BBC top 2 executives resign
|
By:
Newsnight can be very toxic when it chooses to be.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
And for ‘eloquent’ read bent.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
What a surprise scummo is an arslicker
 |
|
By:
Stupid, soon to be removed from the forum, man.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Looks as though Robbie Gibb has achieved what he wanted.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Have I missed the point also?
|
|
By:
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
|
|
By:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/10/bbcs-defence-shows-it-has-learnt-nothing-from-scandal/
Oh dear. |
|
By:
Oh dear, the daily telegraph
|
|
By:
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.  |
|
By:
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 )  |
|
By:
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  |
|
By:
Run away as usual
You never deal with what you find a bit tricky, time and again, and you know it |
|
By:
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
Wait a minute, you’re not WOKE are you stupidfool?
|
|
By:
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.... |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
As far as I am aware this was editing. Distortion is when you do fabricated AI ads, a Chump speciality.
|
|
By:
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!
|
|
By:
You’d have to be living in the matrix to believe that sh1te matey.
|
|
By:
He just thinks it was the right thing to do. Only the righteous
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
The current crisis suggests not, Crusty. Some might say, existential crisis.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Nothing to see here
The Management |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
Jeez, at least we’ve got that out of you, he’s only a facking fairy
|
|
By:
I guess that accounts for the self hating booze sessions
 |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
Circle jerkers I guess
|
|
By:
When did you last get your leg over, if ever?
|
|
By:
Not sure where this is going, yuck.
|
|
By:
if that is what you think of it that might explain the lack of action around your furry parts
|
|
By:
I daresay this is the sort of question you pose to your good friends Julian and Sandy.
|