BBC top 2 executives resign

Nov 10, 2025 -- 3:24PM, Cider wrote:

Crusty has a degree in English, he disguises it well with his plethora of articulate postings.

Thanks weird uncle, you’ll get there, god loves a trier

Stupid man.

Not dodging are you Christine?

What is it you are after stupidfool? You post a load of waffle and then keep expecting a response when there is nothing to respond to.

gobsh1te. was it too much for you to read? should I have broken it into snippets for you?

CaptainCristy 10 Nov 25 13:58 
Yeah, they were at it during WW2 as well, poor old Hitler got some real bad publicity there.



You know full well my response was to this^ and it totally contradicted your insinuation yet you don't bother to stand by your post, as ever

Accept you are wrong. It can be therapeutic

All you’ve done is done a cut and paste from fc uking google, what a waste of time.

Timmy Boy was on 650 Large a year , 4000 plus Tax fees

What was he doing to command such a salary ? Has the Golden Handshake been sorted ?

You aint fooling anyone Christine

Wrong again

Embarrassed again

Chickening out again

So in your opinion stupidfool the BBC gave a totally unbiased even handed view of Hitler during the war, righty ho

I gave you a chance to creep off and pretend you’d never written that load of old cobblers to start with, but oh no, you have to prove you were right all along

Laughable alright except its you

Complete ignore the OP and change the subjest and still evade

What do you think of the BBC?

Some good programmes on there. I know Putin doesn’t like it too much and has had a few gullible fools fighting on his behalf.

So you can answer a question. Well done. Albeit not the original

tip; lines of emojis are a sign of discomfort and do not disguise your true feeling

Said the turkey to the carving knife - what you give is what you get - Eric Cantona would be proud

CaptainCristy 10 Nov 25 16:16 
So in your opinion stupidfool the BBC gave a totally unbiased even handed view of Hitler during the war, righty ho

........................

Crusty comparing Hitler to Trump, what a sap.

I’ve had a good look there, can’t seem to find a mention of Chump, perhaps you can enlighten us bob a job?

cider - Thanks for getting back to me about Forbes. Mitolo - thanks also for your media recommendations.

I've watched Trumps "address" in full (unedited). I think I also actually had in on live (in the background) on the day he delivered it. I came away (both times) with a 90% feeling that he was trying to incite violence and mount an insurrection. What followed it, was some actual violence and a botched/disorganised/very amateur attempt at an insurrection.

As such, I don't really have a major issue with the Panorama episode - except that they didn't highlight (via on onscreen banner) that what they included in their programme of Trump's address was an edited version.

Panorama haven't made anything up. They've used the actual words that Trump spoke and they've used them in the same order that he spoke them.

What they have done (without advising that they had done so within their programme was to edit out about 50+ minutes of his ranting between the early part of Trump's address and the latter part of it.

An edition of Panorama is obviously not long enough to broadcast his whole long rambling rant, so it's understandable (to me) that with their time constraints, they only showed edited highlights. As I say, they should absolutely 100% have run a "banner" along the bottom of the screen advising that it was edited highlights. Not to do so, was wrong. 

What did it achieve? - The Panorama edit obviously makes it look about 99% certain that Trump was trying to incite violence and mount an insurrection, whereas if you jsu watch the entire speech (unedited) as I have done twice, it's only (to me) about 90% certain that he was trying to incite violence and mount an insurrection.

I repeat to be clear, the absence of an on-screen advisory banner was wrong. But talk of "fake news", trump suing, the BBC "making things up", etc, etc, is just over the top reactionary bollix and faux outrage from people with a pro-Trump agenda.

Hysteria.

You know that's nonsense, TM. The two parts were spliced together to deliberately mislead. You might feel like that's what you took out of the speech, so it's justified to present it like that to the viewing audience. 'This is what the clever people feel he really meant' But it palpably isn't acceptable in any way, shape or form, let alone from an organisation that purports to be staunchly independent.

As I've said elsewhere, if it was that damming, they wouldn't need to distort anything he said, would they?

It's not like the media is short of Trump material.

