Username:  Password: 
Login with Social Media Follow BBCRadioForum on Twitter

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - Tiger

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23
1
BBC Management & BBC Trust / Rona under pressure
« on: February 28, 2015, 11:54:38 AM »
Rona Fairhead (Trust Chair) also, of course non executive Director at HSBC. She is under pressure. One cannot help but wonder Why she was appointed, oh yes, to oversee the destruction of the BBC Trust. The only representation that licence fee payers have. Ghastly failure that it has been.


http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/13/hsbc-files-rona-fairhead-declines-answer-queries-activities-swiss-subsidiary

2
5Live / Jeffrey Archer talks on 5 LIVE.
« on: February 28, 2015, 11:35:24 AM »

I   am sure that we are all frustrated with politics. But this chat that Sarah had with Archer was deeply shocking. luckily time has moved on.



http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/5live/extraedition/extraedition_20150224-1635a.mp3

3
BBC Management & BBC Trust / Meirion JONES leaves BBC
« on: February 18, 2015, 04:31:06 PM »
Do You remember Meirion Jones?

Well he was the Newsnight journalist who decided to expose Savile only to be stopped by Senior Managers who "had been leant on from high"I am very sorry to report that we have no idea who, because a lot of them could not remember very much despite Nick POllard being paid £3 m of licence fee to ask them some questions.


Anyway, Mr Jones has now packed his BBC Bag and has taken a voluntary redundancy. Hmmmm.

So  how does this compare to others involved..


Mark Thompson(Savile who?) remains as editor of NYT(WHO DO NOT SEEM TO MIND Liars)


James Hardy Senior Manager Who believed Jones WAS behind leaks and promised to drip poison onto Jones...
He has been rewarded for this by being promoted to Head of Communications For Journalism.



Peter Rippon Who did more damage to the BBC than any other editor in its history.Is on a cushy number over seeing BBC archive.

Message is pretty clear here. Those who fail to act with honour and drip poison and cannot remember are treated well. Those who are decent journalists caught in a terrible storm have to go. Liz Maclean Jones PARTNER AT nEWSNIGHT also took voluntary redundancy after being told that executives would not put her on air. Peter Horrocks who tried to protect them has resigned.Helen BOADEN who seemed to display cowardice and amnesia of shocking level is  now  Head  of Radio. Pollard is happy to have helped this and will not correct his report. Those who can make him do not want to poke the hive..
I hope that Mr Jones knows that the public value him.

"everyone who wanted to expose Savile was a traitor to the BBC"



This post has to thank Private Eye recent issue for its contribution


4
BBC Management & BBC Trust / Tony Hall interview to Radio Times
« on: January 27, 2015, 10:39:13 PM »
Tony Hall has given interview to Alison Graham at The RT.Many subjects are covered including election debates.
on this he says " This time around , the debates are going to be more important to democracy than last time" He wants to get to a point where all the party leaders are taking part even at the risk of losing focussed debate to a
cacophony of voices or empty chairing the pm. 

Asked about his troubles(the BBCs) he said that it was not his intention to be constantntly"out of trouble" In this case he saw his trouble as Clarkson and Top Gear...why? (surely it must be Janet Smith keeping him awake?) so TOP  Gear to stay...of course.

Women discussed, he says all the right things here, mentioning that BBCLR IS the way for talent to get through.
Even If we all have to sit through fOOD and Drink presented by middle aged Men only.

he is very proud of the BBC and its dramas,except perhaps the ARCHERS.Which he refers to as "Precious" being spoilt by indistinguishable charactersAND SOAPY PLOTS 
OR "Eastenders in a field" He says that he hopes that Gwyneth Williams (controller R4) will be thinking. (OF what he does not say, but poss Sean O'Connor and all the Troughton family taking over)

Tony then confirms that it is costing £180m to host Match OF The Day and that BBC is saving just £30m on taking BBC3 ONLINE.. Tony says he is giving people what they want.


