Sunday, 06 May 2012 00:14
219 Comments
By Martin Kelly
The BBC is today facing questions over their reporting of Scotland’s local authority election results after figures reported by the broadcaster gave the impression that Labour had outgunned the SNP in terms of councillors gained.
According to BBC Scotland, Labour gained an extra 58 councillors to the SNP’s 57 after Friday’s count. However it has emerged that the more accurate figures indicate the SNP gained 61 councillors to Labour’s 48.
The anomaly is thought to be down to BBC Scotland ignoring the widely accepted method of comparing election results with those of the previous election when calculating gains. The broadcaster has instead chosen to calculate changes based on council standings the day before last Thursday’s election.
The method adopted by BBC Scotland means that a party who won a ward in 2007 would be shown as having gained the ward in 2012 if the 2007 councillor subsequently left the party and the voters opted for the same party again.
In Glasgow for example, where several Labour councillors resigned from the party weeks before the local elections, these have been designated Labour gains if voters from the ward again opted for Labour – which is exactly what happened.
Evidence of just how bizarre BBC Scotland’s calculations are, can be seen in the result for Glasgow where a new party, set up by disaffected former Labour councillors, won their first ever seat. Glasgow First, despite never having stood in any elections prior to Thursday’s vote, are reported by BBC Scotland to have lost seats!
Others who disagree with BBC Scotland’s figures include Scottish Television who accurately reported a 61 seat gain for the SNP against a 48 seat gain for Labour. Respected commentator Gerry Hassan also gives as the figure for SNP gains as 61. Another who agreed that previous elections should be used for comparisons is respected journalist and commentator David Torrance.
However several national newspapers appear to have picked up BBC Scotland’s interpretation of the results and have reproduced articles containing the same spurious figures.
There is also dismay at the BBC’s apparent refusal to acknowledge the SNP as having won the election, despite the party winning the largest share of first preference votes and to have amassed more councillors than any other party.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
Newsnet Scotland understands that the BBC has already fielded complaints by many viewers unhappy at their interpretation of the results, as well as other aspects of the broadcaster’s post-election reporting. On a special Friday edition of Newsnight Scotland the BBC assembled a panel of three pro-Unionist commentators to give their views on the election results.
In another example of what many claim is manipulation of political output, a BBC Scotland online slideshow of images has now been altered after it showed jubilant Labour figures in one image followed by an image of dejected SNP officials.
The original negative image of Nicola Sturgeon was eventually replaced by an image that more accurately reflected the fact that the SNP had emerged as the most successful party nationwide.
The first image readers saw was of senior Labour figures celebrating.
The second image showed a concerned Nicola Sturgeon.
The image showing a much happier SNP group replaced the original negative image a day later.
[Newsnet Scotland is currently experiencing some difficulties with our twitter account. We would be grateful if readers who are on twitter would click the re-tweet button beneath each article. Thank You]
Comments
#
2012-05-06 01:22
I was blown away by how hard the BBC tried to make this election look bad for the SNP and fantastic for Labour. They seem to be at this kind of thing all the time now. Therefore there is another reason why the referendum should be in 2014- the major broadcaster is just not up to the job of presenting the arguments fairly, at this point.
Did you see the Newsnight special? Six unionists telling us (and the sole pro indy representative) that the SNP was faltering and that a local election result (from a very low turnout, which, incidentally, the SNP won) pointed at a referendum no vote. Special award to Ruth Davidson for somehow maintaining a straight face.
Did you see the Newsnight special? Six unionists telling us (and the sole pro indy representative) that the SNP was faltering and that a local election result (from a very low turnout, which, incidentally, the SNP won) pointed at a referendum no vote. Special award to Ruth Davidson for somehow maintaining a straight face.
#
2012-05-06 09:55
I have a petition proposing the the control over Broadcasting and Ethical standards in Scotland be devolved, if you agree please sign and circulate.
change.org/…/…
change.org/…/…
#
2012-05-06 10:22
Thank you for the opportunity to vent my spleen on these so called journalists in the BBC.
#
2012-05-06 11:00
Reiver,
great idea about time someone did this.
There may be a problem though, after I signed up the response said 34 out of 5000.
My wife then signed using my computer but her own details inc email. When completed, the response had not changed ie still 34 out of 5000. So she did not seem to register. Maybe you need to check this as very many couples will want to sign, of course legitimately using their own email address but the sysyem may not be accepting it, as in only 1 from the same IP address.
great idea about time someone did this.
There may be a problem though, after I signed up the response said 34 out of 5000.
My wife then signed using my computer but her own details inc email. When completed, the response had not changed ie still 34 out of 5000. So she did not seem to register. Maybe you need to check this as very many couples will want to sign, of course legitimately using their own email address but the sysyem may not be accepting it, as in only 1 from the same IP address.
#
2012-05-06 20:16
If the system counts IP addresses and one of you vote then that IP adress is used up, Using a proxy server would solve this.
#
2012-05-06 21:20
Just emailed this article to my contacts. And asked them to pass it on.
If we all do this The truth about BBC political corruption will be out and about.
If we all do this The truth about BBC political corruption will be out and about.
#
2012-05-06 01:35
A starting point for dealing with the UK State Broadcaster could be reporting them to Freedom House in the USA which monitors the media worldwide. The UK is already in a lowly 32nd place in the freedom index but I think if they knew more about the media in Scotland then this ranking would plummet.
The UK State Broadcaster value their image internationally I think we should all write letters to newspapers abroad drawing attention to what is happening in Scotland in terms of biased reporting. This I would suggest would be far more effective than complaining here in Scotland
The UK State Broadcaster value their image internationally I think we should all write letters to newspapers abroad drawing attention to what is happening in Scotland in terms of biased reporting. This I would suggest would be far more effective than complaining here in Scotland
#
2012-05-06 07:28
Yes we could, but where would it be reported? On the BBC? I dont think so.
The SNP have to gather all the evidence they have, and surely there are mountains of it, and take the BBC to court for breaching the rules of their charter. Only then will something of their tactics get into the MSM.
And only the party has the money to do this.
Reporting it to some body in the USA – fine. I’ve never heard of it, as I’m guessing the vast majority of the people of Scotland haven’t either. So even if we should slip down that particular index, who’d know?
The SNP have to gather all the evidence they have, and surely there are mountains of it, and take the BBC to court for breaching the rules of their charter. Only then will something of their tactics get into the MSM.
And only the party has the money to do this.
Reporting it to some body in the USA – fine. I’ve never heard of it, as I’m guessing the vast majority of the people of Scotland haven’t either. So even if we should slip down that particular index, who’d know?
#
2012-05-07 07:24
Can you supply links to these agencies. I’d happily complete any forms which internationalis es the BBC bias in Scotland. It’s time they were put in the spotlight themselves.
#
2012-05-06 02:08
IT’S THE BBC STUPID
The media are a real impediment to a fair debate on the issues germane to independence, and they are a very real threat to a successful outcome in 2014.
By far the biggest threat comes from the BBC. The state broadcasting network has tremendous power to influence opinion in Scotland.
That power is derived from the public’s perception that it’s news and analyses are impartial and that it’s output is a truthful representation of the facts.
The BBC’s has power because it is believed.
It should be a priority of the Independence Movement to disabuse the folks of that notion.
What needs to be prioritized is not offering counterpoint to every dingbat charge the opposition dreams up, or challenging false or misleading data presented, but neutralizing the effectiveness of the conduit through which the lies and “inaccuracies” are disseminated.
We have no megaphone big enough to be well heard over the din of the latest celebratory photos and articles of Labour’s “triumph” in the press and on the Beeb.
That photo actually captures the Labour leaders realization that after a near death experience, they are still alive. The smiles and joy are not that of victory, but of relief.
The public perception of who are the winners and who are the losers is formed in that critical period right after an election, when the numbers are in and the assembled political cognoscenti of press and television tell us what to think.
It is in my view, somewhere near useless that they correct their unfortunate errors sometime after this critical incubatory period – no one is listening. More exactly, no one that counts is listening.
For any corrections to have meaningful influence, the serried ranks of the Great Unwashed have to be paying attention, and trust me, come the weekend, they wont be.
So, pretty much no matter what one tries to do, say beyond 48 hours post election, will provide you meager returns. The most accurate metaphor is that it is like p***ing in the wind.
The need is to be proactive in countering the effectiveness of the message.
There is a crying need for a coordinated and concerted effort to undermine the risible notion of BBC impartiality, by drawing the attention of the electorate to it, again and again, and again, until it is inculcated into the public consciousness.
It is clear now that this is the strategy of the opposition WRT the First Minister. Bring down Salmond, and you cripple the independence movement.
While each attack in itself presents no existential threat, the constant stream of attacks, day after, week, after month, after year, will take its toll and serve to destroy the First Minister’s credibility and blacken his reputation (or so they believe).
The opposition cannot possibly hope to achieve this without the complicity of the press and other media, united in common cause.
The central pillar of that unholy alliance is the state broadcasting system – the BBC. We cannot hope to unstick the Beeb and force change in its institutional position on independence, but we CAN go far to ameliorating its toxic influence on the outcome of the plebiscite on independence, by hammering home the message of its political corruption
The media are a real impediment to a fair debate on the issues germane to independence, and they are a very real threat to a successful outcome in 2014.
By far the biggest threat comes from the BBC. The state broadcasting network has tremendous power to influence opinion in Scotland.
That power is derived from the public’s perception that it’s news and analyses are impartial and that it’s output is a truthful representation of the facts.
The BBC’s has power because it is believed.
It should be a priority of the Independence Movement to disabuse the folks of that notion.
What needs to be prioritized is not offering counterpoint to every dingbat charge the opposition dreams up, or challenging false or misleading data presented, but neutralizing the effectiveness of the conduit through which the lies and “inaccuracies” are disseminated.
We have no megaphone big enough to be well heard over the din of the latest celebratory photos and articles of Labour’s “triumph” in the press and on the Beeb.
That photo actually captures the Labour leaders realization that after a near death experience, they are still alive. The smiles and joy are not that of victory, but of relief.
The public perception of who are the winners and who are the losers is formed in that critical period right after an election, when the numbers are in and the assembled political cognoscenti of press and television tell us what to think.
It is in my view, somewhere near useless that they correct their unfortunate errors sometime after this critical incubatory period – no one is listening. More exactly, no one that counts is listening.
For any corrections to have meaningful influence, the serried ranks of the Great Unwashed have to be paying attention, and trust me, come the weekend, they wont be.
So, pretty much no matter what one tries to do, say beyond 48 hours post election, will provide you meager returns. The most accurate metaphor is that it is like p***ing in the wind.
The need is to be proactive in countering the effectiveness of the message.
There is a crying need for a coordinated and concerted effort to undermine the risible notion of BBC impartiality, by drawing the attention of the electorate to it, again and again, and again, until it is inculcated into the public consciousness.
It is clear now that this is the strategy of the opposition WRT the First Minister. Bring down Salmond, and you cripple the independence movement.
While each attack in itself presents no existential threat, the constant stream of attacks, day after, week, after month, after year, will take its toll and serve to destroy the First Minister’s credibility and blacken his reputation (or so they believe).
The opposition cannot possibly hope to achieve this without the complicity of the press and other media, united in common cause.
The central pillar of that unholy alliance is the state broadcasting system – the BBC. We cannot hope to unstick the Beeb and force change in its institutional position on independence, but we CAN go far to ameliorating its toxic influence on the outcome of the plebiscite on independence, by hammering home the message of its political corruption
#
2012-05-06 05:23
You’ve hit the name on the head.
BBC Scotland will correct these figures once the complaint procedure kicks in but it will be too late for the cause of truth and justice…. and independence!
We will have other smaller opportunities to get the message out over the next week as coalitions form to run councils that are current in “No Overall Control”.
It isn’t going to be easy to counter the influence and power of the BBC over the next few years.
BBC Scotland will correct these figures once the complaint procedure kicks in but it will be too late for the cause of truth and justice…. and independence!
We will have other smaller opportunities to get the message out over the next week as coalitions form to run councils that are current in “No Overall Control”.
It isn’t going to be easy to counter the influence and power of the BBC over the next few years.
#
2012-05-06 08:56
Near the current bottom of this page I’ve offered way of proceeding that might help us a good deal.
Even if the proposed inquiry never happens or comes to naught, the process of lobbying will offer three advantages:
1. It will seed the discussion and force it into the domain of the mainstream media, thereby challenging the prevailing meme that the BBC is impartial,its news accurate, and its political analyses honest and truthful.
2. It may serve to dissuade those who have or may look to enter into such nefarious arrangements from doing so.
3. It will surely force the BBC to clean up its act and among other things, cause it to apply the standards of its charter with rigor rather than treat them with contempt.
Even if the proposed inquiry never happens or comes to naught, the process of lobbying will offer three advantages:
1. It will seed the discussion and force it into the domain of the mainstream media, thereby challenging the prevailing meme that the BBC is impartial,its news accurate, and its political analyses honest and truthful.
2. It may serve to dissuade those who have or may look to enter into such nefarious arrangements from doing so.
3. It will surely force the BBC to clean up its act and among other things, cause it to apply the standards of its charter with rigor rather than treat them with contempt.
#
2012-05-06 21:13
THE GOAL IS AN INQUIRY
We need prove nothing
Now, some have made the point that proving wrong doing by the BBC would be impossible with respect to the current “false data” issue.
However the point is not for us to prove anything but to argue that there is sufficient prima facie evidence to suggest that an inquiry is appropriate.
Our intent is not to convict the BBC, we are looking only to try them in the court of public opinion.
The primary goal is to lay before the people of Scotland evidence that the BBC cannot always be relied upon to tell the truth, and that their word should be view with some cynicism. The inquiry is the vehicle used to deliver that message. It does not matter if that evidence does not rise to the level necessary to convict.
In summary then
Whether malfeasance is discovered or not, is secondary to having the issue aired in public, so that we can deliver the message to the electorate that the BBC is an unreliable source of political news and analyses.
We need prove nothing
Now, some have made the point that proving wrong doing by the BBC would be impossible with respect to the current “false data” issue.
However the point is not for us to prove anything but to argue that there is sufficient prima facie evidence to suggest that an inquiry is appropriate.
Our intent is not to convict the BBC, we are looking only to try them in the court of public opinion.
The primary goal is to lay before the people of Scotland evidence that the BBC cannot always be relied upon to tell the truth, and that their word should be view with some cynicism. The inquiry is the vehicle used to deliver that message. It does not matter if that evidence does not rise to the level necessary to convict.
In summary then
Whether malfeasance is discovered or not, is secondary to having the issue aired in public, so that we can deliver the message to the electorate that the BBC is an unreliable source of political news and analyses.
#
2012-05-06 10:00
Another point where insult is added to injury . .
As I recall it, Scots pay the BBC 300 million pounds a year, to provide a service that costs the BBC around 123 to 150 million a year.
That is to say, Scots are paying twice as much as they should for their programming. The other 150 – 175 million is pocketed by the BBC and used to fund other things non Scottish.
So, while they are cutting back on Scottish programming, both news and entertainment, they are robbing blind Scottish licence holders many of whom can ill afford the cost of a licence.
There are no readers blogs on BBC Scotland’s web site, as there are on all other BBC news sites, so we cannot make complaints or representations there.
Our money, our service, our government, our nation, but we are treated with contempt by those in the BBC with their own political agenda; an agenda they are prosecuting, in their interests, with our cash.
These people who clearly treat us with contempt, are supping at the public teat, enjoying their high salaries and generous expense accounts, while they strive to undermine our hard-won freedoms and our democracy by subverting the political process.
