None of your damn business
Particularly alert readers may recall that we recently made a simple and seemingly innocuous Freedom Of Information request for the latest viewing/listening figures of two BBC Scotland politics programmes (Scotland 2015 and Good Morning Scotland), which was met with the standard BBC “get lost” response to any uppity licence-fee payer with the temerity to ask about how their money’s being spent.
We appealed to the Information Commissioner, and we’ve just received a prompt, and impressively detailed and specific, reply. We attach it below for your enlightenment.
————————————————————————————————–
21st August 2015
Case Reference Number FS50592037
BBC reference RFI 20151253Dear Rev Campbell
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Your FOIA request to the BBC dated 23 July 2015 about viewing/listening figures for ‘Scotland 2015’ and ‘Good Morning Scotland’.I am writing from the Information Commissioner’s Office to explain the Commissioner’s preliminary conclusion with respect to your complaint. The Commissioner is satisfied that the BBC has correctly handled your request for information under FOIA.
Summary of the correspondence
On 23 July 2015 you sent the following information request to the BBC:
‘Data requested: the most recent viewing/listening figures (average audience per episode) available for “Scotland 2015” (BBC2 Scotland) and “Good Morning Scotland” (BBC Radio Scotland).’
On 4 August 2015 the BBC responded to your request. The BBC explained that it did not believe that the information was caught by FOIA because it was held for the purposes of ‘art, journalism or literature’.
On 4 August 2015 you complained to the ICO about this response.
Some key principles about the operation of FOIA
Although the BBC is listed as a public authority in the FOIA it applies to the BBC only to a limited extent.
The BBC is a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA – “in respect of information held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature.”
This is known as the Schedule 1 derogation.
This means that information held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature is not covered by the FOIA but is derogated.
The Commissioner appreciates that you have concerns over the viewing figures for the 2 programmes but the Commissioner can only consider concerns within the scope of the FOIA. The operation of the derogation is explained in more detail below.
How the derogation works
Since the FOIA came into force, the issue on derogation has created considerable litigation about what this means. The High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court have explained their views about when the derogation will apply and their decisions are binding on the Commissioner. In summary, if the information is held and relates to ‘output’ then it falls outside FOIA.
On 15 February 2012, the Supreme Court in Sugar (Deceased) v British Broadcasting Corporation and another [2012] UKSC 4 gave a clear definition of what the phrase ‘journalism, art or literature’ means in FOIA and what types of information it will cover; the Supreme Court found that, “…the composite expression ‘journalism, art or literature’ seems to be intended to cover the whole of the BBC’s output in its mission (under article 5 of its Royal Charter) to inform, educate and entertain the public. On that comprehensive approach the purposes of journalism, art or literature would be, quite simply, the purposes of the BBC’s entire output to the public.” (Lord Walker at para 70).
In relation to journalism the Supreme Court accepted the Information Tribunal’s definition of journalism as comprising three elements:
- The first is the collecting or gathering, writing and verifying of materials for publication.
- The second is editorial. This involves the exercise of judgement on issues such as:
* the selection, prioritisation and timing of matters for broadcast or publication;
* the analysis of, and review of individual programmes; and
* the provision of context and background to such programmes.
- The third element is the maintenance and enhancement of the standards and quality of journalism (particularly with respect to accuracy, balance and completeness). This may involve the training and development of individual journalists, the mentoring of less experienced journalists by more experienced colleagues, professional supervision and guidance, and reviews of the standards and quality of particular areas of programme making.”
Also the Supreme Court found (in a 4:1 majority) that if the information is held by the BBC to any significant degree for the relevant purposes (i.e. journalism, art, literature) it is exempt from production under FOIA, even if the information is also held for other purposes.
Therefore provided there is a relationship between the information and one of the purposes listed in Part VI of Schedule 1 – which are to be read to mean ‘output’ – then the information is derogated.
The information relevant to the request need not be journalistic, artistic or literary material itself. All that must be evidenced is that the information requested has a relationship with the BBC’s output.
Is there a relationship between the information requested and ‘output’?
Your request for the viewing and listening figures of the 2 programmes is well within the expected remit of the BBC for the purposes of creating content and producing output. This in turn closely relates to the editorial decision making process and resource allocation. Therefore, the information is held for the purposes of the derogation. It is inextricably linked to the BBC’s output and as a result I am satisfied that in this case the Commissioner has no jurisdiction in this matter and therefore no statutory power to order disclosure.
Furthermore the Commissioner is unable to accept public interest arguments, such as those attached to the licence fee, as a means to justify the disclosure of information when the BBC is not a public authority for the purposes of FOIA.
The Commissioner recognises that the High Court, the Court of Appeal nor the Supreme Court specifically considered this information.
However, in light of previous cases, the Commissioner considers that the requested information for viewing figures, investigations into viewing statistics and the use of the whole editorial feedback process is integral to the BBC’s journalistic purpose.
You may wish to read decision notices regarding the application of the derogation at the link below by selecting the BBC under the ‘Authority’ tab:
http://search.ico.org.uk/ico/search/decisionnotice
The Commissioner’s preliminary conclusion in this case
As a preliminary conclusion, the Commissioner is satisfied that the requested information is derogated and therefore the BBC is not obliged to comply with Parts I to V of the FOIA with respect to this request.
Progression of this case and actions required
Please consider the following options and respond as soon as possible or within ten working days by 7 September 2015.
- It may be the case that you are prepared to withdraw this complaint at this point given the information above. This does not mean that you are satisfied with the situation, but that you understand that any decision notice you will receive will be highly likely to uphold the position of the BBC and find against you. Should you agree to withdraw your complaint without a decision notice you would not then be able to appeal this case to the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights).
- The alternative is that you want to proceed to a decision notice and as explained above it is highly likely to uphold the position of the BBC and find against you. Both parties will however have a right of appeal at the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) where there are grounds to do so. If you require a decision notice I would ask you to provide your arguments about why you disagree with the preliminary view that is outlined above and encourage you to read through the material that I have referenced.
If I do not hear from you, I will proceed on the basis that you are prepared to withdraw this case.
Thank you for your co-operation in this matter.
Yours sincerely
Beryl O’Donnell
Case Officer
————————————————————————————————–
On one level, we suppose it’s comforting to know that the BBC holds all of its patrons in contempt, not just those who support Scottish independence. It’s less uplifting to realise that the Freedom Of Information Act only applies to the broadcaster in an abstract theoretical sense, even though citizens are forced to fund it under penalty of law whether they watch its output or not.
That seems to us to veer terribly close to “taxation without representation”, particularly in the light of the fact that fewer than half of Scots feel the BBC is serving them adequately in its coverage of news and current affairs – the only part of the UK where that’s the case. (61% of English people, for example, are happy with it.)
We suspect those feelings are reflected in the viewing statistics for the Corporation’s flagship Scottish political programmes, and that that’s the reason the BBC is so shy about revealing them. But since it appears that those numbers are an impenetrable state secret held above the law of the land, we’ll never know for sure.
Could you subscribe to BARB and get this data?
Interestingly we had someone from TNS round the house yesterday doing a survey on our media preferences – seems the BBC has been commissioning opinion polls…
Maybe the numbers are close to the Scottish branch office of the liebour party numbers that why your not getting them
I got rung by TNS* for a social attitudes thing, non political, and agreed to be mailed a detailed questionnaire. It had a section at the end on media sources for news and included issues like trustworthiness. I reckon looking at it it would be possible to infer I’m a ScotNat. Even though on the Hootsmon and the Record were offered as Scottish ‘newspapers’ and of course I never read either.
*Well actually my wife picked up but was rejected. Apparently they have too many women and not enough men in such surveys.
Unbelievable the utter contempt the BBC establishment have for the people of Scotland.
If only we had radical students and tea .. what a party we could have at pacific key?
Cue Alex Harvey.
I’m sorry, but: “It [viewing figures for two news programmes] is inextricably linked to the BBC’s output”
How?!?!
the sooner adverts are on the BBC , the more they will have to be acoutable to the public
I wish I could say I was surprised. 🙁
Well. Wasn’t that a snippy response. Especially the part I forming you more than once that it’s highly likely you’d be shot down for complaining in court so basically don’t bother your ass.
BBC, a law unto themselves.
BARB is TV. RAJAR is radio. Doubt will be any help.
Just heard on the BBC Haw Haw broadcast.
Damn Ann Begg says SNP got 100,000 new members after Indyref1 because they got in for £1.
Anybody on here get in for a pound? I sure as hell didn’t.
Just another Labrat smear?
The state broadcaster isn’t, and never has been, answerable to the public but rather to the British establishment, whose interests it is there to rigorously protect.
Fuck me, that was worthy of “Yes minister”.
All that must have taken more time and effort to produce, than just to give the viewing figures for two programs from a company we the public pay for.
Surely it is not a state secret ?
Certainly a law unto themselves. The letter is verging on the Kafkaesque. But then, ukok is verging on the Kafkaesque and has been for some time. Truly chilling.
Looks very much that it is all stitched up neatly.
Of course there is a causal relationship between programme content and viewing figures.
Nobody watches crap. Except the stalwarts of WoS of course.
Come to think of it……
Suppose they gave the figures. Would you believe them? Do you believe anything emanating from the state broadcaster?
Bet they’ve already stopped collecting data because they don’t like the answers.
Someone should put in a freedom of information request for Eastenders, or Newsnight, and see if they release that or if it comes under journalism art or literature waffle.
Maybe ask for lots of viewing figures? If they refuse to release information already collected and issued by Barb – and made public – they are seen in a bad light; if they release England only figures and are shown to be refusing any Scottish figures then it will look blatantly political.
The BBC are still desperately trying to play their old games, ‘nothing to see here, move along now’, ‘leave this to us, we know best’ etc (Robinson’s latest arrogance is an indicator that the attitudes haven’t adjusted one iota).
Personally, I find it all rather sad. Who thought we’d see a ‘Great British Institution’ reduced to this sorry state 😉
(A definitive fact sheet on the license fee criteria/opt-out is a necessary resource to pass on to folk unsure of their position. If anyone’s already aware of one post a link please, otherwise I’m compiling it myself!).
Naina Tal says
“Damn Ann Begg says SNP got 100,000 new members after Indyref1 because they got in for £1.
Anybody on here get in for a pound? I sure as hell didn’t.
Just another Labrat smear?”
By that token the Labour party being the largest party in Scotland an aw should have approaching a million members OH?
Well can’t we all petition our MP’s to raise this issue. I mean the wider one of a lack of accountability and transparency to the licence payers and the FOIA.
I’m sure, some clever winger could construct a template that could be largely shared and forwarded to our MP’s.
Go for it, preferably all the way to the Supreme Court. A win in this case would create a hugely important precedent, which just might be worth the money that will need to be spent on the lawyers.
The best solution would be to look for a law firm to represent you pro bono, if at all possible.
The BBC is an instrument of the state and establishment. Whoever the perceived threat is … Sadam Hussain, North Korea, or Scottish pro democracy activism …. you can expect the BBC to take a biased pro UKOK line.
They may be paid by the public, but they most clearly do not serve the public. Their role is to mislead the public to suit their masters’ agenda. Supplying performance data to the public is well outside their raison d’être.
Stu is right, this is Taxation without Representation.
It’s all a bit sinister, hiding the truth behind a legal smokescreen.
You’ll probably find that any and all information “not” hidden, can just be made up anyway.
We are only free to get useless information.
FOUI Act.
It’s vexation without representation
The BBC get more like Pravda every day. Or perhaps they were always a tool of the state and we just never really twigged until now.
I rarely listen to BBC news these days and if I do I question every word they say. Bill Whiteford’s weekend roundup is just about the only thing I regularly dip into. I heard Dame Begg say that Labour’s problem was just like when the SNP let anyone in for a £1. A magnificent opening untruth. The optional minimum is a £1 a month to become a full member which is quite different to a flat £3 to become an affiliate who can instantly vote in a leadership election.
McConnell is right, they are a shambles and as Dame Begg demonstrates…a stranger to the truth.
So the details and output of a publicly owned company cannot be questioned? How can that possibly be right, how can it possibly democratic?
Fact is the BBC is used as a state propaganda machine and is protected by same state for it’s purposes.This result shows this is the case.
To hell with any complaint, to hell with democratic process.
This is the state were we are expected to do what Westminster dictates, and the BBC is only a proxy for making that happen.
More evidence of how Westminster works to control the masses, elites simply MUST rule, that’s it folks. We stay in a country that pretends democracy, but has no intention of really allowing
it. Corruption rules the UK!
“Surely it is not a state secret?”
With very few exceptions – a new aeroplane design, a type of weapon, an individual’s or company’s invention before it gains a patent – nothing should be secret, in particular the decision process of our parliaments and institutions.
https://grousebeater.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/how-the-bbc-erases-complaints/
What a charade well unwittingly they may not have giving you the figures but they sure as hell provided an answer they are bombing on their arse or they would have thrown the figures in your face what other reason do they have for not disclosing them and trying to hide behind a load of lawyer bollocks.
It reminded me of of a great scene from Bottom live where Eddie is reading a lawyer letter sent to Ritchie,shotgun bastard and dribble lawyers blah de blah de blah ,diddle le do diddle do blah de blah de blah 10000 pound “god they dont half write some bollocks these lawyers”
Morning,
On 22 June 2015 I sent this FOI request to the BBC-
“Dear Sir,
This request is made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Please supply all information held by the BBC which explains the existence of the political party referred to by the BBC as the Scottish Labour Party.
This request covers all information no matter how held and it can be forwarded in electronic format to me, …..”
On 15th July I received this response-
“Freedom of Information Act 20151012
Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the Act’) of 22 June 2015 seeking: all information held by the BBC which explains the existence of the political party referred to by the BBC as the Scottish Labour Party.
Under section 1(1) of the Act, I can confirm that the BBC does not hold this information.”
Now they did not get to use their standard go away plebe response in this case, however looking at your response from the Commissioner, and in particular, this phrase
“…BBC’s output in its mission (under article 5 of its Royal Charter) to inform, educate and entertain the public…”
I wonder where they stand on the requirement to ‘inform’ the public as continual reference to the ‘SLP’ must actually amount to mis-information?