However at end of interview he says that he loves BBC4 AND THAT IT WILL STAY.Lots more in article all reproduced around the press today with varying degrees of accuracy

5
BBC Management & BBC Trust / Threats, threats and Wimbledon!
« on: December 18, 2014, 08:11:38 PM »
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/11295710/Wimbledon-could-go-to-pay-TV-as-BBC-considers-sharing-broadcasting-rights.html

You can see the point of the BBC launching a pre emptive strike to its enemies before Charter renewal etc. BUT, if you threaten to not keep one of the last bits of silver, the BBC are in danger of losing its friends too?

6
The News Where You Are / Chris Jefferies
« on: December 11, 2014, 09:07:37 PM »
This is not BBC or radio but whatever please try and watch it has changed things?


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dear Supporter

You may have seen the first part of Peter Morgan’s screenplay “The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies” on ITV last night (Wedenesday).  Perhaps you plan to watch the second part this evening?

I hope you enjoy it. Peter and the director Roger Michell have done an excellent job in capturing the essence of what happened and although it is not easy for me to watch, Jason Watkins in the lead role has clearly excelled in his performance.

As the film shows, it was my experiences in seeking to clear my reputation which led to my testifying at The Leveson inquiry and backing Hacked Off’s campaign for fair and effective independent press self-regulation, to prevent what happened to me and to the McCann family and many others from happening again in the future.

If you are moved by watching the film and want to help please consider donating to Hacked Off’s campaign to show a short advert (about the continuing failure of press regulation) in cinemas.

See the new advert here  - The password is 'LevesonNow'.

This exposes the fact that IPSO, the latest fake regulator set up by the tabloids and their allies, is no better than the old discredited PCC. 

 
The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies
 
See first part here on ITV player.
 
Final part will be shown at 9pm tonight on ITV.
 
With the kind help of Steve Coogan and his production company Babycow Ltd, this new 90 second film has been made to run in cinemas to tell the public that IPSO, the latest fake "regulator", is a sham. Now we just need your help to get it out there.
 
See the new advert here - before anyone else. The password is 'LevesonNow'.
 
If we can raise just a few thousand pounds more, we will then be able to ensure many more people watch it and can see clearly what the press are trying to get away with.
 
Donate here to get this message out in cinemas now.

Every £100 we raise means 800 more people see the advert. We have had generous early contributions which have got us half-way towards our target of £20,000.  So please help us get the message out by donating today.
 
Or if you don’t use PayPal, do email us here and we will send you our bank details.
 
Cheques can be sent to Hacked Off Campaign, Millbank Tower, London, SW1P 4QP.
   
 
 
I am told that – thanks to well-known individuals – we have raised £13,000 already towards the £20,000 target.
 
Having met with IPSO, and being very disappointed with their set up, and their rejection of Leveson despite everything that the inquiry revealed, I very much hope that we can get this advert playing in cinemas across the land.  So please help if you can.
 
Thank you for your support.
 
Christopher Jefferies
Patron, Hacked Off 
 
 
 
 

7
BBC Management & BBC Trust / BBC 3 TO GO ONLINE?
« on: December 10, 2014, 07:13:04 PM »
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2868307/BBC-online-lose-viewers.html

Danny Cohen appeared with Steve Hewlett on Media Show today 10/12 to justify this astonishing decision.

(tbh, not really that convincing)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04tlfsm

8
Radio 4 / Radio4 Controller will answer questions on BBCR4 Feedback
« on: December 05, 2014, 08:30:24 PM »
Feedback http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04t6t62

Have promised that Gwyneth Williams will answer questions from listeners in 2 weeks time.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/organgrinder/2010/jul/15/gwyneth-williams-radio-4-profile

Contact Feedback
Contact us by post at:
 
Feedback
PO Box number 67234
London
SE1P 4AX
 
Or phone: 03 333 444 544
 
Or email using the form below.
 
