Not Mid Morning Matters

JD in the Morning, off air…
September 10, 2013

It’s a new BBC TV game show ‘Who wants to be a Mark Byford’

So this new TV game show ‘Who Wants to be Mark Byford’ has already had its pilot and it was very well received by the top brass at the BBC. It’s a very simple format. The contestant sits there and the host, the attractive Lucy Adams, asks no questions and offers sweeteners until you get £1,000,000. And there has already been one winner of the big prize with other contestants getting close too.

Even the Banker, in the form of Former Barclays Chairman and BBC executive Marcus Aigus will sign off your ‘winnings’, with no questions asked. The only criterion to being a contestant is that you have to be on the top floor of the BBC. That’s you and me out then, but hey it’s always nice to see someone else do well, isn’t it.

No it isn’t.

This week has not been a good week for the BBC, an organisation that I am very proud to work for and very proud of those who work for it. Well, most of them. But how anyone can claim ‘value for money’, our money, when giving someone twice what they are contractually entitled too when shown or heading for the exit is appalling. But the worst is that the former deputy DG of the BBC was not the only one to trouser a great wad our money when he left the building. We pay the licence fee for programmes we watch and listen to, not to be given in excess to those who run the BBC.

The bench mark in these things is always the Prime minister’s salary or the country of Wales in size terms but neither can compare to the sheer stupidity of giving public money to those leaving a public body over and above what they are contractually entitled to. Yet despite the anger, the questions and the appalling answers given by some, nothing.

Whether it is government, the BBC or any public service we all pay for, the money paid at the top never equates to the money paid at the bottom. For many that not only hurts from the injustice but in the pocket too.
Maybe the BBC will learn and make sure that those who made these dreadful mistakes are never let near a room where these sorts of decisions are made in the future or ever near a company cheque book again.

On the other hand, who wouldn’t trouser a big wad of cash from their employer if it was on the table … ‘we don’t want to give you that’ as Chris Tarrant says on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. At least in that game show you have to answer questions properly.

Leave a comment
September 3, 2013

Never mind the ‘ism’; it’s the ‘ists’ you need to worry about.

Never mind the ‘ism’; it’s the 'ists' you need to worry about..

Leave a comment
September 3, 2013

Never mind the ‘ism’; it’s the ‘ists’ you need to worry about.

Whatever the ‘ism’ is, it is never the problem. It is the ‘ists’ that cause the problem. ‘Isms’ explore ideas and principles, promote thought and discussion, make points or reveal injustice and can give reasoning to concepts and ideas. ‘Isms’ give us all greater understanding of others and their beliefs, a chance to understand ideals, ideas, principles and how it works. Or the ‘ism’ affords you an opportunity to consider how it doesn’t. All good so far.

Here is where it goes wrong. ‘Ists’ are advocates for their ‘ism’. They talk about it, believe it to be true (nothing wrong with that) campaign for it, fight for it, die for it, kill for it and, in most cases, they never waver from their ‘ism’ because they believe their ‘ism’ is right regardless of who listens, who cares or who doesn’t. And there is nothing wrong with this either.

It is when the ‘ist’ becomes the ism, when the ‘ist’ believes that only there ‘ism’ is right, the only right way. And this is where it all goes very wrong.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with any ‘ism’; Islamism, feminism, conservatism, radicalism, the list goes on. It is those who become the ‘ist’ to the ‘ism’ that I find increasingly tedious and, in some cases, dangerous. These ‘ists’ don’t seem to want to engage in debate or discussion; they just seem to think they are right. No, they know they are right and if you don’t believe in their ‘ism’, you are wrong. And if you have the temerity challenge the ‘ist’ on their ‘ism’ they attack you. Look at the recent activity on twitter and other social media. All VERY far from social.

Surely if we continue to allow any ‘ist’ to go unchallenged it is freedom of speech that loses. We have a duty to protect the ideal of any ‘ism’ but we also have the duty to robustly challenge the ‘ist’.

They won’t like it but if their principles are sound and their chosen ‘ism’ is true then open, fair and reasoned discussion and debate is the way forward. Any ‘ist’ who can’t or won’t engage is this really needs to explore their own inadequacies and not hide behind the ‘ism’ that is seemingly giving them sucker. They are letting down there ‘ism’, there and beliefs and the others who support them too, and we should ignore them.

