Tuesday 15 May 2012
Your comments...
Please feel free to leave your comments - good and bad - about Mr Vine's Fantastic Wireless Programme here. I'll do the same when I hear something particularly cringeworthy...!
Thursday 10 May 2012
The result of my second appeal...
Just received by email, and with no indication of where it has come from or who sent it.
Application of the expedited handling procedure at Stage 1
The complainant appealed to the Editorial Standards Committee following the decision of the Head of Editorial Standards that the complainant’s appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration by the Committee.
The complaint
Stage 1
The complainant wrote to the BBC regarding BBC Audience Services’ decision to apply the expedited complaints procedure to his complaints concerning the Jeremy Vine radio show, its website and Mr Vine’s Twitter feed.
The complainant wrote on numerous occasions between January 2011 and January 2012 complaining about various aspects of the Jeremy Vine show, the website and the Twitter Feed. BBC Audience Services replied to each of these complaints.
BBC Audience Services then wrote saying that the complainant had submitted dozens of complaints over the past 17 months about the Jeremy Vine show, its output, the website and Mr Vine’s own Twitter account, and that these complaints revolved around three recurring themes: his disagreement with the selection of items on the show and alleged bias by Jeremy Vine; the website updates; and Jeremy Vine’s right to use his Twitter feeds in the way he chose. On each of these issues the BBC had provided the complainant with a clear explanation of their policy and they could not continue to devote such a disproportionate amount of scarce time and resources to responding to these same complaints.
BBC Audience Services said that, in this context, they had applied the expedited complaints procedure. This meant that for the next two years they would not reply to complaints from the complainant submitted directly to production teams or via the central BBC Complaints Unit which related to the Jeremy Vine show unless new and substantive issues raising questions of serious editorial breaches were raised.
The complainant replied seeking clarification about the alleged “dozens” of complaints he had submitted over the past 17 months. He said his records only covered 12 months so he asked the BBC to explain the “dozens” reference. He also asked what constituted a complaint – did this include emails to the show directly, to Jeremy Vine at his BBC email address and/or his Twitter account?
Appeal to the BBC Trust
The complainant escalated his complaint to the BBC Trust saying that he wished to appeal against the decision to subject his complaints to the expedited complaints procedure.
The complainant said that he had sent 19 complaints during the past 13 months, and therefore had sought clarification as to how the BBC concluded that he had submitted “dozens” but had not received an answer to this point. He also questioned what constituted a complaint and explained why the failure to update the programme’s website in a consistent and timely manner was highly problematic for him as a listener. In a series of letters he outlined his argument that Jeremy Vine’s Twitter feeds ran contrary to BBC guidelines, particularly his decision to block him from accessing his account. Finally, in response to the BBC’s claim that they had provided countless explanations of their policy on these key issues, he said that the responses from the BBC frequently missed the point of his complaints.
The Trust’s Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser replied on behalf of the Head of Editorial Standards.
She explained that the Trust did not adjudicate on every appeal that was brought to it, and part of her role was to check that appeals qualified for consideration by the Trust (or one of its complaints committees) under the Complaints Framework. The Head of Editorial Standards had read the relevant correspondence and considered that the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success and should not proceed to the Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee.
The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser said that the Head of Editorial Standards did not feel the BBC had a case to answer concerning its decision to apply the expedited complaints procedure in relation to complaints about the Jeremy Vine show.
She said that the Complaints Framework Annex B, Expedited Complaints Handling procedure, states:
“The BBC needs to be able to ensure that its complaints procedures are not abused by vexatious complainants or otherwise by persons making repeated complaints which are without substance.”
There were a number of criteria which may be relevant but the Head of Editorial Standards’ view was that the following two were the most significant:
“The complaint recipients should consider whether to make use of the expedited procedure where a complainant has a history of persistently and/or repeatedly making complaints which:
(a) Are repetitions of substantively identical complaints that have already been resolved; and/or
(b) Although within their remit, are shown on investigation to have no reasonable prospect of success.”