If your message contains more than 1000 characters the programme can be emailed directly using the address feedback@bbc.co.uk
 
Unfortunately Feedback is unable to pass your correspondence on to other programmes. If you wish to contact a programme directly please use the contact option on the programme's web site or write to them at:
 
Programme Name
BBC Broadcasting House
London
W1A 1AA
Contact details
Email
feedback@bbc.co.uk
Phone
03 333 444 544
Twitter
@BBCR4Feedback

9
BBC Management & BBC Trust / PD James RIP
« on: November 27, 2014, 06:06:08 PM »
As soon as I heard that this lady was no longer with us today. I thought about her attempt to take on the massive flaws of Mark Thompson and the long lasting damage he was inflicting upon the BBC BY his values of dishonesty and greed. She did really well and has a very fine legacy, unlike Thompson, who should be deeply ashamed of his. Anyway, thought we should remember her words it seems that the PM program on R4 had the same idea earlier.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJB5ROrGD_s

11
BBC Local Radio Board / Rajar Q3 2014
« on: October 22, 2014, 11:46:41 PM »
Anoraks on!

Have just had a look and it seems that 3 Counties may be a headline(again) and BBC Kent is well down and some stations that reported huge figs in the past out of the blue maybe are paying the price for that now?

Back later with more information.

12
Radio 4 / Moral Maze ; The Ched Evans rape case.
« on: October 22, 2014, 10:29:58 PM »
A very good debate on the issues here. And no worry that it becomes an LCD talk about le twitter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04lsmhx

I am glad the program went ahead, despite the remarks from Michael Buerk.(sometimes a surname is more than a name and becomes a describing word!)

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/oct/22/bbc-apologises-michael-buerk-ched-evans-radio-4

13
I am really sorry to break the news that Hastings and Liddiment are leaving the BBC Trust. I know that you will be heartbroken what will we do without them?

Oh hang on..we might actually get some Trustees who represent the public that they represent. It actually may be the case that someone actually bothers to look at BBC local radio and gets around to researching public reaction to  networking and the impact of DQF and possibly publish the minutes of the Audience Councils, unpublished for a long time now.(What has Ms Hastings been doing?)

I just had my head in my hands listening to these 2 this afternoon. When asked about Pollard all Hastings could verbalise was that she felt very sorry for George Entwistle and said (sob) you have to remember that there are human beings behind this story. Well that is true, perhaps she might like to consider the human victims of Savile who had to watch tribute programs after they had told the BBC of the abuse they had suffered.

I have no idea why Liddiment was there anyway.

Both of these trustees decided to exonerate Pollard following evidence that cast serious doubt on his report. They will have to live with that. I hope they are not getting big fat payments on leaving, because they absolutely do not deserve that, they should be ashamed of their failures.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04lsmhn

14
This is my response to senior members of the BBC Trust, which is ongoing.
------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Towers and Ms Coyle,

Thank you for your reply and activation of an FoI request.

You have correctly observed that I wish to see a point-by point
justification of the Trust's investigation of the taped conversation issue
and the decision made by four members of the BBC Trust to endorse the
Pollard findings - despite clear evidence that contradicts those findings. I
still await any credible explanation from both of you proving that a full
examination of the transcripts took place by the four trustees, as has been
claimed. In particular an explanation is required about why Nick Pollard and
his legal team failed to ask Helen Boaden if she had informed Mark Thompson
about the Newsnight programme. The Pollard Review transcripts show that
Pollard and his team repeatedly asked this question of Merion Jones, yet Mr
Jones was a comparatively junior member of staff who had no responsibility
for informing Mark Thompson about this matter. I would ask that you review
this section of interviews as a priority and I expect the trustees to
provide an explanation of why they consider that part of the review by
Pollard to be acceptable.There will need to be a review of this part of the
evidence, to make that clear you will need to provide an explanation from Mr
Pollard and if you are unable to do that you will have to explain your
reasons.

You have also made reference to "confidential and privileged legal advice".
I require an explanation of exactly what this refers to.

I have to remind you both that the £3 million Pollard Review was paid for by
the public. It is, therefore, not acceptable that your account of events
constantly reflects Mr Pollard's own account. The relevant point here is
that, as the commissioning body, the Trust has overall responsibility and
should not rely on Mr Pollard. It needs to show a correct grasp of
management. There remains compelling evidence that Pollard withheld evidence
from his report which directly contradicted his findings. There is no proof
whatsoever that Pollard was put under pressure by the journalist who
captured him on tape admitting that he had made a 'mistake' and was doubtful
of Mark Thompson's honesty. Nick Pollard took the decision to ring this
journalist and volunteer this information. For anyone to try to pretend
either that he was forced into doing this by the journalist or that he has
somehow been misquoted is both irresponsible and dishonest.

