Advertisements

Peter Reynolds

The life and times of Peter Reynolds

Posts Tagged ‘BBC

Surely it’s Unethical for an ‘Impartial’ BBC Journalist to Switch Instantaneously to a Political Candidate?

leave a comment »

Or Does it Just Confirm the Worst Fears About the BBC?

Everybody with eyes, ears and a brain knows the BBC is packed with Remainers from top to bottom. It does its best to pretend to be balanced but it’s always been soft left, pro-status quo and the oily Gavin Esler demonstrates just how corrupt our so-called ‘national broadcaster’ has become.  I’m just surprised the BBC’s Europe correspondent, Katya Adler, hasn’t joined him.

The growing strength of the majority, determined to enforce the Brexit vote, defies the power of the BBC. Despite its calculated propaganda and disinformation campaign, the resolution of those who value our self-determination is set to triumph.

Esler is an unprincipled shyster who has destroyed any future journalistic career by his brazen deceit.  Such shameful conduct, without the decency of even a short pause, condemns his honour, his integrity and his life’s work.  He won’t win any seat anywhere and he can slink off into obscurity.  As for Change UK, which has launched on a platform of not changing anything, it’s just a rather silly joke.

When, with the Brexit Party,  we ‘Change Politics for Good’, the governance of the BBC and the mafia-like culture that pervades it should be high on the target list for cleansing.

Advertisements

Written by Peter Reynolds

April 24, 2019 at 10:27 am

Posted in Politics

Tagged with , , , ,

The Victoria Derbyshire Show’s Next Interviewees Arrive At New Broadcasting House.

leave a comment »

Future BBC policy will be to enable all interviewees to cover their face if they wish. Politicians and civil servants have expressed their gratitude.

In particular, several cabinet minsters have called for an immediate increase in the licence fee and for all BBC presenters to be elevated to the House of Lords.  Victoria Derbyshire has been awarded a damehood for her courage in pioneering this new policy. ITV and Sky are expected to introduce similar provisions within the next few days.

Channel 4 is introducing an immediate ban on any interviewee who refuses to cover ther face.

Written by Peter Reynolds

August 9, 2018 at 10:08 am

The BBC’s Treatment Of Sir Cliff Richard Must Have Severe Consequences For The Individuals Responsible.

with 2 comments

Fran Unsworth, BBC Director of News and Current Affairs

Dan Johnson, BBC Reporter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There simply is no other option, Fran Unsworth and Dan Johnson must be sacked.

I could have been persuaded to let them resign but not since they have both supported the idea of an appeal, compounding the abuse of Sir Cliff.

This has been in inexcusable episode which has brought shame on the BBC.  It would have disgraced the News of the World if it was still with us but for this editorial decision to have been forced, repeatedly, and defended by the BBC at huge cost, really is a national scandal.

Sack them both now and apologise unreservedly. Anything less and the BBC will forever be diminished beyond any possibility of redemption – and think what that means to all the sincere, honourable, decent people who have worked there.

The brazen attempts to justify this abuse have damaged the BBC even further.  The public is sick of media abuse and of weak governments that repeatedly fail to stand up to powerful organisations.  The second part of the Leveson Inquiry was supposed to investigate collusion between the media and the police.  Only a few weeks ago, the then Culture Secretary, Matt Hancock MP, cancelled it. There can be no doubt that this was designed only to appease the press barons in the interests of the Conservative Party.  Just days later, Murdoch’s takeover of Sky was approved as well. As in so many other instances, this government and its ministers are demonstrated to be corrupt and shameless with it.

If the BBC wants to be regarded in the same category as Murdoch, Dacre and the Barclay Brothers, by all means keep Unswortth and Johnson on staff.  The British public will never forgive you.

Written by Peter Reynolds

July 19, 2018 at 10:13 am

What Is This Alleged Anti-Semitism In The Labour Party? Is It A Secret? Does It Even Exist?

with one comment

London, UK. Friday 5th September 2012. ‘Freedom for Humanity’ a street art graffiti work by artist Mear One aka Kalen Ockerman on Hanbury Street near Brick Lane. Tower Hamlets has ordered that the mural be removed as the characters depicted as bankers have faces that look Jewish, and is therefore antisemitic.