In addition, as they do not hold any information which establishes the existence of ‘SLP’, which as we all know does not exist, it points to a very basic lack of any journalistic integrity by the BBC which, as a public broadcaster, is a very worrying state of affairs (surprise! not) – the sooner they have to stand on their own feet the better.
If the BBC can obtain FOIs from other public sources then surely they must be open to providing FOIs—simples! No bullshit.
Or perhaps when Eleanor Bradford is trying to smear the SNHS, they should tell her their job is to take care of patients not provide her with info.
So, when the BBC beat their own drum and tell how fantastic the viewing figures have been for one or other (usually trashy) programme, is it breaching its own policies and procedures as its revealing something it has gathered for the purposes art, journalism or literature?
Given the detailed nature of the response, and it is very detailed, does it not strike you that they may have had to respond to other requests such as the one submitted by WoS?
If WoS had been the only one to raise this issue re the BBC would the Commissioner have gone to the trouble of replying in such detail? For example, the relevant sections of the Supreme Court’s judgement. It would take time to put this response together. Would they spend that much time and effort if WoS was the only one raising this issue?
Certainly the case quoted in the reply is one instance but that dates from 2012. I wonder how many requests have been submitted since and been denied based on the decision in this case. If the number were known what would it show about the BBC and how it is viewed (pun intended) by the public?
Perhaps
The Rev could always use what I believe should be called “The Craig Murray Approach”.
The bold Craig came up with 5217 as the number of SLAB members who voted for Fi Fi Le Bob Bon in the recent leadership election.
“No it wasn’t – the number was higher”, he was told.
“Well, tell me the right number”, Craig replied.
No further response from SLAB, thus, 5217 it is.
Do the same with the BBC. Think of a number and use it; when Pacific Quay protests, ask for their correct number. Then, when they refuse to tell you – keep using the thought-up number.
With the lazy young pups in the MSM in Scotland today – that number will very quickly become gospel. Or, and I am not holding my breath on this one, the BBC will reveal the correct number.
No FOIA because it was held for the purposes of ‘art, journalism or literature’ is an absurd get out clause.
BBC relentless hammering at away at Scottish democracy is not “art, journalism or literature.”
Just at another day of BBC liars in action.
The BBC can release viewing figures when it suits them
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33800711
I can see the point with regards to literature, as Scotland 2015 and Good Morning Scotland are mostly works of fiction.
Art and journalism they are most certainly not.
It’s probably just a case of officialdom protecting the establishment’s propaganda arm from those nasty Scotch separatists.
If the BBC want to keep it a secret it must be because they’re ashamed that their viewing/listening figures are way, way below those of their commercial rivals.
I have a question.
Would/could ITV/STV hide behind said act,
in other words would a similar question about viewing figures to STV elicit the same response jus askin sa’ll
A tortuous reply to an uncomplicated question. The BBC is a cultural-media system that delivers mass loyalty to the state/UKOK to re-inforce UKOK’s message to a massified public that passively absorbs the media flow.
Unfortunately for the BBC, the public, especially in Scotland is turning a deaf ear to it and looking for their information from a number of other sources.That’s a really good thing and a requirement for Indy 2.
This is wholly unsatisfactory.We now understand why the BBC doesn’t HAVE to provide the figures under FOI.I would like to know why the BBC isn’t happy,or at least willing,to provide these statistics with or with out an FOI request.Keep at them Stu.
I like that idea Socrates. If nothing else it would wind the Beeb up no end if they were constantly trying to correct figures without giving any top secrecy info ( in their opinion) away.
I wonder if Russia Today have the same attitude to releasing viewing figures?
You know, the one from Putin’s Russia. The one Nick Robinson compares us to. The same one Cameron ran to during the referendum for help. That one.
I’m not one to gossip, but I can tell you…
One of my three programme researchers spent more time discussing her handsome hubby and the new VW Golf GTi they were buying, than actually doing research. A down-the-corridor colleague had a ‘private’ chat with me in which he objected to two Catholics included in a discussion section. I was “asking for trouble.” A serial adulterer broke off from the middle of a sentence talking to me to chase a good looking woman at the end of the corridor only to discover it was my wife. An executive said BBC don’t commission many Scottish productions because there’s “not enough good talent to choose from”. A singer’s agent offered me a hooker for the night. An arts producer told me “English consider Alisdair Gray a national treasure. You Scots should read him, sometime.”
The BBC was full of patronising Oxbridge graduates who talked of Scotland only if their parents had a holiday home there by a beautiful ‘lock’, or they visited the Edinburgh Festival to make a programme recording and get laid, otherwise it didn’t exist.
Distinctly odd moments stand out from my time at the Beeb.
So the viewing figures are 5,217 and 7,125?
Scotsbob: “The BBC can release viewing figures when it suits them”
As a matter of course, I was given listening and viewer figures every month. Figures included a breakdown of demographics and ‘people’ types, the only way a producer could discern how to shape a programme for maximum effect, or know if the format was a dud. In time, you learned to be paranoid. Viewer numbers were the difference between life and death.
https://grousebeater.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/how-the-bbc-erases-complaints/
Would it not have been quicker and less costly to reveal the 2 figures than that very lengthy mangling of the English language above? My blind dog can see they are hiding the figures for a very good reason.
Guardian seems to be able to get viewing figures no problem:
https://archive.is/CsSwq
Derogated Derogated Derogated so nice a word I hiv to say it thrice.
Here,s another few words I like.
IM A NON BBC Licence Fee Payer.
Simples.
Now I’ve read this reply twice and cleverer folk than me can correct me but doesn’t it say
We have been to court for some of this and our opinion was upheld but other stuff wasn’t presented but even if you do present it on appeal we’re absolutely sure we can F@@k you on that as well
So to sum up the BBC “We the BBC are a secret organisation like eg: the CIA or British Intelligence that you have to have pumped into your homes and pay for whether you like it or not and we are certainly in no way accountable especially to you horrible Jocks”
What do we think folks is that about right
See I just think this is Terrorism with a suit just like North Korea, the Banks, or The Kremlin or The, yes I’m going to say it Nazi Party with their official looking corrupt control messages and calling it information
Put a Kimono on Union Jackie Burd and (Apart from horror) what have you got
@Socrates MacSporran
That’s a great idea
If everybody adopted that maybe as you say they’d have to try and refute the numbers with something
Make them defend themselves, Yeah Good One
The BBC is The Wiz and how dare Reverend Toto from Bath try and look behind the curtain of deceit.
I agree with Socrates, if they can’t provide a figure then I think and intelligently informed guess would suffice and should be let loose on teh interwebs.
Shock as latest figures reveal that listening figures for the BBC flagship news programme Good Morning Scotland decline by 37% since referendum.
🙂
So what does the BBC do with viewing figures that they obviously collect (eg x million watched Strictly) if they can’t give then out? Are they just for their own use? But, then again, how can they publish some (eg Strictly) but not others? Selectivity perhaps?
The BBC rely very heavily on the derogation to avoid providing straightforward information in response to straightforward queries. The legislation is very badly written, because “journalism, art or literature” arguably encompasses most of what the BBC does, so provides an automatic get-out clause whenever the BBC is pushed to hard.
Hiding behind the FOIA has previously backfired on the BBC, as mentioned here:
BBC in Freedom of Information Farce
Shock as latest figures reveal that listening figures for the BBC flagship news programme Good Morning Scotland decline by 37% since referendum.
You have to have something on the radio and have to read something in the news. Rancid Graun going WTF over JC now but welcome to their Scotland region for the last how ever long their lie machine’s been at it up here.
https://archive.is/eNOf4
“Could the entire Labour leadership be a psychodrama about my lost youthful ideals and the need for babywipes? That theory feels increasingly sane – or certainly no less mad than the rest of it.”
WTF inside WTF, all wrapped up in WTF is the teamGB lie machine on? Welcome to Scotland, current owner, BBC vote SLab Scotland.
Britspeak.
Anne Begg, she who happily grins in photos with the Far Right? She who got a Damehood for shutting up and toeing the party line for however many years it was? Well, DAME Anne, perhaps instead of carping at what all those people may or may not have paid, you should look at the results of the GE. 56 seats, and of the other three two won with small majorities via tactical voting and the third highly suspect. And then find something else to spew your venom on because at present you are not only farting against thunder but making yourself look extremely small.
@ Dr Jim
So to sum up the BBC “We the BBC are a secret organisation like eg: the CIA or British Intelligence that you have to have pumped into your homes and pay for whether you like it or not and we are certainly in no way accountable especially to you horrible Jocks”
Very succinct.
Naina Tal says:
22 August, 2015 at 8:34 am
Just heard on the BBC Haw Haw broadcast.
Damn Ann Begg says SNP got 100,000 new members after Indyref1 because they got in for £1.
Anybody on here get in for a pound? I sure as hell didn’t.
Just another Labrat smear?
*********************************
NO it is not another Labrat smear, I myself have been a member of the SNP for over 10 yrs, voted for them since the 70’s.
However after the referendum defeat, I signed my husband up for the £1 as did many other members of my family, all of us living on the state pension.
( you know, the age bracket that was blamed for the loss) they had always voted SNP so I convinced them to JOIN the party so that the UNIONISTS would know that losing the referendum was not the END of the SNP.
Some of them like myself pay more per month, but others did join up on the lowest price, which was £1 & to my knowledge it still is.
Anent the inhabitants of Pacific Quay.
My partner’s daughter has always been a bit of a “luvvie”. She has professional qualifications and works, behind the cameras and mikes in the media industry.
She worked for a spell, as a staffer, then a freelance, for the BBC. At that time her day seemed to consist of an hour’s work in the morning, followed by meetings about meetings and generally gadding about – she was a miserable wee so-and-so then.
But, a move to the commercial sector, where she works on the team which produces a hugely successful Scottish series has brought about a wonderful change. Now, she is happy in her work, focussed, buzzing with energy.
The BBC in Scotland, to me, seems to drain talent, turning people into zombies. It is a plook on the erse of Scotland.
What about establishing a watchdog to monitor and provide regular data on the fairness of the output from the BBC and others in Scotland. A weekly ‘fairness index’ could become a recognised way of exposing broadcasters to a more public scrutiny. It would of course have to be rigorously fair in itself, supported by respected academics.
As the biggest obstacle left to convincing particularly older folks it would be something that I would be willing to contribute to financially.
There are private/commercial data collecting for TV viewing figures like Barb or
Kantar………….I sincerely hope nobody on here is suggesting this BBC data is being sold/given to individuals or companies for the purposes of garnering lucre……a preposterous idea…won’t have it :-J
Given that Scotland 2015 has an audience of 5217,would anyone care to hazard a guess at the cost of providing this programme to those poor souls? On a per head basis the figure must be immense.
The BBC does publish audience figure but only for those programs which it has a broad reach.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2015/combined-global-audience
Its reach however, doesn’t extend into my house because I don’t fund their propaganda.
And I wouldn’t dare someone else to, any more than I’d dare myself to wear a “Jim Fixed It For Me” t-shirt at a children’s charity event.
Judging by the sets of figures commentators above linked to from the the BBC and the Guardian (on the BBC) ,we can safely assume that the figures requested in the FOI are so low as to make the programmes not viable, except as UK Government propaganda tools.
That propaganda would include allowing attempts to bolster Scot Labour at the expense of anything SNP or proIndy.
@Paula Rose says: 22 August, 2015 at 9:59 am:
“So the viewing figures are 5,217 and 7,125?”
‘Scuse me, Paula Rose, you seem to have hit the “,” key instead of the “.” key when quoting the BBC audience figures. I’ll correct them for you – 5.217 and 7.125 respectively. There sorted.
Yet another reason not to pay tv licence,am I right in thinking that its the PF in Scotland who decides wether or not to impose fines for non payment of licence? I’d happily go to court to explain that 1: I don’t watch bbc for the following reasons, I do not wish to pay for an organisation that lies and id constantly biased against Scots. Sn organisation that has, at best, turned s blind eye to paedophalia within its ranks,and now, an organisation, funded by the public under threat of prosecution if they don’t pay the licence fee, but are not answerable to the public. What happens if your fined and refuse to pay the fine?
Another dreary display of ukok’s “just tell them to fcuk off” mindset
https://archive.is/ytx7L
Another SLab dude says JC’s the end of ukok days-
“This is true, and I was struck by David Miliband’s warning in the Guardian this week that a Labour party that was merely a pressure group would mean Britain would become what he called “one governing-party state”. His argument is persuasive, until you consider that Britain is now a problematic political entity and that Scotland under the SNP is much more a one-party state than England under the Tories.”
Britain the “problematic entity” all caused by voters in their SLabour heartlands not voting how our imperial masters tell us and BBC vote SLab Scotland is going to solve their problem no doubt.
They can get the suckers to pay up for their relentless brainwashing BBC garbage but can they get them to sit down, shut the fcuk up and actually watch their brainwashing garbage?
@ Unchillfiltered . (supported by respected academics.)
Why are ordinery people to stupid. I think therefore I am.
Ha ha ha!
Naina Tal @ 8:34
THERE’S where sLab are going wrong, their membership is in freefall(strikethrough)ahem, decline, because of the wrong price point!
I was able to join the SNP for £5/year as unwaged/carer which was a great bonus, and was happy to advertise to other carers wishing to join that are low on spare cash.
I like the Craig Murray number hypothesis…if one is decided on, please make it known here, I’d like to be in on starting to grow the meme.
At the end of August we will no longer be “customers” of the BBC. Our TV habits have genuinely changed over the past three years and feel they no longer deserve our money.
Just as I finished that last sentence, the phone rang to ask Mr Effie about his television habits – naw mate, I’m busy…
call me simple,it’s a public broadcasting organisation which takes money from my bank account every month.
viewing figures, hardly D notice
crowdfund a court case
the embarrassment will hit the rector scale
will a bbc executive opening say in court,public don’t have right to viewing figures
no chance
I’m willing to bet that the BBC would be more than happy to release viewing figures for progs like ‘The Great British Brain Wash’.