The Head of Editorial Standards noted that the majority of the complaints submitted by the complainant concerned the editorial choice of subjects and the treatment of them on the Jeremy Vine show, and it was clear from the BBC’s guidelines that this was a matter for the BBC and its creative teams. In this context, BBC Audience Services were necessarily eventually supplying the complainant with near-identical responses irrespective of the specific complaint about choice of item as these issues were a matter for the BBC staff concerned. In this context the Head of Editorial Standards believed it was reasonable to view the complaints as falling within the terms of the procedure as set out above.
The second major recurring complaint about the inconsistent updating of the website was also a case where the Head of Editorial Standards could not see how the BBC could have responded differently or was likely to do so in future to a similar complaint. The BBC had said that it could not guarantee that every website would always be updated at a specific time, priorities and resources necessarily dictating these matters. Again this was clearly a matter for the BBC to exercise its judgment over its priorities. The Head of Editorial
Standards therefore did not believe an appeal against the application of the expedited procedure on this matter had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Head of Editorial Standards had noted that the BBC had repeatedly said that Jeremy Vine’s Twitter account was a personal one, and that they were happy with its relationship to the show, and that he was not in breach of the appropriate BBC guidelines. Here too the Head of Editorial Standards could not see their response changing, or that there were grounds to consider that there had been a breach of the guidelines. In this context in seemed to the Head of Editorial Standards reasonable to conclude that the complainant’s main complaints had become “repetitions of substantially identical complaints” with “no reasonable prospect of success” as the guidelines covering this procedure required. In this context the Head of Editorial Standards could see no reasonable chance of success if this complaint was pursued to appeal.
The Head of Editorial Standards noted that one of the complainant’s complaints had led to a change to the web page and she assured the complainant that under the expedited procedure his complaints would still be read and if there was a matter of substance then the complaint would be handled as normal, including acceptance of a need for a clarification or correction if necessary. It would not be ignored.
Finally the Head of Editorial Standards noted that the BBC had suggested that there had been dozens of complaints over 17 months and the complainant had said that he had made 19 complaints during the past 13 months. She appreciated that this difference concerned the complainant but it did not seem to her to make a material difference to the essential issue which was that the BBC were expending resources on replying to similar complaints on which the complainant had already had an answer and knew the BBC’s position, and on which he had no reasonable prospect of success.
The complainant requested that the Committee review the decision of the Head of Editorial Standards not to proceed with the appeal. He said that some of his complaints fell into a fourth category which the Head of Editorial Standards had ignored (factually inaccurate, speculative and biased reporting) and made further comments on those categories of complaints which she had identified. He concluded by requesting that his complaints should no longer be subject to the expedited complaints procedure.
The Committee’s decision
The Committee was provided with the complainant’s appeal to the Trust, the response from the Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser on behalf of the Head of Editorial Standards and the complainant’s letter asking the Committee to review the Head of Editorial Standards’ decision. The Committee was also provided with the Stage 2 response from the Editorial Complaints Unit.
The Committee noted the complainant’s contention that some of his complaints fell into a fourth category, that of allegations of factually incorrect, speculative or biased reporting. The Committee agreed that, however the various complaints were categorised, the fact was that they were largely repetitive with no reasonable prospect of success.
The Committee also noted the complainant’s statement that he would not make any further complaints relating to “late web page updates” if the appeal against the application of the expedited procedure were allowed.
Taking into account the nature and frequency of the complaints made by the complainant, the Committee was satisfied that the decision not to accept his appeal against the application of the expedited procedure was correct.
The Committee therefore decided this appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration.
So, I’m still on the naughty step then.
My appeal has been beautifully cherry-picked, in particular when they wrote:
The Committee also noted the complainant’s statement that he would not make any further complaints relating to “late web page updates” if the appeal against the application of the expedited procedure were allowed.
I also stated that I would not complain about the programme’s editorial decisions if my appeal was allowed, but they missed that. Should have gone to SpecSavers, perhaps.
