The BBC has released transcripts of the Pollard inquiry on Savile, but hasn’t made it easy for those trying to find out the details.
(above image via Lucy Manning)
BBC promotes its Linked Data initiative on its Internet blog. 2 days later: releases transcripts from Pollard inquiry in non-searchable PDFs
— Charles Arthur (@charlesarthur) February 22, 2013
Basically, BBC has put biggest obstacles it can in way of journalists wanting to get to rapidly get through the text of Pollard inquiry.
— Charles Arthur (@charlesarthur) February 22, 2013
The Telegraph and Guardian are liveblogging the release of the transcripts. Add your thoughts here.
Did anyone really think that the BBC would wash its dirty linen in public? Their version of openness would make Sir Humphrey Appleby proud. Lord Patten promised a full report but we only get one which many people suspect has redacted far more than was legally necessary. Does the BBC expect to regain public trust when it can’t even tell us what its managers say about each other in order to save them embarrassment?
Just think how the BBC would be howling if any other organisation behaved in this way.
Their arrogance and hypocrisy is breathtaking. Surely the British public can’t be expected to go on paying for this bunch of self serving leeches any longer.
Apparently there’s been a “dispute” between the BBC Trust (and/or its lawyers) and the BBC management’s lawyers about the redactions. The outcome is satisfactory to all: Patten’s blushes are spared and the BBC gets to censor the evidence. Seriously, does any sentient being actually take this at face value? It’s such an obvious and clumsy stitch-up that just demonstrates the BBC’s contempt for its audience and the “little people” who are compelled to cough up for its bias and ineptitude.
‘Basically, BBC has put biggest obstacles it can in way of journalists wanting to get to rapidly get through the text of Pollard inquiry.’
The very idea.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/savilles_wage
‘Of course if she sends you a hard copy then the same information will not be available here for others to view. No doubt they realise that. Given they have not published any new FOIA disclosure responses on their website since 2011, I suspect they’d quite like minimal exposure on their response.
A waste of time and money, exactly as predicted. Just like the NHS the BBC is exempt from common decency and immune from proper scrutiny and accountability. Who’s got what dirt on whom? Maybe our grandchildren might find out one day. And the Government must be colluding in these shabby miscarriages of justice!
“The Pollard Report”
More like the Sue Pollard report…Neither are the least bit amusing.
This seems perhaps the best berth for the always good value…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/selector.html?
‘if it lasts for four years, he’ll have more job security than many News colleagues.’
No reward for… market rate talent?
Speaking of whom…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/mia.html?
‘Still no sign of Paxo in the Newsnight chair”
When the account holding gets tough, the account holders… join Paul Mason anywhere but here?
BBC News (UK) @BBCNews
Video: BBC chief denies censorship of #Savile inquiry evidence: “This is not about protecting the BBC” http://bbc.in/15ACdJI #Pollard
And it’s on the BBC, so it must be [XXXX].
Hasn’t made it easy?
Its published it on its news website, its on the front page, the review is linked in the article.
The PDF is searchable. Try Ctrl F .
Not at all bonkers guys.
Before accusing others of being “bonkers” perhaps you should learn to read properly.
The Pollard Review, published in December, is indeed searchable. However, we’re talking about those transcripts released today which are not. The BBC has even added a note to its website since this morning:
Not all the documents provided to the BBC were searchable and as a consequence of the different stages of redaction, the search functionality is not supported within these documents.
The Guardian’s Charles Arthur has written a piece about it:
Chris Whyley, co-founder of the document conversion site Zamzar.com, which helped the Guardian by producing searchable versions of the PDFs, commented: “With the transcripts there is no good technical reason why they shouldn’t be searchable – as a small startup Zamzar was able to take the BBC PDFs and convert them into a more usable format within a couple of hours, and it’s not unreasonable to expect the BBC would have the technology to do likewise.
