On 28/10/2021 12:37, Java Jive wrote:
> On 28/10/2021 12:35, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> I don't mind who provides television services as long as they obey the
>> law and adhere to any charter or licencing conditions which apply. The
>> BBC stopped doing the latter some decades ago and seems to collectively
>> regard itself as having a right to act politically.
>
> Again, where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim???!!!
>
The Serota report has just been published:
https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/reports/reports/the-serota-review.pdf

Serota himself was independent, but his review was commissioned by the
BBC and his team were BBC employees. It should be no surprise that a
BBC report intended to be made public and which criticises the BBC's
defensiveness wouldn't try to measure the degree of partiality present
in the BBC's output. Even so the conclusion to be drawn is that although
the BBC has detailed internal standards for impartiality etc, the
enforcement of the standards is not good. The BBC has produced an
action plan to deal with the criticisms in the Serota report. This does
suggest that some of the BBC's output doesn't currently comply with its
own standards.

Jim

On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 21:18:20 +0000, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

>The Serota report has just been published:
>https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/reports/reports/the-serota-review.pdf
>
>Serota himself was independent, but his review was commissioned by the
>BBC and his team were BBC employees.

Interesting. I've saved that and will read it later, but on the face
of it, the procedure looks a bit like someone accused of something in
court being able to choose their own jury.

Rod.

On 31/10/2021 21:18, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 28/10/2021 12:37, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 28/10/2021 12:35, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't mind who provides television services as long as they obey the
>>> law and adhere to any charter or licencing conditions which apply. The
>>> BBC stopped doing the latter some decades ago and seems to collectively
>>> regard itself as having a right to act politically.
>>
>> Again, where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim???!!!
>
> The Serota report has just been published:
> https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/reports/reports/the-serota-review.pdf
>
> Serota himself was independent, but his review was commissioned by the
> BBC and his team were BBC employees.  It should be no surprise that a
> BBC report intended to be made public and which criticises the BBC's
> defensiveness wouldn't try to measure the degree of partiality present
> in the BBC's output. Even so the conclusion to be drawn is that although
> the BBC has detailed internal standards for impartiality etc, the
> enforcement of the standards is not good.  The BBC has produced an
> action plan to deal with the criticisms in the Serota report.  This does
> suggest that some of the BBC's output doesn't currently comply with its
> own standards.

Thanks for that, I've finally had time to read it all! It's certainly
thorough, and as you say, suggests that there are areas in need of
improvement. However, it's a long, long way from providing any
justification for JNugent's remarks above (which he still hasn't
justified), rather on the contrary, the very occurrence of both Lord
Dyson's report, this report, and the resulting BBC's action plan
suggests an organisation sufficiently self-aware to avoid the very
things that he accuses them of. As does this earlier report from 2007,
though obviously that's getting a little long in the tooth now:

BBC publishes report on safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_release/2007/impartiality.html

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk