores the concern that left wing women have long had and expressed about the BBC's approach to women's rights. But I have 2 answers to his point.
1. The best answer to this is to be able to show that the factual basis for these attacks is unfounded. If indeed that is the case. Respond with evidenced facts. Let others draw the obvious conclusion that it's a malicious attack etc. Instead, the BBC is responding by saying the conclusion it would like to believe and leaving itself open to the obvious retort that how can it know unless it investigates and until it does it has no business saying otherwise.
And
2. It comes across as naive to complain about political attacks. These have been happening the entire time the BBC has been in existence. It should have developed by now a better way of responding than this.
I have done quite few highly sensitive investigations involving people right at the top of organisations brought by people with obvious - occasionally malicious - agendas. You can still do a bloody good investigation and get it accepted by all parties including, in the cases I'm thinking of, regulators and Swiss politicians. The BBC needs something like this. Because they are panicking now I guarantee you and at a time like this they need people like me who don't panic and can guide them through a time and process which is scary and uncertain and difficult. But it needs them to stop adopting this alternately machismo "we're brilliant" and defensive "poor us" approach.
Keir Starmer has privately vowed to face down any leadership challenge post-budget or May elections
Allies warn MPs of market chaos and say he won't quit if ministers demand he goes – but dare them to find 80 MPs and trigger a contest he'd fight
To be fair to him, unless Burnham returns to Parliament he is right. Streeting is a Starmer loyalist and won't run unless Starmer resigns, Rayner had to resign after an ethics breach on her part. So that leaves Ed Miliband, to whom if he challenges Starmer can say with some reason he won a landslide majority and 411 Labour MPs last year, while Miliband led Labour to just 232 MPs and its second worst general election defeat this century
EICIPM did not deliver the worst set of LE results since 1926.
SKS is going to in May
Self preservation amongst PLP will be a strong motivator.
Although of course it's too late as GE2029 is now a total wipeout with no sponge
The GP Surgery set up a whole screed of 1 minute appointments on the online system, which I assume was to manage numbers as they allowed me in half an hour early. Quite an effective system. Availability is over-75s and immunocompromised.
Interestingly, the pharmacy next door are also offering them, but they open one vial (5 jabs) in the morning, as they don't last very long once opened.
I got a flu jab as usual (cardiac risk) but don't qualify for Covid this year, whereas I did last year
Wise to have the flu jab - it's predicted to be a bad flu season this winter:
Sadly it is, without doubt, “an attack by those with an agenda.”
This is not some staff member within the organisation whistleblowing.
Those who can't see that it's part of a concerted cultural attack by the right just don't want to see.
They kinda see it, except they’ve inserted ’forces of’ between ‘the’ and ‘right’. Gives them a warm, virtuous feeling while cackling manically over an institution they loathe getting a kicking.
If the BBc crashes and burns whose fault will it be? It won't be the critics.....
Keir Starmer has privately vowed to face down any leadership challenge post-budget or May elections
Allies warn MPs of market chaos and say he won't quit if ministers demand he goes – but dare them to find 80 MPs and trigger a contest he'd fight
To be fair to him, unless Burnham returns to Parliament he is right. Streeting is a Starmer loyalist and won't run unless Starmer resigns, Rayner had to resign after an ethics breach on her part. So that leaves Ed Miliband, to whom if he challenges Starmer can say with some reason he won a landslide majority and 411 Labour MPs last year, while Miliband led Labour to just 232 MPs and its second worst general election defeat this century
EICIPM did not deliver the worst set of LE results since 1926.
SKS is going to in May
Self preservation amongst PLP will be a strong motivator.
Although of course it's too late as GE2029 is now a total wipeout with no sponge
I'm for once slightly less than fully convinced by a Cyclfree header.
In particular, this: What is needed now is a proper investigation into the concerns raised. What would that mean ?