I havent seen it and do not want to. The sight of him is too much. I have an anti-Trump mind but I don't like the barely concealed loathing that is totally unacceptable for a public broadcaster and my outrage is not 'faux' or even fake

It is not 'over the top' and certainly not 'reactionary', by which I take you to mean stuffy conservatives. The net has changed the meeja landscape irrevocably and not all for the better. Our enemies use it against us, for example. It is one of the penalties of living in the free world that they can do this

But the beeb cannot be like that while taking our cash. If we want partisanship we can get it as long as we pay, something we could not do until recent times

A website or private tv channel no problem, if you can't garner an audience you are gone

Do you think the BBC is biased in any direction? Although in favour of it, I think so

We are living in a world where everyone knows he is a manbaby tyrant but no politician will stand up to him for fear of repercussions, if you think that is a healthy situation and the media should also be cowed in the same way then you are as big a coward as they are.

Irrelevant. If he is so bad the facts will suffice. no need to bend reality. Plenty of people have stood up to him

Almost the entire media hates him

If this happened to someone you approve of you wouldnt be so happy

And you are a coward

You are justifying it, coward.

Top, top marks to the “investigative journalists” who got to the truth and had the gonads to publish same.  They should be praised and rewarded.  Yet again we see the absolute necessity for a free press and the indisputable benefit of having one.
And the reason for the/our outrage is simple.  The BBC is precious to us and to see it hijacked in such a fashion as to put its integrity at question and its existence at risk is horrifying.
I have long been disgusted at the quite open and unashamed campaign waged by BBC NEWS AND so-called HONEST OPINION and INSIGHT programmes against Donald Trump.  It is there all the time and is an insult to our intelligence.
Of course the worrying question is how long has this been going on?    Brexit?  The Referendum in Scotland?  Alex Salmond and his trial?  HOW CAN WE BE SURE OF ANYTHING THEY HAVE BROADCAST IN RECENT TIMES ?

And you can fc uk off idiot

Leave it to the grown ups you stupid, stupid man.

Are you hard of hearing?

Stupid man.

Look! Over there! Bryony Frost! Go and give her a good bullying Jock.

Stupid man.

Can’t read it mate, is it you bullying Bryony Frost again?

cider - I'm saying that, apart from the fact that that nobody would likely bother to watch a 2 hour long Panorama, the episode in question could have included the entire Trump address and it would have resulted in creating almost the exact same perception for most people. i.e. any sane person would conclude on balance that he was trying to incite violence and mount an insurrection.

I should probably add (for context & balance) that I have a very high regard for some of what Trump has achieved, some of it is admirable. I've spent a lot of time in the US over the years (and in Canada too) and I still visit my grown-up children there regularly. Stating the obvious - He is absolute Marmite. Loved and admired or hated and despised with equal passion. Too much passion imo  - and there's nothing much in between.

I've deliberately used the (very cliched) Marmite analogy because it's sadly 100% spot on. In a sane world lots of people would be able to really admire some of his work and simultaneously despair at some of his work. The fact that you very rarely meet such people is a dangerous sign for the future (imo). Politicians (whatever their political persuasion) that "can do no wrong" in the eyes of their supporters become unaccountable and are not the way forward (in a Democracy) imo.

I can only reiterate my own conclusions. The way Panorama (wrongly) edited their show made it look 99% certain that he was trying to incite violence and mount an insurrection. The reality (without any deceptive editing from Panorama) makes it only look about 90% certain that he was trying to incite violence and to mount an insurrection. Panorama deleting 50 minutes of waffle (some of it equally damning) from the middle of his rant didn't make a lot of difference to the thrust or intent of what he said on that day. However Panorama however should have made it much clearer that they had edited out the central 50 minutes.

Good post TM. The splicing of an interviewee's comments, taking things out of context, is unforgiveable, akin to a doctor or lawyer breaking confidentiality rules. The people who did this job should be sacked, the people who knew about it and did nothing should quit - and they have.

Everybody else can though.  Stupid man.

All very well saying that Management but that entirely misses the point.
Panorama is not there to colour, influence or swing anyone's opinion, it is there to accurately present facts.  Nothing else, and that is the whole point.

Aye, go boil your heed there Jock.

Stupid man.

It was palpably disingenuous, that's the point. They've concluded what they think, and cheated to achieve it on a broadcast using a distorted extract. It's obvious, but whether you think it was representative or not is irrelevant. Nobody should have their actual words deliberately twisted, be it Mother Teresa or Dennis Nilsen.