How does anybody know any of the viewing figures for any show or programme the BBC puts out numbers for
Given their current behaviour Strictly Come Dancing could be 27 viewers, we don’t know, there could be tons of stuff that would be really unpopular and the BBC just inflate the figures, the rest of the media comply and Ant and Dec get another award (actually I like Ant and Dec) but you get the point
I’m beginning to feel soiled now at the thought of the scale of shit they could be getting away with unhampered by any oversight or control mechanisms
We know what their part in Scotlands business has been, but how long have they been getting away with whatever they want and how deep does it go
Sturgeon must act ( I love saying that)
Kate at 1038.
Don’t think 100,000 members got in for a pound tho, so it’s still a lie.
3 of my family joined after the referendum because they were so gutted and wanted to show tangible support rather than just voting.
Myself, I’ve just finished London’s Calling and sitting here raging, that so many people got sucked in and scared of the twisted news coverage. What an excellent researched book.
The only thing missing – in Marx Bros style – is a sanity clause.
SNP, £12 membership, or £5 if unemployed.
They can’t answer that simple request because if they did,other reasonable requests for information such as enquiries about how for example,voteNoBorders astroturf campaigns got airtime all of a sudden out of proportion to other real grassroots stuff like the radical independence campaign or declarations of political leanings in the interests of political neutrality.
James Bond stuff over viewing figures show that the licence fee payers aren’t in control as they should be,they must be beholden to some other thing,namely Westminster, the ones who appoint the boss.
The BBC is a monolith conceived and created by Westminster. A powerful force set-up as a means to control the masses it has outgrown the State, spreading it’s tentacles like a giant Japanese hogweed throughout the British Isles causing more harm than good.
In it’s present form, corrupted by external influences this powerful force is a “state within a State” and should be dismantled.
“No taxation without representation”
Rather interesting how history repeats itself in very different ways. The disregard to the wishes of the American colonists, which in turn, eventually caused the American Wars of Independence that saw British interests in the 13 colonies ended in 1776, appears to be manifesting in several ways in 2015 in not only the proposed act of EVEL, but also through state institutions such as the BBC.
The continual blatant dismissal of Scotland’s voice within the Union will eventually lead to similar calls of “No taxation without representation”. What is probably more puzzling is that some of the Cabinet such as Osborne and Boris are History buffs. To not see the tell-tale signs that all Historians look for either borders on stupidty ….or just blatant outright arrogance and contempt.
For history does repeat itself again and again. It is man’s greatest weakness; to foolishly ignore the past and repeat his mistakes …and it seems the boys in London are destined to repeat the 13 Colonies, Ireland, India all over again, when it comes to Scotland.
You may have seen the advert on the BBC for your say on their the governments review on their website. I went on and gave them my say…I don’t think they’ll being showing that one to the government. I suggest you all do the same
https://consultations.external.bbc.co.uk/bbc/tomorrows-bbc/consultation/intro/view
Interestingly when a group of us went to Brussels to speak to the Commission and MEPs over the TTIP stitch up, one Lab MEP did literally tell the audience, “if they weren’t there to listen they could piss off”.
However after ‘discussions’ with the audience, the next time we saw him in Holyrood he had a whole different awareness and response to questions.
Highlights the difference having some direct accountability makes. The BBC doesn’t need to face people directly and voting for them is not an option.
Tell the BBC what you think of them here https://consultations.external.bbc.co.uk/bbc/tomorrows-bbc/consultation/intro/view
In Scotland, the majority of people cannot live without television. Their weakness is the BBC’s strength. That is the root of this problem.
@ Uncilledfiltered 10.47 We have Watchdog by the name of Proffesor John Robertson ( Uni West of Scotland) read his 2 reports.
Sorry for the OT but a wee shameless plug for the annual Wallace day commemorations which is held today Saturday 22nd August.
The main event is the laying of wreaths and speeches at the Elderslie Wallace monument. This year the speakers are.Fiona Hislop, Nick Brand, Gary Stewart, Abbey Stewart and Mahri Black.
Format for the day is assemble Ludovic Square Johnston at 2pm march off 2:30pm arrive Wallace Monument for the service at 3pm.
Details at http://www.thesocietyofwilliamwallace.com
As Rhett Butler reputedly said to Scarlett O’Hara, as he went off with a dose of the wind, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn”.
This was the most memorable line from the 1939 film Gone with the Wind. They were Rhett Butler’s last words to Scarlett O’Hara in response to her tearful question: “Where shall I go? What shall I do?”.
So, folks, just imagine, if you will, that the BBC has just asked you, the people of Scotland, “ “Where shall I go? What shall I do?”, and remember it is probably a lot nicer reply than the good old Scottish expressions that flew through your mind on hearing the BBC’ ask that same question, .“Where shall I go? What shall I do?”
Thanks for this Stu.
I have been looking for a “reasonable” set of words to direct towards the bbc.
I expect to quote large parts of this response to them! 😀
The BBC is like that other great pillar of the establishment, the Royal family.
I never voted for either of them but am obliged to pay for them through general taxation; no iffs and no buts.
Neither wishes us to see how they operate and do behind the scenes. Both are exempt from public scrutiny.
Independence will give us the chance to cut the Gordian knot once and for all.
Land reform must follow too.
The National today reporting that Carmichael may be using delaying tactics in order to push up costs and thereby increase the pressure on the four Orcadians who are bringing the case and who are completely dependent on subscribers lest they be ruined.
Is Carmichael being funded. He looks like he hasn’t a care in the world.
If you’ve got a couple of quid you could spare, please think of those four people who have taken Carmichael on pretty much on behalf of everyone in Scotland who believes in Democracy.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-people-versus-carmichael#/story
Of the four petitioners, three – a pensioner, a carer and a disabled man – could lose their homes if the case goes against them. The fourth is a law student who would not be able to practise as a solicitor should she be bankrupted by it. They have pledged that any cash not used in the action would be distributed to Scottish food bank charities.
An example from 2006 – nothing has changed
Dyke files to remain under wraps (see Hutton enquiry – Death of Dr Kelly)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Inquiry
Friday February 17, 2006
The minutes of the BBC governors’ meeting that sealed the fate of former director general Greg Dyke will remain secret, the information commissioner has ruled.
The commissioner, who oversees the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, has turned down requests from the Guardian and author Heather Brooke to open the files for the meeting on January 28 2004.
“Although there is a clear public interest in information about what took place at this meeting, the release of the information contained in the minutes, beyond that which is already in the public domain, would be likely, in the commissioner’s view, to have the effect of inhibiting free and frank discussions at any such meeting in the future,” the commissioner’s office said in its ruling.
The decision was based on “the reasonable opinion of a qualified person” – in this case, the BBC.
The BBC turned down earlier requests for details of the meeting made under the Freedom of Information Act, arguing it had been essential for governors to speak their mind in complete confidence.
The meeting in question was one of the most dramatic and politically charged in the BBC’s history.
It was held in emergency session the day the Hutton report made stinging criticisms of the corporation’s journalism and editorial structures, prompting Gavyn Davies to resign as BBC chairman.
The governors met to discuss the future of Mr Dyke and, as a result of the board’s deliberations, he was forced out of his job the following day.
The information commissioner decided that it was essential that the meeting had been confidential.
“Those attending the meeting would either not have said some of what they said, or would have expressed their views in a more guarded manner, if they had expected those views to be made formally available beyond the confines of the meeting,” the ruling noted.
Releasing details of the meeting now would prevent full discussion of a similar crisis in the future, the commissioner said.
Ms Brooke, who is working on a second edition of her book Your Right to Know, criticised the information commissioner’s decision.
“This decision upholds the archaic belief that you can only have good decision making in secrecy,” she said. “It has been proved time and again that it’s a fallacy.
“The best decisions are made in the open because the people who are making them know they will have to be accountable for them.
“The governors have to be willing as leaders to take responsibility for the decisions they make. Unless the minutes are made public, you can’t have any confidence they made a reasonable decision.”
Yes Prof John Robertson’s work has been very helpful and illuminating, as the monstering he got from the Beeb demonstrated. This approach needs to be ramped up ten notches and become a widely recognised and anticipated indicator. Single most effective way of cowing organisations that avoid their duty to be impartial.
Hi Kate.
Dame Begg implied that thousands of people joined the SNP for life, for a total cost of £1.
Untrue; as others have pointed out above, the minimum subscription is £1 per month or £5 per year if unwaged.
@ronnie anderson says: 22 August, 2015 at 11:11 am:
Why are ordinery people to stupid. ‘I think therefore I am’.
As far as the BBC or Unionism goes, Ronnie, should that not be, “I think, therefore I am not a Unionist who believes the BBC”?
Talking about good journalism Guido Fox set an expert to explore the case of Michelle Thomson MP and the dating site,
The expert exposed a number of bogus pieces of information in the pretended application and clinching it by confirming no credit card was presented.
They say it was clearly a prank but I say it was a savage attempt at political assassination.
Thanks to those who provided links to the BBC consultation process.
I thoroughly enjoyed telling them exactly what I think of them and their tax. It was very cathartic.
It will not make happy reading for them. Isn’t that a crying shame!!
..and they trips over themselves to tell us how many million viewers they get to watch aspiring bakers put cake mix in an oven, traipse around a dance floor in a flouncy frock, or sew material together an the sewing-bee..
To wriggle out of not providing viewing figures under this request just screams of ‘we know something that you don’t
know.’ Like a cult/cabal.
Any response I’ve had from the BBC is non committal, vague, and stinks of a ‘how very dare you question us..’
“That seems to us to veer terribly close to “taxation without representation””
I prefer the term ‘Legalised Extortion’.
To part of some cultures, one has to pay for protection or face consequences from those that run the culture (obvious example being the Sicilian Mafia).
For these payments, people receive ‘protection’ from harm. Invariably, there is no actual protection at all, and it’s a payment to stay safe from the enforcers of the ‘tax’.
I see no difference with the license fee. Pay or else, and don’t expect to get anything for the money. People who don’t pay it can (legally) use the BBC by other means. Yes the BBC provide a service, but it’s so sub-standard for the monies handed over, it’s akin to free money for them.
With regard to the post referring to comments of Dame Anne Begg claiming people could join the SNP for a pound after the referendum I never saw any mention of this. Labour, on the other hand, were definitely pushing a special offer on membership:
https://shop.labour.org.uk/media/catalogue/pdfs/Scottish_Membership_Form.pdf
“This is a special, one year introductory join rate, for any person who resides in Scotland and joins before 31 December 2014. After the first year we will write to you and upgrade you to a suitable membership rate.”
Perhaps the BBC,Stv,msn viewing preferences could be included in the next poll commissioned by WOS.
Sorry if that’s already been included and I have missed it.
What may be illuminating would be to know how many FOI requests the BBC have responded to and how many of those requests have been rejected.
Also: how many FOI requests have the BBC made in the same time period and how many have been rejected.
Or even more specifically, how many FOI requests they have made to the Scottish Government and to the UK government.
None of these figures can be classified as ‘output’ by any stretch. The amount spent on the latter would surely be classified as finance rather than output.
And if they are unwilling to furnish any of this information, the Scottish, Welsh, Northern Ireland and UK administrations would be duty bound to respond.
It is crude measure of the level of scrutiny the BBC holds the respective governments to account.
Does that sound reasonable?
… my guess is that Eleanor Bradford sends more FOI requests than the number sent by the entire BBC to the Welsh and Northern Irish administrations combined.
“…to inform…”
They are having an effing giggle. The HHC – Haw-Haw Corporation.
Another very revealing and factual effort Rev confirming and clarifying 2 major points which are now undeniable:
(a): This “information held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature” clause is the BBC catch-all equivalent to the laws “Breach of the Peace” charge. If required they could basically attach it to anything they see fit depending on the mood of the clown receiving your complaint.
(b): The Information Commissioner has now been truly exposed for what we all suspect him/her to be – A Gumsy Crocodile.
Thanks for your efforts Rev, it is always good to have these matters confirmed in black and white. Very much appreciated.
(((((BOYCOTT THE BBC AND THEIR LICENCE FEE)))))
@Tam Jardine
In particular how many have they made to NHS Scotland by Eleanor Bradford. Not a week goes by that she doesn’t have some story obtained by trawling around looking for negative statistics.
There is, of course, a simple alternative to this. We pay for the BBC as license payers, and the fact that the payment is in effect a mandatory tax makes it subject to repeal.
DEMAND that your mp presses for the repeal of the license fee and the closure of the BBC as being unfit for purpose.
The http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/ is a subscription site.so I only got a couple of headlines from the “Regions” section.
1 Scotland may be handed BBC charter renewal role
27 November, 2014 | By Matthew Campelli
The Scottish government should have a formal voice in BBC charter renewal negotiations, according to Lord Smith’s report aimed at devolving power to the nation.
2 BBC Scotland news boss joins charter renewal team
17 June, 2015 | By Hannah Gannagé-Stewart
BBC Scotland head of news and current affairs John Boothman will oversee Scottish charter renewal negotiations after issuing an apology for making abusive comments about a camerawoman.
So obviously with John Boothman in charge, the Charter Renewal will go well.
@ Tam Jardine
No need to guess. Newsnet had an article on it in 2014. The BBC FOI requests to the SNHS have risen 700% since the SNP were elected to government.
http://newsnet.scot/?p=110648
O/T.
Dear me, that’s the Labour party out marching in Coatbridge today again, with their flutes banners and drums.
And those figures for the decline of BBC program viewers, down 35 % from the referendum…shocking!
Just in case the North British weren’t paying attention. 🙂
Jack McConnell, the veteran Labour politician, has condemned the party’s handling of its leadership election as a shambles, and said it puts the contest at risk.
https://archive.is/CbA68
@Camz says: 22 August, 2015 at 12:19 pm:
“I prefer the term ‘Legalised Extortion’.”
Well, Camz, the actual legal situation is rather different to popular public perception and it is this : –
The Broadcast Licence fee is not a direct tax to fund the BBC. It is exactly what it describes itself as, “A licence to receive TV Broadcasts from any source”.