The BBC spat seems to me (FWIW) significantly different to "the Met Police, the NHS, the Post Office and the City", in that what is being argued about isn't so much matters of fact, or even criminal malfeasance, as matters of contested political opinion on how a public news operation should be conducted.
I'd be interested in Cyclefree expanding on this.
I have a copy only through a gift article in the Telegraph. I have made a copy so if you really want to read it DM me.
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.
I don't think it at all hard to breakdown his accusations into factual matters which can be investigated and simple matters of opinion.
Then in the report you lay all that in detail and set out your conclusions and the reasons for them. It needs to be robust and evidenced. But a good investigative team can do that. And it would be a much better response to the accusations.
@Benpointer has made the point that it is all a right wing attack etc. I think he ignores the concern that left wing women have long had and expressed about the BBC's approach to women's rights. But I have 2 answers to his point.
1. The best answer to this is to be able to show that the factual basis for these attacks is unfounded. If indeed that is the case. Respond with evidenced facts. Let others draw the obvious conclusion that it's a malicious attack etc. Instead, the BBC is responding by saying the conclusion it would like to believe and leaving itself open to the obvious retort that how can it know unless it investigates and until it does it has no business saying otherwise.
And
2. It comes across as naive to complain about political attacks. These have been happening the entire time the BBC has been in existence. It should have developed by now a better way of responding than this.
I have done quite few highly sensitive investigations involving people right at the top of organisations brought by people with obvious - occasionally malicious - agendas. You can still do a bloody good investigation and get it accepted by all parties including, in the cases I'm thinking of, regulators and Swiss politicians. The BBC needs something like this. Because they are panicking now I guarantee you and at a time like this they need people like me who don't panic and can guide them through a time and process which is scary and uncertain and difficult. But it needs them to stop adopting this alternately machismo "we're brilliant" and defensive "poor us" approach.
Hope that helps.
On the BBC and bias -
Until this happened there were non-stop complaints from the Left about giving Reform too much airtime and not questioning Farage hard enough. Also sane washing Trump. And attacking promoting stories that attacked the government.
Some SNP types on here suddenly discovered a love for Auntiee, as well.
Amazing how the DT and the rest of the right wing press are so incensed by the BBC yet regularly have to print corrections for their dodgy reporting .
As for the politicians jumping on the bandwagon and supporting Trumps extortionate efforts . What a bunch of fxcking traitors masquerading as patriotic Brits .
This means that no lessons are involved. Also no learning. “Will” is not included. Nor is “Be”. May contain nuts. May contain nutters. All wrongs reserved.
Seriously - it is a phrase that it is used when they rotate senior management and nothing changes. Probably was announced to the Roman Army after Cannae.
The GP Surgery set up a whole screed of 1 minute appointments on the online system, which I assume was to manage numbers as they allowed me in half an hour early. Quite an effective system. Availability is over-75s and immunocompromised.
Interestingly, the pharmacy next door are also offering them, but they open one vial (5 jabs) in the morning, as they don't last very long once opened.
Interesting how vaccinating large chunks of the country has gone from impossible to “we do that every winter”. Isn’t it?
Mostly sociological barriers - such as allowing pharmacists to give jabs.
Keir Starmer's allies have accused Wes Streeting of plotting to oust him from office, warning that any attempt to do so would trigger a market shock — as supporters of Streeting go to war with No10.
The extraordinary developments in a series of furious briefings to media outlets tonight signal Downing Street is increasingly concerned the PM may face a leadership challenge. Cabinet unity has fractured, possibly to the point of no return between Starmer and Streeting.
I'm for once slightly less than fully convinced by a Cyclfree header.
In particular, this: What is needed now is a proper investigation into the concerns raised. What would that mean ?
The BBC spat seems to me (FWIW) significantly different to "the Met Police, the NHS, the Post Office and the City", in that what is being argued about isn't so much matters of fact, or even criminal malfeasance, as matters of contested political opinion on how a public news operation should be conducted.
