Thread: Complain to the BBC

I used to believe that the BBC was a genuinely one of a kind media organization, unbiased and looking for the truth in controversial subjects. Also there was "Top of the Pops".

However over the last few years I've gradually realized that instead being unbiased and truthful, they actually take a corporate opinion on issues which is often in total disregard of the facts.

I recently listened to a radio broadcast from the 20th of August where two very establishment types, one an ex governor of the BBC and the other a telegraph journalist, bared their views to a braying audience. The remarks especially from the journalist were ignorant and openly racist. Some people on another forum are discussing this and complaints have been sent to the BBC and replies received. The BBC's stock reply is that the remarks were the panel members opinions and as such were allowable.

"The views expressed by the panellists are not necessarily shared by the BBC. The panellists reveal themselves in the comments they choose to make and we leave it to listeners to make up their own minds about what they hear. "

This of course is a cop out and appears to contradict the Public Order Act of 1986, namely incitement to racial hatred.

The BBC complaints service seems to be a complete waste and is most likely run by one speccy geek in a sub-basement at broadcasting house.

To shake these complacent bastards up I encourage everyone to troll the hell out them by sending complaints.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/

Originally Posted by Begbie

The BBC complaints service seems to be a complete waste and is most likely run by one speccy geek in a sub-basement at broadcasting house.

I'll go for a call service in Delhi.

I agree BBC is a corporatized, war- machined schill, but I'd NEVER support censorship of any kind which is what you propose.

Originally Posted by Begbie

Originally Posted by Ripley

I agree BBC is a corporatized, war- machined schill, but I'd NEVER support censorship of any kind which is what you propose.

In this case it was one of their own and a raving loony right wing journalist broadcast without a dissenting voice.
.

And this is different from the normal, how?

I worked there for 10 years, and it's propergander all the way.

Originally Posted by Ripley

Originally Posted by Begbie

Originally Posted by Ripley

I agree BBC is a corporatized, war- machined schill, but I'd NEVER support censorship of any kind which is what you propose.

In this case it was one of their own and a raving loony right wing journalist broadcast without a dissenting voice.
.

And this is different from the normal, how?

That wasn't really my point.

They've become arrogant and complacent in the view that whatever they broadcast is somehow middle of the road and acceptable just because it's the BBC.

Time to fight back.

Originally Posted by Begbie

This appears to contradict the Public Order Act of 1986, namely incitement to racial hatred.

(3)

If the person providing the service, or a person by whom

the programme

was produced or directed, is not shown to have

intended to

stir up racial hatred, it is a defence for him to prove

that-

(a)

he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the

programme would involve the offending

material, and

(b)

having regard to the circumstances in which the programme

was

broadcast, or included in a cable programme

service, it was

not reasonably practicable for

him

to secure the removal of the material.

(4)

It is a defence for a person by whom the programme was

produced or directed

who is not shown to have intended to stir

up

racial hatred to prove that he did not know and had no

reason

to suspect

(a)

that the programme would be broadcast or included in

a

cable programme service, or

16

c. 64 Public Order Act 1986

PART

III (b) that the circumstances in which the programme would

be

broadcast or so included would be such that racial

hatred

would be likely to be stirred up.

(5)

It is a defence for a person by whom offending words or

behaviour

were used and who is not shown to have intended

to

stir up racial hatred to prove that he did not know and had

no

reason to suspect-

(a)

that a programme involving the use of the offending

material would

be broadcast or included in a cable

programme

service, or

(b)

that the circumstances in which a programme involving

the

use of the offending material would be broadcast,

or

so included, or in which a programme broadcast

or

so included would involve the use of the offending

material, would

be such that racial hatred would be

likely

to be stirred up.

(6)

A person who is not shown to have intended to stir up

racial

hatred is not guilty of an offence under this section if he

did not know,

and had no reason to suspect, that the offending

material

was threatening, abusive or insulting.

(7)

This section does not apply-

(a)

to the broadcasting of a programme by the British

Broadcasting

Corporation or the Independent Broadcasting

Authority, or

(b)

to the inclusion of a programme in a cable programme

service

by the reception and immediate re-transmissionof a broadcast by either of those authorities.

Para' 7 is interesting in that it appears that the BBC are exempt from this section of the act.

Originally Posted by Ripley

I'd NEVER support censorship of any kind which is what you propose.

Here here!

