BBC tows the "company line" when it comes to police harassment
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Xmas Themes For Uploaded Photos
Next: Just out: 'Hot - Life in the Australian outback' - could use some help
From: RichA on 3 Dec 2009 20:21 On Dec 3, 5:55 pm, Peter Twydell <Pe...(a)twydell.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In message > <177e6123-b9f1-45f4-8720-50334d5a3...(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, > RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> writes>This is what happens when the state owns and runs media > >corporations. > > The BBC is not owned by the state. > > The BBC is a 'public corporation': neither a private corporation nor a > government department. The high ideal is that it is held in trust for > the public of the UK by the BBC Trust (the successor to the Board of > Governors following the renewal of the BBC Charter by the government in > 2006). > > Practically every government is convinced that the BBC is against it, > which probably shows that in general it gets things about right. No, it shows governments don't hold with any dissent when it comes to things they own. Americans won't be familiar with this, but Canadian and British governments hold an iron fist over all employees (party members) in that any dissent is grounds for dismissal. American politics permits a great deal more latitude when it comes to internal party dissent.
From: Paul Ciszek on 4 Dec 2009 00:06 In article <dd7d2311-c6c2-4946-b7a1-3739abed9016(a)f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >members) in that any dissent is grounds for dismissal. American >politics permits a great deal more latitude when it comes to internal >party dissent. Tell that to Dede Scozzafava; she'll be so relieved. -- Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice." Autoreply is disabled |
From: Chris H on 4 Dec 2009 03:13 In message <dd7d2311-c6c2-4946-b7a1-3739abed9016(a)f16g2000yqm.googlegroup s.com>, RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> writes >On Dec 3, 5:55�pm, Peter Twydell <Pe...(a)twydell.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> In message >> <177e6123-b9f1-45f4-8720-50334d5a3...(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, >> RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> writes>This is what happens when the >>state owns and runs media >> >corporations. >> >> The BBC is not owned by the state. >> >> The BBC is a 'public corporation': neither a private corporation nor a >> government department. The high ideal is that it is held in trust for >> the public of the UK by the BBC Trust (the successor to the Board of >> Governors following the renewal of the BBC Charter by the government in >> 2006). >> >> Practically every government is convinced that the BBC is against it, >> which probably shows that in general it gets things about right. > >No, it shows governments don't hold with any dissent when it comes to >things they own. They don't own the BBC... in fact the government (of both persuasions) has had to go to court to stop the BBC doing things in the past. Usually the government looses the case >Americans won't be familiar with this, but Canadian >and British governments hold an iron fist over all employees (party >members) Most employees (civil service) are not permitted to be party members. > in that any dissent is grounds for dismissal. From the civil service or the poetical party? > American >politics permits a great deal more latitude when it comes to internal >party dissent. You don't live inthe real world do you? -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Chris H on 4 Dec 2009 03:15 In message <177e6123-b9f1-45f4-8720-50334d5a31bc(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups ..com>, RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> writes >This is what happens when the state owns and runs media >corporations. It does not own or run the BBC which is why they had the head of ACPO on this morning to explain the police actions in another similar case... The BBC got him to admit the police were wrong. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Twibil on 4 Dec 2009 03:30
On Dec 3, 9:23 pm, Oliver <rup...(a)nospam.co.uk> wrote: > > > > American > >politics permits a great deal more latitude when it comes to internal > >party dissent. > > McCarthy.........! Uh, yes, and now think hard and see if you can recall what became of McCarthy... Yup. That's right. Reviled by just about everyone except Nixon, and completely discredited in the end. He died a broken alcoholic, killed by his own drinking: his name a watchword for everything America shouldn't be. |