Legally the licence holder is given UK government permission to receive video Broadcasts from any source and the fee collected by the BBC is not retained by the BBC but goes to the UK treasury. The UK government then make a grant to fund the BBC. In effect the collected fees may be well in excess of what the Government grants to the BBC or it could be well short of meeting the costs.
So let’s be clear about it :
A) – The government funds the BBC irrespective of the sum the BBC collects on behalf of the UK treasury.
B) – The Licence fee is to allow the holder to receive any kind of video broadcasts from any source.
I have no idea of the sums involved and, not being a TV watcher, really couldn’t care less. So there you go – the money you pay is not to directly fund the BBC but just to have permission from the UK government to receive video signals from anywhere and the BBC is funded by a UK Government grant and the UK government decides the size of that grant.
In effect the government funds the BBC and if the BBC don’t toe the Government line they get less of a government grant and, even if you do not pay for a licence fee, your tax money is being used to fund the state broadcaster. I’ve no idea whether the UK government gains or loses in the difference between what is collected in licence fee and what is granted to fund the BBC.
By the way, the BBC carries out several other functions on behalf of the UK government including collecting licence fees and regulating Amateur Radio Operation. Business, Public Service Radio, (such as Taxis, Fire Service, Ambulance and lifeboat radio frequencies. Radio & TV Interference and international communications.
The BBC also makes money by selling programmes and series to other countries and broadcasters. The truth is that it is not just a pay your license and the BBC keeps the money to use as they like.
In theory, if no one paid a licence fee, the Government would still go on fundig their propaganda wing.
Tam Jardine wrote @ 12.39pm:
“What may be illuminating would be to know how many FOI requests the BBC have responded to and how many of those requests have been rejected”
Tam, i’m sure some of that info is already on the ‘What Do They Know’ site. I’m going out just now but will see if i can dig it out at some point later.
I wonder if they will pull the plug on the Labour leadership election with all sorts of legal and process mumbo jumbo to try and take the sting out of the Corbyn bandwagon and then try again later having rammed home anti-Corbyn message.
It would seem a nuclear option to me but Labour are all over the place on this.
Thanks for vthese extremely accurate figures for the number of viewers and listeners to Scotand 2015 and GMS Paula. I’ve just tweeted about them on Twitter. 😛
Lights blue touch paper and stands WELL back! 😀
My head hurt trying to stay conscious to make it through to the end of that insulting pedantic drivel of a letter.
Our UK Master just love to complicate and overload these matters to ensure Joe Public gives up all hope of ever understanding their corrupt machinations.
For those like me, let me translate-
Look pleb, piss off.
This is a nice well paid job I have for keeping you in your place
and letting my master walk all over you, and I’ve got a Crossword to do.
Some of my master’s mates have structured the “law”, politicians, and their propaganda channel so that you can’t touch them, no matter what- so just F***** off.
To show that we are fair, you can send an appeal addressed to Santa Claus, C/O Timbuktu with a stamped addressed return Antelope.
Robert Peffers wrote:
“In theory, if no one paid a licence fee, the Government would still go on funding their propaganda wing”
Or more accurately:
“In theory, if no one paid a licence fee, the Government ‘could’
still go on funding their propaganda wing”
It all comes down to justification. The BBC has to be able to justify its licence fee charge and if it fails the UK Gov grant is seriously reduced. The more folk who abandon the BBC and its licence fee the greater the probable reduction in that grant.
You are, as usual Robert, technically correct in your post but as in your “British” teachings, again technically correct, it is all merely semantics because people tend to go with what they know and see.
People being forced to pay £145 to be lied to by the BBC could not give a rats erse about the finer detail because at the end of the day we ARE being forced to fund a foreign governments propaganda machine under threat of penalty if we don’t.
See ya’ll laters!
😉
manandboy says:
“In Scotland, the majority of people cannot live without television. Their weakness is the BBC’s strength. That is the root of this problem.”
Agreed. The various functions need to be separated.
Chewing gum for the eyes type entertainment, drama and sport should be left probably much as they are. For the most part, this is simple ratings driven competition with commercial TV. There is a public service aspect in terms of culture and arts. Here too, the BBC isn’t servicing Scotland well (with the exception of BBC ALba). Perhaps what we need is a BBC Alba for Scots who speak English!
News, current affair, documentaries are a different thing altogether. This is where the obligation to inform in the BBC’s royal charter kicks in. A democracy needs two things to function, firstly a means for the population to express their preferences (vote) and secondly impartial information to help them make those decisions. This second function should fall largely to a state broadcaster, forced by law to be impartial and free from big money influences (Murdoch).
Certainly in a Scottish context, the BBC are failing miserable to provide the public with neutral facts and information.
So my solution. Break it all up. The news, education and information aspects must go to devolved administrations.
It needs to be noted that there are two BBC’s
One that provides entertainment, drama, documentaries, covering cultural events and other function under the public service charter.
The other is the news network which everybody and their dog knows is influenced directly and indirectly by the state.
The two needs to be separated and the BBC can get back to it’s public service charter. My suggestion would be to stop the BBC from providing news output and assign portion of the license fee to commercial organisations that are governed by an independent body that is answerable to the UK and devolved governments.
Stu, why don’t you research your own viewing data?
The Chinese Government would appreciate a copy of the BBC letter. I am sure it would provide a few tips for them in social control banter.
@ Robert Peffer.
Interesting. Hadn’t though the BBC was a mini scotland, till I read your post. But it seems to be funded in the same way, broadly
@ Stoker.
You are not forced to pay the license fee at all. I know because I don’t pay it. Choice is yours
Your all being cruel to the poor BBC. Although i am interested in the category that viewing figures fall into, are they art – do they make pretty pictures with numbers and then lock them in a safe, do they wax lyrical upon the numbers and compose rhyming couplets and call it literature I know it cant be journalism they have damn all of that.
That letter is pure gobbledegook. I always wonder who it is that writes these things as I would love to derogate them right up their balloon knots. The BBC are a law unto themselves which is utterly ludicrous. How can any organization be trusted unless it is transparent? They could make up anything they want and get away with it and there would be no way of knowing. This is straight out of 1984 and should not be tolerated.
The BBC should not be allowed to hide any information from the public. Socrates makes a great post about this and we should all use that tactic against them in regards to numbers. The BBC cannot have it both ways.
So the so called Information Commissioner is just another Brit Nat stooge then. No surprise to me there at all.
I suppose I shouldn’t gurn too much since I am withholding the TV Tax and have done so for several years. I no longer watch any of their News programmes or its other political propaganda output.
I don’t even listen to off the ball on radio any more either not since they invited the pretend sometimes Celtic fan and sometimes Rangers fan Jim Murphy on to it some time ago.
Our MPs in the house of corruption should attack this establishment propaganda machine (EBC) till it becomes an organ of the people who pay for it and not the toy and bank for the elite state gangsters.
Our Scottish Parliament should highlight the nead for a national broadcaster for Scotland, funded in Scotland, and controlled in Scotland and answerable to the Scottish Parliament, not by a London centric English Broadcasting Corporation.
Propaganda no more!
BBC vote SLab Scotland costs us over £300 million a year, their Pacific quay bunker costs several hundred million, so how come such a fantastically expensive pile of pants can’t report anything on the stock crash in the Far East and so on?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scotland/scotland_politics
Leave all that actual important news to the serious BBC people in England. Lovely and huge BBC boost for lovely all new snd fresh as a mountain breeze Kezia today though. She’s the next First Minister of Scotland. BBC Scotland says so, that’s why.
O/T
Was in a local newsagent and saw the iScot so I bought it. What a damned fine magazine that is….although I hadn’t realised the good Major was now an agony aunt.
Maybe it’s time to set up stalls on our high Streets to inform the people of the BBC’s many misdemeanours. They are in full propaganda mode still, unless we take the fight back to them democracy will suffer hugely.
(@ Handandshrimp have a look at my latest comment on Off-topic)
Whatever happened to that inform-Scotland thing that someone who posts on here (scunterbunnet I think) was trying to get off the ground?
Idea was/is to counter bbc/unionist propaganda with various ads, billboards etc. Seems to have sunk without trace as far as I can see.
37% less bbc viewers/listeners in Scotland since Sep ’14. Whodathunkit. Tee hee.
UKOK neo fascism says https://archive.is/weK8P
English fined more than Scots for non tv licence payment. Daily Heil isn’t that fond of the lefty BBC, but piles in to save just one more self confessed liar of a UKOK unionist. Funny that.
Also
“Robinson, who is joining Radio 4’s Today programme, admitted that the episode had taught him numerous lessons as a reporter, conceding that he could understand the source of the Yes voters’ frustrations.
He said: ‘There’s a deeper question around: should a man from London, should an Englishman come to Scotland to cover the referendum particularly at the last minute? To which my answer is an unequivocal yes.
‘This country is still a United Kingdom until and unless the Scottish people vote for it not to be.
‘The idea that before Scotland becomes independent, if she is ever to become independent, that only certain journalists can cover it, who live in certain places and come from certain locations is again dangerous.”
Honest Nick toning down the SNP’s behind everything creep out?Robinson clearly unaware of neo fascists at the Heil hunting down people voting YES last year and then monstering them in their horrific paper. UKOK hackdom can do and say anything it likes at all but if you protest, you’re a Russian, at least that seems to be the tory boy take on democracy ukok style.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-bully-pulpit/#more-48362
Takes you back. But on upside, Daily Heil freak show did tell all Scottish toryboys to vote tactically May 7 and that went really well for them.
BBC Scotland is currently in the middle of its latest makeover from “BBC Murphy” to “BBC Dugdale”.
The only problem is, against a backdrop of 56 SNP MPs at Westminster, this time it’s all looking a bit tired and, dare I say it, more than a tad pathetic.
Even the least politically motivated people out there are scratching their heads wondering why BBC Scotland’s “top story” is constantly about these political has-beens and nobodies. Changed days indeed.
You would think it was the Crown Jewels you had asked for!
What other media outlet suppresses it’s readership figures. Doh the Daily Ranger. What party hides their membership figures? doh! Scottish Labour….. Are we seeing a connection here yet?
I realised years ago, long before indyref when the BBC “justifed” “licking nan’s armpits” on a childrens programme that complaining was hopeless. That never stopped me though. Cancelling my TV license did that.
Lord McConnell of Zambia on shambles? Takes one to know one. What is all this kerfuffle about anyway? Quite simply, and despite all the creative thinking behind these manufactured obstacles, the Labour Party, as usual, is s***ting itself at thought of uncontrolled exposure to democracy, instead of discerning, however faintly, the first stirrings of a possibility of real, mass revival, if only the controlling gang could see that, and make way for it.
BBC Hmm! I got another threatening letter from the Falkirk investigation team earlier in the week.
Nearly three years now and not paying licence. Mind you I don’t watch the BBC or any TV really and I should have asked for a 8 month rebate at the time… 🙁
Anyhoo! The BBC won’t offer any data that is detrimental to them simply because the way the rules are structured they can defer or refuse.
In the last year I have noticed (on the radio) they are really blaring out the message about how good their upcoming programmes are.
I used to be a listener to GMS and Your call but now I can’t be arsed because it’s as dull as ditch water and no SNP voices are to be heard, only the usual suspects.
Mind you Rennie and Ruthless have been quiet recently as the BBC shower us with the new, same old, labour musical chairs routine.
PS
Sports link for the bored: Pick the vessel with the pestel or the chalice in the palace, whatever poison you fancy. 🙂
Murray V Federer on the list in a wee while.
http://myp2p.ec/
@Famous15, 12.11pm
Talking about good journalism Guido Fox set an expert to explore the case of Michelle Thomson MP and the dating site. The expert exposed a number of bogus pieces of information in the pretended application and clinching it by confirming no credit card was presented.
They say it was clearly a prank but I say it was a savage attempt at political assassination.
I agree. It looks like the work of GCHQ’s Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (see https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/)
When I saw this report in today’s The National, I thought that the word prank should have been in quotes. This “prank” was in the same category as Frenchgate.
From heedtracker link above.
“The man in charge of collecting the TV licence fee is being paid as much as £64,000 a week.
Andy Parker, 46, chief executive of Capita, the outsourcing giant which pursues people for the annual charge, will earn up to £3.34million in salary, benefits and bonuses this year, including £1.7million of shares under a ‘long-term incentive plan’ depending on the company’s performance.
Capita said Mr Parker was worth the enormous package given how well the company was doing.
But Deborah Hargreaves, founder of lobby group the High Pay Centre, said: ‘Pay awards of this order are galling in outsourcing companies which are essentially doing work that has been done by the public sector where top pay is much lower.’
Labour MP Helen Goodman said: ‘It is an astonishing package for someone whose business involves no risk at all, given everybody is obliged to pay for the TV licence.’ Tory MP Andrew Percy called it ‘a salary most would find offensive”.
There’s also a charming photo of Andy to illustrate what a man worth £3.34 million a year looks like.
https://archive.is/weK8P
Does the SNP have a media strategy? Why are we not seeing shoals of MPs battering their way on to RS every night? Providing stories are of genuine public interest, and also leaked elsewhere, we should be defying their reluctance to notice the 56, and also recording any such reluctance shown.
Let’s have at least 2 attempts a day!
Oh dear I’ve used the plural “we” and implied wrongly I am an SNP member. I shall be barred from voting for the Labour leader! Still I’m not a member of SLAB branch anyway, and had no intention to vote, although I admire Corbyn’s honesty and commitment.
Did I not tell you:
“we’ll be pursuing it with the Information Commissioner. (The BBC itself, unlike most bodies subject to FOI, has no appeal process.) We’re not holding our breath, though.”
Wise not to hold your breath.
The Information Commissioner is as rotten to the core as the rest of the establishment.
iScot fundraiser phase 2. A very worthy cause..
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/iscot-phase-2-be-the-change#/story
@ Handandshrimp And a damm fine Agony Aunt is Major Bloodknot.
Now just wait for lying, defaming Lib Dem MP Carmichael to be cleared by the rotten to the core Scottish justice system after £65,000 of the petitoners’ money has gone down the lawyers’ sewage system.
We cannot beat them as long as we play by their rules.
If we want to become independent we have no choice but to set the rules.
