[Jaspersharpe]

Why should it not be broadcast in the run up to an election? If it's true then why should people not know about it? That's using "impartiality" as a cloak for censorship.

And saying that the BBC are pro government (in this case) doesn't tally with the fact that it's more than likely that your mates will win the election and therefore BE the government. Everyone knows that Thompson et al are shitting themselves and doing everything they can to cow tow to Cameron and his pals (hence the 6music debacle).

[Sloper]

I'mm not saying it shouldn't be broadcast, I'm saying that it shouldn't be broadcast on the BBC, there's a dig difference.

I would take exactly the same view if the BBC were planning to show a documentary on Labour MP's using their MP's expenses to fund the Labour Party (yes they do do this) or Labour's under the counter links with Unite.

The reasoning is simple, if you're (in effect) the State Broadcaster and have a duty to be impartial you cannot maintain that standard by broadcasting a programme which is higly contentious and politically damaging to a major party in the run up to a general election.

The likely Tory victory doesn't change the evidence that the BBC has always been pro government.

[Jaspersharpe]

If the BBC were still basically the only broadcaster then this argument would hold water but they're not so it doesn't. I don't want a "state broadcaster" that is impartial to point of censorship and I don't see any difference between a programme being broadcast by the BBC, Channel 4 or ITV (oh no hang on they don't do proper programmes any more).

The likely Tory victory doesn't change the evidence that the BBC has always been pro government.

That doesn't make sense! If the BBC is pro government then they will be much more likely to be pro the government which is going to be in charge for the next few years rather than the one which will be out on it's ear in a couple of months time. As for evidence, it's evident that Thompson is kissing Cameron's arse because of the above.

[Sloper]

Jasper I think that it matters regardless of the competition, the BBC needs to remain impartial and broadcasting stuff that is highly political in the run up to an election substantially damages their claim to impartiallity.

This isn't about censorship it's abnout maintaining the impartiality of the BBC.  Censorship would be preventing the programme from being shown, whereas it is being postponed until the time when the impartiality of the BBC won't be so substantially damaged.

Anway from what I can see the issue is about the content and that broadcasting the prog. would I am guessing be libellous etc


But neither the director-general nor the Trust has intervened to block the programme, sources inside the BBC insisted. One said: "If the programme doesn't go out before the general election, it has nothing to do with the Conservatives. It's to do with whether it's legally clearable." Another said: "Things take time when you are dealing with offshore finances. It's easy to jump to the conclusion that this is connected to the general election, but the main priority is to make sure the programme goes out in a form in which you are sure it is right. It's an amazingly difficult area."

A spokesman for Lord Ashcroft said it was "hardly a revelation" that the peer's lawyers had contacted the BBC over the Panorama programme. He added: "We shall watch this space."

Lord Ashcroft is taking legal action against The Independent over two reports on his business interests in the Turks and Caicos.

'No one from Panorama was available for comment, but a BBC spokesman said: "The programme is not on the schedule at the moment. We do not know when it will be aired."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ashcrofts-lawyers-silence-panorama-1923210.html

[Jaspersharpe]

But neither the director-general nor the Trust has intervened to block the programme, sources inside the BBC insisted. One said: "If the programme doesn't go out before the general election, it has nothing to do with the Conservatives. It's to do with whether it's legally clearable."

Another said: "Things take time when you are dealing with offshore finances. It's easy to jump to the conclusion that this is connected to the general election, but the main priority is to make sure the programme goes out in a form in which you are sure it is right. It's an amazingly difficult area."

I can see why you like talking politics mate as the politicians way is to ignore the opposition's arguments and press on regardless until they get bored with repeating themselves!
 

[cowboyhat]

The fact that Tompson et al are kowtowing to Cameron is a seperate issue and the shame about the Panorma doc is its bad timing. Last year it would have been broadcast.

Unfortunatley in this case i think the BBC really are playing the impartiallity card. There is little consistency in this over time so its annoying, and maybe a little bit too convieient.

To suggest that this government is sleasier than either past governments or the current opposition is silly. Labour has loads more MP's to get caught out, (which will swing of course), a scoop on opposition is never as interesting as a scoop on the incumbent, and the media are more pervasive than they were.

[tomtom]

Mr Sharpe.. I'll see your two Jimmy Hills,



And raise you an Edwina Curry!!! 

[Sloper]

The fact that Tompson et al are kowtowing to Cameron is a seperate issue and the shame about the Panorma doc is its bad timing. Last year it would have been broadcast.

