UKH

.Bl**dy hell, Earl Spencer throws his slightly dim sister under a bus while she's alive, then milks her memory for all its worth forever after. (This is the charming gentleman who described one of his ex wives who was bulimic as 'thick and thin'). Prince Harry blames drinking and drug-taking on the BBC - who knew? (No mention of who's to blame for wearing Nazi uniforms to parties mind - was that part of his anguish?)

Bashir might be a bit creepy, and the stunt over the bank statements was a bit naughty, (if he had been targeting drug dealers this would have been called 'investigative reporting' - how thick must Earl Spencer be to have fallen for it) but c'mon people, get a grip.

I wouldn't normally care but this is part of a serious, concerted underhand campaign to destroy the BBC, which as far as I'm concerned is one of the institutions that makes the UK unique, and the only mass medium we have that holds governments to account. Never needed it more.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

BBC - "Holds governments to account"

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The tabloid press pile on of the BBC despite effectively hounding Diana to her death and going after her son's wife with similar enthusiasm is something to behold!

In reply to galpinos:

Exactly. If its a choice between the BBC and the Royal Family?

vive la republique!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The cover up  is far worse than the original sin.This is always the case in either govt or corporations. Nothing ever changes. Especially what happened to the guy who basically complained a few months later about doing the docs and was then in effect hung out to dry and lost his job etc.

Yep the BBC is needed more.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I agree about the immense value, especially in an era of fake news, of the BBC. However, I don't think this is in itself a concerted campaign to undermine it. The cover up is inexcusable; it is a sad day for the BBC and lessons must be learnt. I think the danger is that the enemies of the BBC on both the right and the left use it as an excuse to undermine the BBC and subvert it to their own purposes. 

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Where did he say this?

In reply to Bottom Clinger:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57187138

I'm paraphrasing slightly.

Agree with the OP.

Timothy Davie CBE is the current and seventeenth Director-General of the BBC.Davie stood as a councillor for the Conservative Party in Hammersmith in 1993 and 1994 and was deputy chairman of the Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative party in the 1990s.In August 2020 Tim Davie announced his intention for the BBC to "find a better balance of satirical targets rather than constantly aiming jokes at the Tories."

Richard Sharp  is the current Chairman of the BBC, a role he has held since February 2021. A former banker, he worked at JP Morgan for eight years, and then for 23 years at Goldman Sachs. Sharp was an advisor to Boris Johnson during his tenure as London Mayor, and to Rishi Sunak as Chancellor. He has donated more than £400,000 to the Conservative Party.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Not sure about this.  The original version told by Bashir was that the transactions were genuine, but inconveniently buried in other figures so he had someone mock them up in a clearer format.  I think this is the version that the rather credulous Tony Hall swallowed.  

I have to say that sounded pretty dodgy to me, but I guess journalists get so used to having to paraphrase and reformat information to make it comprehensible that it's just about possible.  The question is, were the transactions genuine or not?

If not, then this definitely crosses a line for me.  We aren't talking about scamming criminals in order to expose them, this was about exerting whatever pressure was necessary to obtain a scoop.  And apparently the forged documents weren't even the worst part - there are now allegations that Bashir persuaded Diana that she was on some sort of MI5 hit list...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

There was me thinking Charles & Diana's marriage broke down due to him having a bit on the side but now I know it was the BBC wot did it.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I watched some of the Oprah interview and read the article.  Basically, he used to drink a weeks worth of booze on a Friday night (like half of the UK does) and was 'willing to take drugs' to deal with the trauma of his mums death. Not a hint of a mention of the BBC.  He got caught smoking a few spliffs way back and so his idiot dad sent him to a rehab !

For the record, I'm a fan of the BBC but they are good at shooting themselves in their feet.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I agree. Spencer is a weak tool. Harry is also making more capital out of this too.  Many young lads get royally pissed at the weekend.

