BBC BLOGS - The Ouch! Blog It's a disability thing
« Previous | Main | Next »

Messageboard closure

Damon Rose Damon Rose | 16:22 UK time, Friday, 10 June 2011

I thought it would be helpful to jump in before the weekend and respond to some of your concerns raised since we announced the closure of the Ouch! messageboard a couple of days ago.

We're reading your messages and, as I said the other day, we'll be assessing where everyone's up to and helping to connect people in the final week; we will indeed be relaxing some of our usual rules to achieve this if necessary. The board is set to close on Wednesday 6 July.

We're pleased to see that alternative brand new communities are already springing up and, if you think we can help, get in touch with us via email. Our Facebook page and our blog remain though and we hope to see you there adding your invaluable thoughts and ideas.

Some of you have asked how we came to the conclusion to close the message board, and as I mentioned before, the BBC's plan to close a range of message boards shaped the new format of Ouch! now that it's moving to BBC News. We did consider the impact on users before making the final decision, though these types of editorial decisions are not subject to the public sector equality duty.

Safety and privacy have proven to be big talking topics over the last couple of years in social media circles and many empowering improvements have been made as a result. If you've been scared away in the past, it might be worth taking a new look.

We follow many existing Ouch! messageboard users via Twitter, and some on Facebook. We know it can work well and keep you connected with people and information. There are other forums and blogs with both general and specific focus. Some of them are quite fantastic and we encourage you to share your findings on the Ouch! boards while they're still here.

The BBC's webwise site has some great informative pages about safety online and how to understand new online communities you might come across. Here are some links to help you:

BBC Webwise on messageboards

BBC Webwise on social media

BBC Webwise on internet privacy

We'll also be searching out specific advice and experiences around mental wellbeing online and posting this to our blog. Do look out for our posts and again we invite you to add to it and make our content better and richer in doing so.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    Could you please provide an explanation as to how the BBC Public value Test has been applied to the decision?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/new_services/index.shtml

    "Purpose of the Public Value Test

    1.1. The Public Value Test (“PVT”) is a key component of the BBC’s system of
    governance which took effect with the Charter and Agreement on 1 January 2007.1
    The PVT must be applied before a decision is taken to make any significant change to
    the BBC's UK Public Services."

  • Comment number 2.

    That's a really talented way of not actually answering any of the legitimate questions at all.

  • Comment number 3.

    A long blog to say nothing at all really. Twiiter sites and facebook sites are very suspect areas for disabled people, all you are saying (And without basis or statistics), is that the current slapdash approach via social sites to OUCH thing is OK.... sort of and this is AFTER you read disruptors logging in to your last blog and SEE HEAR getting ridicule, they are like vultures circling waiting to attack the disabled once we are turned over to areas they run.. so have pout OUCH contributors on a promise of MUCH MUCH worse attacks, except most of us will NOT go to these sites to get picked off. So in effect you are just kicking out disabled people to save money, but ARE keeping fanzine sites that are about fiction and not real people, this seems quite wrong in my view. Perhaps because many of the 'boards' were highly critical of BBC output ? so its a revenge thing ? why target disabled as the culprits ?

  • Comment number 4.

    This is purely a financial reason. Tell you what you can do to assist.. Give us the Ouch community as a handover and let some well established trusted members Mod it as a trial.. If it's working, let it continue, if its not, then you know what, I'll pack my bags and give it a try.

    To say you did an impact assessment is not really true as you didn't take the users opinions into account. You didn't consult and you announced the removal with extremely short notice, not allowing feedback into the impact of the removal.

    I look forward to your response.

  • Comment number 5.

    "We're pleased to see that alternative brand new communities are already springing up and, if you think we can help, get in touch with us via email."

    Well it's hardly surprising that new places are springing up - the BBC scared disabled people into creating them. There are so many different places that different people are all over the place - a little bit of divide and rule being perpetrated against disabled people.

    You can help by obeying the law and keeping the message board open - which you know is what most people want.

  • Comment number 6.