I’ll stew on this for a while and decide what to do.
Application of the expedited handling procedure at Stage 1
The complainant appealed to the Editorial Standards Committee following the decision of the Head of Editorial Standards that the complainant’s appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration by the Committee.
The complaint
Stage 1
The complainant wrote to the BBC regarding BBC Audience Services’ decision to apply the expedited complaints procedure to his complaints concerning the Jeremy Vine radio show, its website and Mr Vine’s Twitter feed.
The complainant wrote on numerous occasions between January 2011 and January 2012 complaining about various aspects of the Jeremy Vine show, the website and the Twitter Feed. BBC Audience Services replied to each of these complaints.
BBC Audience Services then wrote saying that the complainant had submitted dozens of complaints over the past 17 months about the Jeremy Vine show, its output, the website and Mr Vine’s own Twitter account, and that these complaints revolved around three recurring themes: his disagreement with the selection of items on the show and alleged bias by Jeremy Vine; the website updates; and Jeremy Vine’s right to use his Twitter feeds in the way he chose. On each of these issues the BBC had provided the complainant with a clear explanation of their policy and they could not continue to devote such a disproportionate amount of scarce time and resources to responding to these same complaints.
BBC Audience Services said that, in this context, they had applied the expedited complaints procedure. This meant that for the next two years they would not reply to complaints from the complainant submitted directly to production teams or via the central BBC Complaints Unit which related to the Jeremy Vine show unless new and substantive issues raising questions of serious editorial breaches were raised.
The complainant replied seeking clarification about the alleged “dozens” of complaints he had submitted over the past 17 months. He said his records only covered 12 months so he asked the BBC to explain the “dozens” reference. He also asked what constituted a complaint – did this include emails to the show directly, to Jeremy Vine at his BBC email address and/or his Twitter account?
Appeal to the BBC Trust
The complainant escalated his complaint to the BBC Trust saying that he wished to appeal against the decision to subject his complaints to the expedited complaints procedure.
The complainant said that he had sent 19 complaints during the past 13 months, and therefore had sought clarification as to how the BBC concluded that he had submitted “dozens” but had not received an answer to this point. He also questioned what constituted a complaint and explained why the failure to update the programme’s website in a consistent and timely manner was highly problematic for him as a listener. In a series of letters he outlined his argument that Jeremy Vine’s Twitter feeds ran contrary to BBC guidelines, particularly his decision to block him from accessing his account. Finally, in response to the BBC’s claim that they had provided countless explanations of their policy on these key issues, he said that the responses from the BBC frequently missed the point of his complaints.
The Trust’s Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser replied on behalf of the Head of Editorial Standards.
She explained that the Trust did not adjudicate on every appeal that was brought to it, and part of her role was to check that appeals qualified for consideration by the Trust (or one of its complaints committees) under the Complaints Framework. The Head of Editorial Standards had read the relevant correspondence and considered that the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success and should not proceed to the Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee.
The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser said that the Head of Editorial Standards did not feel the BBC had a case to answer concerning its decision to apply the expedited complaints procedure in relation to complaints about the Jeremy Vine show.
She said that the Complaints Framework Annex B, Expedited Complaints Handling procedure, states:
“The BBC needs to be able to ensure that its complaints procedures are not abused by vexatious complainants or otherwise by persons making repeated complaints which are without substance.”
There were a number of criteria which may be relevant but the Head of Editorial Standards’ view was that the following two were the most significant:
“The complaint recipients should consider whether to make use of the expedited procedure where a complainant has a history of persistently and/or repeatedly making complaints which:
(a) Are repetitions of substantively identical complaints that have already been resolved; and/or
(b) Although within their remit, are shown on investigation to have no reasonable prospect of success.”