Of course the Trump speech has garnered the most attention, but that wasn't the only distortion presented on the same show. They made it look like Trump's speech caused to proud boys to go to capitol hill, when in fact they had already gone there in the morning, before he'd even started speaking.

Trump is not perfect, nobody is. You'll never read me stating or agreeing that 2020 was 'stolen'. Not stolen directly, anyway. It was a mistake to maintain the rhetoric around that, it still is. It doesn't mean that he isn't the most important and effective political leader in my lifetime, he is.

Didn’t know you were 6 years old matey? Well, now I come to think of it..

More years than you have brain cells, it appears. Top trumps indeed (geddit)

Away ye go ya wee scunner

Stupid, abusive man, soon to be removed from this forum.

Hoots, ye’ll no be having a sale there ye ken?

We'll have to agree to disagree cider - but nothing has been "distorted", nothing has been "twisted". And to address Howard (from earlier) nobody has "made-up" anything.

What's actually happened is:

Panorama took a really long speech/address/rant that Trump made on the day that his supporters storming the Capitol - they retained a section from the beginning (him speaking the exact words he spoke that day), they also retained a section from the end (again him speaking the exact same words that he spoke on that day). They deleted the (very long) middle section and they failed to make it clear when they broadcasted it that they had deleted the middle section. If they had simply bothered with an on screen "banner" advising that it was a shortened or concise version of what he said on the day - that would have been that.

^ on the day that his supporters stormed the Capitol

Christine mocking certain voices. Can you do an African version?

As for Marmite- I can take it or leave it. but he is not a good example of the analogy because almost everyone hates the bugger

Do you think the BBC is biased in any direction?

Och aye the noo ya numpty

Mitolo - for sure at times. But deliberately & persistently and only in one particular direction? Probably not. I think they have an impossible job (in terms of news) tbh and generally make a good fist of it in a world where it's almost impossible not to deliver offence to people looking to be offended or slighted.

As I've already said (several times now!), there's no doubt in my mind that the episode of Panorama in question (and the way it was edited) probably shifted the my dial from just 90%, up to about 99% in favour of me being convinced that Trump was trying to incite violence and mount an insurrection.

Had they run the "banner" - maybe I'd still be only 90% convinced based on the entire unedited speech.

I'm not running away now btw - I have to eat and then go out. Have fun. Play nice.

Panorama MISREPRESENTED facts.  Deliberately.  No excuse and nothing mitigates.

Who is this miloto person?

I think it is, in fact it is ingrained among the metropolitan arts and humanities grads who have an innate sense of superiority who think they know best and feed it to their audience who are just too thick to get what is best for them

The BBC is a political organisation as much as a broadcaster. A shame as it has great respect worldwide for not being that

It has an agenda but does not stoop to outright lies, just very selctive in what it puts out

It will make a programme about race and immigration but always from the view of one side and the opposing team is always cast in a bad light

eg, Douglas Murray, a controversial but eloquent critic of immigration was invited to discuss his latest book and was surprised to be invited

his interview was shown and two critics were let loose rubbishing his argument, and he was not allowed on to the Newsnight discussion to defend what he said. It was a mugging

So the beeb can claim he was given an airing, but he was only there to be attacked

Newsnight can be very toxic when it chooses to be.

Nov 10, 2025 -- 8:10PM, Busyfool wrote:

Who is this miloto person? I think it is, in fact it is ingrained among the metropolitan arts and humanities grads who have an innate sense of superiority who think they know best and feed it to their audience who are just too thick to get what is best for themThe BBC is a political organisation as much as a broadcaster. A shame as it has great respect worldwide for not being thatIt has an agenda but does not stoop to outright lies, just very selctive in what it puts outIt will make a programme about race and immigration but always from the view of one side and the opposing team is always cast in a bad lighteg, Douglas Murray, a controversial but eloquent critic of immigration was invited to discuss his latest book and was surprised to be invitedhis interview was shown and two critics were let loose rubbishing his argument, and he was not allowed on to the Newsnight discussion to defend what he said. It was a muggingSo the beeb can claim he was given an airing, but he was only there to be attacked

Douglas Murray, I can see how he would fully understand the issue of immigration, must have had a hard life attending Eton College.

