Today's show 24/01/12

14,000 and counting...

We live in interesting times, and while you were away I had an email from the BBC Complaints Department. It was in response to my complaint that you had spent too much time covering the Costa Concordia capsize, and in it they referred to me as a "viewer" and to your programme as "television output", so the message has to be taken with a certain amount of sceptisim. However, they did tell me: Factors such as how much national interest there is in the subject matter, whether it is news that has just come in and needs immediate coverage, and how unusual the story is will all play a part in deciding the level of coverage in programmes like Jeremy Vine.

So, how about discussing a story today that IS in the National Interest, needs immediate coverage and is unusual? I am, of course, referring to BBC Director General Mark Thompson's appearance at the Leveson Inquiry yesterday. I have found two reports that I can link to (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16677720 and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9033324/Leveson-Inquiry-BBC-spent-300000-on-private-detectives-says-Mark-Thompson.html). The BBC page includes a short video in which Mr Thompson shows his inability to string a coherent sentence together...
The thinking was, errr, we, we, I, I took the decision to, ummm, with colleagues, erm, erm, and, errr, erm, after discussions with the, with the Chairman of the BBC Trust to, to do a review, ummm, because the BBC is, is the biggest journalastic organisation in this country, ummm, ummm, evidence had come to light, errr, of, ummm, this practice being used by other, ummm, errr, organisations, at least one other organisation, or individuals in that other organisation, and it, it seemed to me that, erm, that as part of the BBC's overall desire to assure the highest possible standards of its journalism it's appropriate to ask the question, errr, errr, errr, errr, is there any evidence, errr, errr, errr, that that, what, what, what we are told, errr, was happening at the News of The World has ever been done at the BBC.

Give that man a pay rise! Don't you love the way he went from "other organisations" to "at least one other organisation" and then to "individuals in that other organisation"? Make your mind up and get your facts right man!

Perhaps the BBC should get a new motto. How about "Nation, errr, shall speak, ummm, errr, peace, errr, unto, ummm, nation"?

While the BBC is under attack from all sides for all sorts of reasons, would you agree that this response hardly instills confidence in us - the TV Licence Poll Tax payers - that Thompson is worth every penny of his £675,000 salary (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/8438477/BBC-boss-Mark-Thompson-could-see-pay-cut-Lord-Patten-suggests.html) and the Best Man For The Job is in charge? No. of course you don't.

From the BBC news page:
The inquiry heard that between January 2005 and July 2011, the BBC spent £310,000 on 232 instances when private investigators were used - of which news accounted for 43 occasions, at a cost of £174,500, with the rest for TV programmes.

£310,000 of your listeners' money!?!?! Outrageous! Would you agree that this was, perhaps, a waste of money? No, of course you don't.

He (Thompson) added: "The BBC is not a business and it might well be that someone running a media business might take a different view from the view that I took as director general of the BBC.".

Not a business? Yeah, right.

Thompson said: "The BBC is a public service broadcaster. It is committed to be the most trusted, trustworthy source of news in the world and we want to maintain the highest possible standards in all matters, including matters relating to privacy."

Is this the same BBC that I listen to and watch every day? Or am I living in a parallel universe? The BBC promotes its own agenda and so is not a public service broadcaster. There is a big difference between committing to be the most trusted and actually meeting that commitment. The BBC is now squeezing the last bits of life out of a crumbling reputation earned many years ago. Would you agree with that? No, of course you don't.

Who cares what "the world" thinks? They don't pay for the BBC - we do! Millions of families throughout this land are compelled by law to pay a licence fee so that this buffoon and his cronies can receive millions of pounds a year to brainwash the population into believing their biased propaganda broadcast in the name of "news". Would you agree with that? No, of course you don't.

And what was that about privacy? That will be the same privacy that prevents me - a funder of the BBC - finding out how much your trips to India and Iceland cost, how many complaints were made about your programme, and how many other users you have blocked on Twitter. Pah!

National Interest: Check. Just come in: Check. Needs immediate coverage: Check. Unusual: Check.

And while this is going on, it has been revealed (http://tv-licensing.blogspot.com/2012/01/bbc-confirms-responsibility-for-heinous.html) by the BBC's own FOI Department that the BBC itself authorised the wording used in 3 million letters sent out last year to innocent citizens who happened to live at an address where no TV licence was registered. The wording used was "We want to ensure you have the information you may need before a hearing is set at your local court". Threaten them ... yeah, that'll work. Guilty until proved innocent!

National Interest: Check. Just come in: Check. Needs immediate coverage: Check. Unusual: Check.

So come on Jeremy, they tick all the boxes! It is time to ignore your "BBC Can Do No Wrong" rule and discuss these stories today. I'll listen!

Today's issue that affects me: Why should I renew my TV Licence? No, really, why should I? I wouldn't bother with writing to you every day if I was not paying for this rubbish!

And, as usual, you never fail to disappoint me...

1) DRUG MULES - Drugs smugglers will get lighter sentences if they've been exploited by others. We talk to someone who was jailed for being a drugs mule : Now, let me think ... no, I've never done this. You mentioned that you have "a woman" coming on the show to talk of her exploits. Perhaps she should just have said "No". Next...

2) BENEFITS ROW - A row has blown up over whether families on benefit are declared homeless if two older children have to share a bedroom. We look at the pros and cons of children sharing a room : Now, let me think ... no, I've never done this. And who voted for those Bishops in the House of Lords? And why do they have so much to say about benfits, yet remain strangely silent when something sordid and/or corrupt concerning the Church comes to light? Next...

3) MISSED DIAGNOSIS - A woman says she has been given eighteen months to live after doctors failed to diagnose her cancer on thirteen occasions. Find out more from Mail Online: All hail the Daily Mail! I have been the subject of a misdiagnosis but it was quickly identified and the correct treatment given. I went on to make a full recovery. I think you should use your celebrity status to promote this poor lady's campaign and I look forward to seeing this on her web site (www.helpruthie.co.uk) later. Go on Jeremy, just for once, MAKE A DIFFERENCE! Next...

4) COSTA CONCORDIA SURVIVOR - We speak (TO) Rose Metcalf, one of the British survivors of the Costa Concordia cruise ship disaster in Italy. Watch Rose talking to BBC Breakfast : Yay! The Costa Concordia appears for a FIFTH day. My valued blog reader Will will be pleased after a prediction that you would do five days on this story. With this amount of coverage, do you consider your Target Audience to be likely to partake of a cruise? If so, no wonder I find nothing of interest on your programme.

The Jeremy Vine Show - news, errr, ummm, views, erm, errr, and, and, errrr, live, ummm, guests