Rubbish. She wasn't a drug dealer. She was at that time incredibly vulnerable and Bashir exploited her by manipulation, fraud and lies.

I too greatly value the BBC but they came up well short from top to bottom.

Question: were crimes committed and where is Bashir now? 

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I'm not sure what lines it crosses; apart from honesty, for which Bashir is perhaps now paying the price. Did Bashir go to his BBC bosses, explain what he was up to and obtain approval? No he didn't. 

Did Diana want to give an interview? Absolutely. Were the statements crucial? No, they were just used to persuade Earl Spencer (NOT Diana) that Bashir just might be the bloke to do it; despite him having refused to accommodate his sister after the split. No wonder he's embarrassed and lashing out now.

A plague on all their houses.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

My understanding is that Bashir is terminally ill.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Love it, Harry complains about his mother's divisive interview, whilst giving multiple lucrative divisive interviews himself!! 

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

People are forgetting that she gave the interview in response to Prince Charles's interview where he admitted adultery. The BBC facilitated her desire to talk it did not create that desire.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

15 mins and counting into the BBC news and all about the Royal family. Glad there’s not a war in the Middle East, a pandemic or a corrupt government to report on. 

In reply to Removed User:

The BBC is the one organisation that can justly be accused by supporters of the government as being for the opposition, supporters of the opposition as being for the government, by left wingers as being right wing and right wingers as being left wing. That is what impartiality looks like, they are a polyphony.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Bashir has had heart surgery and Covid and told BBC he would step down a month or so ago.

In reply to Alkis:

I don't think "can justly".  Just "is".

In reply to Robert Durran:

All the sides are correct though. When people bitch about Kuenssberg they are not wrong, when the other side complains about John Humphrys tearing ministers a new one they are not wrong. Both viewpoints are accommodated.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Am I the only one who didn't give a phuq about Diana when she was alive, nothing against her as such just wasn't interested, and still doesn't give a phuq and is wondering why something that one employee did twenty six years ago has potentially dire consequences for the BBC?

In reply to Alkis:

I think they are almost always wrong.

In reply to Removed User:

I think it is the cover up and the culture which facilitated it which is the concern.

In reply to Robert Durran:

For everyone to be wrong about that the BBC would have not to have any articles. Where people are very wrong is that they have a heavy amount of confirmation bias resulting in them *only* seeing the stories that reinforce their view of the BBC. Case in point when someone the other day was claiming that the BBC is anti-Palestinian because one particular news report they watched on one BBC channel didn't mention the situation there, while it was almost the entirety of the Today program on Radio 4, plus the website and world news.

In reply to galpinos:

It’s a monumental hypocrisy-fest. The press banging on about ethics, the government calling for scrutiny… don’t make me laugh. All part of a campaign to undermine the BBC.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Maybe not in itself but it’s a handy stick to beat the Beeb with as part of their efforts to neutralise it. JimR’s post below shows the other part of the strategy. 

You’re being too even-handed here. Those on the left have limited influence and no power; the government has the power and the majority of the press behind it to influence. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

I think that says something about your own position. The use of just "left" and "right" without acknowledging the "centre" indicates a certain viewpoint.

Comedy has had a certain centre left bias for a while although more left wing comedians were almost as small a minority as right wing ones.

Whereas some of the news has had a somewhat rightwards bias.

In reply to Bob Kemp:

Seeing Johnson go on about it is impressive. Lets not forget he was sacked as a journalist for lying although then went to another paper where his lies were positively encouraged.

In reply to Removed User:

No.

jcm

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes but I'm still shrugging my shoulders, so what?

This is one incident involving one reporter twenty six years ago. It says nothing about the honesty or methods of any other reporter.

There was a bit of a whitewash sometime later. <ironic>Oh really, well I am suprised!

This does not undermine my confidence in the BBC.

...unlike the phone tapping scandal involving much of the press a decade ago, many papers involved in a systematic practice of spying on ordinary people to get stories and who quite literally drove Diana to her death in Paris.