    Are all the BBC messageboards closing? I couldn't get any help with a problem with IPlayer because the IPlayer help message board has closed and someone else taken it over but the replacement won't let you post anything without it being stuck in moderation for who knows how long (by the time it gets posted the program may not be available to download anyway!) that was not meantioned in its terms and conditions. Ouch board is replaced with a Facebook request Ouch as a friend not a proper group. We are being left with substandard replacements- or totally useless replacements in the case of IPlayer's help board (I had to resort to making a complaint about the problem instead of asking for help as that was the only option I had left).

  • Comment number 7.

    Just because other forums have sprung up doesn't mean that we will be able to use them. It feels like you are abdicating responsibility by withdrawing the Ouch boards & expecting the public to run new boards. The BBC used to be trusted but its obvious you don't really care as "editorial decisions" rule rather than public service. I will never be able to use facebook or twitter as they ask for your real names well facebook does and there is no way I can go back there. Thanks for making me more socially isolated than before, I now will only have my friends on the epilepsy forum but no other social contact.
    Don't know why I'm bothering to tell you since you obviously dont care
    bye
    monic

  • Comment number 8.

    As posted on the messageboard:

    "We're reading your messages"

    Well, you're not really absorbing the content, are you, because you're still going ahead with the closure anyway.

    "We're pleased to see that alternative brand new communities are already springing up"

    Alternative boards have always been available - they are an annex to Ouch!, NOT a substitute for it.

    ""We did consider the impact on users before making the final decision, though these types of editorial decisions are not subject to the public sector equality duty. "

    I don't think you had any idea of the impact on users - the posts AFTER
    you announced the closure have told you this, so maybe the decision should be reviewed in this light?

    "We follow many existing Ouch! messageboard users via Twitter, and some on Facebook. We know it can work well and keep you connected with people and information. "

    You *cannot* conduct the type of debate we have on Ouch! using a media like Twitter that only allows 140 characters per post. Facebook is *not* safe, yesterday's story about the amputee whose picture was splashed on pornographic sites for 'devotees' to ogle over just about sums up how security and privacy is valued there. And nothing can replace the message board format which is tailor-made for large groups of posters to communicate simultaneously.

    Disabled people come to Ouch! *because* it is run by the BBC and they feel they can trust such a large organisation to protect them as they discuss things that are very personal.

    Please look at the posts again, or even better, show these threads to whoever was ultimately responsible for making this decision.

    Thank you.

  • Comment number 9.

    " we'll be assessing where everyone's up to and helping to connect people in the final week; "

    Interesting statement, I translate it as being we will just walk away from all of you on the 6th July .

    Facebook is not safe, never has been and never will be. Been there and ran away fast.

    Disabled people have a need for safety and 'space' to communicate often very personal matters without fear of harassment by the A.B.'s, which I trusted Aunty Bee to continue to provide as a Public Service Organization.

    Ouch offered stimulation for many of us housebound crips, often my only form of contact with the outside world for days on end.

    Aunty is just abandoning her 'family'.

  • Comment number 10.

    'We did consider the impact on users before making the final decision,'

    Did you really? Have you read the comments on the first blog? Clearly you did not consult your users at any time, or you would never have suggested those sites. Telling people to take a 'new look' still doesn't address their security concerns and is frankly condescending.

    I also find the comment about 'editorial decisions' to be crass and highly patronising.

    Good luck to you Ouchers. From that response, you're gonna need it.

  • Comment number 11.

    Dear Damon

    In case it has escaped your and/or the BBC's notice the BBC is not that final arbiter of what is and is not subject to the previous Disability and new combined Public Bodies Equality Duties following the new Act, only the High Court will be able to rule on this.

    In view of this I hereby inform you and the BBC that I do now indeed intend to proceed with a formal request for judicial review of this iresponsible, inequitable and discriminatory decision to close what you yourselves have always described as the "beating heart" of Ouch and not least given the lack of any aknowledgement let alone any detailed response to my earlier requests regarding the BBC's lack of compliance with those equalities duties.

  • Comment number 12.

