BBC Blog Network

User Profile

U13772611

Listed below are comments made by U13772611 between Saturday, 17th January 2009 and Saturday, 24th January 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Suggest a story 7:06pm on 24 Jan 2009 Please discuss kittens.

That should be acceptable to Mr Damazer and his Thought Police.
'Thought for the Day' uncut 7:04pm on 24 Jan 2009 Well, congratulations (I guess) for returning to the subject.

The refusal of both the religion and ethics department and Mr Damazer to even attempt to defend the current position is pathetic. The irony is astounding: issue a statement then refuse to discuss it, defend it or subject it to reasoned argument . . . just like Religious Thought for the Day.

Personally, I'm moving on from iPM, but I suspect I'm amongst a large crowd who won't let the issue lie.

Discrimination must be challenged.
Suggest a story 7:02pm on 19 Jan 2009 Dear Mr Allman

Thanks for the update. There are now over 500 comments on the TFTD strand:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ipm/2009/01/thought_for_the_day_a_genuinel.shtml#comments

Congratulations - you have a hit on your hands.

I'm sure many people will join me in being pleased that you intend to cover the issue again this weekend.

As you say, there are many specific points and comments raised. Having looked through them extensively, I'd say that the recurring theme is that the BBC's refusal to allow secular/humanist/atheist voices in the TFTD strand is discrimination which contradicts the BBC's Guidelines on Editorial Impartiality.

Many listeners are annoyed that Mr Damazer posted a statement which people find hard to accept. None of the legitimate questions to Mr Damazer's statement, raised on this forum, have yet been answered.

The best way to move this forward is, surely, to ivite Mr Damazer onto the show to be questioned by Eddie in the usual manner.

If I was in his position, I would welcome that opportunity, given the poor light in which he has been cast extensively on this forum.

If he is invited and declines, then the spotlight shifts from iPM to Mr Damazer himself. If he's not asked then I would have to question, again, the quality of journalism on iPM.

As far as I see it, and trying to see the positive, there's a huge opportunity to get this right this weekend. If you manage it, I will salute you.
Thought for the Day: "a genuinely difficult question" 11:28pm on 17 Jan 2009 Thanks quedula

I did it, but I have been 'moderated'.

Given that there are barely a dozen posts on this iPM site that don't reference Thought for the Day, and the fact that the production team have clearly been gagged, I imagine the BBC will bring the shipping forecast forward by half an hour next week.

Well;

a) it will be more interesting
b) it will have more integrity
c) it will have more journalistic rigour
c) it is about as likely to contain an interview with Mr Damazer
Training terminated? 11:21pm on 17 Jan 2009 I'm extremely disappointed that you didn't do the Thought for the Day issue justice on this week's show, again.

The iPM editor Ruper Allman apologised on your own site this week:

"On the criticism regarding how the issue was treated on the radio - we should have done more to address some of the specific arguments. We didn't and that was a mistake. Sorry."

He also said:

"We have been speaking to the main players in the debate to see if they will engage with the comments made here and on the programme. Calls have been made."

Can we assume the calls were not answered?

You ask for suggestions on how to cover this subject properly. The obvious answer is to ask Mr Damazer to defend his illogical statement, to face some of the questions raised in the blog and to expose Thought for the Day to rational journalistic scrutiny. What is he afraid of?

I can only assume you have been instructed from above to let this lie. I'm not sure I can bring myself to listen to your show any more as its claim to be 'interactive' is clearly bogus and the programme lacks integrity.
Suggest a story 11:19pm on 17 Jan 2009 I think, this week, you should have a debate on whether Thought for the Day's exclusion of a significant portion of society is discriminatory and unacceptable by a public broadcaster in 2009.

I'm extremely disappointed that you didn't do the Thought for the Day issue justice on this week's show, again.

The iPM editor Ruper Allman apologised on your own site this week:

"On the criticism regarding how the issue was treated on the radio - we should have done more to address some of the specific arguments. We didn't and that was a mistake. Sorry."

He also said:

"We have been speaking to the main players in the debate to see if they will engage with the comments made here and on the programme. Calls have been made."

Can we assume the calls were not answered?

You ask for suggestions on how to cover this subject properly. The obvious answer is to ask Mr Damazer to defend his illogical statement, to face some of the questions raised in the blog and to expose Thought for the Day to rational journalistic scrutiny. What is he afraid of?

I can only assume you have been instructed from above to let this lie. I'm not sure I can bring myself to listen to your show any more as its claim to be 'interactive' is clearly bogus and the programme lacks integrity.
Suggest a story 11:15pm on 17 Jan 2009 Yes, I appear to be on the naughty step by command of the ThoughtFTD Police.

My comment is also posted here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ipm/2009/01/show_notes_jobs_football_and_t.shtml#commentsanchor

Dear 'moderator' what rule did I break?

iPM are desperatly hoping this issue will go away. I think not.
Thought for the Day: "a genuinely difficult question" 5:52pm on 17 Jan 2009 The are asking for suggestions for next week's show. I've suggested an interview with Mr Damazer. If we all suggest the same thing and they still ignore it, then it's effectively the end of iPM:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ipm/2009/01/suggest_a_story_5.shtml#commentsanchor
Suggest a story 5:45pm on 17 Jan 2009 I'm extremely disappointed that you didn't do the Thought for the Day issue justice on this week's show, again.

The iPM editor Ruper Allman apologised on your own site this week:

"On the criticism regarding how the issue was treated on the radio - we should have done more to address some of the specific arguments. We didn't and that was a mistake. Sorry."

He also said:

"We have been speaking to the main players in the debate to see if they will engage with the comments made here and on the programme. Calls have been made."

Can we assume the calls were not answered?

You ask for suggestions on how to cover this subject properly. The obvious answer is to ask Mr Damazer to defend his illogical statement, to face some of the questions raised in the blog and to expose Thought for the Day to rational journalistic scrutiny. What is he afraid of?

I can only assume you have been instructed from above to let this lie. I'm not sure I can bring myself to listen to your show any more as its claim to be 'interactive' is clearly bogus and the programme lacks integrity.
Show Notes: Jobs, Football and Teleprinters 5:41pm on 17 Jan 2009 I'm extremely disappointed that you didn't do the Thought for the Day issue justice on this week's show, again.

The iPM editor Ruper Allman apologised on your own site this week:

"On the criticism regarding how the issue was treated on the radio - we should have done more to address some of the specific arguments. We didn't and that was a mistake. Sorry."

He also said:

"We have been speaking to the main players in the debate to see if they will engage with the comments made here and on the programme. Calls have been made."

Can we assume the calls were not answered?

You ask for suggestions on how to cover this subject properly. The obvious answer is to ask Mr Damazer to defend his illogical statement, to face some of the questions raised in the blog and to expose Thought for the Day to rational journalistic scrutiny. What is he afraid of?

I can only assume you have been instructed from above to let this lie. I'm not sure I can bring myself to listen to your show any more as its claim to be 'interactive' is clearly bogus and the programme lacks integrity.

«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

U13772611