I'd be interested in Cyclefree expanding on this.
I have a copy only through a gift article in the Telegraph. I have made a copy so if you really want to read it DM me.
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.
I don't think it at all hard to breakdown his accusations into factual matters which can be investigated and simple matters of opinion.
Then in the report you lay all that in detail and set out your conclusions and the reasons for them. It needs to be robust and evidenced. But a good investigative team can do that. And it would be a much better response to the accusations.
@Benpointer has made the point that it is all a right wing attack etc. I think he ignores the concern that left wing women have long had and expressed about the BBC's approach to women's rights. But I have 2 answers to his point.
1. The best answer to this is to be able to show that the factual basis for these attacks is unfounded. If indeed that is the case. Respond with evidenced facts. Let others draw the obvious conclusion that it's a malicious attack etc. Instead, the BBC is responding by saying the conclusion it would like to believe and leaving itself open to the obvious retort that how can it know unless it investigates and until it does it has no business saying otherwise.
And
2. It comes across as naive to complain about political attacks. These have been happening the entire time the BBC has been in existence. It should have developed by now a better way of responding than this.
I have done quite few highly sensitive investigations involving people right at the top of organisations brought by people with obvious - occasionally malicious - agendas. You can still do a bloody good investigation and get it accepted by all parties including, in the cases I'm thinking of, regulators and Swiss politicians. The BBC needs something like this. Because they are panicking now I guarantee you and at a time like this they need people like me who don't panic and can guide them through a time and process which is scary and uncertain and difficult. But it needs them to stop adopting this alternately machismo "we're brilliant" and defensive "poor us" approach.
Hope that helps.
What would the unbiased approach that the BBC could take on Women's/Trans rights? I'm not asking to be sparky but because I think that on highly polarised issues (as most seem to be these days) there's precious little neutral ground that the BBC can take that wouldn't annoy one side or the other.
Sadly it is, without doubt, “an attack by those with an agenda.”
This is not some staff member within the organisation whistleblowing.
Those who can't see that it's part of a concerted cultural attack by the right just don't want to see.
They kinda see it, except they’ve inserted ’forces of’ between ‘the’ and ‘right’. Gives them a warm, virtuous feeling while cackling manically over an institution they loathe getting a kicking.
If the BBc crashes and burns whose fault will it be? It won't be the critics.....
It won’t crash and burn.
A little while ago, a senior manager at Barratt Homes asked a group why the reputation of his company was so low.
I was a guest of a friend, so I couldn’t tell him the truth.
Keir Starmer has privately vowed to face down any leadership challenge post-budget or May elections
Allies warn MPs of market chaos and say he won't quit if ministers demand he goes – but dare them to find 80 MPs and trigger a contest he'd fight
To be fair to him, unless Burnham returns to Parliament he is right. Streeting is a Starmer loyalist and won't run unless Starmer resigns, Rayner had to resign after an ethics breach on her part. So that leaves Ed Miliband, to whom if he challenges Starmer can say with some reason he won a landslide majority and 411 Labour MPs last year, while Miliband led Labour to just 232 MPs and its second worst general election defeat this century
EICIPM did not deliver the worst set of LE results since 1926.
SKS is going to in May
Self preservation amongst PLP will be a strong motivator.
Although of course it's too late as GE2029 is now a total wipeout with no sponge
LE wins don't guarantee GE wins, ask Theresa May, nor do local election defeats guarantee GE defeats, ask Blair in 2005.
Miliband might be able to squeeze the Green vote more than Starmer but might also lose a few swing voters to the Tories and LDs who voted for Cameron or Clegg in 2015 but for Starmer last year
Sadly it is, without doubt, “an attack by those with an agenda.”
This is not some staff member within the organisation whistleblowing.
Those who can't see that it's part of a concerted cultural attack by the right just don't want to see.
They kinda see it, except they’ve inserted ’forces of’ between ‘the’ and ‘right’. Gives them a warm, virtuous feeling while cackling manically over an institution they loathe getting a kicking.