    No good at all - how do you suggest a large group of people hold a conversation on FB without inviting comments from random passers-by? As far as I can make out, private messaging is possible, but that doesn't address the group thing - Ouch messageboards have become a community.
    If someone reads a query on a messageboard and they feel they may be able to help, it's easy to post a reply - any comments to the same person on other topics go into other threads, which makes following a conversation easy. On FB they all just get mixed together and you also have to wade through all the junk that people you know from other places might post (a bit like trying to get advice on private things from 2 or 3 well-informed people in the middle of a busy rush-hour railway station while passing acquantances try to grab your attention perhaps?). I am theoretically "on" FB but check it rarely and find it generally full of people commenting on their latest horoscope/ fake cake/ sister's friend's new shoes - it's too much like hard work sifting through all this to the genuine news.

    On Twitter there isn't room to ask a complex question or give a helpful response.

    I don't know if it's true that you have to put your real name out on either of those sites. Even if it isn't, it's certainly true that they are both hosted by large commercial companies (?in the USA?) who are keen to have everyone connected and open to the world all the time. Most of my real-world contacts don't know about Ouch & wouldn't spot me even if they visited as I don't use a name anyone knows me by or my e-mail address. It feels reasonably safe being hosted *in the UK by the BBC* and is the only messagboard I use at all - indeed it's the only one I've tried.
    We can not get the same sort of interaction on "social sites" at all AND most service providers for messageboards are based in other countries whose laws may allow for much easier data-mining.
    If the Ouch! messageboards had been tried out for a few months then deemed a failure, most users would have shrugged it off - but they have been running for many years so people have built up genuine relationships both within the group and with the group as a whole.
    The decision has been made without consulting with the board users at all and the responses so far suggest that there will be many people who are seriously upset by this - and they will not all go to alternative sites, many will fade back into isolation.
    I asked earlier what will happen to the infrequent users who pop in when they have

  • Comment number 13.

    I asked earlier what will happen to the infrequent users who pop in when they have the spare time, want to ask a question or those who have been unwell & unable to visit for a while.
    Will they come back in a few weeks to find the boards gone and a message saying, "These messageboards have been closed; if you want help, call your council or NHS; if you are in crisis, call the Samaritans; if you want the help, understanding & support of your peers, bog off."?

    (repeated, I'm not sure if the last bit was just too long to fit in the "box" but it didn't appear)

  • Comment number 14.

    There is yet further comment on this mater from Damon Rose.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ouch/2011/06/messageboard_closure.html

    "Some of you have asked how we came to the conclusion to close the message board, and as I mentioned before, the BBC's plan to close a range of message boards shaped the new format of Ouch! now that it's moving to BBC News. We did consider the impact on users before making the final decision, though these types of editorial decisions are not subject to the public sector equality duty. "

    That is most interesting - as move of BBC Ouch from BBC Education to BBC News would require consultation and relevant Equality Impact Assessments.

    Also there is the BBC Public Value Test (PVT) which is required under the BBC Charter.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/new_services/index.shtml

    "Purpose of the Public Value Test

    1.1. The Public Value Test (“PVT”) is a key component of the BBC’s system of
    governance which took effect with the Charter and Agreement on 1 January 2007.1
    The PVT must be applied before a decision is taken to make any significant change to
    the BBC's UK Public Services."

    Mr Rose has indicated that the decision to close the BBC Ouch Message Boards is an editorial decision.

    The claims that BBC News already cover disability issues fully is not true.

    If it was correct they may have noted and mentioned the last New Years Honours List in which persons were honoured for their contributions to the field of Disability Hate Crime.

    The BBC News may even have covered such matters as the publication of such interesting reports as "Disability hate crime: Getting Away With Murder" published jointly by SCOPE and UK Disabled People’s Council (UKDPC) - August 2008. http://www.scope.org.uk/help-and-information/publications/getting-away-murder

    It makes most interesting reading and has been widely discussed by BBC On Line service users, but has not been mentioned in any blogs, articles or other output from BBC News.

    Interestingly it was news to disabled people and reported via the Ouch Message Boards

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/messageboards/F2322273?thread=5847988

    It is odd how Disability related news on a national level hits the headlines on Ouch - and yet the editors of BBC News did not think it worth a mention.

