Monday, 12 September 2011

BBC talking out of its arse

The sin was published on the BBC website and repeated confidently on 'Today' this morning by a BBC correspondent, who named the fictitious legislation - that the holders of unwilling workers had been arrested under 'The Slavery and Servitude Act 2010'. There is, of course, no such Act. Two minutes on the net by a responsible editor could have discovered this, yet for 24 hours the BBC has been putting out this plainly untruthful statement. 

The arrests and any subsequent charges will in fact be made under s.71 of the 2009 Coroners and Justice Act. Guidance on the implementation of the section was issued by the MoJ last year, and is freely publicly available online

Why is this important? When this vast, comprehensively resourced national news organisation is incapable of undertaking the most simple fact-checking it shows itself gullible and willing to believe any old tosh that anyone in authority tells it, and to broadcast the same tosh to a credulous public accustomed to truth from the BBC. Readers, it has feet of clay. 

22 comments:

Greg Tingey said...

I would think you are all wrong, actually.
Slve-trading was formally abolished in (I think) 1807, and owning, anywherein Brit. jurisdiction in 1833 (?)
I would have thought any anti-slavery prosecutions would be brought under thise acts, surely?

Woodsy42 said...

Yes but there is one spark of brightness in the BBC reports. On two occassions yesterday I heard them clearly use the term 'travellers camp' rather than the bland and dishonest 'caravan park' description of earlier reports.

tomsmith said...

Has anyone called the BBC over this error?

If not then I will

plantman said...

Perhaps not in the same league but some months ago the compulsory-tax-funded BBC described a Spitfire as "the iconic WW11 fighter JET"!!! Curently BBC4 is broadcasting a series on Pathe, the newsreel company and in episode 1 (I think) talking about events in France in 1940 the commentary (the BBC commentary that is, not the original Pathe soundtrack) stated that the Germans pushed the British forces back to the coast of Normandy - to the best of my knowledge neither Calais nor Dunkirk are in Normandy

I wrote about both errors - to date I have received no reply to either letter.

As I have pointed out to the BBC (when on a previous occasion they excused themselves by saying that providing accurate and grammatical live sub-titles is "difficult")building a Ford Mondeo is "difficult"; keeping Morrison's shelves stocked is "difficult" the big, big difference is I am not forced on pain of imprisonment to give money to Ford or Morrisons. They only get it if the product they are providing is, in my opinion and of my own free choice, worth it.

Winston Smith said...

plantman..I was going to mention the Spitfire JET fighter report from the BBC Defence correspondent but you beat me to it.
I've found that if you have an interest in any subject you will regularly see errors on BBC reporting of the subject. They don't care because their excessively paid 'experts' will keep getting paid excessively irrespective of whether they talk and write total bollox.

Winston Smith said...

Oh and of course their errors are just deleted out. Never to be found again. History whitewashed.

Greg Tingey said...

WHY ARE YOU PICKING ON THE BBC?

The Daily Telegraph is supposed to be a reasonable "paper of record", yet almost every time I see a report to do with railways and railway operation, there is some awful howler in either their text or pictures.

What it comes to, of course, is that they are all appalling at strictly accurate reporting, in the scientific report-writing sense.

Yes, the BBC screwed-up over this one.
Are the others any better?
NO.

Plantman said...

Greg, thank you for the opportunity to clarify yet again why I am "picking on the BBC" Your intervention illustrates the issues perfectly.

Having been a Telegraph reader for more than 50 years I finally decided it had become too bad to continue with, So I STOPPED BUYING IT - it was crap and I was no longer prepared to give my money to it. No-one from the DT has come knocking on my door, threatening me with due process and prison.

My views on the BBC are the same as my views on the DT - but just let me try not to give it anymore of my cash.

That's why I'm "picking on the BBC" it demands is privileged position of having a compulsory tax levied on its behalf - I therefore demand that it is perfect!

Anonymous said...

The BBC/Al Jazeera, is the political arm of the, Socialist EU kleptocracy.
It also props up all the three main Socialist political parties in Britain.

It is also a corporation devoted to Mammon and its worship. It is riddled with advocates of the 'new order'. It is a monster, the whole corrupt entity is a Socialism apology engine.

I wouldn't mind much, I hardly ever watch its crass and banal trivia, biased news, current affairs and abominable science efforts.

What does bother me very much is, I have to pay for its verbal excreta, whether I like to, or not.

It is a poll tax.

That's the real problem.

DP111 said...

The BBC is biased not just in the politico-cultural sense but also in a racist way. For instance it never ceases to amaze me of their reverence for Islamic fanatics and their hatred of Israel. This is so pronounced that it amounts to racism.