The Head of Editorial Standards noted that the majority of the complaints submitted by the complainant concerned the editorial choice of subjects and the treatment of them on the Jeremy Vine show, and it was clear from the BBC’s guidelines that this was a matter for the BBC and its creative teams. In this context, BBC Audience Services were necessarily eventually supplying the complainant with near-identical responses irrespective of the specific complaint about choice of item as these issues were a matter for the BBC staff concerned. In this context the Head of Editorial Standards believed it was reasonable to view the complaints as falling within the terms of the procedure as set out above.
The second major recurring complaint about the inconsistent updating of the website was also a case where the Head of Editorial Standards could not see how the BBC could have responded differently or was likely to do so in future to a similar complaint. The BBC had said that it could not guarantee that every website would always be updated at a specific time, priorities and resources necessarily dictating these matters. Again this was clearly a matter for the BBC to exercise its judgment over its priorities. The Head of Editorial
Standards therefore did not believe an appeal against the application of the expedited procedure on this matter had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Head of Editorial Standards had noted that the BBC had repeatedly said that Jeremy Vine’s Twitter account was a personal one, and that they were happy with its relationship to the show, and that he was not in breach of the appropriate BBC guidelines. Here too the Head of Editorial Standards could not see their response changing, or that there were grounds to consider that there had been a breach of the guidelines. In this context in seemed to the Head of Editorial Standards reasonable to conclude that the complainant’s main complaints had become “repetitions of substantially identical complaints” with “no reasonable prospect of success” as the guidelines covering this procedure required. In this context the Head of Editorial Standards could see no reasonable chance of success if this complaint was pursued to appeal.
The Head of Editorial Standards noted that one of the complainant’s complaints had led to a change to the web page and she assured the complainant that under the expedited procedure his complaints would still be read and if there was a matter of substance then the complaint would be handled as normal, including acceptance of a need for a clarification or correction if necessary. It would not be ignored.
Finally the Head of Editorial Standards noted that the BBC had suggested that there had been dozens of complaints over 17 months and the complainant had said that he had made 19 complaints during the past 13 months. She appreciated that this difference concerned the complainant but it did not seem to her to make a material difference to the essential issue which was that the BBC were expending resources on replying to similar complaints on which the complainant had already had an answer and knew the BBC’s position, and on which he had no reasonable prospect of success.
The complainant requested that the Committee review the decision of the Head of Editorial Standards not to proceed with the appeal. He said that some of his complaints fell into a fourth category which the Head of Editorial Standards had ignored (factually inaccurate, speculative and biased reporting) and made further comments on those categories of complaints which she had identified. He concluded by requesting that his complaints should no longer be subject to the expedited complaints procedure.
The Committee’s decision
The Committee was provided with the complainant’s appeal to the Trust, the response from the Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser on behalf of the Head of Editorial Standards and the complainant’s letter asking the Committee to review the Head of Editorial Standards’ decision. The Committee was also provided with the Stage 2 response from the Editorial Complaints Unit.
The Committee noted the complainant’s contention that some of his complaints fell into a fourth category, that of allegations of factually incorrect, speculative or biased reporting. The Committee agreed that, however the various complaints were categorised, the fact was that they were largely repetitive with no reasonable prospect of success.
The Committee also noted the complainant’s statement that he would not make any further complaints relating to “late web page updates” if the appeal against the application of the expedited procedure were allowed.
Taking into account the nature and frequency of the complaints made by the complainant, the Committee was satisfied that the decision not to accept his appeal against the application of the expedited procedure was correct.
The Committee therefore decided this appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration.
So, I’m still on the naughty step then.
My appeal has been beautifully cherry-picked, in particular when they wrote:
The Committee also noted the complainant’s statement that he would not make any further complaints relating to “late web page updates” if the appeal against the application of the expedited procedure were allowed.
I also stated that I would not complain about the programme’s editorial decisions if my appeal was allowed, but they missed that. Should have gone to SpecSavers, perhaps.
I’ll stew on this for a while and decide what to do.
Tuesday 8 May 2012
There is no more... again
I've tried the new format for a couple of weeks now, and I have to say that I am having some issues with it.