As I recall it, Scots pay the BBC 300 million pounds a year, to provide a service that costs the BBC around 123 to 150 million a year.
That is to say, Scots are paying twice as much as they should for their programming. The other 150 – 175 million is pocketed by the BBC and used to fund other things non Scottish.
So, while they are cutting back on Scottish programming, both news and entertainment, they are robbing blind Scottish licence holders many of whom can ill afford the cost of a licence.
There are no readers blogs on BBC Scotland’s web site, as there are on all other BBC news sites, so we cannot make complaints or representations there.
Our money, our service, our government, our nation, but we are treated with contempt by those in the BBC with their own political agenda; an agenda they are prosecuting, in their interests, with our cash.
These people who clearly treat us with contempt, are supping at the public teat, enjoying their high salaries and generous expense accounts, while they strive to undermine our hard-won freedoms and our democracy by subverting the political process.
#
2012-05-06 20:40
BBC gets £320 million from Scotland
Programming in Scotland gets given £104 million and is due to be reduced once again.
BBC London gains by £216 million EVERY year, and it’s going to get worse!
Programming in Scotland gets given £104 million and is due to be reduced once again.
BBC London gains by £216 million EVERY year, and it’s going to get worse!
#
2012-05-06 14:59
Excellent post with points well made. I believe that if we lose the battle against the lies, smears and dirty tricks then we lose the referendum. This is THE issue in the run up to the referendum. The nationalist movement must expose what is going on. I really think we need the help of the international community on this. Anybody got any ideas? We all really need to get involved in a campaign to expoes the BBC and the rest of the MSM
#
2012-05-06 20:44
The BBC has too much to lose from Scottish Independence. £320 million a year.
Even if they were found to be biased EVERY DAY and fined the MAXIMUM permissable of £250k per offence then they would still only be paying out £91.25 million and pocketing the remaining £228.75 million annually.
Even if they were found to be biased EVERY DAY and fined the MAXIMUM permissable of £250k per offence then they would still only be paying out £91.25 million and pocketing the remaining £228.75 million annually.
#
2012-05-06 02:25
1+1=3 🙂
I don’t think it’s right however it must be, as BBC reporters were last night reassured by respected independent analysts Lamonty Python, Doctor Davidson & Professor Rennie Zarg.
I don’t think it’s right however it must be, as BBC reporters were last night reassured by respected independent analysts Lamonty Python, Doctor Davidson & Professor Rennie Zarg.
#
2012-05-06 05:39
Interesting to look at the stats of % of Labour councillors:
England: 49% Labour
Wales: 47% Labour
Scotland: 32% Labour
What was once a Labour stronghold, is no more. No matter how many ways they try to spin it.
England: 49% Labour
Wales: 47% Labour
Scotland: 32% Labour
What was once a Labour stronghold, is no more. No matter how many ways they try to spin it.
#
2012-05-06 15:00
The percentages above, are stark,and worrying for Labour—-or should be.
snp.org/…/…
snp.org/…/…
#
2012-05-06 06:01
I have been absolutely enraged by the BBCs behaviour and distortions over the past 3 days, they really have surpassed themselves.
I guess we can expect it all ramped up ten fold as we approach the referendum.
…/labours-phenomenal-scottish-victory
I guess we can expect it all ramped up ten fold as we approach the referendum.
…/labours-phenomenal-scottish-victory
#
2012-05-06 06:33
To any right minded person, this clearly indicates a willful and deliberate decision by the BBC to mislead and deceive the people of Scotland and elsewhere. As such they have once again broken the terms of the BBC charter.
Nothing will be done. BBC Scotland will be allowed to carry on, as if nothing has happened.
This combined with what I have read of the electoral commission in another excellent article here, indicates to me, that neither the BBC nor the electoral commission can be trusted.
In addition neither body can be entrusted to uphold democratic principles in the run up to the 2014 referendum.
Nothing will be done. BBC Scotland will be allowed to carry on, as if nothing has happened.
This combined with what I have read of the electoral commission in another excellent article here, indicates to me, that neither the BBC nor the electoral commission can be trusted.
In addition neither body can be entrusted to uphold democratic principles in the run up to the 2014 referendum.
#
2012-05-06 21:01
Might it be time for another en.wikipedia.org/…/… Over two a year period the question will be answered and there can be no messing with the results by the usual suspects.
#
2012-05-06 07:04
I agree wholeheartedly with everything said on here today.
The BBC will not be neutralised so we need an anti propaganda machine. Newsnet is fantastic and I’ve been sharing stories on facebook and commenting about the BBC.
One way might be for the SG to replicate what some councils do…a small newspaper delivered to every household every six months/3 months. Use it to offset unionist lies/speak up for Scotland.
The SNP needs a better public communications system…and soon.
One thing that irks me is when senior officials are interviewed …in the street but opposition are in studios. This totally gives the wrong impression. The government should act like one and yes AS has been accused of looking arrogant, he has to deal with that perception too.
STV seems fairer than BBC most of the time so perhaps the SG should start giving them exclusives etc.
The other thing that needs dealt with is voter apathy, at the end of the day more people didn’t vote than did. From street interviews the perception is ‘they’re all the same’. We need to make it clear that’s not the case. The SNP controlled councils have to shine…they have to get the word out there so that people see we make a difference in time for 2014, locally and nationally.
The BBC will not be neutralised so we need an anti propaganda machine. Newsnet is fantastic and I’ve been sharing stories on facebook and commenting about the BBC.
One way might be for the SG to replicate what some councils do…a small newspaper delivered to every household every six months/3 months. Use it to offset unionist lies/speak up for Scotland.
The SNP needs a better public communications system…and soon.
One thing that irks me is when senior officials are interviewed …in the street but opposition are in studios. This totally gives the wrong impression. The government should act like one and yes AS has been accused of looking arrogant, he has to deal with that perception too.
STV seems fairer than BBC most of the time so perhaps the SG should start giving them exclusives etc.
The other thing that needs dealt with is voter apathy, at the end of the day more people didn’t vote than did. From street interviews the perception is ‘they’re all the same’. We need to make it clear that’s not the case. The SNP controlled councils have to shine…they have to get the word out there so that people see we make a difference in time for 2014, locally and nationally.
#
2012-05-06 07:36
Ahem, I’ve played about with the levels in the two Sturgeon photos, so there’s more detail on view now…
…/if-trick-works-once-its-oftenwhiles.html
The actual point that the pro-Union BBC have failed to inform their viewers of is, that the pro-Independence parties increased their support by 67 councillors, whilst the anti-Independence parties lost 75 councillors.
All is not well in pro-Union world.
Incidentally, this is the last week of the referendum consultation, if you haven’t done it yet. Get clicking.
consult.scotland.gov.uk/…/…
…/if-trick-works-once-its-oftenwhiles.html
The actual point that the pro-Union BBC have failed to inform their viewers of is, that the pro-Independence parties increased their support by 67 councillors, whilst the anti-Independence parties lost 75 councillors.
All is not well in pro-Union world.
Incidentally, this is the last week of the referendum consultation, if you haven’t done it yet. Get clicking.
consult.scotland.gov.uk/…/…
#
2012-05-06 07:46
Thanks Mark. I hadn’t thought of the election in terms of pro/anti independence – thats a really pleasing figure. I clicked on the link to see your blog and the Sturgeon photos from the BBC website- of course I ended up at the top of the page looking at your sexy cheese trolley dolly ! which was a little disconcerting. 🙂
#
2012-05-06 07:37
As its all about money and only money speaks then no amount of protestation surrounding the obvious bias of the BBC in Scotland will have the slightest effect whatsoever. The BBC are omnipotent the BBC are right at every stage, the BBC listen to no-one but themselves and the english establishment fo which they are an integral part.
As it said in ‘All the Presidents Men’, its about the money, follow the money.
As far as the BBC is concerned then, its about the license fee/tax. Starve them of the tax and they will listen, keep paying it and they will keep p*****g in your face.
As the Merkat says – Simpules !.
Might I suggest a move by the Scots government as a warning shot – de-criminalise the non payment of the license fee/tax, make it a civil offence then don’t enforce it ????.
As it said in ‘All the Presidents Men’, its about the money, follow the money.
As far as the BBC is concerned then, its about the license fee/tax. Starve them of the tax and they will listen, keep paying it and they will keep p*****g in your face.
As the Merkat says – Simpules !.
Might I suggest a move by the Scots government as a warning shot – de-criminalise the non payment of the license fee/tax, make it a civil offence then don’t enforce it ????.
#
2012-05-06 09:10
As broadcasting is reserved to the big hoose down south, does our Government have the power to cancel the Pravda Tax?
#
2012-05-06 12:26
Broadcasting is reserved but newspapers are not.
There was defnitely some move at one point by the SNP to have an enquiry into the press but they drew back.
Does anyone have details?
There was defnitely some move at one point by the SNP to have an enquiry into the press but they drew back.
Does anyone have details?
#
2012-05-06 13:06
“Follow the money”…
I agree that BBC/BBC Scotland aren’t being as impartial and unbiased as they should be according to their charter, and it’s very frustrating for all indy-minded Scots and SNP supporters.
However, I’m actually a great supporter of publicly funded broadcasting as an idea – provided, of course, that it can be impartial and unbiased. Otherwise, what have you got?
Follow the money… Commercial broadcasters in thrall to their financiers and their political agenda, and politicians currying favour with the likes of NI/Murdoch (Labour being most guilty of this…)
I agree that the MSM situation in Scotland is deplorable, the BBC must be held to account – the problem is how to do it?
I’m sorry, I don’t think a demo outside Pacific Quay is going to be any use unless attended by tens of thousands. It’ll not be reported, or it’ll brushed of as “cybernat hysteria” or some such, labelling all indy-minded people and SNP supporters as “the whinging party”. Sad but true.
I agree that BBC/BBC Scotland aren’t being as impartial and unbiased as they should be according to their charter, and it’s very frustrating for all indy-minded Scots and SNP supporters.
However, I’m actually a great supporter of publicly funded broadcasting as an idea – provided, of course, that it can be impartial and unbiased. Otherwise, what have you got?
Follow the money… Commercial broadcasters in thrall to their financiers and their political agenda, and politicians currying favour with the likes of NI/Murdoch (Labour being most guilty of this…)
I agree that the MSM situation in Scotland is deplorable, the BBC must be held to account – the problem is how to do it?
I’m sorry, I don’t think a demo outside Pacific Quay is going to be any use unless attended by tens of thousands. It’ll not be reported, or it’ll brushed of as “cybernat hysteria” or some such, labelling all indy-minded people and SNP supporters as “the whinging party”. Sad but true.
#
2012-05-06 21:30
Is it not already a civil matter? I cannot understand why anyone with even half a brain would pay for the BBC’s propaganda. Around the world, people risk their lives for freedom. Is it really too much to ask for nationalists in Scotland to stop funding the BBC?
#
2012-05-06 07:47
Quote:
Yeah they are facing questions but the problem is there is no one to make them answer. The BBC has always been the mouthpiece of Westminster, Reith wasn’t allowed to comment on the worker’s side of the general strike for instance. There is a reason broadcasting wasn’t devolved.
Something badly needs done though and it needs to come from outside the UK. Surely the government could involve the EU or UN in this because it is a denial of democracy when people cannot make a free and fair assessment of a political issue.
The BBC is today facing questions over their reporting of Scotland’s local authority election results after figures reported by the broadcaster gave the impression that Labour had outgunned the SNP in terms of councillors gained.
Yeah they are facing questions but the problem is there is no one to make them answer. The BBC has always been the mouthpiece of Westminster, Reith wasn’t allowed to comment on the worker’s side of the general strike for instance. There is a reason broadcasting wasn’t devolved.
Something badly needs done though and it needs to come from outside the UK. Surely the government could involve the EU or UN in this because it is a denial of democracy when people cannot make a free and fair assessment of a political issue.
#
2012-05-06 07:47
This is just a statistical quirk of elected councillors leaving parties.
We elect councillors, not parties. When an elected councillor stands an independant and he is beaten by a candidate from his old party, this is a gain. The issue is that people leaving a party mid term distorts the base point that is used for statistical comparison.
To do to the other way round, saying Labour lost seats that had councillors that were not part of the party at the election is equally disingenuous.
I seem to remember the SNP celebrating when the Labour councillors left the party, now they seem eager to re-instate them!
We elect councillors, not parties. When an elected councillor stands an independant and he is beaten by a candidate from his old party, this is a gain. The issue is that people leaving a party mid term distorts the base point that is used for statistical comparison.
To do to the other way round, saying Labour lost seats that had councillors that were not part of the party at the election is equally disingenuous.
I seem to remember the SNP celebrating when the Labour councillors left the party, now they seem eager to re-instate them!
#
2012-05-06 11:24
(To do to the other way round, saying Labour lost seats that had councillors that were not part of the party at the election is equally disingenuous)
No one,I think is saying that any seats in these instances were ‘lost’ merely that there was ‘no change’ i.e. a Labour ‘hold’ not a Labour ‘gain’
No one,I think is saying that any seats in these instances were ‘lost’ merely that there was ‘no change’ i.e. a Labour ‘hold’ not a Labour ‘gain’
#
2012-05-06 11:46
Quoting gfaetheblock:
Your point would have had some validity a few decades ago, when party names were not allowed on ballot papers.
We elect councillors, not parties.
Your point would have had some validity a few decades ago, when party names were not allowed on ballot papers.
#
2012-05-06 14:29
It’s a question of baseline for comparison. The only valid basis of comparison is the previous election conducted under the same circumstances. Even by-election gains/losses are conventionally discounted when performing this exercise. Generally a seat regained after a by-election loss will be reported as a general election hold, although the commentator will generally mention that it had reverted after a by-election. This is because like should be compared with like, and by-elections often throw up anomalous protest votes that revert to type at the general election.
This situation wasn’t about by-elections though. None of these seats was won by Glasgow First, or the SNP, or an “independent” at any election. All that happened was that the sitting councillor resigned the Labour whip – mostly in the dying weeks of the term. To call it a Labour “gain” when the party merely held a seat it won last time out, just because the incumbent resigned the whip a few weeks before the election, is absolutely ridiculous and I believe without precedent in any other post-election number-crunching.
What should have been done was a straight comparison with the situation on 5th May 2007 as the headline figures and the charts, then have a paragraph or a footnote explaining the additional wrinkles introduced by the defection of some councillors. To do it any other way is misleading, and actually blatantly biassed.
This situation wasn’t about by-elections though. None of these seats was won by Glasgow First, or the SNP, or an “independent” at any election. All that happened was that the sitting councillor resigned the Labour whip – mostly in the dying weeks of the term. To call it a Labour “gain” when the party merely held a seat it won last time out, just because the incumbent resigned the whip a few weeks before the election, is absolutely ridiculous and I believe without precedent in any other post-election number-crunching.
What should have been done was a straight comparison with the situation on 5th May 2007 as the headline figures and the charts, then have a paragraph or a footnote explaining the additional wrinkles introduced by the defection of some councillors. To do it any other way is misleading, and actually blatantly biassed.
#
2012-05-07 21:09
These councillors, for the most part, did not opt to leave the party – they were de-selected shortly before the elections and resigned in the huff. Labour was perfectly happy to keep them as lobby fodder till the last practical moment.
#
2012-05-06 07:52
The activities of the BBC in Scotland may be somewhat eclipsed by events at Westminster. The game may be changing.
After the results in England and Wales, David Cameron is under a lot of pressure, indeed there may be a considerable amount of debate behind closed doors among Tories.