The BBC can be counted on to support any thesis that will damage the West. Its blind acceptance of the man-made "global warming" amounts to being a matter of faith. As none of the BBC reporters or even its science journalists are capable of understanding thermal processes, there is no reason why their opinions should matter.

There is hardly any doubt that the BBC is dominated by the Left-Liberal culture. This bias is not just political but affects all its output, including theatrical productions or the classics. Its disdain of any other view is exceeded only by its ignorance.

PC 48 said...

Now that Toytown Orde has been passed over for Commissioner of the Met, can we expect further paroxisms from White City?

Pat said...

I happenned to see the same error in the Sun yesterday- sounds like churnalism, and an inventive press officer.

Greg Tingey said...

The BBC is not a tax.
I don't have a TV, I don't pay the license fee .... simple.

DP111
SERIOUS MISTAKE
Islam is NOT a race - you've just made the exact same miostake as the Graun (which banned me for racism in criticising islam - I'm an atheist, btw)
Religion, and religious insanity can strike anyone, unfortunately.

Plantman said...

GT says ......The BBC is not a tax.
I don't have a TV, I don't pay the license fee .... simple.

Don't accept that. I don't drink, so does that mean that the duty on alcohol is not a tax?

Sean O'Hare said...

@GT
I don't have a TV, I don't pay the license fee .... simple

I have a TV, I don't watch BBC channels. I still have to have a license ergo the license fee is a tax!

Anonymous said...

Greg Tingey: "The BBC is not a tax."

No but the BBC license fee is.

Greg Tingey: "I don't have a TV, I don't pay the license fee .... simple."

But what about ITV, or SKY? If I subscribe to those services are you saying I can't have them because the BBC is broadcasting all the time too?

Greg Tingey: "Islam is NOT a race .. "

True, but it is an ideology just like Christianity or Communism or Fascism.

It is a damn sight more violent than Christianity but probably on a par with Communism or Fascism in that regard.

Greg Tingey said...

Plantman
If you don't "do" drink, you are not buying it, you are NOT paying the tax (strictly it is duty + VAT).

Sky is owned/controlled, effectively by Murdoch.
Why should any sane person want to watch that tripe?

Isalm is a RELIGION, just like christianity or communism, and there is very little indeed to choose between them, when it comes to the way in which they treat people who don't lick their boots if they are in complete control of a state.
If you think islam is more violent than christianity, then you plainly have never read any history.
Start with the Albigensian and First crusades ....

Maddie said...

the ownership of sky or the sanity of the watcher is irrelevant.. the point is if i don't want to watch sky I am not forced (on pain of prison) to pay for it..... simples

Plantman said...

GT said - "Plantman
If you don't "do" drink, you are not buying it, you are NOT paying the tax (strictly it is duty + VAT)."

Oh dear, this is getting wearisome. I resisted the temptation to indulge in pedanticism by nit-picking your loose use of language when you claimed that "the BBC is not a tax" ('tho I see a later commentator did point out your error) but seeing as you want to bring introduce it I ust respond in kind: your comments about duty is wrong. The OED defines duty as a "tax" The Free Online Dictionary says "3. duty - a government tax" The T in VAT stands for "TAX"

Duty is a Tax, the BBC licence fee is a "TAX" I rejoice that, so far at least, you enjoy the freedom to so organise your affairs that it is a tax that you do not have to pay (as I rejoice that I don't have to pay the tax on alcohol) However the fact that you don't pay one and I don't pay the other doesn't mean they don't exist. I haven't climbed Mt Everest either but I'm damn sure it's there. Those taxes exist because millions of people who choose to spend their cash in a different way and on different things to either of us DO pay them.

The pernicious thing about the BBC Licence Fee tax is that it is in restraint of trade. Those who do want to view TV are not paying it to watch BBC transmissions, they are paying to be allowed to use a TV set and will be required by law (on pain of imprisonment) to pay it even if they never view a BBC transmission. It's as if there was an additional "Road Use Licence" that all and every driver ought to pay but the proceeds went solely to say, Ford even if they drove a Vauxhall or a Hyundai or whatever.

Plantman said...

CORRECTION

Should of course read:

..... but seeing as you want to introduce it, I must respond.....

It's the end of a long, hard day.

Anonymous said...

"Isalm is a RELIGION, just like christianity or communism,"

If you want to believe in your sky pixie, go ahead, no rational mind ought.

The difference between a religion and an ideology? Take an ideology and add a little pixie dust ... and just believe.

Anonymous said...

Greg Tingey: "SKY ..[].. Why should any sane person want to watch that tripe?"

Religion ... why should any sane person believe that crap?