    The BBC have shown for a long time that they are very interested in reporting events involving disabled people, particularly murders, assaults and institutional abuse. It is noted that when disabled people are making news for other reasons the subject seems to be edited out and not covered.

    The recent coverage of the "Steven Neary" case and Hillingdon Council at the high court even failed to mention a subject close to the hearts of many disabled and elderly people.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13498461

    That is the powers used under mental capacity legislation that can remove your human rights and have you detained. Deprivation Of Liberty Orders, can be imposed without due process of law being followed and cause Human Rights Abuse.

    When the BBC News publish a story on-line there are normally links to past coverage of the story, so that the relevant history can be seen. However with this report there are none.

    The BBC Have covered it before 04 Aug 2010, 28 Feb 2011, & 01 Mar 2011.

    These should have been listed as related content - and yet the only link in that section was to HM Courts Service.

    Is it that computer servers / system programming of the BBC News website just didn't know how to pull these archived BBC news stories out to link then to the latest News Coverage?

    Or was an editorial decision made that it was not worth doing as it was only a story that would be covered in passing and only likely to be of interest to Disabled people, their families, carers and legal advocates?

    There are grave concerns as to the claims that The BBC News "..has a strong track record of covering disability issues,..", given that basic every day news coverage about Disability issues is not even published in Equality on the BBC News website - or in a manner that correlates with how none disability related news stories are published.

    Such failures are "Institutional" and relate to policies, practices, procedures and managerial and even editorial attitudes. Until such Institutional attitudes are changed it is not appropriate for anyone to claim that equality exists and that output is in fact in line with editorial guidelines or represents a "Strong Track Record".

  • Comment number 15.

    Both Twitter and Facebook are NOT safe media for disabled people to use.
    Some fool put me on Facebook as a "friend" and it took me months to get my personal security back as a result.

  • Comment number 16.

    So is it the end of Ouch altogether? and what about the fabulous Podcasts, surely they are staying?

  • Comment number 17.

    I am another lurker of the OUCH boards. The discussions are relevant, current and mostly free from internet abuse or data breaches. These boards are the first place I visit when there is a current news story about disability that will impact on my life. Even as a lurker they are a lifeline for me. There are no other respectable substitutes. It's impossible to engage in meaningful conversation in twitter, and equally impossible to find meaningful discussions. Facebook? Seriously?

    It’s laughable for social networks to be described as a realistic alternative for disability discussions. The disabled community need a one-stop respectable UK resource like the OUCH message boards. There are real and serious changes ahead for many people and these boards are vital at such a critical time. This is just another disability resource being 'cut'. When does it end? Where do we go? I have been on the internet for a long time and there is much fragmentation and junk.

    The OUCH boards are not just another board on the BBC. It's impossible not to see how we will be adversely affected by this change. The timing is just rubbing salt in our wounds. BBC, shame on you.

  • Comment number 18.

    Well, as a long-time user, I certainly am not affected to the extent that some users here will do.

    But really Damon, this is an insane (no disability pun intended) choice of action to follow; Facebook is NOT a forum compared to the messageboards, and as already pointed out, there have been cases of harassment which are more commonplace on FB compared to a moderated forum.

    I'm sure that the remainder of the new forums could assist in the matter, but I do not agree with this course of action, as this should not even be happening in the first place simply because of the distress and damage this has caused.


    I wish luck to Peter AKA Sociable in his case, and certainly hope that this can be resolved through the legal proceedings.

  • Comment number 19.

    I suppose we should not be surprised at the BBC's decision to close the Ouch message board as a bureaucracies answer to economies is always cut service not overheads. There has been a steady attrition of program quality over the years whilst management and its empires have grown inexorably.

    The BBC has never paid much regard to its viewers and listeners preferring to indulge the narrow preferences of its own internal clique.