The main one is just finding the motivation to write stuff about news from several days ago. I had been hoping to catch up on last Thursday's and last Friday's JV programmes over the weekend but a busy schedule has prevented me from doing so. It is now Tuesday morning and I feel that the relevance and impact of writing stuff about a programme broadcast five days ago is lost. I had hoped that the "catch up" format would work, but - and to be honest - I can make better use of my time!
I guess my heart just is not in this thing any more and so for that reason I have to regrettably say again that there will be no more daily updates.
The blog will remain in place as a testament to what has gone before, and I will update it from time-to-time if I hear JV being particularly banal and also when the BBC choose to communicate with me directly.
I'm very sorry about this, and I thank you sincerely for all of the support and encouragement that you have given. It really is appreciated very much.
Vine was recently interviewed by the Radio Academy (you can hear it here: http://www.radioacademy.org/news/blog/2012/05/radiotalk-south-west-branch-special/) and a few weeks ago the chap doing the interview was actively seeking questions to be asked of the man. I sent a few, but they were not used. Instead, Vine preaches to the converted about how good he is, how good his programme is, how he can do no wrong and while still happily wallowing in the fame of the Gordon Brown "bigot" thing from two years ago. Listening to him talk with such attitude really annoys me.
The main one is just finding the motivation to write stuff about news from several days ago. I had been hoping to catch up on last Thursday's and last Friday's JV programmes over the weekend but a busy schedule has prevented me from doing so. It is now Tuesday morning and I feel that the relevance and impact of writing stuff about a programme broadcast five days ago is lost. I had hoped that the "catch up" format would work, but - and to be honest - I can make better use of my time!
I guess my heart just is not in this thing any more and so for that reason I have to regrettably say again that there will be no more daily updates.
The blog will remain in place as a testament to what has gone before, and I will update it from time-to-time if I hear JV being particularly banal and also when the BBC choose to communicate with me directly.
I'm very sorry about this, and I thank you sincerely for all of the support and encouragement that you have given. It really is appreciated very much.
Vine was recently interviewed by the Radio Academy (you can hear it here: http://www.radioacademy.org/news/blog/2012/05/radiotalk-south-west-branch-special/) and a few weeks ago the chap doing the interview was actively seeking questions to be asked of the man. I sent a few, but they were not used. Instead, Vine preaches to the converted about how good he is, how good his programme is, how he can do no wrong and while still happily wallowing in the fame of the Gordon Brown "bigot" thing from two years ago. Listening to him talk with such attitude really annoys me.
Sunday 6 May 2012
Ritual humiliation of Jeremy Vine
Tee hee...
BBC’s election night ritual humiliation of Jeremy Vine over for another year
http://crashbangwallace.com/2012/05/05/bbcs-election-night-ritual-humiliation-of-jeremy-vine-over-for-another-year/
BBC’s election night ritual humiliation of Jeremy Vine over for another year
http://crashbangwallace.com/2012/05/05/bbcs-election-night-ritual-humiliation-of-jeremy-vine-over-for-another-year/
Wednesday 2 May 2012
More Twittering...
I have had an interesting exchange of emails today with Paul Smith of BBC Audio and Music concerning my old mate Jeremy Vine’s use of Twitter. Mr Smith has chosen to engage with me and is ignoring my placing on the “expedited complaints handling procedure” list, which is very good of him. For that reason alone I have been careful with my words as I do not wish to destroy this particular link in to the inner workings of our beloved BBC as it may prove of use in the future should he continue to respond in a like manner. Mr Smith’s BBC biography can be read here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/managementstructure/biographies/smith_paul/
Our email exchange went like this:
Our email exchange went like this:
Dear Mr Smith,
There follows a transcript of a recent Twitter exchange between Jeremy Vine and Tom Watson MP. This brief exchange tells me more about Mr Vine and his personal views than any other source I have ever found. It could be argued that having such an apparently cosy relationship shows bias on his part, and following this exchange it came as no surprise at all to hear that Mr Watson was to be a guest on Vine’s programme today.
tom_watson @tom_watson : If you worked at NoTW and don’t believe @rupertmurdoch’s account, please contact me: “Rupert Murdoch betrayed us”:http://gu.com/p/377yx/tf
Jeremy Vine @theJeremyVine : @tom_watson Your book title is best so far this year, T. We’re ready for you in the studio whenever you want to come on @BBCRadio2
tom_watson @tom_watson : @theJeremyVine thank you. I’d be delighted.