If the BBc crashes and burns whose fault will it be? It won't be the critics.....
It won’t crash and burn.
A little while ago, a senior manager at Barratt Homes asked a group why the reputation of his company was so low.
I was a guest of a friend, so I couldn’t tell him the truth.
Perhaps unfairly, they’re like the Ratners of housebuilding.
The GP Surgery set up a whole screed of 1 minute appointments on the online system, which I assume was to manage numbers as they allowed me in half an hour early. Quite an effective system. Availability is over-75s and immunocompromised.
Interestingly, the pharmacy next door are also offering them, but they open one vial (5 jabs) in the morning, as they don't last very long once opened.
I got a flu jab as usual (cardiac risk) but don't qualify for Covid this year, whereas I did last year
I signed up with the NHS website to get flu & covid at a local pharmacy. I'm not old enough, but I'm immunocompromised.
The pharmacy didn't even ask why I wanted the jabs, they just did them. Self-cert the whole way - website and pharmacy.
The GP Surgery set up a whole screed of 1 minute appointments on the online system, which I assume was to manage numbers as they allowed me in half an hour early. Quite an effective system. Availability is over-75s and immunocompromised.
Interestingly, the pharmacy next door are also offering them, but they open one vial (5 jabs) in the morning, as they don't last very long once opened.
I got a flu jab as usual (cardiac risk) but don't qualify for Covid this year, whereas I did last year
I signed up with the NHS website to get flu & covid at a local pharmacy. I'm not old enough, but I'm immunocompromised.
The pharmacy didn't even ask why I wanted the jabs, they just did them. Self-cert the whole way - website and pharmacy.
Some talk on some regional NHS websites about once every five year jabs for pneumonia. Anyone here have any experience of that?
I'm for once slightly less than fully convinced by a Cyclfree header.
In particular, this: What is needed now is a proper investigation into the concerns raised. What would that mean ?
The BBC spat seems to me (FWIW) significantly different to "the Met Police, the NHS, the Post Office and the City", in that what is being argued about isn't so much matters of fact, or even criminal malfeasance, as matters of contested political opinion on how a public news operation should be conducted.
I'd be interested in Cyclefree expanding on this.
I have a copy only through a gift article in the Telegraph. I have made a copy so if you really want to read it DM me.
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.
I don't think it at all hard to breakdown his accusations into factual matters which can be investigated and simple matters of opinion.
Then in the report you lay all that in detail and set out your conclusions and the reasons for them. It needs to be robust and evidenced. But a good investigative team can do that. And it would be a much better response to the accusations.
@Benpointer has made the point that it is all a right wing attack etc. I think he ignores the concern that left wing women have long had and expressed about the BBC's approach to women's rights. But I have 2 answers to his point.
1. The best answer to this is to be able to show that the factual basis for these attacks is unfounded. If indeed that is the case. Respond with evidenced facts. Let others draw the obvious conclusion that it's a malicious attack etc. Instead, the BBC is responding by saying the conclusion it would like to believe and leaving itself open to the obvious retort that how can it know unless it investigates and until it does it has no business saying otherwise.
And
2. It comes across as naive to complain about political attacks. These have been happening the entire time the BBC has been in existence. It should have developed by now a better way of responding than this.
I have done quite few highly sensitive investigations involving people right at the top of organisations brought by people with obvious - occasionally malicious - agendas. You can still do a bloody good investigation and get it accepted by all parties including, in the cases I'm thinking of, regulators and Swiss politicians. The BBC needs something like this. Because they are panicking now I guarantee you and at a time like this they need people like me who don't panic and can guide them through a time and process which is scary and uncertain and difficult. But it needs them to stop adopting this alternately machismo "we're brilliant" and defensive "poor us" approach.
Hope that helps.