I’m going to make a wild pitch here.
The Tories are loosing ground to Labour, so what to do?
What channels are available for movement? Well, very little, to be honest, if the Tories wish to dominate the English/Welsh political landscape.
Except Constitutional change.
John Bercow hits the nail on the head by hinting that there is little differential between the parties in England. The Tories need to create clear blue water between themselves and others. The only solution is creating a movement for constitutional change. The result will ensure Tory hegemony in England. This will inspire voters to lay their apathy aside, providing it’s wrapped up correctly.
Forget rewriting the budget, or getting Boris to take charge of the helm.
BBC Scotland may find itself marginalised by events they can’t control.
After the results in England and Wales, David Cameron is under a lot of pressure, indeed there may be a considerable amount of debate behind closed doors among Tories.
I’m going to make a wild pitch here.
The Tories are loosing ground to Labour, so what to do?
What channels are available for movement? Well, very little, to be honest, if the Tories wish to dominate the English/Welsh political landscape.
Except Constitutional change.
John Bercow hits the nail on the head by hinting that there is little differential between the parties in England. The Tories need to create clear blue water between themselves and others. The only solution is creating a movement for constitutional change. The result will ensure Tory hegemony in England. This will inspire voters to lay their apathy aside, providing it’s wrapped up correctly.
Forget rewriting the budget, or getting Boris to take charge of the helm.
BBC Scotland may find itself marginalised by events they can’t control.
#
2012-05-06 07:59
The Levenson enquiry was set up to examine the ethics, culture and practices of the media in particular the relationship with the press, police, public and politicians. Lord evenson said at the begining of the enquiry “The press provides essential checks on all aspects of public life, that is why failure within the media affects us all, therefor what is at the heart of this enquiry may be one simple question – WHO GUARDS THE GUARDIANS?”
With this in mind surely Alex can ask certain questions when he attends about the BBCs impartiality as the enquiry is obviously not just about phone hacking.
With this in mind surely Alex can ask certain questions when he attends about the BBCs impartiality as the enquiry is obviously not just about phone hacking.
#
2012-05-06 10:01
Witnesses are not called to ask questions but to answer them. Alex will have very little leeway to stray from the path of the questions put to him.
#
2012-05-06 13:10
Being the great debater he is, he could still embed a few observations into his answers.
#
2012-05-06 08:05
Is it worth setting up some type of media monitor sub section. Where members can email privately any sort of distortion of fact, not just on bbc, but in other local cases, ie, Glasgow councils newsletters, etc that MAY be using taxpayers/licence payers money to issue incorrect details as fact.
This would allow a collection of articles that can be checked before any posters may get themselves in any type of bother by posting…
It would also serve as an archive in the background of the propaganda that appears to be rife in the Scottish media.
This would allow a collection of articles that can be checked before any posters may get themselves in any type of bother by posting…
It would also serve as an archive in the background of the propaganda that appears to be rife in the Scottish media.
#
2012-05-06 08:06
OK folks – hundreds of complaints through this website will be ignored (as usual). Thousands will not.
Get Clicking:
www.bbcbiased.co.uk/…/
Get Clicking:
www.bbcbiased.co.uk/…/
#
2012-05-06 13:11
I’m tempted but as I live abroad I feel it’s not my right to do it… But I hope lots and lots of disgruntled Scots do!
#
2012-05-06 08:20
Quoting gfaetheblock:
Mid term? Are you having a laugh?
The issue is that people leaving a party mid term distorts the base point that is used for statistical comparison.
Mid term? Are you having a laugh?
#
2012-05-06 08:42
Not intentionally, I use mid term to mean not at an election, rather than implying in the middle of the term.
My point still stands though, you could even argue that these goings on made it even more odd to measure increments of success in Glasgow.
My point still stands though, you could even argue that these goings on made it even more odd to measure increments of success in Glasgow.
#
2012-05-06 08:52
Interesting,so the way to claim gains is to deselect your councillors a month before an election,then put your preferred candidates in,retain the seats you had, and then claim them as gains. Quality.
#
2012-05-06 09:11
Agree, it is not a great approach for a party to take, but it does mean that the reporting is accurate, it is the system that they are reporting against is flawed.
Will Eric Joyce’s and Bill Walker’s seats be gains if Labour and SNP take them at the next elections?
Will Eric Joyce’s and Bill Walker’s seats be gains if Labour and SNP take them at the next elections?
#
2012-05-06 12:02
(Will Eric Joyce’s and Bill Walker’s seats be gains if Labour and SNP take them at the next elections?)
No is the short answer they would still be held by the SNP and Labour
No is the short answer they would still be held by the SNP and Labour
#
2012-05-06 12:18
(Agree, it is not a great approach for a party to take, but it does mean that the reporting is accurate, it is the system that they are reporting against is flawed.)
Was the same method used in the local elections in England and Wales?
Was the same method used in the local elections in England and Wales?
#
2012-05-06 12:40
I think it was, at least for Wales, which elected all councillors, as in Scotland. (England is different because they only elected 1/3 to 1/2 of councillors.)
I tried to compare BBC figures and old Welsh figures from Wikipedia earler today but it’s confusing because the best Wiki article I could find en.wikipedia.org/…/… doesn’t actually tell you whether it’s elections 2007 or 2.5.2012 figures – same as the BBC.
I think the BBC should’ve explained to listeners/watchers/readers that they’re comparing with the 2.5.2012 figures – and preferrably also compared to 2007 figures!
I tried to compare BBC figures and old Welsh figures from Wikipedia earler today but it’s confusing because the best Wiki article I could find en.wikipedia.org/…/… doesn’t actually tell you whether it’s elections 2007 or 2.5.2012 figures – same as the BBC.
I think the BBC should’ve explained to listeners/watchers/readers that they’re comparing with the 2.5.2012 figures – and preferrably also compared to 2007 figures!
#
2012-05-06 08:21
I really am getting sick of the lies and smears of the BBC. Isn’t this the sort of behaviour that comes under ‘subtle aggression’ in Allport’s Scale?
I have an overwhelming sense of frustration with the way they suppress and distort the truth. I also feel that I cannot be the only one who feels this way. The worry about this for me is that some may become so frustrated that they take direct physical action against the bodies responsible. Sadly, that would only be spun and play directly into the hands of our abuses. Let’s hope those who want fairness continue to exercise restraint and self control, however hard that is.
Perhaps a newspaper ad or poster campaign highlighting BBC abuses of truth would be a useful thing if affordable.
I have an overwhelming sense of frustration with the way they suppress and distort the truth. I also feel that I cannot be the only one who feels this way. The worry about this for me is that some may become so frustrated that they take direct physical action against the bodies responsible. Sadly, that would only be spun and play directly into the hands of our abuses. Let’s hope those who want fairness continue to exercise restraint and self control, however hard that is.
Perhaps a newspaper ad or poster campaign highlighting BBC abuses of truth would be a useful thing if affordable.
#
2012-05-06 08:22
The BBC now stink of prejudice and anti-Scottish racism.
Cleary their gutter bias renders them unfit for purpose – unless that purpose is to do Scotland down and News reporting is just a smokescreen to disguise this.
Cleary their gutter bias renders them unfit for purpose – unless that purpose is to do Scotland down and News reporting is just a smokescreen to disguise this.
#
2012-05-06 08:28
They`re not the only ones,here`s a cracker advertising limited intelligence www.facebook.com/…/ Murphy doing what he does best.
#
2012-05-06 08:24
Troubling questions about the conduct of the BBC.
The question is, does their alleged falsification or grievous manipulation of election data reach the level of criminal wrongdoing, given their public charter and their status as state broadcaster?
If there is any doubt, don’t we need an official inquiry? You know, the kind the opposition parties are so keen on?
If the BBC has broken the law or coordinated any of its editorial decisions with opposition parties, against the elected Scottish Government, then it is very troubling.
If public money has been used in any way to assist political parties, by way of meetings, broadcasts, investigations, or other activities, then that information must be examined in the public domain.
Surely the only way to assuage these concerns is by conducting a full and open official investigation.
Has Johann Lamont had ANY discussions with representatives of the state broadcasting corporation? If so, what was the nature of those discussions and who was involved?
In the first instance their should be a release of relevant internal and external emails, from the BBC and the Labour Party.
There are many well-known past instances of potential conflicts of interests between Labour politicians and senior personnel at the BBC, of course.
The question is, does their alleged falsification or grievous manipulation of election data reach the level of criminal wrongdoing, given their public charter and their status as state broadcaster?
If there is any doubt, don’t we need an official inquiry? You know, the kind the opposition parties are so keen on?
If the BBC has broken the law or coordinated any of its editorial decisions with opposition parties, against the elected Scottish Government, then it is very troubling.
If public money has been used in any way to assist political parties, by way of meetings, broadcasts, investigations, or other activities, then that information must be examined in the public domain.
Surely the only way to assuage these concerns is by conducting a full and open official investigation.
Has Johann Lamont had ANY discussions with representatives of the state broadcasting corporation? If so, what was the nature of those discussions and who was involved?
In the first instance their should be a release of relevant internal and external emails, from the BBC and the Labour Party.
There are many well-known past instances of potential conflicts of interests between Labour politicians and senior personnel at the BBC, of course.
#
2012-05-06 09:41
Unfortunately complaining or trying to make the case that the presenrtation fo the results was in some way false would fall at the first hurdle. The BBC in presenting the results did not say that they were comparing 2012 with 2007. If people inferred that then that was their mistake would be the position fo the BBC if challenged on their results presentation.
That they appear to have compared the 2012 results with the position of the parties the day before the election could be argued to be a legitimate comparison albeit not one that is usually made or trumpeted in such a way. The expected norm is that the results of one election will be compared with the results of the last, similar election in this case the Local elections of 2007. Again the BBC has a get out clause because they never said that that is what they had done. People may have inferred it because it is the expected norm but it was never presented as such by the BBC.
Reprehensible behaviour but hard to prove it was a deliberate attempt to deceive or promote one party over another.
That they appear to have compared the 2012 results with the position of the parties the day before the election could be argued to be a legitimate comparison albeit not one that is usually made or trumpeted in such a way. The expected norm is that the results of one election will be compared with the results of the last, similar election in this case the Local elections of 2007. Again the BBC has a get out clause because they never said that that is what they had done. People may have inferred it because it is the expected norm but it was never presented as such by the BBC.
Reprehensible behaviour but hard to prove it was a deliberate attempt to deceive or promote one party over another.
#
2012-05-06 10:13
hard to prove it was a deliberate attempt to deceive
But it is blatant and wilful misrepresentati on. By not specifying what the comparison was made with, they know people will assume that the standard comparison was used. After all, what is the point in comparing the results with the position the day before?
The only reason these statistics are analysed is to identify what the public is thinking, which party is making the best impression etc. You can only calculate this by comparing the changes in their voting.
As the public didn’t vote for councillors to change or leave parties mid-election, the position of the parties caused by these “defections” is indicative of absolutely nothing. It gives us no clue whatsoever about public opinion.
Therefore to use these figures now serves no purpose in political analysis, it only serves to give a false impression of contemporary opinion to the public.
Now why would the BBC do that, I wonder?
But it is blatant and wilful misrepresentati on. By not specifying what the comparison was made with, they know people will assume that the standard comparison was used. After all, what is the point in comparing the results with the position the day before?
The only reason these statistics are analysed is to identify what the public is thinking, which party is making the best impression etc. You can only calculate this by comparing the changes in their voting.
As the public didn’t vote for councillors to change or leave parties mid-election, the position of the parties caused by these “defections” is indicative of absolutely nothing. It gives us no clue whatsoever about public opinion.
Therefore to use these figures now serves no purpose in political analysis, it only serves to give a false impression of contemporary opinion to the public.
Now why would the BBC do that, I wonder?
#
2012-05-06 10:46
It is misrepresentati on but can you prove it was ‘wilful’ rather than just some innumerate individual who does not understand how statistics should be presented e.g. putting the time periods being compared?
#
2012-05-06 14:40
The question is, what is the conventional way to present such statistics? Of course, it is to compare the results with the last time the same seats were contested in the same circumstances. You can go over and over old statistics, and that is SOP.
The fact that a number of newspapers took their figures from the BBC and proceeded to present them as comparisons with 2007 because they simply assumed that was what the BBC would have done itself tells a story.
This is not the normal way to present these results. The normal way is to compare to the previous election, and mention any complications such as by-elections in a footnote. (By-elections at least involve the electorate picking someone different – this was merely defections, and the electorate at no time expressed a preference for the defector’s 2nd May affiliation.)
So who decided to use this non-standard statistical treatment just this once, and why?
The fact that a number of newspapers took their figures from the BBC and proceeded to present them as comparisons with 2007 because they simply assumed that was what the BBC would have done itself tells a story.
This is not the normal way to present these results. The normal way is to compare to the previous election, and mention any complications such as by-elections in a footnote. (By-elections at least involve the electorate picking someone different – this was merely defections, and the electorate at no time expressed a preference for the defector’s 2nd May affiliation.)
So who decided to use this non-standard statistical treatment just this once, and why?
#
2012-05-06 21:37
As noted this thread, we do not have to prove anything. The goal is not to convict the BBC, it is to try them in the court of public opinion.
Our goal is to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the electorate WRT the veracity of the BBC’s (political) output of news and analyses. The false data issue is but one example.
Our goal is to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the electorate WRT the veracity of the BBC’s (political) output of news and analyses. The false data issue is but one example.
#
2012-05-06 21:21
legerwood wrote: “Unfortunately complaining or trying to make the case that the presenrtation fo the results was in some way false would fall at the first hurdle.”
Fortunately that does not matter.
THE GOAL IS AN INQUIRY
We need prove nothing
Now, Legerwood and others have made the point that proving wrong doing by the BBC would be impossible with respect to the current “false data” issue.
However the point is not for us to prove anything but to argue that there is sufficient prima facie evidence to suggest that an inquiry is appropriate. The false data issue is but one example we can use. To initiate inquiry we need reasonable cause not proof.
Our intent is not to convict the BBC, we are looking only to try them in the court of public opinion.
The primary goal is to lay before the people of Scotland evidence that the BBC cannot always be relied upon to tell the truth, and that their word should be view with some cynicism. The inquiry is the vehicle used to deliver that message. It does not matter if that evidence does not rise to the level necessary to convict.
In summary then
Whether malfeasance is discovered or not, is secondary to having the issue aired in public, so that we can deliver the message to the electorate that the BBC is an unreliable source of political news and analyses.
Fortunately that does not matter.
THE GOAL IS AN INQUIRY
We need prove nothing
Now, Legerwood and others have made the point that proving wrong doing by the BBC would be impossible with respect to the current “false data” issue.
However the point is not for us to prove anything but to argue that there is sufficient prima facie evidence to suggest that an inquiry is appropriate. The false data issue is but one example we can use. To initiate inquiry we need reasonable cause not proof.
Our intent is not to convict the BBC, we are looking only to try them in the court of public opinion.
The primary goal is to lay before the people of Scotland evidence that the BBC cannot always be relied upon to tell the truth, and that their word should be view with some cynicism. The inquiry is the vehicle used to deliver that message. It does not matter if that evidence does not rise to the level necessary to convict.
In summary then
Whether malfeasance is discovered or not, is secondary to having the issue aired in public, so that we can deliver the message to the electorate that the BBC is an unreliable source of political news and analyses.