I never watch TV anyway. At most, occasionally something on iPlayer/Catchup or whatever it’s called, and otherwise just to have a bigger screen for a DVD.
But the best thing was, after finding that I didn’t even need a licence and duly cancelled – the postie handing me my letter of confirmation and saying “I’ve been delivering a lot of these lately”.
I do better agony than the Major xx
The “Supreme Court” is wrong. It has by judicial fiat equated “purposes of Journalism, Art or Literature” with the entire output of the BBC. If Parliament had wanted the entire output of the BBC to be exempt from FOI then they only needed to use the words “their output” instead of “Journalism, Art or Literature”. An alternative reading is that Parliament considered that details concerning e.g. wildlife programs, imported works and light entertainment should be subject to FOI and only e.g. the News, their orchestras and adaptations of Dickens for a Book at Bedtime exempt.
However even on this reading, Stu, your buggered 😀
Ask the viewing questions in your next poll and then publish the results.
Send copies to Pravda GB and the rotten to the core Information Commissioner who can order the Scottish Government to publish information but not Pravda GB.
@ Paula Rose you hiv wan up on the Major, he dizna get the Centrefold & there,s nothing agonizing aboot that lol.
I see the Fan hiz a wee upgrade fae A4.
Bob Sinclair says
“I’m willing to bet that the BBC would be more than happy to release viewing figures for progs like ‘The Great British Brain Wash’.”
My first (automatic) thought was, is there a programme called “The Great British Brain Wash”?
Then I quickly realized, they could all be called that and they would all be right! 🙁
All this BBC excrement. All this Labour carry on. All this WM excess which very few people in Scotland voted for. It just goes on and on!
Anyone else feel like me … it’s time something happened!
OK, there’s the election in NINE months time. And, the cooncils a year later. The SNP will probably do well.
And the BBC will continue their bullshit service. And Labour will carry the limelight even though they become more and more irrelevant. And the posh boy Tories in WM will carry on like they had a right to rule. Basically bu99er all will change!
My patience won’t stand it! Something significant HAS to happen, yes?
Is there any information at all which the BBC would reveal under FOI? or would it all be ‘derogated’?
If not, then the FOI commission should simply put out a press release to the effect that FOI requests do not apply to the state broadcaster.
That would be more honest and save an awful lot of people an awful lot of their time not to mention their blood pressure.
BTW Having just spent the best part of two weeks in St Petersburg in Russia, on Pravda St no less (I kid you not) with not one sighting of the expected Putin posters and barely a Russian flag on view and nothing on the TV about the war even though ‘Victory Day’ was coming up and it was, after all, the Russians wot won it, the irony is palpable.
@ Rock 6.07 You dont do motivational speeches by any chance.
I,ll be donating more to the Carmichael Crowdfunder, as & when required. We are a Community of Activists,no just Gum Mummpers.
Rigged legislation in support of state propaganda rarely ever works.
Feeding a sentiment of resentment is all that this colonial manipulation delivers and a more significant question is how many people in Scotland are no longer paying a licence fee.
In some areas I hear its over 50% and rising as they tell the hired enforcers from Capita PLC to clear off.
Good money for the private firm employed to knock doors but each visit can cost around £30.00 and hundreds of thousands of non payers. Will now be costing tens of millions in non payment and fruitless chase up costs – with the money saved better spent on other things that support the Scottish economy.
Hi Ronnie.
That’s no’ you indulging in a wee bit of trawling(sp?), yi wee scamp?
8=)
You will never stop people watching TV but you can, over time, persuade them that it is an unreliable source of information. That’s a process that’s already well under way here. In many countries around the world TV is completely ineffective in terms of spreading propaganda – people simply don’t believe a word of what they are told.
We don’t need to get rid of the BBC. We just need to make them lose their credibility and that’s a much much easier task.
As far as the licence fee is concerned, I cannot understand why anyone would pay for something they can easily get for free by simply having access to a reasonably fast internet connection (for those who live in areas where internet connection speeds are inadequate, you have my sympathies).The rules are really simple – if you don’t watch or record TV LIVE, you don’t need a licence. Write to them to tell them you no longer need a licence and ask them to send you confirmation of this fact – they’ll send you a wee certificate thing. They’ll still send you threatening letters for the rest of your life but you can safely ignore them if you’re not doing anything illegal.
£145 for most people is not a massive sum and spread over 12 months may seem insignificant but it’s your money. Why are you wasting it?
The response deciphered by a Enigma machine.
Dear Sir,
The figures you request are so pathetically low, we couldn’t possibly release them, so we’ve hit you with a lot of gobbledygook nonsense to palm you off.
Keep paying your license fee if you know what’s good for you.
Unruly mob reminiscent of Putin’s Russia.. 🙂
OT or is it? This man is a public disgrace as is the party he represents.
Campaigners turn up heat in bid to unseat Carmichael
STV has offered to stream the case live, but Carmichael is thought to have queried who would regulate the broadcast.
This is being regarded as a delaying tactic to push up the petitioners’ costs. Another ploy is believed to relate to Lord Eassie, the other judge involved. A source close to the case told The National: “Lord Eassie was an SNP activist a long time ago and has declared an interest. Both sides have to consent to him continuing as a judge.
“That was two weeks ago and Mr Carmichael still hasn’t given his consent. That is pretty serious because if he’s delaying it as long as possible then it’s racking up costs.”
“Chic McGregor says:
22 August, 2015 at 6:57 pm
BTW Having just spent the best part of two weeks in St Petersburg in Russia, on Pravda St no less (I kid you not) with not one sighting of the expected Putin posters and barely a Russian flag on view and nothing on the TV about the war even though ‘Victory Day’ was coming up and it was, after all, the Russians wot won it, the irony is palpable.”
Frankly, Chic, the irony will be lost on Call Me Dave Cameron (apologies to our own esteemed poster) and the Establishment. UKOKery is normal, warm and cuddly, not like evil nationalism. Try Penelope Keith’s Hidden Villages, announced on C4, according to Listings: groovy! Lovely, lovely, lovely BritNattery! And you get the chance to be talked down to by a plummy RP voice. Simply scrummy.
I wish Putin would allocate a channel on RT to Scottish news, current affairs, drama, literature, art, music and documentaries. Then there might be something of value to watch. Our cultural heritage is smothered by the BBC.
She’ll have had her chips then… more beige coloured statements from that sugary sweet commodity Sandra Dean Oh wait!… It’s Kezia.
https://archive.is/9hdJE
For younger viewers!
Bobby Darin’s wife featured in the song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz5D-D7VYmY
Husker says
“It needs to be noted that there are two BBC’s
One that provides entertainment, drama, documentaries, covering cultural events and other function under the public service charter.
The other is the news network which everybody and their dog knows is influenced directly and indirectly by the state.”
Eh yea
because there is no propaganda in the
Great British… whatever?
Jesus even Corries getting in on the act with pointless and facile attacks on Nicola Sturgeon!
I was making dinner and thought I would listen to the radio. Knowing that there is nothing worthwhile on Radio Scotland I put on Radio 4. The programme was being broadcast from Edinburgh Festival, however, quickly switched off when I realised that ‘our’ festival was being presented by English people ie. Clive Anderson and Will Smith. Wonder if the interviewee, French actress, Juliette Binoche, realised she was in Scotland. Same old arrogant BBC.
More BBC Blah Blah
And we are pleased to say that no-one associated with Yew Choob pays the licence fee any more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcHq5U_ZdiY
@ Capella 8:11.
Good idea.
Can you imagine Max Keiser on: The Union, The Jacobites, Thomas Muir, The Highland Clearances, The Lowland Clearances, Keir Hardie, John MacLean?
Silly me! Narrow, grievance-obsessed nationalism at its worst.
Prof. Devine, where art thou? No gigs at the BBC, I fear.
Ah, the Union dividend. Smell the BS.
“This does not mean that you are satisfied with the situation, but that you understand that any decision notice you will receive will be highly likely to uphold the position of the BBC and find against you.”
I think this is improper, as it presumes the result which it has no right to do.
“The alternative is that you want to proceed to a decision notice and as explained above it is highly likely to uphold the position of the BBC and find against you.”
Compounding the impropriet, and by repetition effectively trying to cow the complainant into submission.
If I was you, I’d carry on with this, and at the same time make a formal complaint about the IC Case Officer’s reply – to whoever (whomsoever!!) is appropriate to amke such a complaint – presumably the chief IC Commissioner.
Hi John King.
Jesus even Corries getting in on the act with pointless and facile attacks on Nicola Sturgeon!
I’m at a loss there. Roy Williamson died in 1990 (I think) so there’s only one Corrie left. What has the remainder said (or typed)?
If everyone paid their licence fee it would be around £300m. We could pay that to RT and get a far superior service. The Russians could start buying our mackerel again – win win!
BTW the People v Carmichael fund is now at £78,000
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-people-versus-carmichael#/story
Hey, Max: don’t forget Mary Barbour and Ethel Macdonald.
BDtt
“I’m at a loss there. Roy Williamson died in 1990 (I think) so there’s only one Corrie left. What has the remainder said (or typed)?”
Sorry Brian
Corrie ,as in Coronation Street. 🙂
Brian: Corries getting in on the act
Short for ‘Coronation Street’. I believe their was a gratuitous dig at Nicola on a recent episode. Anything to convince the faithful it’s real life.
Of course, the BBC and most UK journalists are well aware that under the ruling of the post war Nuremberg trials, that broadcasting of false news in the support of aggressive war is also consideed A WAR CRIME.
Do everything in their power to convince us all of the imminent danger posed by Saddam’s non-existent WMDs, then respond openly to a FOI request.
Stu, have you been out in the sun too long? The BBC is highly experienced and well resourced terrorist organisation. I admire your determination but these guys are untouchable, apparently.
@Yew Choob
Hadn’t seen that one before great as usual thanks. When is the album coming out?
A workmate asked me why I was so precious about Corrie sleighting the FM and I asked her when was the last time you heard any contemporary politics mentioned in any of these soaps. In the words of Nick Robinson she didnt answer.
They make a fool of us picking up on these small things but mony a mickle maks a muckle and I am sick of the unionist shills getting the last word. Daisley sucks 🙂
Re the dig at Nicola Sturgeon on Coronation Street
It never ceases to amaze me the way some people discuss these soap operas like they’re real life I don’t know if it’s some sort of escapism or just just plain gullibility but it pisses me off
I’m constantly reminding these people that it’s not real it’s only a TV show which pisses them off
but we shouldn’t underestimate the power these stupid shows have in the art of social engineering and manipulating public opinion
Graeme
I know this is not directly related to Scotland but has the BBC reported any of this state sponsored terrorism? No, thought not, as the BBC appears to be busting a gut to convince us that heightened military intervention in the middle-east is a humanitarian inevitability.
Perhaps I’m wrong but it would appear that the BBC’s main role is now to sell unpopular wars in the pursuit of oil. That and selling One Nation UKOKery 24/7. 🙁
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-sponsored-terrorism-in-iraq-and-constructive-chaos-in-the-middle-east/5387653
http://www.globalresearch.ca/nato-and-cia-support-al-qaeda-terrorists-in-syria/5356391
Heard Dame Anne Begg on GMS this morning and had to smile when I heard her claiming to be “still a socialist” Aye right!
If you fly with the craws you’ll be shot with the craws.
Then we were treated to “Jack McConnel” conceding that the Labour Party was in chaos. Do the BBC not realise that our Jack is now Baron McConnell of Glenscorrisdale, of the Isle of Arran in Ayrshire and Arran and that he used to be on the bridge when the hull sprang a leak.
No surprise that the BBC are reluctant to reveal their viewing figures in Scotland. It is common knowledge that they are in freefall and that this applies as well to those revered journals The Daily Wrecker, The Scotsman and The Herald.
Another day, another 38degrees online petition- this time to save the bees threatened by the TTIP and the big US pesticide firms. One click and that’s your democratic opinion expressed.
Except it’s shite. Numbers on paper, on computer.
The protests at the BBC was something else – ‘joyous’ Alex Salmond called the one before the referendum. The one I made it through to, during the games was joyous and then some. The spirit of camaraderie, solidarity, bonhomie and sheer defiance was incredible.
I count it as one of the high points of my life to see so many of my countrymen and women turn out to defy the broadcaster that’s been poisoning the well for so long.
Duck em
Watching
…. damned phone.
FUCK EM
Ah Coronation Street, my parents never missed it. I know all the characters … Elsie Tanner, Len Fairclough, Hilda Obden, Enna Sharples, Annie Walker … anything changed since I last watched it?
“Perhaps I’m wrong but it would appear that the BBC’s main role is now to sell unpopular wars in the pursuit of oil. That and selling One Nation UKOKery 24/7. :(”
Project Fear’n’Smear, Cameron, Fear’n’Smear. It’s all they’ve got and it’s all they’ve ever had. Since lugubrious and dubious Reith, the BBC has been the mouthpiece of the Imperial Establishment. Our biggest task is to open people’s eyes to its mendacity. Too many people believe the corporation’s incessant brainwashing that it is truthful, honest and balanced. Have you ever watched the propaganda on the World Service?
Nauseating.
galamcennalath 10:46
Minnies cat Bobby has passed away, very sad
Could we do a FOI request to ask the BBC specifically what areas of their operation are not covered by ‘art, journalism or literature aka ‘output’.
What ARE they willing to be open about. Is there anything?
Holee Shit! They truly are a Bunch of Kunst (TM Norrie Harman)
Thanks Stu, for clarifying for BBC FOI get out clause.
I have put a few FOIs into the BBC and have always come up against the “journalism, art or literature” issue even when the FOI was not remotely connected to this.
Strange that the BBC never advertise that, effectively, they have a universal get out clause. I wonder how many people realise that the BBC are pretty much unique (apart from security services) as a publicly funded body in not being accountable to anyone – on anything.
Perhaps it may be related to their shocking suppression of any exposure of the sexual perverts and peadophiles in their midst. So it looks like they also had a get out of jail free clause on this as well.
I have stopped my licence around 18 months ago – never watch live TV and now I find that I never even watch any iplayer either. I feel betrayed by the BBC and will never watch them again.