Originally Posted by larvidchr

BBC has always been nationalistic and never neutral, and Journalists will always be opinionated one way or the other, as are the public participants, censoring is a very slippery road to take, the censoring has to come in your own mind after hearing the views from all sides.

Censorship isn't the issue, balance is.

Broadcasting hate speeches, without having someone on the same program giving an intelligent reply to the racist rant, means that it's just an incitement and not a discussion.

The BBC is funded by taxpayers money. It has a responsibility to represent and not insult the people who pay.

Any text of what he actually said?

As i posted earlier, it appears that viewers/listeners have no redress concerning the BBC as they are exempt from the section 7 of the Public Order Act (broadcasting)

Lars is correct when he mentions there needs to be more than merely expressing an opinion in order to contravene the act.

The person would need to be in the act of stirring up racial hatred, using threatening, abusive or insulting language. i.e. Generally this means that someone of reasonable standing would fear that the threat is likely to be carried out either then or in the near future.


It would seem that the BBC have replied with a bog standard answer but have failed to explain that no redress by a viewer can be initiated.

As a major broadcaster i suspect that they receive many thousands of complaints daily. therefore we should recognise that we are all different and that it would prove impossible for the BBC to keep 100% of their licence fee payers happy 100% of the time.

Originally Posted by larvidchr

So sure then you will get your "Top of the Pop's" of PC censured left liberal biased news, ...

Can't we all just stop labeling?

I have far left liberal views and can't stand PC or censorship.

I frequently question why a particular word is used and seek to highlight how language affects, and reflects attitudes.

Originally Posted by Begbie

Originally Posted by larvidchr

BBC has always been nationalistic and never neutral, and Journalists will always be opinionated one way or the other, as are the public participants, censoring is a very slippery road to take, the censoring has to come in your own mind after hearing the views from all sides.

The BBC is funded by taxpayers money. It has a responsibility to represent and not insult the people who pay.

55555555 The Beeb is very lefty and always has been. That's what happens when a station is funded by taxpayer money.

^ I find BBC middle to right.

And public funding info media with a fairness mandate worked in US until Reagan threw private broadcasting's Fairness Doctrine out the door.

Fairness doctrine? 55555555 You mean like the one bamboo wants to reinvent so he can kill Fox News and right-wing bloggers, the only folks with the brains and guts to not kiss his a** every day?

Originally Posted by English Noodles

Here here!

It's 'hear, hear' you twat.

Originally Posted by English Noodles

Originally Posted by English Noodles

Here here!

It's 'hear, hear' you twat.

Originally Posted by English Noodles

Originally Posted by English Noodles

Here here!

It's 'hear, hear' you twat.

Ah, so you saw my correction before my post was deleted? Good boy. 55555555

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Ah, so you saw my correction before my post was deleted?

No.























...

Originally Posted by Begbie

Censorship isn't the issue, balance is.

Broadcasting hate speeches, without having someone on the same program giving an intelligent reply to the racist rant, means that it's just an incitement and not a discussion.

I see your point, however it's a duty for a news channel to let certain minorities to express themselves without interruption, no matter the message. This is the ultiimate freespeech and freedom of expression. The undisturbed "racist" rant is more valuable than any other counter arguments that could have been expressed. There are probably no way to counter argue with so little time to such rants anyway, so might as well let the fuckers express themselves and let them expose for what they are. The more you debate the thing with blatant racism, the less likely anyone will understand either side, and that's already a win for the racist.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Begbie

Censorship isn't the issue, balance is.

Broadcasting hate speeches, without having someone on the same program giving an intelligent reply to the racist rant, means that it's just an incitement and not a discussion.

I see your point, however it's a duty for a news channel to let certain minorities to express themselves without interruption, no matter the message. This is the ultiimate freespeech and freedom of expression. The undisturbed "racist" rant is more valuable than any other counter arguments that could have been expressed. There are probably no way to counter argue with so little time to such rants anyway, so might as well let the fuckers express themselves and let them expose for what they are.

I think you're over estimating the intelligence of the average viewer, or listener in this case. By allowing this shit to become mainstream you also allow it to become acceptable, which to me it isn't.

The case in question was an insult to me, without any right to reply, the only other option is to give the perpetrators a punch in the mouth. Not really practicable as it would mean a round trip to London to assault an old lady and a homosexual.

Originally Posted by Begbie

it would mean a round trip to London to assault a homosexual