Jeremy Vine @theJeremyVine : @tom_watson Have emailed producer to remind him to fix date. Know you’re busy. Have good weekend.
Chuck Finlay @ChuckFinlay : @theJeremyVine @tom_watson Jeremy, get a room…this snivelling in public is embarrassing!
However, I am unable to respond or comment because Vine has blocked me from following his feed. At least I would not have suggested that they “get a room”.
tom_watson @tom_watson : If you worked at NoTW and don’t believe @rupertmurdoch’s account, please contact me: “Rupert Murdoch betrayed us”:http://gu.com/p/377yx/tf
Jeremy Vine @theJeremyVine : @tom_watson Your book title is best so far this year, T. We’re ready for you in the studio whenever you want to come on @BBCRadio2
tom_watson @tom_watson : @theJeremyVine thank you. I’d be delighted.
Jeremy Vine @theJeremyVine : @tom_watson Have emailed producer to remind him to fix date. Know you’re busy. Have good weekend.
Chuck Finlay @ChuckFinlay : @theJeremyVine @tom_watson Jeremy, get a room…this snivelling in public is embarrassing!
However, I am unable to respond or comment because Vine has blocked me from following his feed. At least I would not have suggested that they “get a room”.
The following tweet came from former MP Lembit Opik in which he almost begs to be a guest on the programme to discuss his new book. Mr Opik appeared to do exactly that a few days later (5th March).
@theJeremyVine Jeremy, hope you’re well. My book on future of Lib Dems and its leadership is out tomorrow. Your listeners may be interested?
@theJeremyVine Jeremy, hope you’re well. My book on future of Lib Dems and its leadership is out tomorrow. Your listeners may be interested?
I find the details of Mr Vine’s relationships with his programme guests fascinating!
Your comments on this and my other recent email would be appreciated.
Many thanks!
Many thanks!
I received the following reply 3 hours later:
Hi there,
Thank you for your note. Although I don’t think this exchange is ideal, it is worth pointing out that no guest can be booked by the presenter without the express permission of the editor. I have spoken to the editor, and although Jeremy, as a journalist can, and does make suggestions, the editor turns down the idea as often as he accepts it. Tom Watson may have wanted to appear to talk about his book, but the programme also wanted him to appear following the select committee report of yesterday. Tom Watson had been sought by several BBC and non-BBC outlets, and I am satisfied that it was the correct item to carry, and there was no undue prominence of the book.
I didn’t hear the Lembit Opik item, but the editor tells me he received offers of Lembit from several sources…not principally Jeremy, and decided that he would be an interesting guest for one of the programmes.
The exchanges you have sent are public, and I think if anyone had anything to hide here, they would not use twitter.
Paul Smith
I responded straight away:
Hi,
Many and sincere thanks for your prompt reply. It is very much appreciated.
Both today’s and my email of 26th April are nothing more than illustrations of the reasons why I would like to fully follow and engage with Mr Vine’s so-called “personal” Twitter account, which I am still blocked from doing so.
Your explanation of the procedures in place to book guests is gratefully received, and I take it from this that when Mr Vine wrote “We’re ready for you in the studio whenever you want to come on” on 28th April (last Saturday, four days before the report was published) that this was NOT necessarily a “done deal” and the offer of air time was not guaranteed. If that is indeed the case then I hope you understand why I, and presumably others, have misinterpreted an apparently open invitation to attend at Mr Watson’s convenience.
For balance, I would hope that similar invitations were sent to other members of the select committee, Louise Mensch for example, but these have not appeared on Mr Vine’s Twitter feed.