“As a public body the BBC should be looking to provide documents in as open a format as possible – a poorly scanned, redacted PDF is most definitely not an open format. The various appendices are more difficult to make searchable, but again with some basic work could have been made far more usable than in their current format.”
have a here DB:-
http://order-order.com/2013/02/22/bbc-release-redacted-pollard-review/
There are links to searchable PDFs.
Thanks. Just shows how easy it would’ve been for the BBC to do the same in the first place.
They wouldn’t want to make it easy for us “plebs”!
Have a look here!!
My redacted resonse, Lord Patten XXX XXX XXX XXX paedophile XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX abusing young boys.
Multiple choice question for you.
Which newspaper website is NOT offering a comment facility on its BBC/Savile/Newsnight based story today?
a. Telegraph
b. Independent
c. Guardian
d. Mail
Comment is free!
Channel 4 does seem to commenting though…
http://order-order.com/2013/02/22/channel-4-v-bbc/
The zinger of a response, just a bit two wrongs, too late, make a hole dug deeper, especially appealling:
‘I know we’d all love to read the emails of the C4N team. Perhaps, being obvious believers in openness, you’ll make them available’
Meiiiiiiow. Thing is, Evan, C4N’s team, best I know, are not a collection of two out of ten cats in a sack overseen by a FUBAR mutually promoting or paying off double market rate management team.
If I may err on the corny, bonkers is as bonkers does.
Well the report is out today, and in effect simply shows how the BBC can avoid real moral and ethical consequences for their misdeeds.
If we just contrast the main difference between how this whole affair has been conducted with that of the hacking scandal.
From the moment the hacking scandal become public knowledge, the BBC was relentless in its coverage highlighting every possible nuance, bringing in everybody who felt aggrieved by it, drumming up so much public support that an independent enquiry was held and the police involved.
That the BBC had a stake in bringing Murdoch into as much disrepute as possible is no surprise and they succeeded in preventing him taking over Sky, their main rival.
A simple search of the BBC website shows the disparity of their coverage between the two scandals.
Hacking shows 849 items
Savile shows 180.
Now consider which of the two scandals is more vile and serious, and should be imposed with tougher sanctions than the other.
Murdoch closed News of the World, and gave up his bid for Sky. Dozens of people have been charged with criminal offences as a result.
With Savile the BBC was able to conduct their own internal enquiry, and even able to have certain evidence hidden from the public eye. Even with the subsequent McAlpine scandal, only 2 that I know of have lost their job, and even there Entwistle was paid off twice what he should have got. The rest have been moved around or remain secure in their tenure. Though Paxman announces that Savile’s abuse was common knowledge, Boaden claims she never knew of it. And this is just accepted.
For me this shows just how stupid our society is for tolerating it. They really deserve what they will now reap for their allowing this vile and corrupt organisation to stay in business, further emboldened by their manipulation.
Fact is – Savile was a paedophile who abused children on BBC property, the BBC knew what was going on and not only chose to look the other way, but furthered his career to where he could abuse many others elsewhere as a result of his status. Instead of eventually running a Newsnight report about it after the creep had died, they elected not to, and ran a further tribute instead.
Yet nothing happens as a result.
Most societies would smell a rat here, but not ours.
I have heard rumours from ongoing investigations into the BBC that Helen Boaden committed perjury at the 28 gate trial, she testified in court that these were not only 28 of “the best scientific experts“ but “scientists with contrasting views”. I have also heard that Newsnight employed a bogus sceptic who was described as “Especially Sceptic”. Then after a silly experiment that produced trapped heat in a jar, he was interviewed with other sceptics. The planted sceptic was the only one turned into a believer by the experiment. There seems to be a number of on going investigations into the BBC, set off by the Savile scandal, as well as from letters from Members of Parliament. I think that some of these investigations are secret, but it seems that BBC staff have become very helpful in these investigations. I am not sure if the above information is from the Blacked out bits of the Pollard Report, but it looks as if things are going to only get worse for the BBC.
As a web site owner. Do you think like having a web site or perhaps site
is sensible? Also how do you get individuals to take a look at your blog post?