It is equally clear that the Trust failed in its public duty to question
this extraordinary turn of events and instead relied upon - and accepted - a
shockingly thin statement from Pollard that he had made another 'mistake' in
talking about his true feelings on tape.

The BBC Trust has an absolute duty to represent the public that it serves
with transparency and integrity. In order for that trust to be deserved and
discharged I expect you to reply to this letter with due consideration.
There is no doubt that the BBC's decision not to broadcast Newsnight's
investigation of Jimmy Savile has seriously damaged its reputation. The fact
that the Pollard Review into this fiasco has itself turned out to be
dishonest does yet more damage to the BBC.

There is no doubt that the decision to broadcast tribute programs was
unforgivable. Those who made that decision must be made accountable

 I am deeply concerned that the Dame Janet Smith Review, also
commissioned by the Trust, has been given  terms of reference that end in
2006. I expect a full explanation of the reasons for that definition. The
BBC Trust was established in 2007. It was the first publicly accountable
organisation that represented BBC users and it has to be expected that there
were concerns raised about the way that the BBC managed Jimmy Savile
after serious complaints were made to Surrey and Sussex Police in 2007 and
2008. These complaints were triggered by the broadcast of the Top Of The
Pops broadcast in  2006 and the continuing broadcast of that show. I have to
add that there were active investigations about Savile and information being
gathered at that time by media sources. It seems unlikely that the BBC was
unaware of this .I am also aware of serious complaint being activated before
and following the broadcast of "Care Home Kid" 2011 . This is very relevant
to the remit of the Janet Smith inquiry.It is without question that it must
be included in a public inquiry.



I re-iterate my request that you bring the Pollard entry on the BBC Trust
website up-to-date


http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/2013/pollard_statement.html



It currently only contains a timeline and Mr. Pollard's statement and does
not reflect a full and transparent account of the evidence on which the
statement is based.


The recording of the Pollard phone call, with accompanying transcript and
Rob Wilson's correspondence - which our Forum has only seen because we
obtained it under a FOI request - should also be present to allow licence
fee payers to give due consideration to the matter themselves.

Your unwillingness to provide all the available evidence on your website
inhibits the ability of the licence payer to give due consideration to the
matter.

I expect that you are able to reply to this letter with regard to all of the
points raised. The BBC Trust is funded by the public to represent public
concern.


That public concern is quite clear. The BBC failed to confront the abuses of
Savile, The important issue is that in 2011 the BBC decided to turn a blind
eye to the sexual abuse of children by Savile in order to protect the
reputation of the BBC. That action was unforgivable. The following action to
broadcast tributes was unforgivable. Those decisions were made by very
senior managers at the BBC. The fact that the BBC Trust gave Nick Pollard
£3m to investigate that failure and then accepted that no one was to blame,
despite evidence that contradicted that is unforgivable.

The ramifications of that decision can be read time and time again in press
reports . There is no doubt that child abuse cases have been covered up by
those with the power to do so. The very worrying reality is that the BBC as
the public service broadcaster is now tarnished and compromised by the
decision of the four Trustees to show that the BBC is fit and able to deal with
this very serious situation.


It is of considerable importance that the BBC can be shown to be beyond
doubt itself, in order to report correctly in the interests of the
public.The Pollard review ,at the moment, does not reflect the evidence or
the truth and unless corrected will have to be regarded as a severe breach
of public trust.

15
5Live / The new Format on 5 Live
« on: October 07, 2014, 07:53:28 PM »
I am reserving judgement because there is much to listen to and I want to be fair.

However, I have to say that Dan and Sarah  now called " Afternoon Edition" are doing ok so far. My test was the TV Review feature. Usually nothing is really reviewed because Richard was talking. But actually this afternoon there was a very decent review, with listener input. Sorry Richard! Never realised before that it could have worked as a feature.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04kg0j2

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23