#
2012-05-06 08:29
The unionist establishment strategy is clear:-
(1) frighten the undecided voters into voting for the status quo by bombarding them daily with scare stories;
(2) deny the SNP the oxygen of publicity by controlling the political output of the BBC and MSM so that voters cannot get the truth;
(3) vilify the leadership of the SNP and turn them into bogey men that voters fear.
(4) tell lies about the SNP and independence as much as possible without being caught put.
(1) frighten the undecided voters into voting for the status quo by bombarding them daily with scare stories;
(2) deny the SNP the oxygen of publicity by controlling the political output of the BBC and MSM so that voters cannot get the truth;
(3) vilify the leadership of the SNP and turn them into bogey men that voters fear.
(4) tell lies about the SNP and independence as much as possible without being caught put.
#
2012-05-06 08:48
Quoting Marian:
I think the well remembered phrase once spoken by a Cabinet Secretary would cover most aspects of the B.B.C coverage. “Be economical with the truth”.
The unionist establishment strategy is clear:-
(1) frighten the undecided voters into voting for the status quo by bombarding them daily with scare stories;
(2) deny the SNP the oxygen of publicity by controlling the political output of the BBC and MSM so that voters cannot get the truth;
(3) vilify the leadership of the SNP and turn them into bogey men that voters fear.
(4) tell lies about the SNP and independence as much as possible without being caught put.
I think the well remembered phrase once spoken by a Cabinet Secretary would cover most aspects of the B.B.C coverage. “Be economical with the truth”.
#
2012-05-06 09:13
They are bereft of political arguments and just like the politbureau used to control news in the former Soviet Union they resort to Pravda style information control to keep the masses in check.
The only solution is to use the internet as much as possible to counter the lies. Journalist stock is rock bottom. It is an open door to suggest that they lie blatantly…mainly because they obviously do. The BBC news section are journalists just like any other and no better than they ought to be.
Time to up the game and turn the heat of cold facts on these people. Not death by statistics but simple bite sized chunks. Like it was 61 not 57, it was 48 not 58, the Beeb can’t count don’t trust their figures etc.,
The only solution is to use the internet as much as possible to counter the lies. Journalist stock is rock bottom. It is an open door to suggest that they lie blatantly…mainly because they obviously do. The BBC news section are journalists just like any other and no better than they ought to be.
Time to up the game and turn the heat of cold facts on these people. Not death by statistics but simple bite sized chunks. Like it was 61 not 57, it was 48 not 58, the Beeb can’t count don’t trust their figures etc.,
#
2012-05-06 08:42
Who are the legal eagles on this site?
What legal action can be taken by Wee Joe McPublic that would have a seriously damaging effect on the BBC’s reputation just to be progressed?
What are the BBC most concerned about in these terms?
Recall that the SNP as a political party was declared to have no interest in law, in a case brought to court by them against the BBC a few years ago – it was ruled that if there was any affected party it had to be the licence payer – in other words, Wee Joe McPublic.
Comments please?
What legal action can be taken by Wee Joe McPublic that would have a seriously damaging effect on the BBC’s reputation just to be progressed?
What are the BBC most concerned about in these terms?
Recall that the SNP as a political party was declared to have no interest in law, in a case brought to court by them against the BBC a few years ago – it was ruled that if there was any affected party it had to be the licence payer – in other words, Wee Joe McPublic.
Comments please?
#
2012-05-06 09:28
However, if any public money entrusted to the BBC was used in any way to assist a political party, then it becomes a criminal matter.
If calls for an investigation are predicated on that possibility then we don’t need a civil suit.
If calls for an investigation are predicated on that possibility then we don’t need a civil suit.
#
2012-05-06 09:21
the BBC Trust follow me on Twitter, not sure why.
I’ve tweeted the above article to them but I doubt they’ll pay any attention
I’ve tweeted the above article to them but I doubt they’ll pay any attention
#
2012-05-06 12:36
Even more interesting comment:
“The BBC should be broken up and privatized.
I cannot see how the Trust can ever escape bias, nor fairly address such complaints.
It’s the sort of organization that inevitably thinks it knows best mainly because it has the monopoly of its Charter.”
As I’ve said before, its complaint procedure is flawed, a closed circuit.
“The BBC should be broken up and privatized.
I cannot see how the Trust can ever escape bias, nor fairly address such complaints.
It’s the sort of organization that inevitably thinks it knows best mainly because it has the monopoly of its Charter.”
As I’ve said before, its complaint procedure is flawed, a closed circuit.
#
2012-05-06 09:12
Andrew Marr said this morning that the SNP had a dissapointing result. Fortunately the cup missed the television.
#
2012-05-06 09:16
Quoting Wee-Scamp:
He also allowed wee Dougie a free pop at the SNP.
Andrew Marr said this morning that the SNP had a dissapointing result. Fortunately the cup missed the television.
He also allowed wee Dougie a free pop at the SNP.
#
2012-05-06 09:33
Quoting SCO:
Iv,e tried this on a number of occasions SCO. Eventually got one reply, six months down the line dismissing my complaint as irrelevant. They don,t listen. They only have one agenda and that is to keep the status-quo as that is where their money comes from, so their attitude is that they won,t bite the hand that feeds them. They, along with the other M.S.M outlets, are terrified of what Scottish independence will bring, so if we think we can change their opinions in time for 2014, we can think again. While I agree with almost all of the comments posted here, if we think it will make any difference to the B.B.C, we are deluding ourselves. As with the pro-unionist politicians, they still “don,t get it”, inasmuch that there has been a seismic shift in the Scottish psyche. We are no longer content to be fed scraps from Westminster. We, at long last have woken up to the fact we have been being “conned” for umpteen years, and have had enough. Time for change.
Just put a complaint in to the BBC.
Iv,e tried this on a number of occasions SCO. Eventually got one reply, six months down the line dismissing my complaint as irrelevant. They don,t listen. They only have one agenda and that is to keep the status-quo as that is where their money comes from, so their attitude is that they won,t bite the hand that feeds them. They, along with the other M.S.M outlets, are terrified of what Scottish independence will bring, so if we think we can change their opinions in time for 2014, we can think again. While I agree with almost all of the comments posted here, if we think it will make any difference to the B.B.C, we are deluding ourselves. As with the pro-unionist politicians, they still “don,t get it”, inasmuch that there has been a seismic shift in the Scottish psyche. We are no longer content to be fed scraps from Westminster. We, at long last have woken up to the fact we have been being “conned” for umpteen years, and have had enough. Time for change.
#
2012-05-06 09:33
I do hope you’ll all be at the demonstration on the 26th May. 🙂
Let’s unite to help disgrace the BBC worldwide.
Let’s unite to help disgrace the BBC worldwide.
#
2012-05-06 09:37
Freedom of the press is a staple of every free democracy but within that freedom there must be the requirement of the state media that they are completely unbiased. BBC are clearly in breach of that requirement.
It would be politically difficult for any Scottish government, or would-be party of government, to make threatening noises but is there no way that the BBC can be diplomatically reminded that, in our soon-to-be independent Scotland, broadcasters will need to demonstrate that they are fit and proper organisations, i.e. free of any political bias, to hold a broadcasting license?
It would be politically difficult for any Scottish government, or would-be party of government, to make threatening noises but is there no way that the BBC can be diplomatically reminded that, in our soon-to-be independent Scotland, broadcasters will need to demonstrate that they are fit and proper organisations, i.e. free of any political bias, to hold a broadcasting license?
#
2012-05-06 09:38
Could somebody please explain to me what basis they managed to get the SNP down to 57 instead of 61?
Also, does anybody know what method they used to calculate the gains for the English and Welsh elections? I’m guessing they were not stupid enough to use two different systems.
Also, does anybody know what method they used to calculate the gains for the English and Welsh elections? I’m guessing they were not stupid enough to use two different systems.
#
2012-05-06 09:47
They didn’t compare the 2007 elections as the baseline. The counted one or two gains made at by elections in the SNP figures and they counted the 10 or so Labour councillors Labour kicked out a couple of weeks ago as seats lost.
No idea how they counted the figures in England although I have read that they did compare election with election. If this could be determined as fact then it would be a big stick to whack Pacific Quay with.
Through the count they also kept saying that Labour were ahead in the popular vote and when the tally determined that not to be the case they seem to have ignored the percentage share of the vote in their final analysis…that or they simply to stupid to calculate it.
No idea how they counted the figures in England although I have read that they did compare election with election. If this could be determined as fact then it would be a big stick to whack Pacific Quay with.
Through the count they also kept saying that Labour were ahead in the popular vote and when the tally determined that not to be the case they seem to have ignored the percentage share of the vote in their final analysis…that or they simply to stupid to calculate it.
#
2012-05-06 11:04
I had a look at the Welsh figures as presented by the BBC and compared them to the old figures as given in Wiki en.wikipedia.org/…/… but actually came away none the wiser. This particular Wiki article seems to be using council figures immediately prior to the elections for Scotland, so probably also for Wales – and the fact that Anglesey (37 councillors) hasn’t voted confuses the picture. We know that the BBC used 2.5.2012 figures for Scotland, so presumably also for Wales, though – and this I find their biggest fault – they did not explicitly state so. Misleading, but hardly a crime.
Defections and by-elections confuse the situation between local elections, for instance, the BBC reporting Glasgow as Labour gain from NOC, which it was after the defections earlier this year. However, compared with local elections 2007, it’s of course a Labour hold – with a net loss of 1.
If the BBC had wanted to be truly informative and unbiased, they, of course, would have compared with both 2007 and 2.5.2012 figures and explained that defections and by-elections had changed the picture between the two elections.
All in all, Labour did well, the SNP did even better. And the Greens nearly doubled their councillors! Bad for Tories, dismal for LibDems.
Defections and by-elections confuse the situation between local elections, for instance, the BBC reporting Glasgow as Labour gain from NOC, which it was after the defections earlier this year. However, compared with local elections 2007, it’s of course a Labour hold – with a net loss of 1.
If the BBC had wanted to be truly informative and unbiased, they, of course, would have compared with both 2007 and 2.5.2012 figures and explained that defections and by-elections had changed the picture between the two elections.
All in all, Labour did well, the SNP did even better. And the Greens nearly doubled their councillors! Bad for Tories, dismal for LibDems.
#
2012-05-06 11:43
Sorry to reply to my own post but a couple of more thoughts these elections raised in my mind.
One, the political culture created by the FPTP system is still very ingrainded in the Scottish psyche even though Scotland has a partly PR system. This leads voters (and pundits) to expect clear-cut wins/losses (control of councils/parliament) and to concentrate on the rivarly of two main parties. People have not yet learned to regard NOC and coalitions as the normal state of affairs, and a good thing.
In full PR, who’s the largest party and best negotiator in coalition talks is the important thing. It brings a plurality of views into government (local and national), so no one party can dictate over the country/council. In Finland some (very few) concils are run by majorities and are generally regarded somewhat politically oppressive as differing views find it hard to get their voices heard among the local big boys. This is born out of a different political culture. Since its inception in 1906, Finnish Parliament has always been PR and that’s what people are used to. Our d’Hondt PR system is by no means perfect, but it’s a helluva lot better than FPTP.
Secondly, I just thought about the discrepancies in previous election results and council make-ups immediately prior to the next election. In our system discrepancies are caused by defections only, not by-elections. If a councillor/MP dies or resigns for any reason, there isn’t a by-election. Instead, the seat is taken up by whoever was the next runner up in the party list so it doesn’t change the political make-up of a council/parliament. It’s sometimes a bit frustrating, I admit 🙂
One, the political culture created by the FPTP system is still very ingrainded in the Scottish psyche even though Scotland has a partly PR system. This leads voters (and pundits) to expect clear-cut wins/losses (control of councils/parliament) and to concentrate on the rivarly of two main parties. People have not yet learned to regard NOC and coalitions as the normal state of affairs, and a good thing.
In full PR, who’s the largest party and best negotiator in coalition talks is the important thing. It brings a plurality of views into government (local and national), so no one party can dictate over the country/council. In Finland some (very few) concils are run by majorities and are generally regarded somewhat politically oppressive as differing views find it hard to get their voices heard among the local big boys. This is born out of a different political culture. Since its inception in 1906, Finnish Parliament has always been PR and that’s what people are used to. Our d’Hondt PR system is by no means perfect, but it’s a helluva lot better than FPTP.
Secondly, I just thought about the discrepancies in previous election results and council make-ups immediately prior to the next election. In our system discrepancies are caused by defections only, not by-elections. If a councillor/MP dies or resigns for any reason, there isn’t a by-election. Instead, the seat is taken up by whoever was the next runner up in the party list so it doesn’t change the political make-up of a council/parliament. It’s sometimes a bit frustrating, I admit 🙂
#
2012-05-06 09:43
On the subject of elections the editorial in today’s Sunday Herald is worth a read. It is very measured and has some useful advice for the SNP. It also acknowledges that the SNP won the local elections.
heraldscotland.com/…/…
heraldscotland.com/…/…
#
2012-05-06 10:39
An interesting article indeed legerwood,i realy hope the snp take note.One way to get lthe labour voters on side for the referendum would be to remind them all they have always been anti tory,but also to inform them that their party’s leadership would rather give them and the rest of the scottish people up to the tory’s as a price worth paying to keep us in this rancid union We should ask them what would they rather have,home rule or tory rule?.
#
2012-05-06 10:51
Like you I hope the SNP takes note.
The referendum is a different kettle of fish from an election especially one about independence and requires those promoting independence to engage constructively with all shades of opinion and try to win them over.
If it is gought as some form of party-political one-side or the other, and some will try to reduce it to that, then it will have a sorry outcome.
The referendum is a different kettle of fish from an election especially one about independence and requires those promoting independence to engage constructively with all shades of opinion and try to win them over.
If it is gought as some form of party-political one-side or the other, and some will try to reduce it to that, then it will have a sorry outcome.
#
2012-05-06 17:47
The way for the snp to win the referendum is, to promise, if the vote is yes.Then they will promise an imediate election therafter,and if the scottish people vote for it, there shall be an independent scottish socialist first government.
#
2012-05-06 11:16
Thanks for the link, Legerwood.
I agree that it contains useful advice for the SNP, thankfully there’s still more than two years to go to make the case for indy.
One thing that irritated me about the article, though, was the assumption that all Labour voters would automatically be anti-independence. I don’t think that’s the case, no more that I believe all SNP voters to be pro-indy, many are probably devo-max-plus-whatever.
I agree that it contains useful advice for the SNP, thankfully there’s still more than two years to go to make the case for indy.
One thing that irritated me about the article, though, was the assumption that all Labour voters would automatically be anti-independence. I don’t think that’s the case, no more that I believe all SNP voters to be pro-indy, many are probably devo-max-plus-whatever.
#
2012-05-07 07:47
I campaigned during the election and a number of Labour voters (they told me they were voting labour) intend to vot yes in the referendum and can’t understand labour’s hostility to doing things ourselves.
#
2012-05-06 09:46
I hope the protest at patheic quay goes well and there is a good turn out,it would also be usful to invite stv,and sky news etc to report on the ukbc’s scotland’sbranch bias smears and lies against the scottish government,foll owed by a mass licence burning protest.
#
2012-05-06 09:46
It is interesting that the BBC and other media organisations seem to equate a vote for/against SNP as a vote for/against independence and only use Labours share of the vote to say who won.
There seems no arithmetic genius to add up all the ‘pro’ votes and the ‘agin’ votes for all of the parties. They didn’t seem to want to lump the Tories and LibDem votes into a bigger block vote aginst which is a missed opportunity I would guess. Unless of course they don’t want cross contamination of Labour and the others, after all the other two ‘main parties’ are losers further south and their fate will be piped into our living rooms more than the Scottish situation. On TV debates it seems not to matter about lining them all up together so it is surprising.
