The BBC are screwed, aren't they?

[kinkytoes]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c891jp9j79do

Are we ever going to find out who actually made the monumental fuck up? Rather than just a homogenous apology from the top.

Is this person/people still working for them?

I actually understand why Trump is doing this. You can't just let something so wrong pass by or they'll just keep doing it.

Are you really holding up GB 'News' as reputable news outlet to compare to begin with, I thought it was a Jackanory time on there all of the time!

@NiftyBird I’m not defending Trump (I’m certainly not a fan) but the fact stands that in the eyes of the law, you can no more label him a “rapist” than you can Russell Brand at this stage. None of Trump’s accusers have achieved a conviction of rape against him and only one has made it to court, and a civil one at that.

It IS precedent setting. It has established that it is a protected right to criticise Islam. It was a ruling under the Equalities Act, stand alone, and actually not an integral part of the tribunal case at all except that it was necessary to establish that he had a legal right to do it.

It hasn't been decided yet whether the Actuaries Association has been brought into disrepute by what he wrote, and the withdrawing of his registration may yet be deemed legal (though I doubt it).

But even if it is found that they were right to fine him and withdraw his registration, the ruling that WE ALL have a protected right to criticise Islam has set a precedent and most news outlets have covered it.

The BBC, as far as I can find, has not. Why?

I'm completely gobsmacked at the number of people who are OK with the splice.

If it had been done by a right wing organisation the comment would all have been "how much more is it hiding?" But done by left wing people "oh it's OK we all know that what he meant to say". Flipping shocking.

I will wait but not hold my breath for the day the BBC stops insulting Indians, Bangladeshis, Chinese and every other Asian and calls the rape gangs what they are, overwhelmingly Pakistani.

And reports the landmark ruling that being able to criticise any religion, including Islam, is a protected right.

Until then we will all know that nothing has changed.

Strange, that's not what the Judge said when he lost his defamation case.

"Mr Trump in fact did ‘rape’ Ms Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood in contexts outside of the New York penal law.”

In our legal system, lower courts (or tribunals) are bound by the decisions of higher courts. When a higher court makes a decision, it is then a binding precedent (unless, of course, it is then overturned by an even higher court).

E.g., the Supreme Court can bind the Court of Appeal (and every court below it), the Court of Appeal can bind the Employment Appeal Tribunal (and the Employment Tribunal below it) and the Employment Appeal Tribunal can Appeal the Employment Tribunal.

If a decision is made by a court/tribunal at the very lowest rung, then it cannot be a binding precedent. The Patrick Lee decision was made at the lowest possible level so it does not bind any future decision maker (at the most, it could be cited as being persuasive, but it isn't binding).

I do think its the right decision and correctly interprets the Forstater decision, it just isn't of much legal significance.

And it wasnt very widely reported. It was picked up by the Mail, the Express, the Telegraph and GB News.

Other news sources, from the left, right and centre, did not cover it.

I do understand that this has not set a precedent in the strict legal definition of a precedent in law.

But it is ground breaking and has set a benchmark down that we all have this right, and it that respect it is ground breaking and the BBC should have covered it as the other news outlets have.

Please see above, we cross posted.

Mail, Express, Telegraph, GBNews, Spectator, Middle East Forum, Christian Institute, Yahoo News, Committee for Academic Freedom, multiple employment advice sites and viral all over social media including this forum.

It's a matter of importance for all employers and of public interest for all people.

The kind of thing the BBC was supposed to report neutrally on.

But most major UK news outlets havent covered it, including right wing outlets like the Sun and The Times, and centrist ones like the Financial Times.

The BBC frequently cover Employment Appeal Tribunal decisions or higher, because that's when they start to carry some meaningul legal significance. They rarely cover Employment Tribunal decisions (mostly only doing so when its involving a public figure).

For reference, there are usually a few hundred EAT decisions per year, whereas the ET issues about 100 per day.

I do think its an interesting decision but it isnt particularly newsworthy, and most news organizations (accordingly) havent reported it.

The first 4 of those are significant news outlets, the others I either havent heard of, or (in the case of Yahoo) just republish stories from elsewhere.

Of the major UK newsources, the first 4 you listed did report it.

BBC News, The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, Financial Times, The Sun, ITV News and Sky News did not.

No I am pointing out that if they had spliced film and censored news stories the way the BBC have done, the people who say that the BBC has done nothing wrong would be screaming for them to be shut down.

GB news is perfectly upfront about the fact that it has a specific political worldview and that it operates within that worldview within the confines of OFCOM rules. few. That's fine, like the telegraph is right wing or the guardian is left wing, you can take it or leave it and nobody is forcing me to pay a licence fee not to watch it.

The BBC on the other hand is supposed to be non-biased and I am forced to pay a licence fee to fund it in order to be allowed to watch any live TV at all regardless of whether it is the BBC.