Again, I would ask for your comments on my email sent on 24th April, with particular reference to the BBC’s definition of word “personal” and the use of a personal Twitter account by somebody (the producer) other than the account owner.
I remain extremely grateful for your responses to my emails.
Only 20 minutes later came this:
Louise Mensch has appeared on several other BBC outlets and another member of the committee was on Today this morning. But Tom Watson has been driving forward the phone hacking aspect of the story, so I would expect him to be prioritised, although today would be the appropriate day for him to appear rather than any of his choosing.
‘Personal’ is what JVs account is…it’s not controlled or set up by the BBC. But sometimes material from it is interesting, and Jeremy is happy for us to use the comments sent to him directly. Twitter is about personal engagement, and Jeremy likes to indulge in public debate with some people which he is in control of.
As I said, we are moving to a position where we will use BBC accounts for comments, but that is taking time to achieve as the audience find presenters own personal accounts more attractive.
I had the last word though:
Hi,
Quote: As I said, we are moving to a position where we will use BBC accounts for comments, but that is taking time to achieve as the audience find presenters own personal accounts more attractive.
Please be aware that this particular member of your audience absolutely disagrees with the latter part of that statement for the reasons that I have outlined previously.
Again, many thanks for your responses. I shall now await the outcome of my appeal to the BBC Trust.
And that was that. The definition of the word “personal” I learnt many years ago is obviously completely wrong, and I also seem to have completely misunderstood everything to do with the BBC and its use of Twitter.
Silly me.
30/04/12, 01/05/12 and 02/05/12
I've got some catching up to do, and a convenient break
in work-related matters allows me some time to do so, so best get on with
it...
Monday produced this load of old rubbish...
1) KHALIL DALE - A British aid worker Khalil Dale is beheaded in Pakistan. He has been described as a gentle man who lived to help others in war zones : Absolutely tragic, but what did your discussion change? Anything? At all? Let me guess... Next...
2) RECESSION - We’re joined by BBC Business editor Robert Peston. We ask “is it possible to talk ourselves into a recession?” : The answer to your question is "Yes" and the BBC will be leading the campaign to do so. You said on Ken's show about Peston: Does he have to have that gleam in his eye as he talks about the recession? The answer to that question is also "Yes", simply because he is paid by and works for the BBC. Like you, it is his job to do so. When the figures were released and the floodgates opened at the BBC as you searched frantically for someone to talk down the economy. I can only guess the jubilation when the BBC found a fellow doom monger by the name of Raymond Moan (yes, really), a building supplies businessman from Northern Ireland. Mr Moan was used on every news broadcast from then on with the BBC ignoring anybody with a different view, as usual. Next...
3) RED KITE - Have you been attacked by a red kite? : I was hit by one in a park when I was a child. I cannot remember the colour for sure, but I think it was blue and yellow. Oh... that kind of kite. No, I've never been attacked by one of those. You said on Ken's show when talking about Pomeranians: I don't know what size of dog that is. Is that not the kind of basic information that you would need to discuss this topic? Were you winging it (pun intended) again Jeremy? And from my knowledge of birds of prey, of which we have many around here, the behaviour and description sound more like a buzzard to me. Next...
4) MISSILES - Residents who live in flats in the East End have been told that they could well have an air-to-air missile on their roof to protect the Olympics : East End of where? Oh, you'll be talking about that there London. There was a classic Jeremy Vine open-mouth-and-insert-foot moment on Ken's show when you said: Surface to air is a bit of a misnomer as they will be on top of a block of flats. How is that a misnomer? It is an entirely accurate description. Was this the second time in one programme when you did not have a clue what you were talking about? Sounds like it to me! And can I have a missile on my roof, please? Target coordinates: W1W 2NY.
On to Tuesday then...
1) FORDS - A man is swept away to his death while attempting to drive through a ford during yesterday’s heavy rain on the Berkshire - Hampshire border. Have you got into trouble while attempting to cross a ford? : No, and I loved the video clip on the BBC news page you linked to which clearly showed a water depth gauge. Radio about stupid people, by stupid people, for stupid people. There is no charge if you want to make that your programme's new slogan. Next...