In reply to Removed User:

Because public confidence in the BBC is of national importance, so it is important that they are squeeky clean and, if they do get it wrong, as they have here, that they hold their hands up and put things right. Lord Grade was excellent talking about this on R4.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes he was spot on.

In reply to neilh:

This may be pedantic but he didn't lose his job, he quit to start a production company which then didn't get any work with the BBC, which he relied upon. He was working his notice period when he put the statements together

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Can anyone very briefly summarise the bank statements thing so I don't have to wade through a mire of royal family bullshit to understand the latest attack on the BBC?

Jk

In reply to Removed User:

Well not ours obviously

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

About the best thing to say about the BBC is that newspapers owned by right wing billionaires are even worse.

In reply to jkarran:

Bashir falsified bank statements and showed them to someone or other (Earl Spencer perhaps?) to persuade Di that someone or other (Charlie, maybe?) was lying to her and stealing her money. This persuaded her to go on his show and do her three-in-this-marriage-but-at-least-I-shagged-James-Hewitt interview.

I could have some of the details wrong. My give-a-phuq-o-meter seems to be broken today.

jcm

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

"My understanding is that Bashir is terminally ill."

Where did you read that?

I knew he had health issues but hadn't read it was terminal?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I'd have thought that falsifying bank statements to con somebody into doing something which isn't in their interest would be a criminal offence.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

It's in a better state than mine.

In reply to Removed User:

I'm with you.

I find it entertaining that this is seen as some sort of anomaly when the royals, the media, the government, slick biz etc are squirming around bed with each other by default. This is simply the game here, being used to sell clicks, paper and advertising space as it always has been. Covid is getting a bit tired, Gaza isn't going to last, royal bullshit is the good old standard.

Meanwhile the BBC trots onward, as manipulative and distorting now as it was back then and always will be, it IS the mirror Britain is reflected in, more producer of the national consciousness than product of it.

It's a soap opera, with flashbacks to the stars of yesterday to keep the UK entertained by itself. 

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Perhaps he's found some evidence to prove his allegation and the current campaign is to discredit him, before it goes public.

If this ends up as  some convuluted conspiracy theory, I'm claiming it as mine 🤣🤣

Whatever is said about the BBC, radio 6 is worth every penny of the licence fee.

And as long as it annoys Murdoch, then it absolutely deserves to continue in its current form. 

In reply to mondite:

You're right; I should have just said everyone from left to right.

I don't think so. The right complain that the BBC is too liberal. 

In reply to Removed Userwaitout

It is a two way process. The BBC is an essential, trusted, moderating anchor in a sea of partisan, manipulative news sources and outright lies. This is why it is essential that it is protected from those who would subvert it or destroy it. And essential that it comes clean when it does get things wrong. The BBC must be strengthened and protected; we really cannot afford to lose it.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

And of course the right would love to see the BBC destroyed or controlled so that their tame right wing newspapers would get a free run without the BBC's impartial moderation.

In reply to Robert Durran:

The BBC is already controlled by Tory placeholders on the board and placeholder journalists in senior positions like Kuensberg and the company that fills the Question Time audience with Tory councillors.   

The press barons don't like it because people who are being forced to spend 12 quid a month on the BBC have less money for other news sources or pay TV and the rabid wing of the Tories are too stupid to see that subtle right wing bias might be more effective than blatant in your face partisanship.

In reply to Bob Kemp:

As ever, News Thump is spot on about this:

https://newsthump.com/2021/05/21/tabloids-outraged-at-the-bbc-for-copying-t...

In reply to Alkis:

Look more closely.

The BBC's cultural output is conspicuously left wing and 'woke'.

It's political and news output (which many would argue, does have the power to influence collective political leanings and voting choices) is with little doubt, right wing. The Director General and Chairman are both tory supporters, as are most of the front line news journalists and presenters on TV and radio. Their allegiances, opinions and who they give airtime to (or not) does actually matter a great deal.