Do you not understand the difference?

Sorry about the stray few, the usual phone problems.

@NiftyBird it was E Jean Carroll suing Trump for defamation, not the other way round. Kaplan made it abundantly clear that the New York rape statute was narrowly defined (it was changed for just one year). The jury’s finding of sexual abuse aligned with Carroll’s testimony but did not meet the rape threshold. Kaplan has subsequently clarified that legally it stands as “sexual abuse”.

No rape allegations against Trump have resulted in a criminal conviction or civil finding of rape liability.

You seem annoyed with my post and I wonder if you think the BBC should be held to account for anything. Let’s remember, its own internal investigation uncovered these serious breaches and then senior management took the decision to ignore the findings and still would be if the leak had not occurred. Sorry but this is not good enough and who would think it is?
I would like to ask you why you are not outraged? Do you, or a family member work there?
We are discussing the actions and decisions made by the National broadcaster on this thread. There is therefore no need to bring other news outlets into a discussion specifically regarding things the BBC has been found to have done wrong. It’s like saying it doesn’t matter I shoplifted because I wasn’t the only one.
Since you are determined to deflect by asking about my reading habits here you go: I find it necessary to read from a wide range of sources e.g the last few days have been Guardian, Telegraph, BBC news, plus some current affairs radio. I try to go around the papers to get a real feel for what is going on and it’s amazing to me how each outlet seems to have some quite important stories the others haven’t picked up on.
As I live abroad I also try to get a take on how outlets around the world are viewing what’s going on in the UK.

However they do conclude that it was Conservative appointees who were in charge and that there has been an orchestrated pile-on by the right wing media.
And that these pile-ons are part of a pattern of collusion

Well don't fuck up in obvious ways and this could easily be avoided!

Trump filed a countersuit for defamation, alleging Carroll defamed him when she called him a rapist.

The quote I posted was from Kaplan's dismissal of Trump's defamation claim (when Kaplan ruled that Carroll's labelling of Trump as a rapist was substantially true).

You really don't understand that none of this matters do you?

GB news is a private TV channel reliant on advertisements for its income. You don't have to watch it and you don't have to pay a licence fee so that you can watch any live TV regardless of what channel.

Again your tribal hypocrisy has led you to believe that the BBC can do no wrong or if it does do wrong, that's okay because it has the correct beliefs and therefore anything it does in the end can't be wrong, the ends justify the means.

Your understanding appears to be that GB news is terrible, Trump is terrible, so the fact that the BBC has abandoned all its journalistic principles and its duty to the license fee payers, is tickety boo.

30 years ago even the most ardent supporter of the BBC would never have had this slavish loyalty "my channel right or wrong" approach to this subject. All sensible people would simply have been appalled.

I'm telling somebody they look like a prick is never a very convincing argument so perhaps you can try and contain yourself.

You make such massive leaps in your posts. Where did you say they did no wrong? I just said they have the greatest trust rating of any news source in the country where as GBnews is only just above the daily mail. I have said before in this thread they were dumb to splice the speech in the way they did because they had zero need to do so. Trumps message was clear and his cult acted as he instructed them to. As a normal working person I don't stand firmly with the opinion that Trump is wholly bad and so is Reform/Farage/GBeebies. They exist for the richest in society and they're duping ordinary people to do so.
Farage wants to fundamentally change the BBC so the UK ends up like the US where there is no independent publicly owned news so only one voice exists, that or the supreme leader ana his paymasters.

I genuinely don't understand why you think the fact that this organisation with a systemic bias problem is the most widely trusted news source is some kind of proof that it is OK.

It is trusted because it is 100 years old and has a massive store of goodwill and trust as a result of its past glories. It's got a massive PR machine that it ruthlessly deploys whenever its fuck-ups threaten to undermine public support for it. Huge powerful experienced media corporation is good at media, therefore it's trustworthy? That's not even an argument IMO.

And again, what Trump wants or what GB News wants or the Daily Mail, or the Telegraph or any of the other right wing bogeymen, is utterly irrelevant. You seem so fixated on how sinister and terrible they are, that you are prepared to give the BBC a free pass because at least it's not them.

I'm baffled by that attitude TBH.

Unsure why a anyone can be that stressed about this but that aside, I asked this further back on this thread where do people obtain their fair and objective news from then? If all news is bias by your accounts then this is not really possible is it? BBC, Sky, GB NEws etc?

That should read, "Biased" not bias

You read/watch both left and right wing media , double check any figures against certified sources and then use your own judgement.

The left wing press are lambasting GBnews today for using surnames as evidence that criminals may not be British (with carefully stated cautions about the limitations of this method) . Instead of lambasting the government for failing to record the nationality of criminals and leaving counting "foreign sounding" names as the only option. Of course it suits the left wing down to the ground to call this racist.