2) HATE - Astronomer Sir Patrick Moore whose fiancée was killed by a Nazi bomb in World War 2 says it’s still OK to hate the Germans. Find out more in this article from the Daily Mail : The Daily Mail... what better mouthpiece of the sewer press is there to stir up a bit of racial hatred? And what better mouthpiece of sewer radio is there to further promote it than your programme? You said on Ken's show: Amazing how recently the Germans were still bombing London. The last German air raid on London using conventional bombers (not V1 or V2 rockets) was on the 29 January 1944. That'll be 68 years ago. Is that what you count as "recent"? How are they getting on in Mafeking? Next...
3) COMMUNIST MANIFESTO - It’s May Day, International Workers Day. As the Communist Manifesto, the second biggest selling book of all time, is re-published, we ask whether Communism has any relevance in 2012 : It has as much relevance to me as it has always had: None at all. Needless to say, I did not listen but it was obvious from your Twitter feed that somebody called Daniel Frazer was mightily upset with what you were saying. For the benefit of my blog readers I'll repeat what he said here (http://www.twitlonger.com/show/h7usvt, my emphasis):
@theJeremyVine Of all the trash I have heard from the BBC your show today has to be the worst. Railroading Catholicism with Nazism and Capitalism, leaving Communism as the one true haven. No mention of grinding poverty in Socialist states, no mention of forced famines or gulags. No! just standing behind that Nazism had concentration camps so they were the only evil. What is a gulag or Siberian banishment if not a death camp? You are an abhorrent figure, willingly rallying and distorting the truth about the Communist manifesto and Capitalism. By playing Internationale today will you play Die Farne Hoch on the anniversary of the Munich Putsch? The anthem of a lot less brutal regime in Europe at the time? You do indeed fit the billing to partake in the worst waste of public money in all history, with your red brethren at the BBC. It is just that you and your show will end up in the cesspool of history.
He makes some good points! Next...
4) CANNABIS - And finally, Holland starts to close some of its “coffee shops” to tourists. Did you only go to Amsterdam for the cannabis? : I've been to Amsterdam only once and I was only there long enough to change trains, and I've never had anything to do with cannabis.
And finally, on to today...
1) PRESCRIPTIONS - A new report finds 1 in 6 patients are being given inaccurate prescriptions. We talk to someone about the day they spotted a serious error in their prescription : I rarely have prescriptions, and that has never happened to me. However, I do always check to see I have been given the correct stuff before using it. Obviously I am not a member of your Target Audience. Next...
2) RUPERT MURDOCH - Is Rupert Murdoch unfit to run a major international company? We talk to Tom Watson, hot from the MPs' Select Committee report, who says he clearly is : More Murdoch ... YOU LOVE IT! I have no view on Murdoch's competency to run his own business, but I find it interesting that you have Watson on your programme today. A couple of days ago this interesting little tête-à-tête appeared on your Twitter feed:
That all sounds a bit cosy to me. Anyway, it seems Watson might be in trouble (http://order-order.com/2012/05/01/dial-s-for-special-access-watson-revealed-committee-findings-in-book/) as in his book (the one whose "title is best so far this year") he revealed the committee's findings before they were published. I'd bet that you don't ask him about that. Next...
3) MAYORS - 10 towns and cities vote tomorrow on whether they should have mayors. Do you want a mayor for your city? : My nearest city already has one, thanks. Oh, you've missed out the important words "in England". Deliberate misinformation again Jeremy? Next...
4) ROY HODGSON - The new England manager is already being ridiculed for his speech impediment. What makes people think it's ok to ridicule someone with a speech defect? : Who? Oh, this is to do with sport. How boring. It is better to have a speech defect and talk sense than to talk rubbish perfectly, don't you think? You would know.
The Jeremy Vine Show - always ready to talk to (and pay) Labour MPs but please do not call us biased!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)