Personally, my vote was decided on local issues as it should be. Highland Council have signed a contract to remove about 35% of all computer hardware from our schools. Highland Council say the asbestos problem in their schools is not a health risk. Highland Council are trying to trim their budgets by removing many of the Advanced Higher courses to release staff for other duties such as absent staff cover. Highland Council did not do very well with the gritting of the roads last winter which was fortunately not as severe as the previous to years, but still resulted in many ‘ice rick’ drives to work.
The BBC seem to have taken these thoughts and decided if I am more likely to want independence or not. That is strange. They might be able to extrapolate that independence from Highland Council or a band of independent councillors is what I was aiming for, but how independence from a Westminster government in a different country could be construed is debatable.
If they are able to say that in their view, more people are against independence because of the local election results then surely this can be extrapolated further.
Because Labour trounced eneryone else and their granny we can also assume that it was a vote to:
Continue with nuclear energy
Build a big train set in Glasgow (now that Paisley has been transferred into Glasgow)
Lock up knife weilding carpet fitters and others for lengthy spells
Replace nuclear submarines with shiny new nuclear submarines
Leave the seaside areas around Gordon Browns back yard alone and let the half life of the waste deal with the problem over time.
Ban caffeine as a drink in modern society.
And so on
Why pick on independence at the expence of all the other policy of the ‘winners’. Surely if you voted for one of their policies you voted for then all as a package deal.
There seems no arithmetic genius to add up all the ‘pro’ votes and the ‘agin’ votes for all of the parties. They didn’t seem to want to lump the Tories and LibDem votes into a bigger block vote aginst which is a missed opportunity I would guess. Unless of course they don’t want cross contamination of Labour and the others, after all the other two ‘main parties’ are losers further south and their fate will be piped into our living rooms more than the Scottish situation. On TV debates it seems not to matter about lining them all up together so it is surprising.
Personally, my vote was decided on local issues as it should be. Highland Council have signed a contract to remove about 35% of all computer hardware from our schools. Highland Council say the asbestos problem in their schools is not a health risk. Highland Council are trying to trim their budgets by removing many of the Advanced Higher courses to release staff for other duties such as absent staff cover. Highland Council did not do very well with the gritting of the roads last winter which was fortunately not as severe as the previous to years, but still resulted in many ‘ice rick’ drives to work.
The BBC seem to have taken these thoughts and decided if I am more likely to want independence or not. That is strange. They might be able to extrapolate that independence from Highland Council or a band of independent councillors is what I was aiming for, but how independence from a Westminster government in a different country could be construed is debatable.
If they are able to say that in their view, more people are against independence because of the local election results then surely this can be extrapolated further.
Because Labour trounced eneryone else and their granny we can also assume that it was a vote to:
Continue with nuclear energy
Build a big train set in Glasgow (now that Paisley has been transferred into Glasgow)
Lock up knife weilding carpet fitters and others for lengthy spells
Replace nuclear submarines with shiny new nuclear submarines
Leave the seaside areas around Gordon Browns back yard alone and let the half life of the waste deal with the problem over time.
Ban caffeine as a drink in modern society.
And so on
Why pick on independence at the expence of all the other policy of the ‘winners’. Surely if you voted for one of their policies you voted for then all as a package deal.
#
2012-05-06 11:50
Quote:
Thanks for the laugh… Though it is a bit scary as these seem to be actual party policies of SLAB.
Continue with nuclear energy Build a big train set in Glasgow (now that Paisley has been transferred into Glasgow) Lock up knife weilding carpet fitters and others for lengthy spells Replace nuclear submarines with shiny new nuclear submarines Leave the seaside areas around Gordon Browns back yard alone and let the half life of the waste deal with the problem over time. Ban caffeine as a drink in modern society. And so on
Thanks for the laugh… Though it is a bit scary as these seem to be actual party policies of SLAB.
#
2012-05-06 09:47
I have written to freedom house pointing out the bias in reporting in Scotland.
I am also proposing that the Control of Broadcasting Standards and Ethics be devolved to Scotland.
Please sign the petition if you agree
change.org/…/…
I am also proposing that the Control of Broadcasting Standards and Ethics be devolved to Scotland.
Please sign the petition if you agree
change.org/…/…
#
2012-05-06 09:53
At least the numbers on Wikipedia are correct. That is the source most people will go to on the internet rather than do battle with the Beeb’s horrible search engine.
en.wikipedia.org/…/…
en.wikipedia.org/…/…
#
2012-05-06 10:56
The link below was posted on another article. Do not know who compiled the figures.
www.vetpath.co.uk/…/2012.pdf
www.vetpath.co.uk/…/2012.pdf
#
2012-05-06 11:11
How odd it seems to be the Voodoo wing of the British Veterinarian Association.
vetpath.co.uk/…/index.html
It’s just basic percentages. We need the actual turn out, first, second and third preferences…
vetpath.co.uk/…/index.html
It’s just basic percentages. We need the actual turn out, first, second and third preferences…
#
2012-05-06 16:43
Guilty as charged. The percentage figures are just those from NNS yesterday, which don’t include every ward. I’ll re-do the graphic when final figures are available.
By the way, I note this article and STV have Labour gains at 48, while everybody else calculates 46. Does anybody know who’s right?
By the way, I note this article and STV have Labour gains at 48, while everybody else calculates 46. Does anybody know who’s right?
#
2012-05-06 17:27
I see Auld Acquaintance has pointed at figures published by the SNP. They’re likely to be right, so I’ll update the graphics later tonight.
ETA: Percentage vote figures now show numbers published by the SNP as final and complete. Figures on seats are as generally agreed. The SNP page seems to have put SNP gains one too high and Conservative losses one too high. I hope there are no more mistakes.
Labour gains seems in fact to be 46. I don’t know where this 48 number has been coming from.
ETA: Percentage vote figures now show numbers published by the SNP as final and complete. Figures on seats are as generally agreed. The SNP page seems to have put SNP gains one too high and Conservative losses one too high. I hope there are no more mistakes.
Labour gains seems in fact to be 46. I don’t know where this 48 number has been coming from.
#
2012-05-06 13:20
Quoting Mark MacLachlan:
Not complete but does have a fair amount of info on there….
p s this is for glasgow
en.wikipedia.org/…/…
Scotland wide here ….
en.wikipedia.org/…/…
No breakdown of first preference votes yet. Anyone seen them yet?
Not complete but does have a fair amount of info on there….
p s this is for glasgow
en.wikipedia.org/…/…
Scotland wide here ….
en.wikipedia.org/…/…
#
2012-05-06 16:42
Got them. Added to a new Cheesey blawg post with a wee historical trip down voting figures…
…/slippery-pole-of-council-elections.html
#
2012-05-06 10:55
In spite of their outrageous lead story – “A bloody nose for Salmond” even the Daily Mail got the Glasgow result figures correct, Labour 44 (-1) SNP 27 (+5) Is it any wonder that other broadcasters around the world including Russia Today are highlighting the lack of integrity and the fall in standards within the BBC.
#
2012-05-06 12:25
Unfortunately, this international concern about the impartiality of the BBC hasn’t reached my country. And as Finns, we take all and any Russian media with a pinch of salt. (You can probably understand why.)
I had a look around the MSM in Finland. Few mentions of the British local elections, all just stating that governing coalition parties suffered losses, Labour gained. No mention of the specific situation in Scotland. Oh, and a story on Boris Johnson getting re-elected. Mentioned his blonde mop of hair and propensity to be outspoken. Finished with the bizzarre one line paragraph: “The Olympics are held in London this year.”
I had a look around the MSM in Finland. Few mentions of the British local elections, all just stating that governing coalition parties suffered losses, Labour gained. No mention of the specific situation in Scotland. Oh, and a story on Boris Johnson getting re-elected. Mentioned his blonde mop of hair and propensity to be outspoken. Finished with the bizzarre one line paragraph: “The Olympics are held in London this year.”
#
2012-05-06 16:39
There are also a few other, more important (?) elections taking place this week-end which may just trump local elections in the UK e.g France’s presidential election.
#
2012-05-06 10:36
Labour held on in Glasgow and Edinburgh and did better than expected elsewhere because of a vicious ,orchestrated and fundamentally dishonest assault on the SNP and Alex Salmond across all the media including particularly the BBC for about six weeks.
That is all. And we should all understand this.
Anything else was peripheral and insignificant and we shouldn’t be persuaded to start castigating ourselves for our inability to completely negate the forces ranged against us.
There is nothing our opponents like better than to see us pointing fingers at each other.
Labour won nothing on Thusday. They are not capable of winning anything so we should not subscribe in any way to media distortion of the results The media did the work and Labour in Scotland is merely a limp instrument of UK establishment plot against the independence movement.
The fact that we came out of this skewed election actually stronger than we went into it is a testament to the relentless nature of our progress.
I am disappointed to hear media attacks on significant figures in our effort repeated by some of our support . The media, with a yelping Labour chorus, of course were going to attack the principals in the SNP Glasgow campaign. That some SNP supporters appear to believe this was an honest or accurate assessment is very strange indeed.
As a matter of urgency we have to establish with intelligent and informed members of our community that the media and the BBC is lying to them. If we can do that we destroy their effort against us.
Another area the SNP has not fully got to grips with yet is the Scots-Irish (for want of a better description) vote in particularly Lanarkshire,Gla sgow, Inverclyde and Dumbarton. We have a huge nationalist community in this area – West Central Scotland – paradoxically still voting for the Union Jack – though they don’t see it in those terms. This is the vote that provides the bedrock of Labour support and is a community that Labour shamelessly abuses and has done so in all the years since the 1950s that I have been in politics.
It is going to be a critical feature in the referendum campaign and this community could determine whether we win or not.
We have to do some work in this area.
That is all. And we should all understand this.
Anything else was peripheral and insignificant and we shouldn’t be persuaded to start castigating ourselves for our inability to completely negate the forces ranged against us.
There is nothing our opponents like better than to see us pointing fingers at each other.
Labour won nothing on Thusday. They are not capable of winning anything so we should not subscribe in any way to media distortion of the results The media did the work and Labour in Scotland is merely a limp instrument of UK establishment plot against the independence movement.
The fact that we came out of this skewed election actually stronger than we went into it is a testament to the relentless nature of our progress.
I am disappointed to hear media attacks on significant figures in our effort repeated by some of our support . The media, with a yelping Labour chorus, of course were going to attack the principals in the SNP Glasgow campaign. That some SNP supporters appear to believe this was an honest or accurate assessment is very strange indeed.
As a matter of urgency we have to establish with intelligent and informed members of our community that the media and the BBC is lying to them. If we can do that we destroy their effort against us.
Another area the SNP has not fully got to grips with yet is the Scots-Irish (for want of a better description) vote in particularly Lanarkshire,Gla sgow, Inverclyde and Dumbarton. We have a huge nationalist community in this area – West Central Scotland – paradoxically still voting for the Union Jack – though they don’t see it in those terms. This is the vote that provides the bedrock of Labour support and is a community that Labour shamelessly abuses and has done so in all the years since the 1950s that I have been in politics.
It is going to be a critical feature in the referendum campaign and this community could determine whether we win or not.
We have to do some work in this area.
#
2012-05-06 11:31
I’m sure a good part of the labour vote in the greater Glasgow area came from postal votes. Labour have a machine that hoovers these up wholesale.
That’s a subject that needs to be scrutinised – to make sure that it is an honest application on behalf of the voters affected. There needs to be outside scrutiny to ensure the integrity of that system.
It seemed to me last year that the staff at the local polling station (North Lanarkshire) did not know how to deal with the one postal vote I carried in. So how are the vast thousands of these from the labour party dealt with, in the count ?
Also I seem to remember a few years ago, a big push in this area to sign up many older people for the postal vote. Was that a nation wide thing, or local ?
That’s a subject that needs to be scrutinised – to make sure that it is an honest application on behalf of the voters affected. There needs to be outside scrutiny to ensure the integrity of that system.
It seemed to me last year that the staff at the local polling station (North Lanarkshire) did not know how to deal with the one postal vote I carried in. So how are the vast thousands of these from the labour party dealt with, in the count ?
Also I seem to remember a few years ago, a big push in this area to sign up many older people for the postal vote. Was that a nation wide thing, or local ?
#
2012-05-06 11:47
The postal vote,however good it’s intentions,is wide open to abuse.
Widely reported in the Press down south during the last couple of elections.
A handful of miscreants went to Court.
It’s so easy to bypass the secrecy element when voting at home,and SECRECY when casting the vote,is the cornerstone of our democracy.
Widely reported in the Press down south during the last couple of elections.
A handful of miscreants went to Court.
It’s so easy to bypass the secrecy element when voting at home,and SECRECY when casting the vote,is the cornerstone of our democracy.
#
2012-05-06 13:26
Red Kite, let’s see – I’ll quote the BBC on this one:
news.bbc.co.uk/…/8529208.stm
“The commission also raised concerns about how the Labour Party handled its postal vote application forms in the run-up to the ballot.”
The Willie Bain election in 2009 – does noone remember the 3-month campaign of home visits by Glasgow City officials to “encourage” postal voting in pinpointed wards within the constituency while its election was put off for 5 months? Officials even carried postal voting forms.
This was dodgy but legal, but noone seems to have done a follow up either here or in Glenrothes. As some have said, why are these things never investigated?
news.bbc.co.uk/…/8529208.stm
“The commission also raised concerns about how the Labour Party handled its postal vote application forms in the run-up to the ballot.”
The Willie Bain election in 2009 – does noone remember the 3-month campaign of home visits by Glasgow City officials to “encourage” postal voting in pinpointed wards within the constituency while its election was put off for 5 months? Officials even carried postal voting forms.
This was dodgy but legal, but noone seems to have done a follow up either here or in Glenrothes. As some have said, why are these things never investigated?
#
2012-05-07 07:54
I would guess that a lot of postal votes come from nursing homes where helpful labour supporters fill in the forms for them. There’s no way of knowing if this is true or not.
#
2012-05-07 07:53
This is why tackling the BBC is a number one priority. We must do whatever it takes to neutralise this.
#
2012-05-06 10:38
Now is the time.
After an SNP victory
After clear and quantifiable BBC bias
While people are still angered by the state propaganda
To demonstrate against it.
Doing so before an election can be described as an attempt to influence the result.
Doing so after a defeat can be accused of just being sour grapes.
After an SNP victory
After clear and quantifiable BBC bias
While people are still angered by the state propaganda
To demonstrate against it.
Doing so before an election can be described as an attempt to influence the result.
Doing so after a defeat can be accused of just being sour grapes.
#
2012-05-06 11:04
What is the point of attempting to petition the British government to prevent the BBC showing pro British government bias?
#
2012-05-06 12:37
can I expand your comment Fungus?
What is the point of attempting to petition the British government to prevent the British Broadcasting Corporation showing pro British government bias?
says it all!
What is the point of attempting to petition the British government to prevent the British Broadcasting Corporation showing pro British government bias?
says it all!
#
2012-05-06 13:10
Quoting Jimmy The Pict:
DONE….Come on people get signing
Petition on this matter
epetitions.direct.gov.uk/…/…
DONE….Come on people get signing
#
2012-05-06 14:01
What is the point of petitioning the UK Government to tell the Scottish Government to take action?