The best ‘ist’ is the one open to debate and challenge, or a silent one.

1 Comment
August 21, 2013

Where there is a will there is an agenda.

Death is the last act of life. Well almost. If you make a will you have made your last wishes known in a legally binding form so it is clear to all what your intentions are about all you have gathered through life. It’s simple, if well written. There may be some who are left out, some who think there are entitled and some who are surprised by your wishes but it is your Will, your literal will about what should be done about the moss you have gathered as you roll through the decades.

The story of Joan Edwards from Fishponds in Bristol is a story that should have never been. Her will was clear in her Will as qualified with and by her solicitors. Her wishes were to leave £520,000 to the government of the day. Simple. Her executors followed her wishes and the government of the day did what they felt was right with the legacy they were given. But no it was not right because a newspaper with an agenda decided that Ms Edwards and her solicitors were wrong, so forcing the government, her elected beneficiaries, to hand the money over to the treasury. The implication was that the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats had trousered the cash, with the comment from the Shadow Defence Secretary say they government taking the cash was ‘dodgy as hell’. You could almost smell the fear at party HQ.

Worse was to come against the will and the Will of Ms Edwards. The so called great and the good, some self-appointed to the ‘role’ such as the editor of The Post in Bristol, others democratically elected to the ‘role’ such as the Bristol Labour MP Kerry McCarthy decided what Ms Edwards actually meant and even suggested what the money, Ms Edwards money and her will actually was and what it should have gone towards. How utterly arrogant and disrespectful to conjecture on the will of Ms Edwards.

They did not know Ms Edwards, her will or had even read her Will. This was political agenda gone feral, making capital out of the mess of political funding in the UK, where ALL parties are trousering money from those with vested interests and agendas, be they Unions, businesses or those with political convictions or ideals. This is our system of party funding, and our political class and those who serve them have to deal with it, quickly, so they can serve us the voters and all our interests properly and fairly. They don’t at the moment because money talks, be it union or private cash, very loudly.

It is this that makes the story all the more unpalatable, because until the funding of politics is sorted nobody has the right, freedom or authority to challenge the will of anyone let alone a spinster from Fishponds who made her political will clear in her Will.

Leave a comment
August 11, 2013

Freedom of speech must have a name.

Freedom of speech must have a name..

Leave a comment
August 10, 2013

Freedom of speech must have a name.

What of the internet and what have we learnt? We are way off knowing the internet’s power but we are seeing a small taste of what it can do. One thing is for certain. Something urgently needs to be done about social media, and quickly, before it gets really out of control. So what do you and I now know?

Trolls do not live under a bridge or lurking in the bogs at Hogwarts a la Harry Potter. And bullies are not Gripper Stepson in the corner of the school playground waiting to call you ‘fatty’, steal your lunch money or preparing to give you a Chinese burn or dead leg at break time. Trolls and bullies lurk on the internet, waiting for you to say something or be something they don’t like. Then they strike.

If you think the internet is free then not only are you stupid but you are naïve too. It is not. It costs. You and I have seen this in last few weeks as a young girl paid the ultimate price to the 21st bully. And a Bristol man has been arrested for his alleged part in the trolling of two women on twitter. It costs.

So what is the answer? It is simple. Those who hide behind silly names on the internet and on social media are hiding from you. It has to stop. They have no right to claim freedom of speech or freedom of expression. If you want free speech then you have to put your full identity to it and stand by the full consequences of what you say. Freedom and the right to it is not something you hide behind some stupid identity. If you really mean it be real and true then say it as you see it. But be prepared to face the full consequences of what you say.

Twitter, Facebook or any other social networking site no more needs security buttons or panic buttons than the BBC needs another scandal. What these sites need is the verified and displayed identity of every user, with their full name and location on display for all to see. Then freedom of speech can be about what it should be, open and honest thoughts and debate not some bully using the 21st century version of the school playground.

One last point. If someone says something outrageous in the pub, it is they who are at fault not the pub. Same goes for social media. Ask Sally Bercow.

1 Comment