But It's No Longer Serving The Needs Of The Audience, That's Why It's Failing

New BBC director general Matt Brittin has told staff the BBC "has never been more needed" but that "tough choices are unavoidable as we make savings".

What do we need it for, that other broadcasters cannot provide, exactly? 

In an email to staff, Brittin said: "The BBC has proved throughout its history how quickly it can reinvent itself to serve the needs of audiences - from restructuring for World War II to repurposing during Covid to spinning up services in conflict zones. We need, collectively, to call on that sense of urgency now."

The BBC has never served its audience because that’s not who it’s geared to and on which it has no need to depend for its cash flow. Just like the NHS. 

"I know change will not be easy. Tough choices are unavoidable as we make savings. We should ask ourselves, honestly: if we were inventing the BBC today, what would we do? Then respond with clarity, pace and purpose."

Well, as the old joke goes, I wouldn't start from here! And I agree with Longrider - no one should be forced to pay for a license simply for possessing a tv. Move with the times, move to a subscription model. Then we will see what people truly rhink you are worth...

What A Surprise, Said No-one….

A mother has told a court that she thought her daughter was going to die after she was attacked by a retired police officer’s two rottweilers

.Aha, this case! 

Nigel Gray’s dogs, Indiana and Dakota, ‘tossed the girl around like a toy’ during the incident in Raphael Park, East London.

As we saw from social media, it wasn’t a first attack. 

The attack was the second in two years involving the 63-year-old’s pets, but he was not banned from keeping dogs in the future and he was handed a suspended prison sentence.The elderly victim of the first of Gray’s dogs’ attacks – who had to have his dog put down as a result – called the sentence a ‘joke’.

An elderly man loses his pet and police are not interested and so a child is almost killed. He might be retired but the other cops days should be numbered! 

Gray was not banned from keeping dogs in the future, but the court heard he had already agreed to the two rottweilers being destroyed.

Cant help feeling that was an easy cop-out for him, and now he’s free as a bird to get another mutt and use it as a weapon! 

'Guardian' Puzzled By Recurring Phenomenon...

 

Because it's summer, you loons! 

Sunday Funnies...

 This'll make you feel old! 

Tweet of the Month - Special Election Edition

 These were so good they deserved their own category! 

Tweet Of The Month

Post Title Of The Month

From the blog for all retail workers, Not Always Right, comes this little gem about one of the oldest tricks in the book: 

Quote Of The Month

 Perry at 'Samizdata' on the slow dawning of reality that you're on the wrong side of history:

"But then in late July for an entire week, the RAF and USAAF filled the sky over Hamburg by day and by night. And although Hannelore did not know it at the time, it was called Operation Gomorrah. She told me that on one night in particular, her father called the whole family outside. It was bright as day, the entire skyline to the south a line of incandescent light. By morning, white dust entirely covered their home and farmland, with a constant rain of ash still falling from the sky. 40,000 people had burned to death in a firestorm in a single day in Hamburg. And only then, our friend’s grandmother said, did they finally realise everything was not going to be alright and the war had been a catastrophic mistake. Only then, and from then onwards, did everything they read in the newspapers or heard on the radio ring hollow."

Post Of The Month

 David Thompson on the doomed struggle for artistic purity.

Suspicious Timing...

I later heard from his campaign team that Bamber had not received the letter because HMP Wakefield had banned him from receiving mail and email from journalists.

However, the campaign team said he was not allowed to email a response saying how much he liked the tree because he had also been banned from sending letters and emails to journalists. The campaign group says he is now banned from all forms of correspondence with the media.

Bamber has been writing to journalists since he was jailed in 1985. This is how we have learned about many of the inconsistencies, errors and failings in the initial investigation that make many of us believe his conviction is unsafe at the very least. It’s also how we’ve learned about crucial evidence that has been destroyed in the intervening years. So why would HMP Wakefield stop him now?

Because they can - the Labour Party troubles are good cover after all. 

It’s hard to believe that it is unconnected to the coverage his case has received over the past couple of years.

Yes, it is.  

This month the Sun ran an interview with Michael O’Brien, one of three men wrongly convicted of the 1987 killing of Cardiff newsagent Phillip Saunders, who spent time in jail with Bamber and is convinced he is innocent. O’Brien became a seminal figure in ensuring that prisoners who claimed they were wrongfully convicted had access to the media to make their case. A number of high-profile convictions have been overturned at the court of appeal in recent years. In 2023, Andrew Malkinson was cleared after spending 17 years in prison for a rape he did not commit. In 2025, Peter Sullivan had his murder conviction quashed after spending 38 years in prison, which is believed to be the UK’s longest wrongful imprisonment. Not surprisingly, these wrongful convictions have led journalists to focus on other potential miscarriages of justice.

When you’re digging for gold and find some, naturally you keep digging! 

The most high profile of these cases are Bamber and Lucy Letby, who was convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others. If either of these convictions were to be overturned, it would cast a huge shadow over whether the British justice system is fit for purpose.

There already is a huge shadow over it. It was cast by Michael O’Brien.  

Without giving the Guardian a specific explanation for the decision in Bamber’s case, the Prison Service said it does not issue blanket bans and cited “the need to protect victims from serious distress and maintain confidence in the justice system” as the basis for restrictions on communication. But the Simms and O’Brien ruling states that limitations on communications that are considered “necessary” and “proportionate” to protect the rights of others, including victims, must be justified individually. In Bamber’s case we have seen no such justification.

And you will not see any. Because there isn’t one they could admit to.