Surprisingly, I have never had any visits from the licensing goons but I stiil have the aerial mast on my chimney but with no aerial (replaced it with a saltire) – perhaps they take the hint.
I do know a few people who work for BBC PQ and one of them even gave me some Bectu “BBC-love it or lose it” badges. They had to go into the bin as I am on the “Lose it” side.
By all accounts PQ is not the best place to work and I would feel sorry for the ordinary workers if it shut and they lost their jobs. However, I think in an independent Scotland we could have our own broadcaster with most of the money raised here being spent here and our media industry could flourish.
There are others at BBC PQ in senior management and news presenters to whom I have nothing but absolute contempt – history will be their judge.
For the SNP – I do not know what they can do as no control will ever be devolved to Scotland. I would hope the SNP avoid the BBC as much as possible, and make them irrelevant to Scottish life and politics.
This does appear to be happening, either conscientiously or sub-conscientiously, with the BBC Scotland politics and news programmes becoming a boring, sycophantic, echo chamber for the few dull Labour politicians that are left.
Just, thank fucking god for the Scottish government. That’s all I can say.
There are no words:
https://archive.is/aGzwd
I struggle to get my head around the delay in Liar Carmichael’s
court case.
If Lord Eassie was an SNP supporter many years ago, why would that
influence his judgement over a Proven Liar, a Confessed Liar, a Liar who misappropriated £1,000,000 of public money by delaying his confession and retaining his Westminster seat by deception?
The salary he has earned in his time since the election should be declared the proceeds of Crime and he and this money should be arrested.
If Law is devolved in Scotland, why wouldn’t the government
change the law. if necessary. to prevent deliberate delaying tactics that are driving up the cost of justice?
We still seem to be waiting on the Parliamentary Standards making their ruling on this confessed crime?
I believe we are still waiting for a copy of official Frenchgate report under the Freedom of Information Act.
UK Laws like this are only applied when it can penalise those supporting independence. Let’s see Holyrood decide that there is no need for a court case when the culprit has confessed and the inquiry confirms the criminal’s identity.
Pass sentence, imprison him, and recover monies made under the proceeds of crime!
Let’s put him in a Hard Labour Camp and keep him well away from the New Labour Camp!
@Tam Jardine,
I was thinking of doing an “Eleanor Bradford” sweep of FOI requests along the lines of …
How many bananas are eaten daily in the BBC PQ canteen?
But I thought that this may also come under “journalism, art or literature” as a journalist, artist or writer may have eaten said bananas.
Perhaps some other Wingers may wish to test the FOI fantasy realms of the BBC?
It could be quite fun to discover what completely irrelevant facts the BBC wish to hide.
However, it is not for me anymore. I am with you.
Fuck them!
Stanley Baldwin realised the propaganda potential that television offered back in the 1930’s, and they’ve been filling our heads with shit ever since. The Intelligence services write news reports for both press and television. They advise on programme content and strategy. The head honchos are placemen. Always have been and always will be.
…and ‘They Live – in Scotland’, which was one of the very best anti-BBC parody vids, has now been expunged from You Tube by the copyright holders of the original….
🙁
Okay, I’m a football fan and I do watch the BBC’s Match of the Day (MotD) on a Saturday night. The thing is…
Well, the thing is, you get this happy-sounding Scottish announcer saying, “And now on BBC Scotland, Match of the Day!” Which is a correct announcement, of course, it’s just the irony of it, from BBC Scotland that gets me every time. Especially if you do a like-for-like comparison to the money and technology spent on the English MotD effort and the tawdry and amateurish embarrassment that is the Scottish football show that is broadcast… on a Sunday.
And then tonight we had, immediately after MotD, happy-sounding Scottish announcer person telling us, “And now on BBC Scotland, highlights of today’s rugby friendly between France and England!”. FFS! And no, I didn’t watch it.
And all of this BBC ‘Scottishness’ is preceded by the 10 o’ clock News programme, which may as well come from any foreign broadcaster from anywhere such is its non-relevance to Scotland… “And now to sport as we hear from our cricket correspondent…” FFS!
Liking the Socrates MacSporran suggestion:
“Do the same with the BBC. Think of a number and use it; when Pacific Quay protests, ask for their correct number. Then, when they refuse to tell you – keep using the thought-up number.
Liking that a lot. Throw some bait, see if they’ll bite. Or, more likely, see if some of their ‘friends in the media’ might rise to it while covering their arses by using their ‘insiders’ information.
The MSM lie and make up shit about Scotland, the Scots, our politics and culture without recourse. Play the bastards at their own game. A little white lie about BBC viewer and listener figures…? Aye! And if anyone says that we should always fight clean and be above board all the time…? Fuck it! Softly-softly, don’t scare the horses, where did that get us in Ref1? Beaten is what it did. The BBC went on a war-footage against us don’t forget. So, let’s just up the ante a bit. Keep the enemy on their toes.
We could do a survey about the political programmes broadcast in Scotland.. for example one of the questions would be to rank them in order of preference.. obviously Scotland 2015 would be last.. 😉
Frredom Of Information my arse, it is no more than a sop to the illusion of a “greater democracy”.
If they don’t want you to know then that’s that.
“In the article Freedom of Information: A sheep in wolf’s clothing? Rodney Austin offers the following criticisms of the substance of the Act:
The range of exemptions is wider than for any other freedom of information acts existing in a democratic state.
The obligations to establish publication schemes were diluted meaning that there is no duty to publish information of any specified type.
There is a ministerial veto which undermines the Act. This has been used five times: the first time to stop publication of minutes of cabinet meetings relating to the invasion of Iraq,[16] the second and third time by successive governments to stop publication of cabinet meetings relating to discussions regarding devolution,[17][18] the fourth to stop publication of a risk register on NHS overhaul in England,[19] and the fifth to stop publication of private letters Charles, Prince of Wales sent to a number of government departments.”
@mr thms
But wouldn’t that make us exactly the same as labour-telling everyone to vote for anyone but Corbyn 🙂
Can’t have people saying WOS is rigging the survey. We’d never live it down.Vile cybernats that we are, no too honest for that I think.
Thepnr at 4.09am
“The range of exemptions is wider than for any other freedom of information acts existing in a democratic state.”
Why do I find that not surprising? WM has been working at this politics lark for a long time so they’ve had ample opportunity to stitch everything up to suit themselves. We’re just amateurs compared to them 🙂
Remember folks,examining and exposing the unionist media is essential.So to is supporting and nurturing the various fledgling resources that sprang out of the referendum.iScot is brilliant.Buy it online or ask your newsagent for it.
I have been told by a BBC insider that the average viewing figures for Scottish Newsnight are 4,123. [Honest]
Dal Riata
Great post. If people in Scotland had not been brought up to believe Scottish = parochial, inferior, slightly embarrassing they would be marching on Pacific Quay to demand decent coverage of Scottish football, never mind the political campaigning.
Somehow it’s what is expected. The No voters maybe don’t even see it, or if they do, they think ‘this is just how it is’.
Re the various protests at PQ – i recall the numbered sheets of paper being handed out so an accurate attendance could be recorded and pictured for the benefit of the BBC. I loved it- simple and effective.
Honestly- how mental is that? The BBC were so consumed with misinformation that they were distorting the numbers attending their protests which handily made the protesters point for them.
I like your tone – up the ante. Salut
Vintage jet?
Looks like a weapon of war to me.
Tragic accident?
WHY ALLOW MILITARY EXHIBITIONISTS TO FLY AROUND ABOVE PUBLIC ROADS AND LAND?
Who keeps us safe the HSE(accidents) or the MOD(collateral damage)?
Scottish Tories have to struggle to get pleasure into their lives.
Today they have gone orgasmic with joy at the fall in oil revenue of 75%.
What kind of mentality finds such rapture at difficulties facing your people? The fact that oil is but the icing on the cake for Scotland’s economy escapes their frenzied thinking. Scotland is shite in Unionist eyes. Let us be free of these self loathing perverts.
I think this decision should be appealed via crowdfunding if necessary.
And, as well, I think we should publish estimates of viewing of BBC programmes. These estimates could be reported. BBC might wish to correct them.
The estimates would be based on the same/similar polling technologies available probably used by the BBC.
I would target the viewing figures for the 6:30 news (where we are); the ratio of viewers to license payers might make an interesting Tee-shirt.
I suppose what Anne Begg says about membership is it’s a minimum of £12 per annum so you can join through direct debit with £1 to start. But not sure what point she’s making. In terms of viewing figures they’re always quite happy to advertise them when they try to justify cancelling a brilliant show like Ripper Street….
Morning all,
While browsing my NOW TV yesterday i came across this on the i player, a BBC Scotland sitcom called ‘Mountain Goats’ Here is the synopsis:
Set around the antics of a ragtag group of Mountain Rescue volunteers, new sitcom Mountain Goats celebrates the Highlands of Scotland, with proper kilt wearing maniacs fighting disaster on a weekly basis against the stunning backdrop of the Glencoe hills.
When our heroes aren’t out rescuing people, or being rescued themselves, they spend their time in The Old Goat pub – a place of great warmth and camaraderie, where people come in for a quick pint and never want to leave.
I kid you not, i managed to sit through three minutes of this patronizing twee mince before i switched off.
They even managed to get in an Irish stereotypical character as well FFS..
🙁
On the oil price, whenever it comes up I highlight the abysmal failure of UK Governments to have a fund that would even the effects, and their mismanagement of revenues and policy over 50 years.
Also how is it ‘regions’ were never given a proportion to recover from de-industrialisation and to diversify.
Also, if taking the Unionist view of the economics of oil, why is it Scotland has such difficulties, they are in charge of it.
A review of the upside of falling oil prices always useful too.
The argument should always be turned back on them.
John king @ 22 August, 2015 at 8:30 pm
I only watch American TV drama’s and comedies, old and new (I can’t watch any British comedies from the last decade or so as they are absolutely goufing). I don’t know what passes for British TV nowadays and only go by the favourable comments from friends and work colleagues, some of whom support independence.
Here’s a suggestion for The SNP:-
Wait until both Holyrood and Westminster are back in session and issue a press release to all the world’s media except The BBC that for a period of 1 month The Scottish Government and The 56 MPs at WM will impose a total boycott of The BBC to include MSPs, MPs and all SG spokespersons.
The press release will explain the reasons for the boycott as a protest against the non-stop anti Indpendence bias.
Not only will non-participation in broadcasts be included but any press releases from The SG or WM MPs will not be sent to The BBC meaning that they will have to pick up on them after the rest of the media have reported and commented on the content.
Given that there is still 9 months or so till the Holyrood Election the lack of coverage on The BBC for a month would do no great harm.
If The SNP were to go ahead with such a boycott it would be interesting to see to what degree said boycott was reported in the rest of the media.
If it were to be picked up and reported on in the foreign media it could do no end of harm to The BBC’s long gone perceived reputation for honesty and accuracy.
Bit off topic, but speaking of ‘None of your damn business’
Labour in Scotland have never answered requests for member numbers and will continue to refuse to publish. Yet they expect every other Tom Dick & Harry to be transparent..
See Labour calls for Police Scotland staff survey results http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-34027471
“We need full transparency from the SNP Government and Police Scotland.” (which I do agree with)
Good advice from Labour Branch Office in Scotland. They should heed it themselves too. Their own transparency will be along sometime too I’m sure – haha..
Thepnr says @ 23 August, 2015 at 4:09 am
While bread and butter issues like having a job and a few bob in your pocket is what matters to people, the frustrating in the independence debate that it is the only thing issue that matters.
We live in a society that has one of the least rights for individuals in the developed world. We don’t even have a constitution. As can be seen with the ongoing corruption and allegations of sexual abuse in Westminster and the establishment, we are among the least protected.
What is the point of having a few bob in your pocket if you have few rights to be protected as an individual and the government that is supposed to represent you does not?
When I talk to people about this in regards to the independence debate even now, it just doesn’t register. As others have mentioned they are more interested in soaps as if they are like real life.
My personal view is that most people have accepted they are powerless to make change and that isn’t surprising since they are constantly let down by politicians. The referendum re-energised the political process up here. The only thing we can do is to chip away at the cynicism and apathy and gently remind people that there are alternatives.
I see the BBC will no longer get their weather forecasts from the Met Office.
Does that mean we will get accurate maps? Doubt it!
@Famous15 says: 23 August, 2015 at 9:23 am:
“What kind of mentality finds such rapture at difficulties facing your people?”
That’s absolutely hilarious, Famous15. First of all not one bent new pence of the oil and gas revenues has ever formed part of Scotland’s economy. It is all recorded as being earned from, “Extra-Regio-Territory”, and goes directly into the coffers of, “Her Majesty’s Treasury.
In fact the only gains that Scotland gets is from business rates on the various on-shore office and support facilities. The companies doing the extraction have also mainly registered Head Offices in London and their investors are World-Wide. Even the workforce is mainly from outside Scotland and head off home to spend their earnings.
Matter of stone cold fact is that the policing of the off-shore emplacements falls under Scottish legal jurisdiction. Thus it is both the adjacent on-shore residents with their Council Tax and the Scottish Government who provide the main part of local council’s funding that bears that cost.
Scotland is only funded by the Block Grant and that is not dependent, in any way, upon oil & gas revenues but is instead decided by the Barnett Formula which in turn is dependant upon the per-capita funding of England and regulated in accordance to that per-capita funding by negative & positive Barnett Consequentials.
So the truth is that all gains of high oil & gas prices and all losses from them are only effective in boosting or debiting the UK Treasury economy.
Effijy says:
22 August, 2015 at 11:41 pm
“I struggle to get my head around the delay in Liar Carmichael’s court case.
If Lord Eassie was an SNP supporter many years ago, why would that
influence his judgement ….”.
I struggle to understand why indeed Lord Eassie should have to declare an interest in this fashion at all, or having done so, why should he de debarred from sitting. If any alternate judge were selected, he or she could be a supporter of the Lib Dems or Conservative party. Shouldn’t they then have to declare an interest? And if so, what then? Unless we accept that judges are going to apply impartiality and objectivity to their input,(cynics desist!) the legal game’s a bogey.
