BBC Blog Network

User Profile

2nd_of_JECLE

Listed below are comments made by 2nd_of_JECLE between Wednesday, 25th February 2009 and Tuesday, 14th July 2009.

«Newer
Older»

The AM Glass Box. 2:17pm on 14 Jul 2009 (28) & (29)
I can't even remember if my memory is as good as it used to be.
Hester's Royal remuneration 12:31pm on 22 Jun 2009 It is simply obscene.
I seem to recall the government wanting the city to get salaries and bonuses under control. Is £9.6m considered "under control"?
There were plenty of bosses running the banks a couple of years ago who were considered "untarnished world class bankers".
If Hester were guaranteed to make no mistakes and there was no one else that could run the bank then maybe he would be worth it.
But there are no guarantees and he's not that much smarter than others that would run the bank for a fraction of £9.6m.
For the share price to rise above 70p, all it would take is for confidence to return to the banking sector and I would certainly not consider 3 years a "long term view".

Finally, I seriously question the morality of a person that demands £9.6m. With all the hardship both at home and around the world, this level of remuneration is simply obscene.
Speaker of the Commons to resign this afternoon 4:54pm on 19 May 2009 Richard_SM @3
I got to disagree with you there.

The fact is.. Michael Martin has been instrumental in fighting the original FOI request for nearly five years. It is he that has been instrumental in trying to cover up all these outrageous expense claims.

...and when the telegraph starting publishing the receipts, his first priority was to get the police to investigate how the newspaper got hold of the disc.

...and the information that was to be published in July would have hidden all this house "flipping".

He was instrumental in all of these attempts to hide everything from the electorate.

He wasn't a scapegoat. He was the shepherd!

Edward Hopkins
Tavistock

Note: I have received no government money in the creation and sending of this message and no expense claim will be made regarding it.
On the Ropes - Andy Kershaw 11:04am on 01 May 2009 To: Mr Mark Damazer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From reading the majority of the posts above (and much media coverage this week) it seems your explanation for cancelling the programme is inadequate; both to the public and to Andy Kershaw (ref: "The Independent" article today).

What is worse is your reluctance to offer any further clarification. Perhaps you have decided that further explanation is not required but this is clearly not the feeling of the majority of contributors above and certainly not the feeling of Andy Kershaw.

We have experienced this type of behaviour many times before. This feeling that, as 'the king' of radio 4, you always know best and do not have to explain your reasoning.

However, may I remind you that you are a "Public Servant" and therefore are answerable to your listeners. Radio 4 is not your own private radio channel to do whatever you please with. It is owned by the license fee & Tax payers and you should answer to them.

I, like many others, was looking forward to hearing this edition of On the Ropes. Please can you provide a better explanation why we should not be permitted to hear it.
Some changes to the new site - and a favour! 11:04am on 27 Apr 2009 Leigh
What is the BBC's infatuation with pictures?
For example, on http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/programmes/a-z there is a picture for every programme entry.
Why? These pictures provide little or no additional information and just mean that we have more scrolling up and down to do.

If you open any book and look at the Table of Contents or index you will notice that publishers don't put pictures next to each entry so why do it on a website?

Are you under the belief the website looks 'fancier' with more pictures.
It seems even more unnecessary considering that Radio is a audio medium.

Finally, this comment can be equally applied to the Radio4 homepage.

I would appreciate some response from the webteam to explain why the pages are padded out with so many pictures and why that enormous picture on the homepage?
thanks
The new web site: one week on 10:03pm on 09 Apr 2009 Leigh Aspin wrote "there isn't a consensus across the feedback we've received".

Have you taken a look at Steve Bowbrick's post at http://www.flickr.com/photos/bowbrick/3406435527/in/photostream/ ?????????

of the 87 postings he's analysed, 50% were negative. If you take out the "neutral" postings, 80% were negative. I know these were early day postings but then you'd expect to receive most comments in the early days.

Perhaps you could analyse the postings on the multitude of blogs on this issue (why so many?!?!?) and let us know

How many positive.
How many negative
How many neutral
How many technical issues

but then again WHY BOTHER?
I've come to recognise a pattern amongst BBC personnel. Never admit a mistake.