    Perhaps the time has come to close the whole monolith and gain all our information and entertainment via Facebook and Twitter. That way we can revel in fact and fantasy. We can be exposed to rational argument and outright abuse. This is true freedom of expression? Fine for those people who can happily ignore the bullying that inevitably arises on open forums, not so good for those who cannot. Let them retreat into their own little cells. The BBC cares not one jot.

    I suppose it would defend this position as not being a social service, but it is a public service and seems to have forgotten the service element. Shame on the BBC.

  • Comment number 20.

    Well, here we go again. The BBC ignoring any and all views of its licence fee payers. The closure of messageboards, H2G2, and other user generated content has nothing to do with lack of funds, more to 'keep up with the Jones'. Facebook and Twitter are NO substitute for debate on any scale. Twitter consists of 'fodder for the braindead' frankly and the BBC's insistence on constant referral to use either medium frankly sucks.
    The BBC overspend some £35m pounds on this daft move to Manchester yet miraculously they manage to find an extra £50m to cover this shortfall and to finish this move no-one wanted yet they close all other user content saying they can't afford it?
    What we have is a few senior managers going on a slash and burn policy across the whole of BBC Online, some of whom have left the BBC's employment leaving a trail of wreckage and destruction behind.
    Its time the BBC realised they're only here because we pay a substantial sum of money every year and for that we expect to have our voices heard and actions by the bbc taken on the basis that licence fee payers deserve and have a right to say how and what the bbc does.
    I, along with millions of others probably, deplore the patronising tone we get dealt with when we raise concerns on what the bbc does whether online or elsewhere. The attitude of 'the bbc knows best' frankly stinks and the current bbc management and the online strategy is nothing short of a form of vandalism designed to stifle legitimate debate and right of acces to services we (the licence fee payers) pay for.
    I have seen nothing from anyone at the BBC dealing with online content state a good case for closure of online services. I have seen no consultations, no other views/opinions other than that of a select few at the bbc.
    Where are the Trust and Trust members? They're supposed to represent the licence fee payer to ensure we get quality and value for money not cut after cut after cut.
    Now the final nail in the coffin, the BBC close out the only disability section that has provided help, support and information for all. It seems no-one is immune to the savage cuts imposed at a stroke with no concensus or debate.

  • Comment number 21.

    It is clear, from replies on this blog and the number of threads generated on the messageboards, that this move is very unpopular among licence-payers - for that is what we are. I exhort the BBC to reconsider this daft idea and keep the Ouch! messageboards running.

  • Comment number 22.

    I've just visited the Facebook page. How on EARTH you expect that to be conducive to discussion is beyond me. The wall bit is full of rubbish surveys the like of which my ten year old niece wouldn't bother with. How are people supposed to discuss ANYTHING there?

    Absolutely ridiculous. How is that supposed to replace Ouch as it currently is? You haven't considered the needs of your users at all.

  • Comment number 23.

    The BBC are following many other areas like charity, who didn't like it up 'em so closed boards telling users and people passing on information to each other in safety, to go to twitter and FB too, then they promptly disowned and ignored them. Many provided real information and support, that SAVED users having to take charity, so charity wanted them out,the BBC is getting flak from the government and the DWP to shut disabled up, the BBC duly obliges !

  • Comment number 24.

    It seems no amount of pressure from the licence payer will have little or no effect under the new chairman of the BBC Trust. Media reports today (Sun 12/6/11) show a chairman prepared to propose closing tv channels, not bid for many sporting events as well as continued cuts elsewher inc online. His preference is to prioritise the World Service at the expense of everything else. If true and carried out the BBC will frankly become nothing more than a news channel and the main tv channels will be nothing more than a portal for repeats and even more trash tv. Its not down to lack of money, its down to bad management and this insane rush to keep up with the likes of Sky and ITV. Perhaps its time to think the unthinkable and scrap the licence fee and make the BBC commercial and then see if it survives in the real world. Under current management, it wouldn't survive thats for sure.

  • Comment number 25.

    Come on BBC, you can't palm us off with "Facebook and Twitter."
    Can you? I thought that the BBC had no responsibility for external sites..
    More like you are trying to get rid of what doesn't matter to save money?