A far better petition, or at least more accurate in it’s message, is here:
change.org/…/…
A far better petition, or at least more accurate in it’s message, is here:
change.org/…/…
#
2012-05-06 10:59
The BBC is reminding everyone that they have a week left to take part in the SG’s referendum consultation.
bbc.co.uk/…/…
bbc.co.uk/…/…
#
2012-05-06 13:55
Quoting Legerwood:
I was always intending to do that. I’ve just been looking through it and I think it might take me most of the week to fill it in.
Anyone else wanting to take part should start pretty soon because there’s quite a bit of reading in it.
Here’s the questions it asks
QUESTION 1:
What are your views on the referendum question and the design of the ballot paper?
QUESTION 2:
What are your views on the proposed timetable and voting arrangements?
QUESTION 3:
What are your views on the inclusion of a second question in the referendum and the
voting system that could be used?
QUESTION 4:
What are your views on the proposal to give the Electoral Management Board and its
Convener responsibility for the operational management of the referendum?
QUESTION 5:
What are your views on the proposed division of roles between the Electoral Management
Board and the Electoral Commission?
QUESTION 6:
What are your views on the idea that the referendum could be held on a Saturday or on
other ways which would make voting easier?
QUESTION 7:
What are your views on extending the franchise to those aged 16 and 17 years who are
eligible to be registered on the electoral register?
QUESTION 8:
What are your views on the proposed spending limits?
QUESTION 9:
Do you have any other comments about the proposals in the draft Referendum (Scotland)
Bill?
The BBC is reminding everyone that they have a week left to take part in the SG’s referendum consultation.
bbc.co.uk/…/…
I was always intending to do that. I’ve just been looking through it and I think it might take me most of the week to fill it in.
Anyone else wanting to take part should start pretty soon because there’s quite a bit of reading in it.
Here’s the questions it asks
QUESTION 1:
What are your views on the referendum question and the design of the ballot paper?
QUESTION 2:
What are your views on the proposed timetable and voting arrangements?
QUESTION 3:
What are your views on the inclusion of a second question in the referendum and the
voting system that could be used?
QUESTION 4:
What are your views on the proposal to give the Electoral Management Board and its
Convener responsibility for the operational management of the referendum?
QUESTION 5:
What are your views on the proposed division of roles between the Electoral Management
Board and the Electoral Commission?
QUESTION 6:
What are your views on the idea that the referendum could be held on a Saturday or on
other ways which would make voting easier?
QUESTION 7:
What are your views on extending the franchise to those aged 16 and 17 years who are
eligible to be registered on the electoral register?
QUESTION 8:
What are your views on the proposed spending limits?
QUESTION 9:
Do you have any other comments about the proposals in the draft Referendum (Scotland)
Bill?
#
2012-05-06 15:00
took me about 1 hour, you don’t need to write a novel
better to make some simple statements than do nothing at all
better to make some simple statements than do nothing at all
#
2012-05-06 18:59
It took me about an hour too. I already had opinions on most of the questions and wrote a short paragraph on each of them. They are basically looking to see if you support the proposals or want something else. If you support the proposals it is pretty straight forward and you could complete it in next to no time if you wanted to keep it short.
I see they have had over 16,000 responses so if you haven’t done it fire them in. If we could get that up to 20,000 it would give some real substance to the Scottish Government proposals and pretty much leave the Westminster one high and dry.
I see they have had over 16,000 responses so if you haven’t done it fire them in. If we could get that up to 20,000 it would give some real substance to the Scottish Government proposals and pretty much leave the Westminster one high and dry.
#
2012-05-06 15:58
Hogwash.
It does NOT take an hour to complete. I have lengthy views, and I only took around twenty minutes. It is actually quite easy to give very simple answers, which make your point, as some of my friends did, in around ten minutes.
If, you wish to write lengthy essays for each answer, then I guess it might take an hour, but otherwise you are talking ten to twenty minutes at most.
It is NOT difficult, or complex to complete, and you do not need to answer every question – in fact you can skip many of them.
Let me give you some examples;
Question 3. answer could be yes it’s a good idea or NO it isn’t a good idea.
Question 1. answer could be as simple as Yes the proposed question is fine, or no the proposed question needs to be changed to ………
Not sure why people are trying to make it out to be more complex than it actually is.
It does NOT take an hour to complete. I have lengthy views, and I only took around twenty minutes. It is actually quite easy to give very simple answers, which make your point, as some of my friends did, in around ten minutes.
If, you wish to write lengthy essays for each answer, then I guess it might take an hour, but otherwise you are talking ten to twenty minutes at most.
It is NOT difficult, or complex to complete, and you do not need to answer every question – in fact you can skip many of them.
Let me give you some examples;
Question 3. answer could be yes it’s a good idea or NO it isn’t a good idea.
Question 1. answer could be as simple as Yes the proposed question is fine, or no the proposed question needs to be changed to ………
Not sure why people are trying to make it out to be more complex than it actually is.
#
2012-05-06 19:47
If you really find some of them difficult you don’t have to answer them all. You can submit the ones you feel strongest about, they still count
#
2012-05-06 19:28
Apologies up front, as I am not sure if you are being sarcastic about taking a week to answer a few referendum consultation questions.
If you genuinely feel it would take you that long, you might want to ask someone at home for help, as it only took me about 15 minutes.
If you genuinely feel it would take you that long, you might want to ask someone at home for help, as it only took me about 15 minutes.
#
2012-05-07 00:13
Sorry folks, my mistake.
I opened the “Your Scotland, Your Voice document in Kindle on my pc and it said the document was 615 pages long.
I didn’t realise it turned over 20 odd pages each time I clicked forward.
I opened the “Your Scotland, Your Voice document in Kindle on my pc and it said the document was 615 pages long.
I didn’t realise it turned over 20 odd pages each time I clicked forward.
#
2012-05-06 11:28
Does anyone have any further information with regard to the demonstration against the BBC bias at Pacific Quay?
Are there to be similar events at the BBC’s regional Offices in Inverness, Aberdeen, Dundee, etc?
Are there to be similar events at the BBC’s regional Offices in Inverness, Aberdeen, Dundee, etc?
#
2012-05-06 11:29
Bill Matthews.Scotland.BBC Trust Member.
Positions of employment.
M2M2 Limited.Director.
BBC Pensions Trust. Chairman.
NHS National Services,Scotla nd.Chairman.
Security Industry Authority.Non- Executive Director.
Plus 3 voluntary positions.
From Declaration of interests BBC Trust.
Additionally,he re is another take on Bill Matthews.
I’ve never heard of him.He seems to have an interest in music and the arts.
allmediascotland.com/…/…
Link to Register of Interests of all Trust Members,includi ng Lord Patten.
May be of interest to some.
bbc.co.uk/…/…
Positions of employment.
M2M2 Limited.Director.
BBC Pensions Trust. Chairman.
NHS National Services,Scotla nd.Chairman.
Security Industry Authority.Non- Executive Director.
Plus 3 voluntary positions.
From Declaration of interests BBC Trust.
Additionally,he re is another take on Bill Matthews.
I’ve never heard of him.He seems to have an interest in music and the arts.
allmediascotland.com/…/…
Link to Register of Interests of all Trust Members,includi ng Lord Patten.
May be of interest to some.
bbc.co.uk/…/…
#
2012-05-06 11:45
I feel very stronly about this so at the risk of repeating myself I will point out that it is not the Labour Party we are facing but a media conspiracy orchestrated by the UK establishment
As a first priority we have to destroy the illusion accepted by most of our people that the media and paricularly the BBC tells them the truth. If the Scots understand they are being taken for fools by liars the repercussions will be monumenmtal
And I repeat there is nothing our opponents like better than to see us pointing fingers at each other.
As a first priority we have to destroy the illusion accepted by most of our people that the media and paricularly the BBC tells them the truth. If the Scots understand they are being taken for fools by liars the repercussions will be monumenmtal
And I repeat there is nothing our opponents like better than to see us pointing fingers at each other.
#
2012-05-06 18:49
Sneck. Your first two points are very important – the question is, how do we combat the “media conspiracy”?
#
2012-05-06 11:59
Isabel Fraser was trying hard to make Salmond view the election as a negative for the SNP.
#
2012-05-06 12:58
Hate to say so – an uncomfortable interpretation of all this is that expectations were not well managed by the SNP, while Labour were much cleverer.
The SNP must think about this. They cannot walk into situations where their own actions put a noose round their necks.
The SNP must think about this. They cannot walk into situations where their own actions put a noose round their necks.
#
2012-05-06 16:49
You would think thjey had learned their lesson after the UK General Election when AS talked up the chances of the SNP returning MPs in larger numbers to Westminster.
That sort of talk is like a red rag to the Unionist’s bull and just makes them redouble their efforts and at the same time doubling their efforts in the dirty tricks department.
Better getting on quietly with the job in hand and getting a good result than giving hopstages to fortune.
That sort of talk is like a red rag to the Unionist’s bull and just makes them redouble their efforts and at the same time doubling their efforts in the dirty tricks department.
Better getting on quietly with the job in hand and getting a good result than giving hopstages to fortune.
#
2012-05-06 12:06
“I will point out that it is not the Labour Party we are facing but a media conspiracy orchestrated by the UK establishment”.
UK Establishment—you’re right there sneckedagain.
Another term would be the,’Levers of the British State’—-of which there are many.
The Labour Party,based in London and Glasgow are part of the Establishment.
In UK Government for 13 years,and now “Her Majesty’s Opposition”.Lots of Establishment(U nionist) contacts on leaving office.
“British Broadcasting Corporation”.Clue is in the name.
UK Establishment—you’re right there sneckedagain.
Another term would be the,’Levers of the British State’—-of which there are many.
The Labour Party,based in London and Glasgow are part of the Establishment.
In UK Government for 13 years,and now “Her Majesty’s Opposition”.Lots of Establishment(U nionist) contacts on leaving office.
“British Broadcasting Corporation”.Clue is in the name.
#
2012-05-06 12:44
Re.Ofcom:
“Accuracy or bias on the BBC
If your complaint relates to matters of due impartiality, due accuracy or bias in BBC programming, please make a complaint directly to the BBC: these areas are regulated by the BBC Trust rather than Ofcom. The BBC has a formal complaints process and complaints should be escalated with them in the first instance, as outlined in the BBC’s complaints handling procedures on its website.”
Surely in the first instance indicates that there is a second instance. Is that Ofcom?
I’ve just sent them a comment form asking this question.
“Accuracy or bias on the BBC
If your complaint relates to matters of due impartiality, due accuracy or bias in BBC programming, please make a complaint directly to the BBC: these areas are regulated by the BBC Trust rather than Ofcom. The BBC has a formal complaints process and complaints should be escalated with them in the first instance, as outlined in the BBC’s complaints handling procedures on its website.”
Surely in the first instance indicates that there is a second instance. Is that Ofcom?
I’ve just sent them a comment form asking this question.
#
2012-05-06 12:50
I agree with many comments here, the media coverage is so one sided – as finishing up with Severin Carrell on the politics show just allowed to blatantly trash the SNP with no recourse. Also interesting chat on the lack of turnout and so on and not once mention the role of the media. Prof. James Mitchell, sometimes a voice of reason, saying that ‘Labour spun the better election’ without acknowledging the role of the pro unionist press and BBC in helping labour to do just exactly that. Of course, he wouldn’t say anything against the BBC because he won’t get paid nor be asked back. It’s akin to asking the House of Lords to vote on reforming the Lords – a waste of time.
Time for the SNP to learn some tricks. I don’t know who is in charge of their PR dept but they should be questioned on their tactics. On the politics show and Newsnight, SNP politicians MUST be in the studio. No more appearing on the TV screen in the corner. That tells the people of Glasgow that THE SNP ARE NOT FROM THERE and therefore do not represent them. Thats how it’s read, it’s simple and has to be avoided. If you can’t have someone in the studio, then don’t take part – simple.
Time for the SNP to learn some tricks. I don’t know who is in charge of their PR dept but they should be questioned on their tactics. On the politics show and Newsnight, SNP politicians MUST be in the studio. No more appearing on the TV screen in the corner. That tells the people of Glasgow that THE SNP ARE NOT FROM THERE and therefore do not represent them. Thats how it’s read, it’s simple and has to be avoided. If you can’t have someone in the studio, then don’t take part – simple.
#
2012-05-06 14:16
Yes tartan! That perception is clear in my mind too that the argument is diluted if the SNP spokesperson is on the end of a OB especially if there is a time delay.
In addition why go first in an interview and allow the opposition Carte blanche to spin away without reponse.
It must be head to head or no deal.
I’m not too downhearted and looking at the national situation it’s a little push forward.
In Fife, where I vote, its a bit tricky with the lib/dems collapsing and even with 4 more SNP councillors than before the Labour are the largest group now.
Spoke to about 6 folk at work and socially would couldn’t be bothered to vote and when you talk you find that they have SNP leanings through family and friends – – – uughh! what do you do.?
Later next week we will see if the lions can lie down with the lambs etc to form coalition groups.
That will be interesting to see what kind of tartan emerges.
Independence stuff starts from now on and I hope that there is a broad support from groupings other than the campaign to be seen as SNP only.
Many thanks to all those who worked away for weeks before the election on behalf of the SNP. Well done!
In addition why go first in an interview and allow the opposition Carte blanche to spin away without reponse.
It must be head to head or no deal.
I’m not too downhearted and looking at the national situation it’s a little push forward.
In Fife, where I vote, its a bit tricky with the lib/dems collapsing and even with 4 more SNP councillors than before the Labour are the largest group now.
Spoke to about 6 folk at work and socially would couldn’t be bothered to vote and when you talk you find that they have SNP leanings through family and friends – – – uughh! what do you do.?
Later next week we will see if the lions can lie down with the lambs etc to form coalition groups.
That will be interesting to see what kind of tartan emerges.
Independence stuff starts from now on and I hope that there is a broad support from groupings other than the campaign to be seen as SNP only.
Many thanks to all those who worked away for weeks before the election on behalf of the SNP. Well done!
#
2012-05-06 12:51
Reading more, if I was a Martian I would be non-plused by this statement by Ofcom, “the Independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries”:
“BBC complaints
“The Code’s rules about impartiality and accuracy don’t apply to BBC programmes.
The BBC Trust is responsible for the regulation of the BBC in these areas.
Any complaints about the accuracy and impartiality of BBC programmes should be made to BBC Audience Services through its website.
The BBC’s website also explains how to escalate a complaint if you are still unhappy.”
What is “escalating” in this context?
“BBC complaints
“The Code’s rules about impartiality and accuracy don’t apply to BBC programmes.
The BBC Trust is responsible for the regulation of the BBC in these areas.
Any complaints about the accuracy and impartiality of BBC programmes should be made to BBC Audience Services through its website.
The BBC’s website also explains how to escalate a complaint if you are still unhappy.”
What is “escalating” in this context?
#
2012-05-06 13:10
Marga,
To complain about the BBC there are certain steps you have to take, they are:
1) go to the BBC website and use their online form and make your complaint.
2) wait for a reply from the relevant BBC department, usually takes weeks. It will be a standard reply that ignores what your complaint was about.
3) If you are unhappy about that reply, then you have to complain again, outlining why you were unhappy again.
4) Wait for the second reply to be received from the BBC department your complaining about, again usually takes weeks. This again will be a fairly standard reply that will ignore any more issues you have.
When you are unhappy with the second reply, then you are entitled to complain to the BBC Trust. Complaints will only be accepted if you have gone through both all the previous steps of lodging two complaints. Writing to the BBC Trust is what they mean by escalation. To get a reply from the BBC Trust, if at all, usually takes months.
All in all the process from start to finish can take 4/5 months.