My regular readers will know that I am no supporter of the Labour Party but I am bemused by the wall-to-wall coverage about what you would think is an extremely serious issue.

We have been given absolutely no explanation at all of what this is all about.

The only substance seems to be that in 2012, Corbyn commented on a Facebook post of a mural in East London which was about to be whitewashed over.  Apparently he agreed that as a piece of art it should be left alone.  Perhaps he didn’t look at it closely enough?  I don’t know and I really don’t care. Ferreting around in people’s old social media posts used to be the preserve of obsessive nutters, trolls and sad young wannabe journalists with nothing better to do.  Now it seems to be one of the BBC’s main ‘news’ sources.

If this mural is the sole reason for all this hyperbolic coverage, what exactly is the matter with the mural?  It lampoons some caricatures of Jews but it wasn’t long ago that we were encouraged to permit lampooning of images of Mohammed as free speech.  This is clear bias, a ridiculous amount of coverage and yet more proof that the BBC is increasingly focused by lobby groups for minorities to the detriment of the majority.

As for the Labour MPs sabotaging their party in puerile demonstrations outside Parliament, what is it all about? I asked on Twitter, “where and what is this anti-semitism” and I received just a couple of replies both referring me to the Twitter feed of a Jack Mendel who describes himself as the Web Editor of Jewish News UK.  The pinned tweet which is supposed to justify this hysteria can be seen here.

There is nothing to see. It’s a conspiracy theory more suited to a spotty, adolescent 14-year old locked in his bedroom stinking of smelly socks than anything remotely serious.

‘Witch hunt’, ‘McCarthyism’, call it what you will. These allegations of significant antisemitism are a smear campaign by an irresponsible BBC and the right wing press.
 
Anyone who denies the Holocaust is simply a fool and anyone who discriminates against those of the Jewish faith is just a sad idiot – but it’s not racism, religion is a choice.

On the evidence, and remember I am no supporter of Corbyn, the far more likely explanation is that this is a smear campaign which is really about the righteous opposition to the war criminal state of Israel and its apartheid and genocide against the Palestinian people.

BBC Executive Complaints Unit, Stage 3 Complaint Re: Interview Claiming ‘Cannabis More Harmful Than Heroin’.

with 2 comments

Louisa Philips Kulukundis

CLEAR has submitted a formal complaint to the BBC concerning its broadcast of the interview with Lousia Kulukundis in which she claimed that using heroin was safer than using cannabis.

BBC complaints are outsourced to Capita and are not actually considered by the BBC itself until they reach Stage 3, the ‘Executive Complaints Unit’.

From: Peter Reynolds
Sent: 22 September 2017 17:05
To: ‘ecu@bbc.co.uk’ <ecu@bbc.co.uk>
Subject: Request to review complaint CAS-4563673-ZNGCG0

Dear Sirs,

1. Please review the decision made in respect of this complaint.  The correspondence including complaints and responses at stages 1a and 1b are attached to this email.

2. The complaint concerns an interview with Louisa Kulukundis, a psychotherapist, a member of the British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP).  The interview was broadcast as part of ‘Newsbeat Documentary Cannabis:Time for a Change’ which was repeated frequently on the BBC News channel and is available online.  It was also included within the ‘Newsbeat Debate: Cannabis’ also broadcast on the BBC News channel and also available online.

A formal complaint about Ms Kulukundis’ conduct has also been made to the BACP.

During the interview Ms Kulukundis made the statement:

“I would say give me a room full of heroin addicts than skunk addicts. I remember saying to my older son I would prefer you to take heroin than to smoke skunk. There will be generations of kids with severe mental health issues.”

1.The points of complaint raised at 1b that need reconsideration are:

a. In broadcasting these comments which are dangerous, irresponsible and directly contradicted by all scientific and medical evidence, the BBC has acted negligently and endangered the lives of vulnerable, easily-influenced young people at whom this programme was targeted.

b. The relative danger and/or harms of heroin and cannabis cannot be justified as a matter of opinion or of ‘balance’ because they are clearly established scientific fact.

c. It is essential that the BBC should broadcast a correction with equal prominence and repeated as many times as the original programme. The BBC owes a duty of care to its viewers, particularly in the case of programmes for the young.  It must make clear that Ms Kulukundis’ words were incorrect, that heroin is hundreds of times more dangerous than cannabis to both physical and mental health and can lead to death.