    Are you implying that disabled people don't matter? Why else close such a popular board?

  • Comment number 26.

    Getting angry now. "Sort it out yourselves" (on twitter/facebook etc) is NOT a good response to multiple objections by users who genuinely need the service the OUCH! messageboard provides. Somehow I doubt the assimilation of wider OUCH by BBC News will suddenly mean increasing coverage of disability issues and even if it does, how does that provide actual genuine help to isolated disabled people out in the community that the messageboard does? What is the public service obligation of broadcasters these days? Does it not apply to their online media as well?

  • Comment number 27.

    The BBC seems to forget that the Ouch! boards are used by many people with mental health problems, learning difficulties, autistic spectrum disorders and other disabilities which mean they do not always communicate clearly. On Ouch! this is understood and accepted. Elsewhere, they may well be subject to abuse and ridicule. With the best will in the world, small private sites cannot moderate 24/7.

    Already the disability hate is manifesting itself on the 'Save Ouch!' petition site - below are a few of the comments:

    "You bunch of sad f[censored]"

    "Oh f[censored] off, you silly old biddy. get a grip."

    "You're probably on benefits just because you are entitled to them ,not because you really deserve them."

    "A lot of other people have problems, don't think you're more deserving than others. What arrogance. "

    "I have a feeling a lot of these moaners define themselves in terms of their disability. I feel quite sorry for them, what a tragic and meaningless life they must lead. "

    Nice, eh? What we can look forward to when we are exposed to the darker side of the Web.

    As posted on the message board:

    Last year when I was in a severe meltdown, the BBC moderation system saved me from myself when, in acute distress, I posted my parents' phone number and other details about myself that were 'too much information'. If I'd been posting that up on Facebook, where would the protection be then?


  • Comment number 28.

    I'd have to agree with Scotastic's comment at 4. "Give us the Ouch community as a handover and let some well established trusted members Mod it as a trial.. "

    It seems a shame to waste the incredible amount of support and resources that are made available through the message boards.

    I understand that the BBC has very strict codes as to what it can and cannot 'handover' to external sources and that as an organisation is not responsible for the context of external websites but might it be possible to archive the message boards as they stand and link to a new site continuing their work?

    As someone working on a disability hate crime project, discussions on Ouch! are regularly referenced by the Disability Hate Crime Network, and I share seegee's concerns (at 13.) that sporadic users won't know where to go for advice/support/suggestions.

    I acknowledge that the BBC has decided to take this step and would ask that regular users are contacted to see if they would be willing to take over the responsibility for running the Boards. This online community is the only accessible resource for many disabled people and I'm sure many people would be willing to devote their time and energy to ensuring such a vital service remains open.

  • Comment number 29.

    Are people with illness or disability being silenced?
    Legal Aid is being massively reduced for the vulnerable and hostility is everywhere.
    Government policies with the approval and silence of so many are being implemented that will cause untold misery.
    Wasn't it last year that an MP allegedly said someone using facebook should not be on the sick?

  • Comment number 30.


    I want a large discount back from the telly tax now! I am more of a lurker on ouch than a poster these days. Sorry about that if I had known that the beeb was in need of so much help msghost aka oldmothercath would not have stayed quiet so long!
    How did it go
    "First they came for the Jews and I said nothing as I was not a Jew."
    mmmm twaddle!
    Everybody knows that, First they came for the Disabled and nobody cared enough even to remember that, let alone say anything about it afterwards like in the famous Pastor's sermon I quoted from!
    It's not nice knowing that in terms of equality we haven't moved much frrom the position of the Nazi's on Disability.
    I have to say I didn't expect the BBC to be one of the first to jump back in time to take such a stand against the Disabled. Perhaps you have been thinking a bit too much about Timelords! It must be really annoying that the new Dr Who tat reached the BOGOF and 99p shops before the series had even finished! What can I say? Get a new Dr! I know of a place where you could find people who can tell you how to change doctors, oh wait your closing that down!
    I really think that if you have Sky TV or Cable then you should be able to opt out the telly tax and decide that you don't want any beeb channels at all, it's not like you make anything worth watching these days anyway!