This seems to be just another red herring to delay the process as long as possible.
Brian Powell @ 23 August, 2015 at 9:55 am
One of the many lies peddled by the unionists was that the UK government was rich enough to protect the oil industry and didn’t need to hold reserves in the even of downturns.
They can try to blame it on global factors all they want but they won’t worm themselves out of that lie.
Tbh, with their strategy from the recent referendum, they have been short-sighted and shot themselves in the foot. When the next one comes, their reputation, competence and trust will be used against them.
Of course, it is essential for the SNP, who we can’t escape from the fact of it is the only party capable of delivering it, to make sure they get the timing for the next referendum right but the above is a good reason for holding it sooner rather than later.
Stranger than fiction
Every British war film ever made is a historically accurate representation of how good old Blighty saw off the nasty foreign invaders and it’s why we’re all free today to shout Yippee God Save the Queen and wave our Union Flags and such
Except entertaining as many of these movies might be, or mostly when you were young you believed that’s how things were, not very much of what’s contained in these movies is in fact an accurate record of anything, it’s Entertainment
Pure and simply to stir an emotion Patriotism, Sadness, Happiness even
Try this, while having a conversation with anybody, say, Braveheart was a good film wasn’t it
Stand back and watch the ensuing chaos and havoc created
“It’s not historically accurate” they scream “Mel Gibson’s shite” as they’re turning heart attack red
“It’s only a movie ” you say, still they don’t stop “Aargh”
Try this when they’re in full flow, I liked that other one Mel Gibson did “The Patriot” and off they’ll go again comparing it to Braveheart for Americans
But here’s the funny thing Americans actually really liked “The Patriot” whether it was accurate or not, and they love “Braveheart” for the same reasons
Americans know full well that Big John Wayne didn’t win all the wars or kill all the Indians or own all the cattle ranches in America They’re Movies for entertainment and whatever you think of Americans they’re smart enough to know the difference
Why are Unionists in this country so “THICK” or so afraid of anything that might give Scotland a little bit of interest or emotion or F@@@@@G pride
How afraid of a small country do you have to be to find ways to suppress the human spirit by banning films, books, belittling it’s elected representatives, using every power you have to engender lack of confidence into a people
They say bullies are cowards and I reckon that must be true
Because Westminster Parliaments have been bullying Scotland for a long long time
And we still scare them Shitless over a film
Sunday Morning Live. Should Britain ( England) pay compensation for the Empire Dr Sashi Tharor Indian MP ( Oxford Uni Debate.
#Famous15
Yet the investment keeps on coming and the life of the fields keep extending
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-33786118
Never had a TV license as an adult and never will, hopefully my children who are all adults, will do the same.
Should Britain ( England) pay compensation for the Empire Dr Sashi Tharor Indian MP.
Yes. But the fact is, when the Empire collapsed after the WW1 and then WW2, so did much if not all of Scotland’s heavy industries. Scots oil could have been used to modernise Scottish industry but exact same imperial mentality from our friends in the south decided otherwise. Heath, Thatcher, Major, Bliar and Brown, all these English governments decided Scottish heavy industry was finished and Scots oil and gas revenues would be spent in England.
That’s what happens when one country controls another.
@Husker says: 23 August, 2015 at 9:58 am:
“I only watch American TV drama’s and comedies, old and new”
How sad is that? The biggest secondary reason this OAP, who is entitled to a free licence, didn’t bother to get one was those cheap-jack USA dire TV shows and in particular the, so called formula comedy, (complete with canned laughter).
If anything the Australian input was better than that of the USA. The yanks have a formula for their TV and film output. The names and titles change but the same basic shows just keep getting churned out with the same old jokes and plots. After the intro it takes about 15 seconds to detect which particular tired old plot is about to defile our screens.
A bit like their music too. When the big bands, really good singing stars and the more traditional jazz musicians began to die off the USA replacements were dire.
@ Tam Jardine and others:
The following link to the What Do They Know site provides access to all the BBC FOI request information.
On page 3 (page numbers at bottom of pages) dated 8th December 2014, there is an FOI request which will partially answer your question – How many FOIs refused under the term; For the purposes of Art, Literature and Journalism.
The reply is very lengthy, detailed and is in 2 parts but only covers a period of 2 years.
Have fun going through this very revealing little lot.
😉
BBC TV Licencing:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/list/successful?utf8=%E2%9C%93&query=bbc+tv+licencing&request_date_after=&request_date_before=&commit=Search
Corbyn witch-hunt continues with greater intensity than ever but BBC interviewers refuse to call it a ‘witch-hunt’.
https://grousebeater.wordpress.com/2015/08/14/the-corbyn-effect/
The section in this piece which quotes the responsibility under the royal charter for the BBC to not just entertain but also inform suggests another possible avenue to obtain this information.
A request, as as a licence fee payer, for basic audience figures for whatever programme is transmitted on the basis that this information falls under the charter requirement to inform should be the next point of call.
This really is what passes for political commentary in 2015!
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/08/have-yvette-cooper-and-liz-kendall-got-the-looks-for-a-leadership-contest/
Astonishing!
I expect his next piece will be why the little ladies wouldn’t vote for a man with splendid eyelashes.
Dear Dr Jim,
How insecure about the Scot’s are they? They’re so insecure they have to tilt the weather map by 45′ (at least) in order to make Scotland look physically smaller. How pathetic is that.
For info – The Royal Family are exempt from paying the TV Licence Fee.
Someone was asking about previous FOI Requests – they are published online (names of applicants redacted) I looked up ‘how to make a FOI Request and saw the link in one go. Very Interesting.
Wikipedia has a good article on the Beeb’s Licence fee. It was acknowledged in 2006 and commented upon in HOC that the licence fee was indeed a Tax, and that it was intrinsically now a ‘part of government’.
Cheerie the noo.
I had a look at HHP, Haw-Haw Propaganda channel’s Sunday Live with Sian Williams. They were about to debate, that means invite someone with something bad to say about UK Governments and interrupt them as often as you possibly can, whether Westminster should be paying compensation to the Empire that they Murdered, Raped, Abused and generally Stole from.
Some Thatcher/Queen photocopy type “Lady” defended the proud record of Westminster and assured us the “we” did so much for the people of “our” empire, and it was ridiculous to propose compensation for how they were treated?
Could I ask you to open the link below to see the irrefutable evidence that Westminster Destroyed the lives of 10’s of Millions
in the name of untold riches for the UK Elite.
I also cut and pasted the comment below from one of the HoL’s finest, which just about sums up their attitude, then and now.
Lord Palmerston declared that “no ideas of fairness [toward Egypt] ought to stand in the way of such great and paramount interests” of Britain as preserving its economic and political hegemony, expressing his “hate” for the “ignorant barbarian”
(Hegemony is political or cultural dominance or authority over others). Sound familiar Scotland?
http://worldsworstmassmurderer.blogspot.co.uk/
We watch American drama and comedy too – M.A.S.H. and Cheers being our favourites. MASH is extremely funny and clever and gets into the warmongers big style. British TV is garbage with one or two exceptions.
In other news not covered adequately by the BBC.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/white-collar-criminals-in-forex-scandal-must-face-jail-time-say-uk-experts/5470706
I see on twitter that some unionists are greetin about Wallace Day (yesterday)
Always worth pointing out that the National Wallace Monument was crowdfunded* by Scottish Nationalists to the tune of £18,000
*= crowdfunded or as the Victorians called it. “By public subscription”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Monument
Gus 1940@ 9:58
Great idea, I’ve been saying for awhile that the SG should bar the BBC from Holyrood because of the editing of FMQ’s when reported on the “news” programs.
At ground level people are refusing to pay the license, that’s our contribution and it is time our government show it’s disapproval of the way the MSM reports “news”
I’ve been berating the SNP website for using direct links to the BBC, and other hostile media on their website
http://snp.org/
without success so far, they still link to the Grun, Herald and Telegraph on a regular basis.
Its why we do what we can.
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2015/08/23/the-tories-are-fucking-bastards/comment-page-1/#comment-21671
Dal Riata-best post on this thread. Been thinking that for years. Agree with every word.
Agree with Mealer re IScot magizine.
I know there are many Pro Indy camps looking for your cash and it is fair painful when you don’t have much. We can but contribute enough, with each to their own.
So far 89 funders have dipped into their pockets and raised a total of just over 2 grand. Well done the 89.
Wings Over Scotland readers raised substantially more than that to help out a victim of British Justice and foodbanks in Scotland.
The thing here is, if we support and get off the ground our own media then we WILL gain Independence. We really, really need to get the message out. Our enemies are in control of the BBC and virtually every Newspaper. Agreed?
The iScot magazine as much as I love the content and the quality is not aimed at ME it is a conduit for persuading the soft NO’s and those that have never voted.
If you can please donate, in my opinion along with Independence Live IScot has been the most successful.
Fellow Winger Kendomacaroonbar or Ken McDonald as he is usually known is responsible for the start up of IScot magazine.
Little known fact, Ken McDonald was also responsible for producing the first print run of the Wee Blue Book out of his own pocket with a 10,000 run, costing £3000. Have no idea if he ever got that money back.
Anyway, if you have a WBB, check to see if it’s from Ken, his are stapled, the Revs are glued. If it’s from Kens batch then it is pretty rare.
Ken is a Winger that puts most to shame though his efforts, support if you possibly can.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/iscot-a-free-fearless-news-service-4-scotland#/story
@GerryParker unfortunately the SG can’t take the lead on this. They’d just get abuse about censorship, this has to be lead by the public, the fee payers.
They refuse to show their viewer stats but feel the hysterical BBC glee, as oil price drops, unionistas ecstatic, never ever vote YES…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-34029862
‘Wildly wrong’
The Scottish Conservatives said the figures for Scotland’s geographical share of oil revenues, which they claimed were “buried” in a table in a report, showed “how wildly wrong” the SNP’s pre-referendum calculations had been.
The Tories said the figures also further demonstrated the case against full fiscal autonomy for Scotland – an SNP policy.
In its oil and gas bulletin published in May 2014, the Scottish government estimated that oil revenues would be between £15.8bn and £38.7bn between 2014/15 and 2018/19.
It latest bulletin, published in June this year, said revenues could be as low as £2.4bn for 2016/17 to 2019/20, with it highest estimate at £10.8bn, based on a best-case scenario of the oil price returning to 100 US dollars per barrel.”
Lovely bunch. Feel the pulsing hate at Scottish democracy. Or, if Scots oil’s such a UKOK burden, give it back to Scotland, is not a subject up for BBC Vote SLab Scotland discussion.
Funny that.
The guy who runs No Red Tories on Facebook has been making a case for people to give their 2nd vote to Solidarity.
I like the idea of a pro-Indy, left alternative to the SNP (which will make up the landscape of a post-Indy Scotland along with the Greens) but my feeling is that the Indy-Left is still too fragmented, still too distracted by in-fighting and settling old scores. When the SSP and ‘Solidarity ‘kiss and make-up’, maybe then would I think about it. Otherwise it has to be SNP/SNP.
Croompenstein at 7:52 pm 22nd August:-
Unruly mob reminiscent of Putin’s Russia.. 🙂
”
This video link is evidence of the outrageous behaviour by those people walking to the BBC Branch in Scotland last year.
Something must be done. How dare they criticise our beloved State Broadcaster?
They know the rules—-communications to the BBC should be in your own handwriting,on A4 paper and seal the envelope with your own saliva. Simple. 🙂
Disgusted,
Tunbridge Wells
Maybe I’m missing something, but surely Scotland, remaining in the union, gets only about 10% of the UK national oil revenues. If independent, Scotland would retain 85% (?) of oil revenues. 85% of tax on $50 per barrel must surely be worth a heck of a lot more than 10% of tax on $100 per barrel?
Or have I completely misunderstood?
@ Jock.
They get abuse anyway.
Invite RT and Al Jesera to Holyrood.
The BBC is, right now, giving us an excellent opportunity to show the Labour no voters who support Corbyn what a corrupt, biased and dishonest organisation it is.
So get out there and spread the message, we may not have a better chance to open the eyes of no voters who might, in the future become yes voters, if only they could realise how they are being manipulated by the London owned media. The disgraceful Corbyn smears are one of the best opportunities we will get to erode their trust in the BBC.
“That’s what happens when one country controls another.”
That sums it up nicely, heedtracker.
Pity 55% of us couldn’t see the bleeding obvious.
Sunday Herald saying “Corbynista” in Scotland should be allowed to stand as MSPs.
However this presumably is against the SNP. Nowhere in this is a plan to deal with the Tories at Westminster, now and in the future.
Same old, same old. Scotland was ‘ours’ and whatever tactics to get it is all they can see.
Of course all the leadership are the people that have been at Scot Labour all through the Referendum, before the Ref and now.
No answer in it to explain, what would people be voting Labour for.
I hate saying it, but letters to the BBC Commissioner and street demos at Pacific Quay?
“Is this all you can conjure Saruman?”
If I was thinking it during the Indyref, you can bet the BBC mandarins were thinking it too.
The Scottish Government MUST get some control over what gets broadcast into our livingrooms; not just what is, but more importantly, what isn’t.
I agree 100% that a UDI for Independence is the wrong way to proceed for outright sovereignty, but if we have the power to declare UDI over our sovereignty, then surely we must have the power to declare a limited UDI over broadcasting.
We require OUR government to make this fight and win it, or at the very least make the issue foremost in any campaign so that those people whom the internet does not reach know there is something devious happening with their TV news.
Leave the BBC festering in its sleaze. Ignore it. But we must have our own broadcast news, and see that news recognised, and given legitimacy by our elected MPs and MSP’s. Let there be one hell of an outcry as and when Westminster strives to deny us.
Agree with Mealer and Thepnr Iscot mag well worth supporting,mi will be adding my years sub
Next week
@GerryParker
True, they do, but SG might give the state media ammo.
The public need to lead this & make debate about the BBC a mainstream topic.
@birnie
Agree I have been saying so for a while…no brainer really.
The MSM is awash with how crap Scotland is…but it’s not!