And for ‘eloquent’ read bent.

Classic Jay comment
So, people who went to a good school are unable to see
what a chaotic mess the country has become in their lifetime.
A good education makes you blind, righto.

What a surprise scummo is an arslicker

Stupid, soon to be removed from the forum, man.

Nov 10, 2025 -- 7:08PM, The Management wrote:

We'll have to agree to disagree cider - but nothing has been "distorted", nothing has been "twisted". And to address Howard (from earlier) nobody has "made-up" anything. What's actually happened is: Panorama took a really long speech/address/rant that Trump made on the day that his supporters storming the Capitol - they retained a section from the beginning (him speaking the exact words he spoke that day), they also retained a section from the end (again him speaking the exact same words that he spoke on that day). They deleted the (very long) middle section and they failed to make it clear when they broadcasted it that they had deleted the middle section. If they had simply bothered with an on screen "banner" advising that it was a shortened or concise version of what he said on the day - that would have been that.

You're still missing the point. Deliberately or not, I cannot be sure.

The BBC had already identified this presentation as wrongdoing. In a series of internal memos, reporting a series of failures. The expose is that the big wigs took no action about them AT ALL after receiving the information. They were hoping it could be buried as the findings weren't in the public domain. They were wrong = the bosses are toast (with very tidy pay offs, no doubt). It's nearly always the cover up that gets them.

Looks as though Robbie Gibb has achieved what he wanted.

I don't think I've missed the point at all.

I think you are absolutely deliberately missing the point.

It's a classic BBC storm in a teacup. The BBC is doing what it's always done (partly because of it's own impossibly high standards & impossible obsession with impartiality and partly because of it's detractors obsession with impartiality).

It's done something a little bit stupid (probably several things tbf) because as you rightly point out the aftermath wasn't flawless either - but it's nothing that every other media outlet doesn't do countless times every day of the week - yet because of it's (practically impossible to 100% to comply with 100% of the time) obsession with impartiality it is beating itself up. Eating itself from the inside out.

It doesn't really need to do that to the extent it is doing, because of course there are plenty of other (politically motivated) people like yourself prepared to beat it up over the smallest of wrongdoings.

You are (deliberately) reacting (massively over-reacting), as are all of the BBC's detractors, as if "Donald Trump incites violence and mounts an Insurrection" was their headline news story on the 10 o'Clock News!

All that's actually happened is that an "investigative documentary" has broadcast a shortened version of a speech. They've shortened it in poor way that's misleading because it deliberately strengthens (the already very strong case) that Donald Trump was trying to incite violence and mount an insurrection on January 6th 2021.

As I've said several times already - had they highlighted (with an on screen banner) during the broadcast, that the speech they broadcast was an abridged version of Trumps call to arms - there would be no story.

I'm out for the day again - but you be sure to enjoy yourself trying to blow this up out of all proportion as some kind of systemic catastrophe.

Have I missed the point also?

Perhaps stupidfool you can see what your mate the old etonian toilet trader Douglas Murray is currently thinking? I’m sure he’s had a right hissy fit

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/10/bbcs-defence-shows-it-has-learnt-nothing-from-scandal/

Oh dear.

Oh dear, the daily telegraph

Busyfool11 Nov 25 11:05Joined: 14 Oct 25 | Topic/replies: 163 | Blogger: Busyfool's blog
Have I missed the point also?

Having studied the form, probability and track record would indicate - most likely, yes.

However, the EGSC also heard from BBC News that the purpose of editing the clip was to convey the message of the speech made by President Trump so that Panorama’s audience could better understand how it had been received by President Trump’s supporters and what was happening on the ground at that time.

^ a quote from chairman Shah ( his actual words, in the right order, and nothing taken out of the middle :p )

In plain English, we know Trump was really inciting violence, so we had to distort his speech to convey the 'real truth'.

Therein, you have it in a nutshell. From the horse's mouth, so to speak

Run away as usual

You never deal with what you find a bit tricky, time and again, and you know it

Nov 11, 2025 -- 11:16AM, Cider wrote:

In plain English, we know Trump was really inciting violence, so we had to distort his speech to convey the 'real truth'.Therein, you have it in a nutshell. From the horse's mouth, so to speak

Stop the press, Chump was only inviting all these wnkers to a tea party at the White House!