On the BBC and bias -
Until this happened there were non-stop complaints from the Left about giving Reform too much airtime and not questioning Farage hard enough. Also sane washing Trump. And attacking promoting stories that attacked the government.
Some SNP types on here suddenly discovered a love for Auntiee, as well.
Au contraire, I think the BBC (particularly the North Brit version) is as shit as I ever did, it’s just that there are even worse and lower quality people slavering over their travails.
I know that Unionists in anything other than name only are a dying breed, but some who clapped on the Beeb’s perpetual bias against the SNP (not to mention Corbyn) have suddenly discovered things they don’t like about a ‘great’ British institution. They may come to regret that.
Still, at least the Royal Family are as magnificent as ever.
Keir Starmer's allies have accused Wes Streeting of plotting to oust him from office, warning that any attempt to do so would trigger a market shock — as supporters of Streeting go to war with No10.
The extraordinary developments in a series of furious briefings to media outlets tonight signal Downing Street is increasingly concerned the PM may face a leadership challenge. Cabinet unity has fractured, possibly to the point of no return between Starmer and Streeting.
I would think the removal of someone who can't govern, even with a huge majority, would settle the markets.
(By the way, Boris couldn't govern with a big majority, and neither can Starmer - are big majorities over-rated?)
Comments
There is a vast difference between thinking that The Traitors may work as a programme and handling the fallout from an erroneous report from Gaza. Channel Four has always been cutting edge and willing to take risks. That approach and mentality will not fit at the BBC - especially if you’ve never worked there.
Beware of family members offering to wager on next week's show.
In general I think BBC leadership is poor. An example of their poor leadership is that they buy into this report. They should be objective and rigorous.
And as soon as a new model comes out, he works out an trick question to make it fail. Also, he isn't a big Trump fan, no idea if that has any impact when Zuckerberg is all down with the UFC etc.
Perhaps these tech titans are a bit greedy and short-sighted.
My pension age has moved from 65 to 67
Where’s my handout ?
So anyone from C4 can be ruled out
Other potential runners
James Harding (think he's ruled himself out)
Will Lewis?
https://x.com/DavidLammy/status/1988296156707962925
"Why we will miss the BBC
The world it represents is passing
Mary Harrington" (£)
https://unherd.com/2025/11/why-we-will-miss-the-bbc/
EXCL: Downing Street has launched an extraordinary operation to protect Keir Starmer amid fears among PM’s closest allies he is vulnerable to leadership challenge in wake of budget.
https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/1988320120989712851
"BEAR DOWN UPON" is a new one on me. Bored of "tackle" and "get tough with' I suppose. Soon we'll see politicians promising to menace the immigration figures or be jolly rude to NHS waiting lists.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/a6df7f598f059f9f
We need someone to tell Pantomime Pete Hegseth that the designer was gay.
For years, recently, DWP would do a nice pension forecast for you; and then at the same time say it was only projected and didn't necessarily match reality.
TBF the commercial firms contracted to do civil service pensions seemed at times to have that same habit.
He could:
Have cross words with release errors
Do a two-footed tackle on release errors
Inflict a vulcan death grip on release errors
etc.
I did wonder about Fiona Hill, but she does not have the journalistic background.
Are there any other University Chancellors / Vice Chancellors who have the background?
Nick Clegg? (For the LOLs, and the fits it would cause at GB News).
Speaking of which, have we covered the new interactive Roman Roads website which shows a Roman road going through the middle of my back garden (literally):
https://itiner-e.org/
And without Rayner who was the natural heiress to the throne it’s looking decidedly bleak for Labour .
But that agenda is very clear.
Keir Starmer has privately vowed to face down any leadership challenge post-budget or May elections
Allies warn MPs of market chaos and say he won't quit if ministers demand he goes – but dare them to find 80 MPs and trigger a contest he'd fight
John Simpson
@JohnSimpsonNews
First Trump attacks the BBC, now the Russians: ‘Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova criticised the BBC as "beyond redemption," accusing it of falsifying Russia-related stories.