PS:
Kezia, even more Kezia, Kezia galore …Kezzzzzzzzzzz…
https://archive.is/Z1JK3
PPS:
Footie HT 0-0 good game.
http://neolive.net/28268/1/Watch-Rangers-FC-vs-Hibernian-/
That sums it up nicely, heedtracker.
Pity 55% of us couldn’t see the bleeding obvious.
But look at the mass fraud taking place in front of us.
Statoil investing several billion in Spain, building giant platforms for Scots oil fields off Shetland, Mariner this time-
Real world
http://www.oedigital.com/component/k2/item/8334-constructing-mariner
BBC rule Britannia fantasy land of unionists propaganda-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-22424941
The great British lie machine says vote NO, Scotland’s last oil construction yard is about to be reopened. BBC liars do not say who shut it down or when and of course, having voted NO, nothing’s come of just this one spectacular fraud.
Even more soupkitchens opened along the road in Inverness by future Lord Danny Alexander no less.
http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/News/Behind-The-Headlines/Stocks-low-at-Highland-food-bank-5326.htm
http://www.statoil.com/en/About/Worldwide/UnitedKingdom/UKUpstream/Pages/Mariner.aspx
How UKOK really works. Westminster sells off oil fields to oil companies like Statoil, with smaller partners. Statoil build all field platforms like Mariner where it likes, this time Cadiz, Spain. Some UKOK constrution co’s pick up top side work as they are specialists in Aberdeen now, maybe worth several hundred million, local employment, very low.
BBC and co say there’s no oil left and what there is is now worthess. Statoil says
“In December 2012, Statoil made the investment decision for the Mariner project, which entails a gross investment of more than USD 7 billion. The development of the Mariner field will contribute more than 250 mmbbls reserves with average plateau production of around 55,000 barrels per day. The field will provide a long term cash-flow over a 30 year field life. Production is expected to commence in 2017”
Profit goes to Statoil, Norway’s giant oil state pension etc, Westminster tax at 55%, excluding out of the blue multi billion tax raids like Gideon Osborne’s for their 2012 London Olympics.
Scotland and the Highlands have food banks, soup kitchens, OO, cringers, BBC vote Slab Scotland with nice scenery
http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2015/aug/23/scotland-north-coast-500-road-trip
Your Sunday reading – Still fuming:
https://grousebeater.wordpress.com/2015/08/23/still-angry/
Is our dissatisfaction with the BBC getting any attention outside this bubble? I think it is.
I was surprised that the MSM gave so much concern to the fact that Scotland only polled 48% satisfaction with the BBC’s relevance to their lives. As England only polled about 60% it did not seem so big a difference, not much more than Yes/No in the Referendum. The BBC did not score highly anywhere so why was Scotland given publicity. Not like them.
Could it be because of other information they did not release but must have, such as those paying for the TV licence, or the viewing figures? Did they have trouble finding people that fit polling criteria by watching the BBC? Some reports also mentioned the protests outside PQ in Glasgow. Such protests against BBC output have never been seen in the UK before.
This against the background since the Referendum of 56 SNP MPs being sent to Westminster, where they are making their presence felt and working their socks off. English votes voted down all the SNP amendments to the Scotland Bill. A fact the SNP constantly threw back at the Conservative Government (as did Irish and Welsh MPs)and EVEL and fox hunting were withdrawn for a rethink.
Now Mundell is muttering about possible concessions and the MSM allowed to note Scotland’s dissatisfaction with the BBC at a time it is being overhauled by the Conservative Government. After all we have already demonstrated we are no longer listening to the BBC propaganda by refusing to let it swing our votes at the General Election and the 60+% polls for the SNP since.
Any concessions are unlikely to be enough, but whatever happens next I do think we are being noticed.
The dispute here is whether the BBC is considered a public authority for the purposes of FOIA with regard to veiwing figure requests. The OIC is arguing that they they would only have juristiction “in respect of information held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature.”
Firstly, the OIC made clear in 2007 that “viewing figures are not held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature ” https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2007/416430/FS_50074344001.pdf Digging a little deeper into that particular ruling the OIC ” formed the view that disclosure in this case would prejudice the commercial interests of BARB to the extent that its existence could be jeopardised, see paragraph 52. Therefore the Commissioner finds this argument persuasive in terms of where the public interest lies in this case. ”
This makes no sense as viewing figures are disclosed by the BBC and many others freely and BARB doesn’t seem to be raising an eyebrow.
The case that they cite ( Sugar (Deceased) v British Broadcasting Corporation and another [2012] ) was about disclosure of a BBC report concerning their coverage of middle eastern affairs written by Malcom Balen. What that ruling established is that rather than considering the primary purpose for information being held as the deciding factor as to whether the act applied, it should be considered that any information held that had a significant journalistic purpose would be excluded from the operation of the act.
There is nothing at all in the response from the OIC that would suggest that derogation should be considered with respect to viewing figures, and their own 2007 pre-decision notice confirms this in their own words – “viewing figures are not held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature ”
There is no significant journalistic purpose to these viewing figures and if the BBC wants to claim that there is, then they must produce data to evidence that. In the absence of that, there is nothing in the case that they cite that would invalidate the OIC view expressed in 2007.
It would be interesting to know whether or not BARB would consider the release of this specific data by the BBC something that they would object to, and if so what price they would consider fair for obtaining the data.
I don’t think that the OIC has established their lack of juristiction at all as yet in this matter, and they should justify their prejudgement of any appeal you might choose to make. They are bound to remain impartial and be seen to be.
Interesting analysis of the case that is cited here https://inforrm.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/case-law-sugar-v-bbc-battle-for-the-balen-report-results-in-bitter-sweet-bbc-victory-sara-mansoori-and-claire-darwin/
Thepnr
I posted last Oct how several regular posters had dropped off the radar and one I particularly missed was Kendomacaroonbar’s posts . Did he not make up & post the fantastic Wings Video clip ?
I later learned why. He was working on iScot Magazine.
Now today I learn he funded the £3k for the first run of the WBB . Maybe I knew this but it was information parked away at the back o ma heed !
Was the £3k refunded to him ? , If not , I would advocate support Ken to be compensated for this ASAP ?
I appreciate this may be opening a can o worms as many Wingers will have done things in a similar way at their personal cost. Folk using their time , car , fuel etc to distribute . I would never wish to devalue any selfless actions as those are the actions that makes Wingers .
I just feel £3k is a fair sum for anyone. Michty me , Ken could be loaded , but that’s irrelevant to the question .
OT.
A long time Scot now living down sourf tells me he has stopped watching the BBC News etc as they miss-report there too.
He told me recently that in Yorkshire NHS Hospitals there are water dispensers which display the water source eg Highland Spring or Willow Water ( From Lakes) .
He was home in the Highlands last week and visited a friend in Raigmore Hospital and noticed the water labelled “British Water” ! ! !
Derren Brownesque !
Sunday Times is really funny/skin crawling creepy this week. Betty Boothroyd explaining clearly the Labour party are the red tories, Corbyn’s such a trot says Lady Betty.
ST far right columnists say JC must be excluded for any security briefing held by Cammers, if he wins, and there’s no Scots oil left, so we’d be bankrupted if we’d voted you know what.
Every time a red tory whines about being called a red tory, Betty Boothroyd farts in the Lords.
The people vs Carmichael crowdfunder now over £80k, eighty thousand pound!
Still more publicity needed to raise even more and get more folk involved.
Let’s nail the bastard and his delaying tactics designed to push up costs.
@Tackety Beets
I’ld avoid Raigmore then, British water will include recycled Oxford urine from the Thames. Del and Rodney might but I dont think NHS Scotland should.
@Tackety Beets
“Michty me , Ken could be loaded , but that’s irrelevant to the question.”
I’ve only met Ken twice, once before the referendum and most recently in Helensburgh. Both were “nights out” in support of Independence by Wingers taking the message around Scotland and getting visible.
Anyway he is far from loaded, just an ordinary guy like you or I, Iscot magazine was mainly launched with his redundancy money!
Massive risk and little reward this is one of the reasons that I very much support his efforts. I just wish more felt the same, subscribing to the magazine for example does not cost that much per month for those in work. Yet it would ensure the magazines survival.
It is now on the shelves of independent newsagents across Scotland, so if you see it then please buy it, every little helps.
Birnie,
Glad you’ve asked the question. I’ve asked it before; surely 100% of 50 us dollars is better than 10% of 100?
Why do our politicians not come out in layman’s terms when the drop in oil price is used as a “too stupid” argument, and state that simple fact?
Implied Rights of Access will NOT be recognised for Scotland.
According to this found on the What Do They Know site, it would now seem that the “Implied Rights Of Access” removal law does not apply to Scotland and hasn’t done since January of this year (2015) due to a decision taken by certain bodies:
https://archive.is/SNLtq
Much more information on WOIRA can be found on the wider internet.
“frogesque says:
23 August, 2015 at 4:33 pm
The people vs Carmichael crowdfunder now over £80k, eighty thousand pound!
Still more publicity needed to raise even more and get more folk involved.
Let’s nail the bastard and his delaying tactics designed to push up costs.”
_____________________
I will be a lot happier if it goes over £100k, so that these brave people challenging him can sleep easier a night.
Sorry folks, the link I put up earlier to the iScot fundraiser was an old link. The correct link is here:
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/iscot-phase-2-be-the-change#/story
Watch the video, it is good. Don’t worry it won’t take up too much of your life at one minute long 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7fjN9KEDkg
It is now on the shelves of independent newsagents across Scotland, so if you see it then please buy it, every little helps.
I have come to iScot quite late and I have to say it is a lovely magazine. Wide range of interesting articles, beautiful photography and an incredibly high quality of paper and finish.
This is no school newspaper – it is better than the average mainstream magazine.
Well worth buying
@ Thepnr. Thanks Alex just contributed to Iscot.
Kendomacaroonbar has been a Stalwart in the Indy cause,distrabuted Wings Badges & Wee Blue Books.
Lets all get behind Him & Maurice, spread the word of the New Scottish Media.
Its a quality Magazine. I have some back issues left from April available at Hope over Fear 19th Sept for a small donation.
Thepnr @ 4.46 & Ken
Re My ” Michty me ……. ”
Sorry if it seamed flippant or unkind , this was not my intention.
I have never met either of you,but can assure you I hold you both in deep respect.
I will make a decent contribution to Ken’s iScot Mag @EOM
I will ask those in the know if they can verify the situation over Ken’s £3K ?
If he has not been reimbursed , can this please be reviewed ?
I take it this threads article related topic is now deemed dead due to the amount of Off-topic posts appearing? Is there any point to having the Off-topic section?
It’s something we need to be addressing folks and we are ALL guilty of it. If topics are going to be repeatedly derailed we run the risk of chasing people away and never reaching any agreed conclusions etc.
Can we all try to make some effort to keep threads On-topic and start using the Off-topic section more frequently please?
What he said.
@Tackety Beets,
Yes, I funded the original batch of WBB’s – and along with Ronnie we met regularly at the printers that we the Rev in touch with saving him a considerable amount of money to spend on additional books to distribute to those from all pairts. This was 2 weeks before the Rev’s hit the streets.
(Just an aside. The original WBB is stapled. The Rev’s version V2 🙂 is glued.) I took a hit on the books, (a few never paid, and a few couldn’t pay even if they wanted to) but my primary reason was getting them printed and out into the hands of those that would use them wisely.
I am working on the iScot magazine full time now and that’s the primary reason I’m a furtive lurker on Wings now.
iScot is a pro Scot magazine. We want to talk to those people who don’t have faith in our country as a viable and mature society. We’re not TWTPTS, and the best we we can reach out to them is to show them the best of Scotland in many facets, without being Political ‘bible thumpers’. The magazine has high production values, because we believe quality should never be compromised. It’s what Scotland has always been renowned for, whether that be Science, shipbuilding, tourism, food and drink. We just remind people what they’re not being told
The indiegogo fundraiser helps us keep the wheels turning. and we have an ambitious stretch goal to create an ad, the first ever crowd funded tv ad, so we can say there is nothing we cannot do if we put our creative minds to it – and we don’t need big business to make it happen; and if we can reach those that don’t access their news via social media then it’s a success and a start.
We can’t do it without you guys.
@ Rev.
Guilty as charged, in defense there are only so many ways you can say the BBC is shyte
@Stoker at 5:06pm
Implied Rights of Access will NOT be recognised for Scotland.
According to this found on the What Do They Know site, it would now seem that the “Implied Rights Of Access” removal law does not apply to Scotland and hasn’t done since January of this year (2015) due to a decision taken by certain bodies:
https://archive.is/SNLtq
Much more information on WOIRA can be found on the wider internet.
You can’t withdraw implied right of access in Scotland because the concept has never applied here. All the information and guidance about WOIRA is of no use whatsoever in Scotland and never has been.
Looking at the correspondence you linked to it appears as though the BBC have only realised in January 2015 that Scotland has a different legal system and WOIRA is meaningless here.
It just goes to show how ignorant the BBC are when it comes to Scotland and they must have been processing WOIRA claims from Scottish addresses up until the start of the year.
Re Off Topic
Guilty….but society is to blame.
A licence tae license.
Juan P wrote:
“Looking at the correspondence you linked to it appears as though the BBC have only realised in January 2015 that Scotland has a different legal system and WOIRA is meaningless here.”
Yes, it would seem so, i picked up on that also.
Up until January 2015 the BBC were processing Scottish applications for the removal of the Implied Rights of Access totally unaware that due to Scottish Law it could not be applied here but now, it would seem, someone has put them straight.
Just goes to show, doesn’t it, eh!
Robert Peffers @ 23 August, 2015 at 10:48 am
There is a lot of dirge in American TV but at the high/big budget end there are a lot of quality drama and originality. At that end, it is far superior that British TV can produce.
I’m mostly into British classic comedies of the 70’s and 80’s.
Hee-haw listeners to their Haw-Haw broadcasts.
There is no exclusion for journalistic purposes in the FOI legislation as it stands in Scotland. IF BBC Scotland have access to viewing figures then it may be possible to force them to give them up. Even if they are regarded as a local branch of the BBC the fact remains that they don’t have some kind of diplomatic immunity that puts them above the law in Scotland.