Broadcasting this interview breaches the BBC Editorial Guidelines as follows:

a. “…we must give our audiences content made to the highest editorial and ethical standards.  Their trust depends on it.” 1.1

b. “ We must therefore balance our presumption of freedom of expression with our responsibilities…to provide appropriate protection for our audiences from harm.” 1.1

c. “Accuracy  is  not  simply  a  matter  of getting facts right; when necessary, we will weigh relevant facts and information to get at the truth.” 1.2.2

d. “…we  balance  our  right  to broadcast  innovative  and  challenging  content  with  our  responsibility  to  protect the vulnerable from harm…particularly  in  relation  to  the  protection of children.” 1.2.5

e. “We will be rigorous in establishing the truth of the story and well informed when explaining it.” 1.2.6

f. “We will always seek to safeguard the welfare of children and young people…while ensuring their dignity and  their  physical  and  emotional  welfare  is  protected  during  the  making  and broadcast of our output.  Content which might be unsuitable for children will be scheduled appropriately.” 1.2.9

g. “…accuracy  must  be  adequate  and  appropriate  to the  output,  taking  account  of  the  subject  and  nature  of  the  content,  the  likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation.” 3.1

h. “Accuracy   is   not   simply   a   matter   of   getting   facts   right… we should check and cross check facts…corroborate claims and allegations made by contributors.” 3.1

i. “The  BBC  must  not  knowingly  and  materially  mislead  its  audiences.    We should  not  distort  known  facts,  present  invented  material  as  fact  or  otherwise undermine our audiences’ trust in our content.” 3.2.3

j. “We should normally acknowledge serious factual errors and correct them quickly, clearly and appropriately.” 3.2.4

k. “ In  all  our  content  we  must  check  and  verify  information,  facts  and documents,  where  required  to  achieve  due accuracy.” 3.4.2

l. “We should not   automatically   assume   that   the   material   is   accurate   and   should   take reasonable  steps,  depending  on  how  it  is  to  be  used  and  if  necessary  to achieve due accuracy, to seek verification.” 3.4.3

m. “We  must  not  knowingly  and  materially  mislead  our  audiences  with  our content.” 3.4.11

n. “We should consider the emotional impact pictures and personal testimony can have on perceptions of risk when not supported by the balance of argument.  If a  contributor’s  view  is  contrary  to  majority  opinion,  the  demands  of  due accuracy and due impartiality may require us to make this clear.” 3.4.21

o. “We should normally acknowledge serious factual errors and correct such mistakes quickly, clearly and appropriately.  Inaccuracy may lead to a complaint of  unfairness.    An  effective  way  of  correcting  a  mistake  is  saying  what  was wrong as well as putting it right.” 3.4.26

p. “When dealing with ‘controversial subjects’…Opinion   should   be   clearly distinguished from fact.” 4.4.7

q. “…when   personal   view   programmes…cover  ‘controversial  subjects’…we should:…retain a respect for factual accuracy.” 4.4.30

r. “The  BBC  must  apply  generally  accepted  standards  so  as  to  provide adequate  protection  for  members  of  the  public  from the  inclusion  of  offensive and harmful material.” 5.2.1

s. “We  must  not  broadcast  material  that  might  seriously  impair  the  physical, mental or moral development of children and young people.” 5.2.2

t. “…deal  with  all  aspects  of  illegal  drug  use…with due accuracy.” 5.4.42

I am happy to provide further information, evidence or detail on any aspect of this complaint.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Reynolds

Written by Peter Reynolds

September 25, 2017 at 12:22 pm

We Should Encourage Peter Hitchens In His Bombastic Ways.

with 3 comments

Peter Hitchens clearly doesn’t realise what a turn off his rude, boorish behaviour is to 90% of people who watch him on TV. Of course, to the small minority who agree with him, it’s very effective rabble rousing just like an Islamist fanatic or a hard right hatemonger.  That’s exactly how he looks to most people and really we should encourage him to do more of the same.

Peter’s performance on BBC Sunday Morning Live followed a pattern all too-familiar to those who understand his tactics. Through such occasions his tone becomes increasingly strident, he interrupts everyone repeatedly, complains that no one has read his book, throws in a wild and dishonest claim about cannabis and mental health, then goes into full tantrum mode complaining he’s never allowed to finish his point.