Unfortunatley in this case i think the BBC really are playing the impartiallity card. There is little consistency in this over time so its annoying, and maybe a little bit too convieient.

To suggest that this government is sleasier than either past governments or the current opposition is silly. Labour has loads more MP's to get caught out, (which will swing of course), a scoop on opposition is never as interesting as a scoop on the incumbent, and the media are more pervasive than they were.

It's not a silly accusation to make as it is borne out by the facts. 

There were from memory about four Tory Parliamentarians caught taking cash for quesitons in 18 years and other that the cvnts Aitken and Archer that was about the size of it.

We have had 7 Labour Parliamentarians caught offering to take cash for making amendments etc three charged with false accounting, loans for peerages and other breaches of their own rules, donations influencing policy from Bernie Ecc and the formular 1 and fags scandal, John Prescott and the dome / casino row through to Lords Drayson and Sainsbury.

It seems that the Panoram prog is being shelved for legal reasons not withstanding the inappropriate timing of the potential broadcast.

Jasper, the point is I'm saying the same thing repeatedly because I'm right.

TomTom you deviant mofo.

I'll raise your edwina currie with a john prescott and hazel blears combo

[cowboyhat]

You've just completely disregarded the points i made.

I'm not disputing your 'facts', just that things are relative. And relatively its no worse.

Come back after Cons have won two terms. Its a never ending cycle.

[Jaspersharpe]

You've just completely disregarded the points i made.

Surely not! 

[Sloper]

You've just completely disregarded the points i made.

I'm not disputing your 'facts', just that things are relative. And relatively its no worse.

Come back after Cons have won two terms. Its a never ending cycle.

Your point about the media only being interested in the corruption of the party in government is substanitally correct but but only because in opposition you're unable to weild the influence and therefore aren't worth 'buying'.

As for it not being relatively worse, come off it it's much worse now, it's worse on a catergorical level and your point about the numbers is specious too, for in the 1980's there were far more Tories to get caught out.

Back in the 1980's and early 90's There were a few Tories asking what largely amounted to vanity questions now you have Labour Lords and MP's boasting about how they have changed policies and legislation for money.

Then there are the cases where there'sa  big donation and whoops, a change of policy.

As I said categorically different and far more serious and far more numerous.

Anyway I think we're getting seriosly off topic.

[DaveC]

An excellent op-ed piece in the NY Times on he current hoo-haa over the Healthcare bil passed by congress in the US last week:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html?src=tp

I have a couple of friends in the U.S. (both academics) who are concerned things could escalate massively in the run up to congressional elections later this year - particularly if, as many expect, the polls start moving heavily in favour of the Democrats.

[Jim]

Skip to 52:40, dynamite. Kept this one quite
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00rt9nv/Countryfile_28_03_2010/

[GCW]

Nice find Jim

[Johnny Brown]

That's a strong look for the crag. I might go back to it.

[Jim]

I'm going to try and emulate it for the cave trip today

[Davey_C]

Contact your MP about rushing through the DEB

I contacted my local mp and got this reply.....

The latest info I have is that the Bill will return for its 2nd Reading on 6th April, but it is very unlikely to go any further.

[Jaspersharpe]

I got a nice letter on posh paper telling me that my MP had raised his constituents concerns with the Digital Minister Stephen Timms and enclosing Mr Timms' reply.

Unfortunately Mr Timms is a cock and it was just a load of party line (Mandy's line) bullshit about copyright etc. Most depressing.

[slackline]

I got a nice letter on posh paper telling me that my MP had raised his constituents concerns with the Digital Minister Stephen Timms and enclosing Mr Timms' reply.

Unfortunately Mr Timms is a cock and it was just a load of party line (Mandy's line) bullshit about copyright etc. Most depressing.

I got the same (but then I'm pretty sure we're both in Richard Caborn's constituency).

Considering writing and pointing out the the DEB will effectively kill open WiFi and that this in turn will stiffle the pledge to get everyone on line (particularly in remote areas).  Will see if I can find the time at some point.

[Jaspersharpe]

That was part of what I wrote to Caborn and to Harriet Harman.

[slackline]

Yeah, I said the same, but now that he's/they ignored it I'll ask them again IN BIG SHOUTY LETTERS 

[cofe]

couple of hard on collider webcams:

http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html

[slackline]

couple of hard on collider webcams:

http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html

 

[slackline]

The magnets made me do it

[cofe]

magentic pulses? what, lentils and shit? that's well hippy.