To complain about the BBC there are certain steps you have to take, they are:
1) go to the BBC website and use their online form and make your complaint.
2) wait for a reply from the relevant BBC department, usually takes weeks. It will be a standard reply that ignores what your complaint was about.
3) If you are unhappy about that reply, then you have to complain again, outlining why you were unhappy again.
4) Wait for the second reply to be received from the BBC department your complaining about, again usually takes weeks. This again will be a fairly standard reply that will ignore any more issues you have.
When you are unhappy with the second reply, then you are entitled to complain to the BBC Trust. Complaints will only be accepted if you have gone through both all the previous steps of lodging two complaints. Writing to the BBC Trust is what they mean by escalation. To get a reply from the BBC Trust, if at all, usually takes months.
All in all the process from start to finish can take 4/5 months.
#
2012-05-06 13:22
So that is what Baron (Lord) Patten (BBC Chairman) meant at the begining of the year in Edinburgh,follo wing his meeting with the First Minister.
Patten said,I paraphrase,”the issues raised would go through the usual channels.”
An insult to the Government of Scotland,and it’s people—-ALL OF US.
That’s what the BBC thinks of Scotland–the “usual channels”.
WHY ARE WE WAITING?
Patten said,I paraphrase,”the issues raised would go through the usual channels.”
An insult to the Government of Scotland,and it’s people—-ALL OF US.
That’s what the BBC thinks of Scotland–the “usual channels”.
WHY ARE WE WAITING?
#
2012-05-06 13:55
Thanks Tartanfever – I’ve a feeling someome has already done all this on one issue. If so, next step should be Offcom?
I’m really puzzled why the private media who are paid for optionally by individuals and are not a monoply have the PCC, weak though it is while the BBC, a state monopoly with compulsory individualised state funding should not have an arms-length consumer protection body to which the individuals involved can appeal? Is this not totalitarian?
Why should they be excluded from Ofcom? It does not make sense. What would Europesay? Can’t an MEP take up this question in the European parliament? Catalan politicians have got their own groups to vote on Catalonia-only issues like this, criticising the Spanish government and regulations. Why can’t the SNP do it? Any noise in any forum is progress.
I’m really puzzled why the private media who are paid for optionally by individuals and are not a monoply have the PCC, weak though it is while the BBC, a state monopoly with compulsory individualised state funding should not have an arms-length consumer protection body to which the individuals involved can appeal? Is this not totalitarian?
Why should they be excluded from Ofcom? It does not make sense. What would Europesay? Can’t an MEP take up this question in the European parliament? Catalan politicians have got their own groups to vote on Catalonia-only issues like this, criticising the Spanish government and regulations. Why can’t the SNP do it? Any noise in any forum is progress.
#
2012-05-06 15:20
Regarding Ofcom and the BBC, it’s very confusing. Sometimes Ofcom will take on cases made against the BBC if they are high profile enough, like the Jeremy Clarkson comments on ‘striking public sector workers being shot in front of their families’. The BBC needed to distance itself from that and therefore Ofcom ruled on it, in which they did not uphold the complaint against Clarkson.
Your comments regarding BBC scrutiny are absolutely spot on. The most influential public organisation in the UK that can effect the lives of the entire population has no one to answer to. The BBC have more influence on society than any other single entity, including Westminster.
They have spent years putting every political party, government, public and private body, industry and anyone of influence under the spotlight of their scrutiny and yet when it comes to scrutinising them there is no body with any teeth.
Your comments regarding BBC scrutiny are absolutely spot on. The most influential public organisation in the UK that can effect the lives of the entire population has no one to answer to. The BBC have more influence on society than any other single entity, including Westminster.
They have spent years putting every political party, government, public and private body, industry and anyone of influence under the spotlight of their scrutiny and yet when it comes to scrutinising them there is no body with any teeth.
#
2012-05-06 16:08
Marga I placed a link this morning at 10.06 to this article showing how the BBC Trust behaves when you constantly complain about something. Witholding licence fee is the only answer I think.
#
2012-05-06 21:28
Yes, thanks, Alicmurray, but I reckon that before you get banned, if you are not happy with the answer and are told it’s the end of the line, you must take it further.
#
2012-05-06 16:45
marga
Quote:
PR speak. In plain English: Taking it further i.e not letting go – dog with bone etc. if you are not satisfied with their response to your initial complaint.
Quote:
What is “escalating” in this context?
PR speak. In plain English: Taking it further i.e not letting go – dog with bone etc. if you are not satisfied with their response to your initial complaint.
#
2012-05-06 14:33
Quoting Dundonian West:
Excellent, stuff that in the Bias-BBC pipe and tell them to smoke it.
SNP.Final results.Highest vote share ever.Link.
snp.org/…/…
Excellent, stuff that in the Bias-BBC pipe and tell them to smoke it.
#
2012-05-06 14:19
Hi guys, I started a thread on the BBCs points of view messageboard on this subject if anyones interested.
www.bbc.co.uk/…/NF1951574
www.bbc.co.uk/…/NF1951574
#
2012-05-06 22:05
I posted two comments which have now been removed. For some reason stating actual facts about the BBC are not permitted. One of which was in reply to someone not seeing any systematic attempt by the BBC to deny the SNP their dues.
My comment was –
No you probably won’t see it.
Just because someone cannot see something does not mean it is not there.
If you followed BBC Scotland closely, you would see that they report information and put up pictures to favour Labour, and then after a short time when the story had died down, or they receive complaints, they covertly change pictures, lines of text and manipulate time date stamps to give the impression the story was changed at an earlier time.
Like the man said, they have done a fantastic job, if you are in the propaganda business; you have to admire what they have done.
You can say what you want about the BBC, as long as they let you.
My comment was –
No you probably won’t see it.
Just because someone cannot see something does not mean it is not there.
If you followed BBC Scotland closely, you would see that they report information and put up pictures to favour Labour, and then after a short time when the story had died down, or they receive complaints, they covertly change pictures, lines of text and manipulate time date stamps to give the impression the story was changed at an earlier time.
Like the man said, they have done a fantastic job, if you are in the propaganda business; you have to admire what they have done.
You can say what you want about the BBC, as long as they let you.
#
2012-05-06 14:43
The fact that STV’s figures are different from those of the BBC gives Nats the perfect opening to demand answers on competency and/or honesty from both stations.
How can they be so wildly wrong? Somebody is either incompetent or lying, which is it?
And why not challenge both STV and the BBC to justify their figures from the studios of some of the smaller radio and or local TV studios e.g. Castle Radio in Leith whose contact page I just happen to have here:
castlefmscotland.com/contact/
By challenging STV as well as BBC we demonstrate our own lack of bias.
VOTE YES I 2014
How can they be so wildly wrong? Somebody is either incompetent or lying, which is it?
And why not challenge both STV and the BBC to justify their figures from the studios of some of the smaller radio and or local TV studios e.g. Castle Radio in Leith whose contact page I just happen to have here:
castlefmscotland.com/contact/
By challenging STV as well as BBC we demonstrate our own lack of bias.
VOTE YES I 2014
#
2012-05-06 14:56
Just noticed there’s euro elections in June 2014, a few months before the referendum.
I wonder what kind of media circus that’ll be.
I wonder what kind of media circus that’ll be.
#
2012-05-06 16:42
For the Euro elections – About on a par with the local elections I should imagine.
#
2012-05-06 15:14
Loads of good comments in this site,http://tpuc.org/node/142
I liked this one from Nikki.
I wrote to the TV Licensing bods too and got a similar response about BBC Worldwide Ltd. Not to be distracted I pointed out that it was a subsidiary and therefore the responsibility of its parent company — Well! They didn’t like that very much.
I later received another letter telling me that the fee was nothing to do with the BBC (nor I suppose by extrapolation to their Royal Charter) but that it was a payment for the right (RIGHT mind you!) to install and use a TV set. Hmmm, I thought, since when does one have to PAY for a RIGHT?? Of course, they could not answer this question. I then pointed out that it was, in fact, my RIGHT to have free use of my goods and chattels guaranteed by the Law of the Land, legislation has nothing to do with that — and the definition of FREE means without let, hindrance or charge…. They like that even less and told me they would send the inspector round. Yummy! I love visitors and always have the kettle on. So I wrote to the nice man at Consignia and sent him a Denial of Implied Right of Access Notice and said that his agents were welcome to call if they completed and signed the Entry Contract I had also sent. This meant the agent would have to pay £1000 for entry to my home and £1,000 for every hour or part thereof that he or she remained on the premises. This would be a contract — no signature — not entry (I also have applied this to the Corporate Police). The nice man at Consignia wrote back and said they would respect my common law right to deny access and that no-one would call. He reserved HIS right to make other equiries. This was back in April and thus far I’ve not heard anything else.
Nikki: Dorakis (as commonly called, Freeman)
I liked this one from Nikki.
I wrote to the TV Licensing bods too and got a similar response about BBC Worldwide Ltd. Not to be distracted I pointed out that it was a subsidiary and therefore the responsibility of its parent company — Well! They didn’t like that very much.
I later received another letter telling me that the fee was nothing to do with the BBC (nor I suppose by extrapolation to their Royal Charter) but that it was a payment for the right (RIGHT mind you!) to install and use a TV set. Hmmm, I thought, since when does one have to PAY for a RIGHT?? Of course, they could not answer this question. I then pointed out that it was, in fact, my RIGHT to have free use of my goods and chattels guaranteed by the Law of the Land, legislation has nothing to do with that — and the definition of FREE means without let, hindrance or charge…. They like that even less and told me they would send the inspector round. Yummy! I love visitors and always have the kettle on. So I wrote to the nice man at Consignia and sent him a Denial of Implied Right of Access Notice and said that his agents were welcome to call if they completed and signed the Entry Contract I had also sent. This meant the agent would have to pay £1000 for entry to my home and £1,000 for every hour or part thereof that he or she remained on the premises. This would be a contract — no signature — not entry (I also have applied this to the Corporate Police). The nice man at Consignia wrote back and said they would respect my common law right to deny access and that no-one would call. He reserved HIS right to make other equiries. This was back in April and thus far I’ve not heard anything else.
Nikki: Dorakis (as commonly called, Freeman)
#
2012-05-06 16:20
Quoting The Spirit Of Wallace:
This nonsense fails to distinguish between human and civil rights and makes the fatal error of treating all rights as if they were the former. In fact, there are many civil rights which require a licence for which payment must be made. Particularly where the exercise of such right may impinge on the amenity of others. The obvious example would be operating a motor vehicle.
A little more thought and a lot less righteous indignation wouldn’t go amiss.
…since when does one have to PAY for a RIGHT??
This nonsense fails to distinguish between human and civil rights and makes the fatal error of treating all rights as if they were the former. In fact, there are many civil rights which require a licence for which payment must be made. Particularly where the exercise of such right may impinge on the amenity of others. The obvious example would be operating a motor vehicle.
A little more thought and a lot less righteous indignation wouldn’t go amiss.
#
2012-05-06 16:43
Quoting Peter A Bell:
I take your point Peter, but I still like Nikki’s post, I would also consider that the state broadcaster manipulating facts and figures with the aim to deceive is an offence against human rights.
Quoting The Spirit Of Wallace:…since when does one have to PAY for a RIGHT??
This nonsense fails to distinguish between human and civil rights and makes the fatal error of treating all rights as if they were the former. In fact, there are many civil rights which require a licence for which payment must be made. Particularly where the exercise of such right may impinge on the amenity of others. The obvious example would be operating a motor vehicle.
A little more thought and a lot less righteous indignation wouldn’t go amiss.
I take your point Peter, but I still like Nikki’s post, I would also consider that the state broadcaster manipulating facts and figures with the aim to deceive is an offence against human rights.
#
2012-05-06 16:54
We should not allow those who would destroy public service broadcasting to hijack the campaign against BBC bias.
#
2012-05-06 21:33
Careful, Dundonian. Evidence shows that the High Speed Train used to substitute existing transport, with only speed as the advantage, is a waste of money and may drain local talent and money from the weaker community to the stronger.
#
2012-05-06 16:07
Sneckedagain
could not agree more. Unfortunately, the BBC is the only media outlet we can attack short bof newspaper take overs.( The Scotsman must be due for an ownership change)
I agree that a demo at Pacific quay will be helpful and will attend.
However I believe it must be accompanied by a strong leaflet campaign then and later.
It must be poosible to produce leaflets highlighting the more obvious examples of BBC bias and distributing them on the streets of our major cities. I will happily help in distribution.
could not agree more. Unfortunately, the BBC is the only media outlet we can attack short bof newspaper take overs.( The Scotsman must be due for an ownership change)
I agree that a demo at Pacific quay will be helpful and will attend.
However I believe it must be accompanied by a strong leaflet campaign then and later.
It must be poosible to produce leaflets highlighting the more obvious examples of BBC bias and distributing them on the streets of our major cities. I will happily help in distribution.
#
2012-05-06 16:15
Perhaps we should also make the focus more general re BBC bias – disconnect it from the referendum issue. There seem to be plenty of people upset with the BBC.
Remove its undeserved credibility.
Remove its undeserved credibility.
#
2012-05-06 21:36
The Scottish Government has powers over the press, apparently. It does not seem to use them.
#
2012-05-06 16:12
Perhaps the above article could be printed. The subject would still be current on 26th May.
#
2012-05-06 16:48
“Labour’s attacks on Alex Salmond begin to tell as voters focus on his core-and essentially unpopular-policy independence”
This from the very anti SNP Cochrane says it all no attack on the policy just the man which all the unionist leaders have done even had Rennie still at it today.
Have just noticed that Hamish Macdonell writing for the Telegraph now he does seem to get about,as for BBC it has already been said on the above posts.
This from the very anti SNP Cochrane says it all no attack on the policy just the man which all the unionist leaders have done even had Rennie still at it today.
Have just noticed that Hamish Macdonell writing for the Telegraph now he does seem to get about,as for BBC it has already been said on the above posts.
#
2012-05-06 17:41
I do not know who Peter A Bell is referring to. Most posts are not about destroying public service broadcasting but about but trying to encourage it to be honest. Or am I missing something?
#
2012-05-06 18:09
There is a fairly virulent anti-state broadcasting lobby out there that would privatise the lot. I think Peter was warning us that there might be those who could hijack any attempt to simply get the BCC in Scotland back on an even keel and report without the default Unionist bias.
#
2012-05-06 18:07
Scotland has had 300 years of history re-written or destroyed, the clearances, banning and discouragement of language, destruction of our young men in wars etc etc. The BBC are just another part of the process.
#
2012-05-06 18:57
Hollande has won the French Presidency.
Just thought some light relief from the all too too predictable BBC bashing was required.
Estimated turnout was 80% – now that is an election.
Just thought some light relief from the all too too predictable BBC bashing was required.
Estimated turnout was 80% – now that is an election.
#
2012-05-06 19:19
I watched Willie Rennie of the Liberal Democrats interviewed today.
Willie Rennie is in denial.
Willie Rennie is in denial.
#
2012-05-06 21:01
his leadership has been catastrophic, well to be fair, so was Nicol’s & Tavish’s – so he’s performing as expected
it is cringworthy watching him get his wee shot at a question every 2 weeks & getting stamped on – he would be better off hiding – the PO would do him a favour if she ignored him completely
it is cringworthy watching him get his wee shot at a question every 2 weeks & getting stamped on – he would be better off hiding – the PO would do him a favour if she ignored him completely
#
2012-05-07 09:10
The silly thing about the Liberal Democrats is that they are supposed to be in favour of Home Rule but they clearly don’t know what it is. I mean, come on! It’s central to liberal thought but they don’t get it!