She says the BBC "fabricated" its coverage of events in the Ukrainian town of Bucha.’
https://x.com/JohnSimpsonNews/status/1987882084552053074
John Simpson
@JohnSimpsonNews
And now Israel. Here’s part of a statement from its London embassy: ‘For years, we have repeatedly warned about the BBC’s consistent failures to uphold the standards of accuracy, impartiality, and integrity expected from a public broadcaster.’
Plus, any sense of fiscal realism on the backbenches seems to have broken down after the winter fuel payment and PIP defeats for the government. There seems to be no recognition that to govern is to choose.
My most charitable interpretation of this would be that ministers have promised backbenchers that they will reconsider this just to fob them off in a way that disarms opposition, rather than creating another focus for it.
There are so many things that the government doesn't have money for that I think it's impossible they will find £billions for this campaign.
I wish I had your skill and dedication to argue my views more persuasively. I do feel it is relevant that the attack is orchestrated by those who, unlike us, are anything but friends to the BBC.
Sadly, the way society is going it seems to me that those wishing to destroy the BBC will win out in the long run. And our media balance, openness and fairness will be severely diminished as a result.
Current list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chancellors_and_vice-chancellors_of_British_universities
I don't think it was a friend of Keir Starmer who briefed this to the Press, unless they are comically inept. Which is possible.
"The price of defending the BBC from right wing media.
'Fleet Street' is running hatchet jobs on me, so it seems. Fair dos. Every error I made at The Sun is piled in - I took responsibility years ago for my errors - but what about the decency I bought to the paper? Also: if they are going to call me an alcoholic, please also give me the credit for 20 years of continuous recovery both from my addiction and from the toxicity I escaped. Today is day 7,419. Thank God I got out.
https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1987997758373196239"
Give me strength! He was editor from 1998 to 2003. During that time it still had Page 3 girls. It was not until 2015 that this stopped.
Bringing decency to the Sun, my arse. Not for women he wasn't. But then like so many commenting on this, they presumably didn't count.
If we're going to mention agendas, perhaps Yelland should be pointing out the programme he has on Radio 4 - a thinly disguised plug, frankly for his PR advice - and the fact that his wife was for a while a senior HR director at the BBC.
They are all evidence of extended use in the past for a period of at least 20 years, and so should all be adopted as Restricted Byways by Statute.
edit: ... in either French or English
I have a friend who feels very aggrieved at the Waspi situation. We have debated it amicably several times but will I suspect never agree. But I believe she would alter her vote based on which party does or does not promise to pay out any Waspi money.
Funnily enough lots of people vote in ways not driven by their own financial gain.
To wreckage.
(Old PB staples are the best)
Why is that so believable?
On a related question, a sensible move for Labour would be thus:
a) Reeves to add about 100 bn to the tax take in the budget, breaking all the promises but including some biggish taxes on the very wealthy to give a bit of red meat to their dafter back benchers, and slashing borrowing and giving a bit of budget headroom
b) at the end of the budget speech resign forthwith as a matter of honour, having broken the promises
c) Darren Jones CoE
d) Starmer gets ready to be next to leave.
Northern Lights set to dazzle UK this week due to possible 'severe' geomagnetic storm
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/cpv13jpmxw7o
I'm thinking: Chance to see the Northern Lights again* - good. Possible 'severe' geomagnetic storm - not so good.
If you wake up to no power, no internet, no TV one morning this week console yourself that it may not be WW3.
(* Actually, fat chance down here as wall-to-wall cloud all week according to that other great British institution, the Met Office.)
The GP Surgery set up a whole screed of 1 minute appointments on the online system, which I assume was to manage numbers as they allowed me in half an hour early. Quite an effective system. Availability is over-75s and immunocompromised.
Interestingly, the pharmacy next door are also offering them, but they open one vial (5 jabs) in the morning, as they don't last very long once opened.