Justs image the newspaper headlines....... "£millions wasted as Radio 4 is forced to admit new website was a mistake"
The new Radio 4 web site 08:59am on 06 Apr 2009 Oh dear!
Radio 4 has gone tabloid.

You see, it's just like the newspapers.
The tabloid papers plaster their front pages with big pictures and big text but print very little information on the front page.

The 'broad-sheet' papers have much smaller pictures and text and put a lot of information on the front page.

The radio 4 website have gone tabloid.
Lots of big text and pictures all over the place.

Why do we need to have a picture for each of the "Popular Progammes" and "Popular Podcasts". Is this for people that cannot read?

Before, there was a lot of information available without having to click or scroll.
For example, the "Popular Programmes" section used to take up around 2 square inches. Now it takes up around 10 square inches. It's just not a good use of space.

I guess we're stuck with the new website now. Even though the majority prefer the old site I guess it would be too much for the BBC (and Mr Damazer in particular) to admit a mistake has been made.
If you won't listen to your listerners then please at least improve the website so it's more usable.

And finally, please do not insult our intelligence by telling us you had to change it because the old site wasn't working very well. You know that content and layout are mutually exclusive.
The team that brought you the new Radio 4 web site 5:23pm on 01 Apr 2009 I really like to think that I'm not too old for change but.......

I don't see this as an improvement. It's almost as bad as the new BBC Weather pages where I still can't find the information I used to find on the old site.
I guess all BBC websites are being changed to this new look format when the old format was perfectly satisfactory.

I don't like how I have to scroll down now to find information which is now spread out all over the place.

Isn't it pretty standard on websites around the world to have a menu down the left hand side. The new site still seems to have the old menu items but now they are spread out all over the place.

WHY DID YOU CHANGE IT. By your own admission, it has taken a long time to develop this new site which means a LOT OF LICENCE PAYERS MONEY.

but the old site worked perfectly well so it's wasted money.

I'm just dreading the BBC News website changing now.

what a waste of time/money.
RBS: big losses, big bailout 08:31am on 26 Feb 2009 I would recommend refusing to pay Fred Goodwin's £650,000/year pension and let's seen if he dares to take the bank to court.
Ivan's death 5:43pm on 25 Feb 2009 #73. adamthesaddler wrote
"....im disgusted at some of you saying politics goes on etc... Have you stopped to think for 1 minute what this guy and his family are going thru??? You are all idiots who dont know your born, you carry on day in day out with your pathtic little lives "
----------------------------------------
Mr adamthesaddler, I think you're missing the point here.

I have stopped for 1 minute; in fact more like an hour. I have two young children and it find it frightening that they could die at a young age. My heart goes out to all of the Camerons

However,
QUESTION: Is this a greater tragedy because it was a well known politician's son?

It is tragic whenever a young person dies no matter if it is from a car accident, an Israeli shell, a Hamas rocket, a misguided American precision bomb and whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or some other conflict zone. Each young death leaves parents torn with grief. The only difference is that the examples I mention above are just statistics whereas David Cameron’s son's death, while a tragedy, is at the top of the news, halts politics and has taken over a blog which is supposed to be about politics.

I wouldn’t blame the grief stricken parents of a young soldier killed in Iraq for thinking…..’My son died fighting a phony war and nobody took any notice. Why is the death of a politician’s son a greater tragedy?’

The fact is that if David Cameron died it would be an important political story. However, this is not political news; as tragic as it is. It is news about the son of a politician. I’m not saying this news shouldn’t be covered. Just that it shouldn’t necessarily be featured quite as highly as it currently it.

STOP PRESS. While I’ve been wittering on here I’ve just heard that 3 UK soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan. It’s the number 2 headline. I feel equally sorry for their parents but unfortunately those soldiers are just a statistic now.

Ps. To “adamthesaddler”…. How did you know I have a “pathtic (sic) little life”

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

2nd_of_JECLE