That is not a polyphony. It is two opposing entities completely out of tune with each other.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Was it the BBC that managed to manoeuvre Diana into the light so that they could take photos of her legs through her skirt? Or used military grade telescopic lenses to pike at her naked breasts when she was sunbathing?  And hounded her as she came out of her workplace even before she was married? Was it the BBC who tapped Charles' phone then released the naughty tampax conversation he was having with his lover? Did that not damage their relationship needlessly? And of course it was BBC cameramen racing her private car through the underpass when she died?

Make no mistake, the BBC is a last bastion of Britain's reputation worldwide. When the Tories finally succeed in breaking it, they will  have succeeded in giving our country away to the oligarchs and gangsters. But don't worry there'll still be lots of flags and Drake will still be in his hammock.

In reply to AllanMac:

I simply don't think that is true. All sides will point to individual instances to support their own biases against the BBC.

If that is true, then, so far they seem to be doing an excellent job in maintaining their professional impartiality. But, of course, complacency would be dangerous. There is little doubt that some of those in government would like to have the BBC in their pockets.

In reply to Robert Durran;

Personally I don't see it one way or the other as I think the role of the BBC is as a leveller for the national identity, not dedicated to any real notion of left or right other than a comfortable mix between the two. The job is to keep things from polarising, with a view of the world that forms the wallpaper to the British experience. Enough information to feel satisfyingly informed, enough entertainment to feel satisfyingly intellectual, enough opinion to feel sufficiently incisive - both not too much of anything to generate upheaval.

I agree totally it needs to be maintained, in the same 'bread & circuses' way the UK can't afford to run out of beer. It's a baseline reality for so many, so structural to the national day to day experience the idea of a future without it would be Brexitian in effect. Britain will sooner lose the monarchy than the BBC.

I think it anchors the public discourse with just enough range to define a majority and clearly define anything beyond that as radical, and this is probably healthier for the UK than any alternative, it's certainly in the governments interest.

In reply to AllanMac:

That's because culture tends to be 'woke'.

Well, perhaps not Wagner or Eric Gill.

In reply to Robert Durran:

There's a difference between being impartial and being aligned with your views.   Maybe what you are seeing is that the BBC is aligned with your own views.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Within the context of media scrutiny being a big, if not the main factor in his mother's death, I do think it's a bit unfair to question whether the Nazi uniform was a part of his anguish in the same breath as whether his drinking and drug taking might have been a result of media scrutiny (including the BBC).

I'd have taken to drink and drugs too in Harry's place, that is - while feeling under media scrutiny and struggling with the loss of one's mother and feeling the 2 to be intertwined (which they arguably were). 

If you're going to defend the BBC, minimising Harry's mental health issues and the media scrutiny's role in them may not be the way to go about it, I'm thinking.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I see it as being impartial on the left/right spectrum; just offering facts and analysis. Admittedly I am pretty centrist myself, but my perception is that those on the right and left who see it as biased the other way, are so convinced that they are "correct" that they see it's impartiality as bias.

I am more open to the idea that it might sometimes stray away from impartiality on the Independence issue; as the BritishBC, they are perhaps treading a fine and tricky line. Anyway, I don't think I could vote for independence if it meant I lost any access to the BBC - the thought of not being able to get into my car and switch on R4 is truly terrifying!

In reply to Robert Durran:

It's certainly better than R2 where half the presenters can't string a proper sentence together, it's like commercial local radio minus the adverts, although they do spend a lot of time pushing bbc tv programmes. 

In reply to summo:

I was once in a relationship which I knew was doomed as soon as the R4/R2 split became apparent. How does anybody actually know anything if they don't listen to R4?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yeah. There's just something annoying about ball, Cox, winkleman etc.. that 40 something mother who thinks it's cool or clever to be slightly incompetent and speak like an illiterate teen, whilst being paid £1/2m. The regular stand ins like Nicky Chapman or Gary Davies are more able.