He was accompanied today by David Raynes, the retired-in-disgrace, ex-customs officer who is well trained in Hitchens’ techniques. With a career one step up from a security guard, he now holds himself out as some sort of scientific and medical expert and has a ready made reefer madness story to add in while partnering with Hitchens on the interrupting, talking over and hectoring of other guests.

The moderation of the debate by Sean Fletcher was weak, ineffectual and really rather pathetic but I do sympathise.  Hitchens is a Machiavellian, calculated subverter of debate and only the very strongest can handle him.

But it’s clear that nowadays he digs himself deeper and deeper the more hysterical he becomes and the angrier he is, the more the weakness of his arguments is exposed.  Carry on Peter, you’re doing our job for us now.

Written by Peter Reynolds

September 24, 2017 at 9:51 am

Irresponsible, Reckless BBC Broadcasts Dangerous Claim That So-Called ‘Skunk’ is More Harmful Than Heroin.

with 6 comments

Louisa Philips Kulukundis. Psychotherapist at Soul Counselling, counsellor at Steps2Recovery, member of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy.

“I would say give me a room full of heroin addicts than skunk addicts…

I remember saying to my older son I would prefer you to take heroin than to smoke skunk…

There will be generations of kids with severe mental health issues.”

Source: ‘Cannabis: Time for a Change?’ From 28:20

There is huge and justifiable righteous anger about the idiotic words spoken by this woman on the BBC Newsbeat documentary ‘Cannabis: Time for a Change?’

It would be easy to launch into a tirade against Ms Kulukundis but her words and their crass stupidity speak for themselves. I wonder how many kids, listening to her recommendation on the BBC’s ‘yoof’ channel will think ‘Well I’ve smoked weed loads of times with no trouble, now this woman who’s an expert says heroin is safer, maybe I’ll see if I can get hold of some.’

I understand that Ms Kulukundis supports the idea that cannabis with a higher proportion of CBD should be legally available instead of so-called ‘skunk’ which with zero or very little CBD dominates today’s illegal market.  She deserves credit for this and I would be very surprised if she wasn’t already regretting the very serious mistake she has made.

Ms Kulukundis does however subscribe to the falsehood that cannabis is a major cause of mental health problems.  The facts of hospital admissions and GP/community health service treatment prove this is not the case.  While we shouldn’t turn away from protecting those very few people who can be vulnerable, it is about time that the media started reporting accurately instead of the gross distortions and misrepresentation seen recently, particularly from the brazenly dishonest and ‘fake news’ Daily Telegraph.

Far, far more serious and the place where responsibility really lies for this broadcast is with the BBC.  Its negligence in allowing these words to be broadcast is unforgivable and CLEAR is pursuing a complaint.  The BBC’s complaints procedure is of course notorious for its determination to brush aside viewers’ concerns with anodyne responses that mean nothing. Many don’t realise that until you get to stage three you’re not even communicating with the BBC but with Capita to whom it outsources its complaints handling.  We will pursue this complaint until it reaches the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit and if necessary we will appeal it to OFCOM which, with the demise of the BBC Trust, is now the independent regulator.

It is a shame that the BBC has spoiled what is a clear shift in its position on cannabis.  Instead of mindless obedience to the government’s bad science and propaganda it is now recognising that reform is the only rational way forward.  As usual its coverage is dominated by stereotypical caricatures of what it regards as cannabis users.  It still seems incapable of recognising that most of the three million regular cannabis consumers in the UK are not relics of the hippy era but hardworking people with families and ‘ordinary’ lifestyles.  It also allowed its debate programme ‘Newsbeat Debates. Legalising Cannabis’ to be dominated by the ‘Gateway Theory’, an idea comprehensively disproven many times over, which even our prohibitionist government recognises is invalid.  What is the point of debate if it is hijacked by misinformation and not informed by science and evidence?

The BBC should take the initiative in apologising, correcting and broadcasting a full explanatuion of why Ms Kulukundis’ claim is scientifically inaccurate and extremely dangerous. Sadly, it will almost certainly have to be dragged kicking and screaming to provide any meaningful response at all.