* The governments, for the avoidance of doubt.
https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2025/expert-comment-why-uk-expecting-bad-flu-season-year
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.
I don't think it at all hard to breakdown his accusations into factual matters which can be investigated and simple matters of opinion.
Then in the report you lay all that in detail and set out your conclusions and the reasons for them. It needs to be robust and evidenced. But a good investigative team can do that. And it would be a much better response to the accusations.
@Benpointer has made the point that it is all a right wing attack etc. I think he ignores the concern that left wing women have long had and expressed about the BBC's approach to women's rights. But I have 2 answers to his point.
1. The best answer to this is to be able to show that the factual basis for these attacks is unfounded. If indeed that is the case. Respond with evidenced facts. Let others draw the obvious conclusion that it's a malicious attack etc. Instead, the BBC is responding by saying the conclusion it would like to believe and leaving itself open to the obvious retort that how can it know unless it investigates and until it does it has no business saying otherwise.
And
2. It comes across as naive to complain about political attacks. These have been happening the entire time the BBC has been in existence. It should have developed by now a better way of responding than this.
I have done quite few highly sensitive investigations involving people right at the top of organisations brought by people with obvious - occasionally malicious - agendas. You can still do a bloody good investigation and get it accepted by all parties including, in the cases I'm thinking of, regulators and Swiss politicians. The BBC needs something like this. Because they are panicking now I guarantee you and at a time like this they need people like me who don't panic and can guide them through a time and process which is scary and uncertain and difficult. But it needs them to stop adopting this alternately machismo "we're brilliant" and defensive "poor us" approach.
Hope that helps.
SKS is going to in May
Self preservation amongst PLP will be a strong motivator.
Although of course it's too late as GE2029 is now a total wipeout with no sponge
Until this happened there were non-stop complaints from the Left about giving Reform too much airtime and not questioning Farage hard enough. Also sane washing Trump. And attacking promoting stories that attacked the government.
Some SNP types on here suddenly discovered a love for Auntiee, as well.
As for the politicians jumping on the bandwagon and supporting Trumps extortionate efforts . What a bunch of fxcking traitors masquerading as patriotic Brits .
Always
This means that no lessons are involved. Also no learning. “Will” is not included. Nor is “Be”. May contain nuts. May contain nutters. All wrongs reserved.
Seriously - it is a phrase that it is used when they rotate senior management and nothing changes. Probably was announced to the Roman Army after Cannae.
Nick Robinson for BBC director general? Several well-placed sources have told the Pygge that Robinson’s name is on everyone’s lips.
https://x.com/ThePygge/status/1988340386511622646?s=20
Mostly sociological barriers - such as allowing pharmacists to give jabs.
Keir Starmer's allies have accused Wes Streeting of plotting to oust him from office, warning that any attempt to do so would trigger a market shock — as supporters of Streeting go to war with No10.
The extraordinary developments in a series of furious briefings to media outlets tonight signal Downing Street is increasingly concerned the PM may face a leadership challenge. Cabinet unity has fractured, possibly to the point of no return between Starmer and Streeting.
A little while ago, a senior manager at Barratt Homes asked a group why the reputation of his company was so low.
I was a guest of a friend, so I couldn’t tell him the truth.
Miliband might be able to squeeze the Green vote more than Starmer but might also lose a few swing voters to the Tories and LDs who voted for Cameron or Clegg in 2015 but for Starmer last year
The pharmacy didn't even ask why I wanted the jabs, they just did them. Self-cert the whole way - website and pharmacy.
I know that Unionists in anything other than name only are a dying breed, but some who clapped on the Beeb’s perpetual bias against the SNP (not to mention Corbyn) have suddenly discovered things they don’t like about a ‘great’ British institution. They may come to regret that.
Still, at least the Royal Family are as magnificent as ever.
(By the way, Boris couldn't govern with a big majority, and neither can Starmer - are big majorities over-rated?)