#
2012-05-06 19:27
I think Christian Wright hits the nail on the head when he says it’s the BBC’s reputation that we must challenge and thus neutralise or badden its influence. We should use all means possible but the use of social media to spread the message I think is key. Even just getting people to question the BBC’s impartiality would make a difference. Social media: it’s free, there’s no organisation for the State and its agencies to iniltrate and undermine, and it works!
#
2012-05-06 19:55
Irony of ironies!
Today is World Press Freedom Day and the BBC World News editor is blogging about the iniquity of Chinese censorship of BBC 24/7’s “impartial” output!
Concern for news “censorship” just north of his own border might be a more appropriate matter for his concern.
Today is World Press Freedom Day and the BBC World News editor is blogging about the iniquity of Chinese censorship of BBC 24/7’s “impartial” output!
Concern for news “censorship” just north of his own border might be a more appropriate matter for his concern.
#
2012-05-06 21:26
Quoting birnie:
I’m sure that the Chinese would be very interested in The BBC’s political corruption in Scotland.
Go to it Cybernats!
Irony of ironies!
Today is World Press Freedom Day and the BBC World News editor is blogging about the iniquity of Chinese censorship of BBC 24/7’s “impartial” output!
I’m sure that the Chinese would be very interested in The BBC’s political corruption in Scotland.
Go to it Cybernats!
#
2012-05-07 08:29
This entry is now closed for comments, lol
Someone at the BBC has a brilliant sense of irony
Someone at the BBC has a brilliant sense of irony
#
2012-05-06 20:33
O/T – been reading the Sunday Herald today.
As some have mentioned earlier, lots of comment, some supportive, some critical.
Much of it, including McWhirter, suggests the SNP should attack the tories more.
I agree, everytime the SNP steal labour’s ba, they throw the toys oot the pram.
The SNP is at its best when goading labour & attacking the tories.
Let the FM attack the tories.
A positive vision of Independence will work. But we must keep pointing out labour’s failures – past, present, future. The job of goading labour must fall to the cyber-nats.
The fall of a labour government always ends the same way – they are the gatekeepers for the tories.
A life of poverty & dead at 55 – vote Labour for an early, merciful release. A party that exists not to protect the poor but to preserve them.
As some have mentioned earlier, lots of comment, some supportive, some critical.
Much of it, including McWhirter, suggests the SNP should attack the tories more.
I agree, everytime the SNP steal labour’s ba, they throw the toys oot the pram.
The SNP is at its best when goading labour & attacking the tories.
Let the FM attack the tories.
A positive vision of Independence will work. But we must keep pointing out labour’s failures – past, present, future. The job of goading labour must fall to the cyber-nats.
The fall of a labour government always ends the same way – they are the gatekeepers for the tories.
A life of poverty & dead at 55 – vote Labour for an early, merciful release. A party that exists not to protect the poor but to preserve them.
#
2012-05-06 21:39
Hm, attack thte Tories and do it better than Labour, also defusing some reasons for rivalry. Good thinking.
#
2012-05-06 20:54
and I just can’t get the following words of wisdom oot ma heid:
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” – Einstein
Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them – as Santayana almost said.
If you always do what you’ve always done, you will get what you always got.
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” – Einstein
Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them – as Santayana almost said.
If you always do what you’ve always done, you will get what you always got.
#
2012-05-06 21:22
Just emailed this article to my contacts. And asked them to pass it on.
If we all do this The truth about BBC political corruption will be out and about.
If we all do this The truth about BBC political corruption will be out and about.
#
2012-05-06 21:31
Over at BBC Scotland news webpage now there is the Council results table with the dodgy BBC arithmetic .. and below that there is the image of our FM with the link: “Salmond: More gains than any other party” .. So if anyone is daft enough to believe the BBC numbers they will have to assume that the FM is wrong. Yet another attempt to discredit our FM.
#
2012-05-06 21:40
OT
Interesting article on how the MSM use trolling to increase ad revenues. Think The Economist
“How do you spot an article written by an ATL troll?
An article written by an ATL troll can easily be spotted by the uproar in the comments section below the article. Articles will often contain little to no factual content, instead articles are based on prejudice, idle speculation and wilful ignorance.”
neurobonkers.com/…/…
Interesting article on how the MSM use trolling to increase ad revenues. Think The Economist
“How do you spot an article written by an ATL troll?
An article written by an ATL troll can easily be spotted by the uproar in the comments section below the article. Articles will often contain little to no factual content, instead articles are based on prejudice, idle speculation and wilful ignorance.”
neurobonkers.com/…/…
#
2012-05-06 22:30
I wonder if Raymond Snoddy from Newswatch would be interested in this. At least he let the BBC comments issue get an airing. The chap from Dundee did very well and I thought Snoddy was embarrased at the standard Daniel Maxwell letter and his refusal to come on the programme.
#
2012-05-06 22:55
I have 3 concerns regarding the way the media is driving the agenda.
1. Both the SNP and Labour supporters views appear to be becoming more entrenched.
2.This may have an impact -post referendum.
3. The media appears intent in being the biggest factor in the run up to the referendum not the actual people.
Therefore I have a request of NNS ?
If the Scottish media won’t curtail the distortions or spin of the Unionist parties will NNS ?
What I mean is lets start holding the parties to account in black and white.
For example ,print the hundred promises ,the Labour party promised Glasgow ,with no spin,no sensationalism, the facts as they are implemented.Lets tick them off.
Not only would it be a good reference point for Glaswegians,it would possibly be of interest to those of us outside of Glasgow.
Let us see what the real benfits are of this union.
1. Both the SNP and Labour supporters views appear to be becoming more entrenched.
2.This may have an impact -post referendum.
3. The media appears intent in being the biggest factor in the run up to the referendum not the actual people.
Therefore I have a request of NNS ?
If the Scottish media won’t curtail the distortions or spin of the Unionist parties will NNS ?
What I mean is lets start holding the parties to account in black and white.
For example ,print the hundred promises ,the Labour party promised Glasgow ,with no spin,no sensationalism, the facts as they are implemented.Lets tick them off.
Not only would it be a good reference point for Glaswegians,it would possibly be of interest to those of us outside of Glasgow.
Let us see what the real benfits are of this union.
#
2012-05-07 06:40
a poster called ‘Truth’, has pointed out under the Remploy story, that the BBC actually publish their own guidlines on HOW they define a gain in an election.
Here;
bbc.co.uk/…/…
It begins;
“Confused by those election phrases trotted out by politicians and commentators? Cut through the waffle with this handy guide:”
It then goes out to define certain terms;
“Gain: If a party wins a seat that it did not win at the last general election this is described as a “gain””
“Hold: If a party wins a seat that it won at the previous general election this is described as a “hold”.”
Now, although this refers to general election, the document itself is actually entitled “A glossary of election terms for Vote 2012”, so clearly intended for the council elections – as their is no general election in 2012.
I think this is not insignificant.
Here;
bbc.co.uk/…/…
It begins;
“Confused by those election phrases trotted out by politicians and commentators? Cut through the waffle with this handy guide:”
It then goes out to define certain terms;
“Gain: If a party wins a seat that it did not win at the last general election this is described as a “gain””
“Hold: If a party wins a seat that it won at the previous general election this is described as a “hold”.”
Now, although this refers to general election, the document itself is actually entitled “A glossary of election terms for Vote 2012”, so clearly intended for the council elections – as their is no general election in 2012.
I think this is not insignificant.
#
2012-05-06 23:23
I see the Scotsman also using the same SNP +57 / Labour +58 in its article on how Labour and Tory councillors are looking to form coalitions. Being the Scotsman, of course, they say that the +57 is using 2007 as baseline, which it patently is not:
scotsman.com/…/…
scotsman.com/…/…
#
2012-05-07 07:55
Phone the journalist – his name is Brian Ferguson, his phone is currently on answer machine, why not leave him a message as i just have questioning the wrong use of figures in today’s Hootsman.
Phone Number 0131 620 8620, just ask to be put through to Brian Ferguson.
Phone Number 0131 620 8620, just ask to be put through to Brian Ferguson.
#
2012-05-06 23:28
The SNP has just announced that it has got the numbers now to form an administration in Argyll and Bute!
#
2012-05-07 06:42
What if we write to our MP through the ‘you work for us’ website and ask them to raise the question of the BBC’s bias at Westminster.
#
2012-05-07 07:19
SO YOU THINK YOU CAN TRUST BBC SCOTLAND?
Simple message
get the posters & flyers printed and then get them out there
Sid
Simple message
get the posters & flyers printed and then get them out there
Sid
#
2012-05-07 09:15
I agree, lets poster every lampost with the list of lies and smears from the BBC.
#
2012-05-07 07:32
I think the only way to get at the BBC is to picket the HQ until after the Referendum.
We need to PICKET PICKET PICKET
We need to PICKET PICKET PICKET
#
2012-05-07 07:37
Does anybody know if we are going to be given the Postal Voting stats in particular as they relate to each ward in Glasgow?
#
2012-05-07 07:55
I do not think they are released ward by ward. I am not even sure that the counting officers know what the postal records are. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the postal votes are “mixed” with all the votes for the council ward, so no particular sub-ward(?) can be identified. Not sure, but it is one of those issues which makes the postal voting process open to fraud.
Perhaps someone with more knowledge can enlighten us, I would also be interested in the real situation. I read elsewhere on this site that GCC posted that 25% of votes were by post! Yea Gods, that might be a reason for labour holding onto a majority!
I think it was the Justice committee that described the postal voting system as being so bad that it could lead to “fraud on an industrial scale.” Surprisingly (NOT) no one in government appears to be particularly interested in cleaning up the process.
The SNP MUST, MUST make sure that postal voting is either canceled or severely monitored by outside agencies (e.g. Council of Europe / OSCE) for the referendum.
Perhaps someone with more knowledge can enlighten us, I would also be interested in the real situation. I read elsewhere on this site that GCC posted that 25% of votes were by post! Yea Gods, that might be a reason for labour holding onto a majority!
I think it was the Justice committee that described the postal voting system as being so bad that it could lead to “fraud on an industrial scale.” Surprisingly (NOT) no one in government appears to be particularly interested in cleaning up the process.
The SNP MUST, MUST make sure that postal voting is either canceled or severely monitored by outside agencies (e.g. Council of Europe / OSCE) for the referendum.
#
2012-05-07 08:17
Agreed. On an issue of such importance, namely Scottish Independence, I do not believe that postal votes should be entertained; given the well documented problems they carry, from being open to abuse, to councils misinforming the public how to use them.
It is in the interest of all parties for the referendum result to be seen to be clean.
I think the only way to achieve this is by voting in person.
It is in the interest of all parties for the referendum result to be seen to be clean.
I think the only way to achieve this is by voting in person.
#
2012-05-07 08:51
Don’t know much about it, but at the count that I went to postal votes were put through the scanners first, so you could see the results before the rest were added.
Postal votes were running at about 15% in our area
Postal votes were running at about 15% in our area
#
2012-05-07 10:15
Probably my paranoia (!!) but was the running total of postal votes heavily pro-Labour?
#
2012-05-07 09:04
To continue with slackness in postal voting monitoring will be bordering on the suicidal for the SNP. They must, simply must – get it once and for all sorted before the Referendum. The same has to be applied for the Electoral Commission which has overseen and permitted known abuses of the postal vote system.
#
2012-05-07 12:00
Barontorc. This is a problem that has to be handled from the Top down and the Bottom up.
Top down in the sense that it is highly unlikely that anyone can prevent the Electoral Commission from having a roll in the Referendum. That being said, the moves to oversee them by the OSCE is both logical and fair. Should there be any protests from the EC or the UK government people would be right to smell a rat.
Form the bottom up, the majority administration having been stung by postal voting in the past should be making all the right moves to either omit postal voting from taking place in the Referendum or, greatly increasing oversight by all in this, the easiest of frauds to perpetrate !.
Top down in the sense that it is highly unlikely that anyone can prevent the Electoral Commission from having a roll in the Referendum. That being said, the moves to oversee them by the OSCE is both logical and fair. Should there be any protests from the EC or the UK government people would be right to smell a rat.
Form the bottom up, the majority administration having been stung by postal voting in the past should be making all the right moves to either omit postal voting from taking place in the Referendum or, greatly increasing oversight by all in this, the easiest of frauds to perpetrate !.
#
2012-05-08 15:26
YouTube.PLEASE join.It’s easy and travels worldwide.
By joining free you can easily comment on Scottish Independence,BB C bias or whatever.
Use their search facility—it’s great,eg Scottish Independence,BB C bias, newsnetscotland ,whatever!
Here’s a link to three Unionist Pundits chattering away on BBC Scotland Newsnight.
Not an Independence Pundit in sight!
‘Neutral’ interviewer.
www.youtube.com/…/
By joining free you can easily comment on Scottish Independence,BB C bias or whatever.
Use their search facility—it’s great,eg Scottish Independence,BB C bias, newsnetscotland ,whatever!
Here’s a link to three Unionist Pundits chattering away on BBC Scotland Newsnight.
Not an Independence Pundit in sight!
‘Neutral’ interviewer.
www.youtube.com/…/
#
2012-05-08 20:33
Folk can also comment on BBC Scotland editor drivel here: notbbcscotlandblogs.blogspot.co.uk/
Not sure however that I should encourage sensible people to read BBC anything 😉
Not sure however that I should encourage sensible people to read BBC anything 😉
#
2012-05-08 20:53
There is an old saying that “in opposition Tories become Whigs and in Government Whigs become Tories” and that pretty much sums up Westminster politics. What we need to concentrate on is Scotland and the SNP-Labour dialogic as attention moving to Westminster makes people think Tory vs Labour…Scotland-centred politics is our game while working with Labour vs Westminster gives us “standing up for Scotland” and “Social democratic credentials” where they are needed.
#
2012-05-09 08:29
Wikipedia gets it right: SNP got most first preference votes; the biggest number of councillors and largest increase in seats.
Full details at: en.wikipedia.org/…/…
Full details at: en.wikipedia.org/…/…
Donate to Newsnet Scotland
Latest Comments
- Latest Trident scares at odds …
Not sure where I read this but is it no… - Latest Trident scares at odds …
I am told you are quite correct. However… - Traynor issues veiled threat t…
What Traynor and his ilk forget is that … - Latest Trident scares at odds …
Unionist nuclear defence policy in Scotl… - Latest Trident scares at odds …
Just watched newsnight, seems that oil a… - Latest Trident scares at odds …
Who cares how much it costs to refit Dev… - Latest Trident scares at odds …
With regard to the amount of anti Scotti… - Traynor issues veiled threat t…
Part 2 Once George had walked and his re… - Latest Trident scares at odds …
I’m with you curley bill. As Mr Burns wo… - Traynor issues veiled threat t…
Part 1 Since Jim Traynor incorrectly pre… - Latest Trident scares at odds …
As I said on another thread, in the Fasl… - Latest Trident scares at odds …
Nevertheless we need to keep repeating t… - Latest Trident scares at odds …
The most likely scenario is that a large… - Latest Trident scares at odds …
I can think of only one possible reason … - Latest Trident scares at odds …
The BBC didn’t even seem to understand t… - Latest Trident scares at odds …
You have to ask yourself why has not one… - Latest Trident scares at odds …
BBC Scotland is also showing no signs of… - Latest Trident scares at odds …
It constantly amazes me that journalists… - Latest Trident scares at odds …
I’m at work in China at 4:15 am with the… - Cameron forgets name of No cam…
M. Moore’s rather stupid pronouncements …