Chrisine does not dispute a word. He never does

But he is happy to use defamatory language to discredit. 'bent' is not progressive and would get you thrown out of the Labour party. fact

How is his sexuality relevant?

Wait a minute, you’re not WOKE are you stupidfool?

If it was that obvious, they would not need to distort his words, would they?

Now it's ironic how all off this litany of incompetence reported by the independent standards adviser is always on the side that auntie supports. See if you can find any Obama, Biden or Harris speeches distorted by auntie. Or any reporting that makes Muslims worse in favour of Jews? Or makes the weather less impacted by human generated carbon emissions than it already is?

I'll be waiting a while

tick, tock, tick, tock....

Cider - I really have to go - but are you claiming that an individual watching (a slightly less appealing) 2 hour version of Panorama (including the whole speech), would have come away with a different conclusion from somebody watching the cut down version?

I'd say the longer unedited version would have attracted far fewer viewers - but would have actually been even more damning of Trump.

As far as I am aware this was editing. Distortion is when you do fabricated AI ads, a Chump speciality.

Even now you are trying to deny that it was distorted to make it look like he said something he didn't say. Quite obviously it was not about reducing the length of the speech down, that happens on every single retrospective reporting of speeches. They cut two sentences together to change the meaning. Which even Shah has conceded!

You’d have to be living in the matrix to believe that sh1te matey.

He just thinks it was the right thing to do. Only the righteous

More so than you Christine

You accept that would get you thrown out of the party?

I will answer because you wont. Yes

But it is irrelevant. Just another truth-dodge from you

The current crisis suggests not, Crusty. Some might say, existential crisis.

Nov 11, 2025 -- 11:34AM, Busyfool wrote:

More so than you ChristineYou accept that would get you thrown out of the party?I will answer because you wont. YesBut it is irrelevant. Just another truth-dodge from you

I’m not in the party bozo. Anyway, perhaps you’ve got some more stories of old etonian shirt lifters bleating about the BBC?

On no other occasion in my professional life have I witnessed what I did at the BBC with regard to how management dealt with (or failed to deal with) serious recurrent problems.”

He also said: “I would argue that the Executive’s attitude when confronted with evidence of serious and systemic problems is now a systemic problem in itself.

Michael Prescott, the BBC's independent standards adviser.

Nothing to see here

The Management

He didnt bleat

He was stitched up. And why is his sexuality relevant? As a gay man myself I find that offensive

You use offensive language to avoid the issue in discussion, as you always do

Jeez, at least we’ve got that out of you, he’s only a facking fairy

I guess that accounts for the self hating booze sessions

Not really

Your instinct for error is unerring

You drink because you are a solitary depressive with no friends aside from a cat that would move out if it had a better option

I luvva lemonade as it is a beautiful concoction, I do not consume anything but the highest quality

it was the first miracle and brings joy to me and my giant circle of friends, something you will never know

Circle jerkers I guess

When did you last get your leg over, if ever?

Not sure where this is going, yuck.

if that is what you think of it that might explain the lack of action around your furry parts

I daresay this is the sort of question you pose to your good friends Julian and Sandy.

The Management.  11.01.     It is anything but a “storm in a teacup”.  And YOU really need to get your head around the fact that the perfectly understandable furore has been created because the BBC saw fit to NOT present the facts but to MISREPRESENT them, deliberately. It is irrelevant what people believe about Trump, it is entirely relevant that the BBC saw fit to mislead us ( and thus to lie to us ) in order to influence us, via Panorama.
I hope they bodge their legal response to his lawsuit and that they are exposed to world wide ignominy. 
And no, I will not be charged by them, through my licence payments, to finance their ineptitude, because I am ready to give it up anyway.

I stopped paying the tv tax 10 years ago

Good on you.

Literally nothing to fear. It's only tricky if you have family, who might open the door to a goon and not know how to answer. In that time I've had one visit, other than that, joke letters that can go in the cardboard collection without being opened. I suspect that once you've had a visit you get taken off the likely database, and put on the given up one!

Ty.

I have never paid it

Mind you I don't have a telly