    There isn't a lot I can do with my disability. If I'd known that I was making a mistake as a kid by choosing the 'Just say no' position on drugs that Aunty B was shoving down my throat because around here the addicts are treated better than me, then I would have jumped in and shouted YES! (see we could all do with a timelord now and then!) One or two things I can do with my MS though include, absolutely not buying any BBC DVD's, stop buying my kids any of the afore mentioned tat you churn out and switch you off! I'm looking at my DVD shelf at the moment and count 18 DVD box sets not one of which we paid any less than £30 for. Okay most of those go back to a time when my hubby and I were both working but not buying new clothes, haircuts ect I have bought a fair few dvd's. I can afford to not have the BBC in my life! Can you say you can afford to do without me? You might also note that I have a large family who also pay telly tax and buy your merchandise. Can you afford to do without them as well?

    Paul asks Are we being silenced? To a certain extent Paul but the real problem is that we have always been silent and let th

  • Comment number 31.

    for the rest of my last post it's in one of the two blog accounts I now seem to have
    just look up oldmothercath.

  • Comment number 32.

    okay Original blog was Got MS pain? There is no shame
    It seems that this mornings has opened a new account so look for Ouch I'm Hurt!

    msghost

  • Comment number 33.

    At this rate everyone's going to be in the Bull or the Village Hall over on the Archers' messageboards: i can't see the BBC daring to touch them yet!

  • Comment number 34.

    The problem with The Bull is that a small bunch of 'Are You Local?-ers' have a strictly literal interpretation of 'off topic' ,and tend to post irrelevant comments to threads, unless they're on universally agreed serious subjects, like Sharon Shoesmith, for example. Plus, the more people who turn up to use it as an alternative general discussion/ The Choice Is Yours board, the more likely it is to be pruned away...

  • Comment number 35.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 36.

    Today at 2pm I email my MP.

  • Comment number 37.

    Dear Mr Rose

    You seem to have broken cover and made a few comments - very poorly received - over on the Ouch Message Boards.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/messageboards/NF2322273?thread=8238105&post=109593211#p109592969

    When can the readers here expect responses and equality of Patronage?

  • Comment number 38.

    will i be able to ask you questions as i would of done on Ouch message board and will you be able to help me through it thank you

  • Comment number 39.

    I am unable to get care because of all the government cuts i am unable to cope with my care needs please can you advise me thankyou

  • Comment number 40.

    Such a bad decision is our eyes(blogers and people who joined this community)I was introduced to Ouch by a friend and I felt like home with everybody so caring and supportive always.I'm glad the manager and all people in charge took time to read our opinions even if making that final decision. Mabe

  • Comment number 41.

    Dear Damon

    Ref the blog by Giles and the claims that BBC News has a great track record on disability issues!

    I would raise it with Giles on his blog but it has been closed to comments - and as the issue has been raised here before it seems the best place to raise it again!

    It seems that they have again missed a few hyperlinks from the added content to news stories.

    2 August 2011 Last updated at 17:41 -
    Manchester City Council loses cost appeal over care failures
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14371886

    Should have been linked to a most similar case reported by BBC News -

    9 June 2011 Last updated at 15:41
    Hillingdon Council held autistic man Steven Neary unlawfully

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13498461

    I could provide so many other examples too!

    I have made comment to the BBC via the complaints system of the bias theat appears to exist where when a News Story has Disability at it's core - the related content part of BBC News Web pages seem to not be used!

    I was even struck that reports of £20K fraud against a disabled person did not have a link to groups such as Action On Fraud! After all, they are the recommended first point of contact for both advice and reporting to police and other authorities.

    Is it that the peeps managing web content don;t understand the issues, or is it that the BBC simply treat Stories involving disability in a less than equal manner?

    Can you have a chat with Giles and have him look at the issue?

    I have no faith in the BBC Complaints process given that each time the issue has been raised it seems that it is just ignored - and no response is forthcoming!

    All the best - and hope that your new position within BBC News is fulfilling!

    Cheers!

 

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.