Films: When Men Cry

I see that the BBC has compiled a list of 20 films that make men cry. Sadly it misses out a number of the scenes that get me every time.

The first is the final scene of Steven Spielberg's Empire of the Sun in which a young Jim Graham (Christian Bale) is after being separated from his parents in a different camp through World War II is standing with other children hoping to be reunited with their parents. Jim's mum comes past him and walks right past Jim no recognising him. Enough to make the tears start to well up but then when she does turn back and he finally realises it is his mother the floodgates open.

The next is the film The Power of One. Set in South Africa under apartheid it is the story of young P.K. (Guy Witcher, Simon Fenton and Stephen Dorff) it has several scenes that bring on the tears. One is when the black boxing coach of P.K. called Geel Piet is bludgeoned to death behind a hut while a concert of his fellow prisoners is going on in the background being conducted by P.K.


Later on there is more when his girlfriend the daughter of a National Party leader is killed while teaching English in a township. Plus the final scene when he and his one time black boxing opponent who had saved his life by killing his arch enemy (Daniel Craig) in another township raid set off together to beat the system together.

There is also the film Gattaca. Where Jerome (Jude Law) plays an disabled man whereas Vincent (Ethan Hawke) was conceived naturally without the DNA screening and is therefore an "in-valid" as he does not have the superior DNA. But he does buy Jerome's "valid" DNA to fulfill his dreams of being part of the space exploration programme at the Gattaca Aerospace Corporation. There are two scenes that bring the tears on, first is when Vincent is finally found out by his valid brother Anton (Loren Dean) who is investigating a murder at Gattaca. They replay their childhood game of chicken but Vincent is not prepared to turn back towards shore. Having to be rescued his brother, Vincent reveals that he won by not saving anything for the swim back.

Again as ever there is also the final scene in which Jerome sends Vincent away on his mission and reveals a stockpile of all the samples he could possibly need in a lifetime. As the rocket is preparing to take off to Saturn's moon Titan with Vincent on board, Jerome eases himself into the incinerator at the apartment and fires it up as the rocket takes off.

Of course another film is Dead Poets Society, maybe this is because of the young poet in me when I first saw this at University. But when Neil Perry (Robert Sean Leonard) takes his life after his father objects to him following his dream and appearing as Puck in a production of A Midsummer Night's Dream you cannot help but cry. Then also the final scene when John Keating (Robin Williams) is leaving his classroom in disgrace Todd Anderson (Ethan Hawke) is the first to stand up in defence of Mr Keating, but is told to sit down, then when he is at the door stands up on his desk saying 'O Captain! My Captain!' followed my many of the others.

I know there are more films that make me cry but these are four that I feel really need to be on that list.

Strictly Without Brian!

Look I know it's not politics and I know that on the day that the final Big Brother* starts I am in the midst of a serious selection process for Edinburgh Central, but I would be true myself, my blog or you my readers if I didn't say:

BRIAN'S QUITTING STRICTLY

Yeah Brian Fortuna is quitting the show after the producers wanted to bring in changes meaning that some of the pros would only be there as professional-only show dancers and not in the mentoring role that they have had since the show was brought back to our screens.

What are Cardiff Blogger and I to do now that Brain is on the West End Stage? Are season tickets available for Burn the Floor?

Burn the Floor is the show that he and his 2009 Celebrity semi-final partner Ali Bastion will be hitting the West End with while one of the the choreographers of that show Robin Windsor is joining Jared Murillio (principal dancer in the first two High School the Musical movies) and Latin champion Artem Chigvintsev a So You Think You Can Dance graduate.

Actually....you know....having just searched Google images I think there is plenty of fresh new male totty coming in to keep everyone happy. I may have to show you later.

Update: As promised a few pics and gratuitous chest exposure.

Robin Windsor

Jared Murillo

Artem Chigvintsev

*And this is not a casual reference to the Channel 4 programme.

Whatever Happened to Privacy

Earlier today I was ordering coffee and tea for me and my mum in Bangor when on the screen was scrolling the BBC 24 news about David Laws. One of the things that I picked up from the scrolling was the use of the phrase:

Laws didn't want to disclose his "sexuality"

The inverted commas were what struck most. Ok I will admit there was a story there, but the story of the day has shifted unto one of sexuality and one where private life has been exposed as part of another story because of the link into the original story. Ben Bradshaw the Labour MP said:

why should anyone in Britain today feel ashamed to acknowledge they're gay” y ashamed?

Linda Jack responded with:

More likely fear of losing family - just because it was easy 4 you doesn't mean it is as easy 4 others - maybe you haven't noticed but whether we like it or not homophobia is still alive and well in our enlightened country.

Jonathan Fryer sums it up quite well by saying on Twitter.

Yes, it's tragic that some people have to hide their sexuality, but it's equally tragic when people are forced to parade it

What has happened today is a case of that. If you are in the public eye it is not uncommon for some of your partners not to want to be in that spotlight. Whilst I'm prepared like Ben to wear my sexuality if not on my sleeve at least not hidden away. There are others for whom this has been a reason. I recall what I said about Simon Hughes when he was similarly forcibly exposed.

There may be family reasons with some people, yes even today, that such things are not publicly wanting to be discussed. In David Laws his catholic upbringing may have something to do with that, also the world of the city of London being a "man's world" is not conducive to such openness.

There is also the matter of protecting the privacy of a partner. In my own past there are for a number of reason who would not have been out there standing beside me as part of my very public life. There are all manner of reasons, their own level of coming to terms with their sexuality, their career or job prospects (perceived or real), for some it is the cross political persuasion issue. It's why I usually only refer to partners on this blog by some coded name.

Invasion of privacy of a third party is something that needs to be protected. Yes there was a story to be revealed. Although why now? If the Telegraph had the full un-redacted expenses claims last year the timing of this disclosure as well as the rest of the story that is coming out with it points towards spitefulness to a degree. But I digress, I'm not the one to expose a partner. If they are a public figure and also out then that will be easier for us both to deal with, but that isn't always the case, therefore I do compartmentalise by private life from my public when I have to. In fact isn't that something all of us who aren't Belle de Jour etc do?

The extent of what level of privacy is required depends on the individual concerns and needs of the situation and couple. I wish we live in a world where such things never matter, but look at the Gaily Fail and the Torygraph as examples of MSM who do make an issue of it, or the BBC's use of "sexuality" earlier today, why emphasise it and then expect homosexuals and their partners to expect to be open and treated fairly?

My New Letter of Complaint re: BBC Question Time

Back in December I wrote to complain about lack of Liberal Democrat representation when Jo Swinson MP was removed from the panel. It was also the last time that Melanie Philips appeared on the Question Time Panel. She seems at present to have a better appearance than the 63 elected representatives of the UK's third largest party.

At the time you responded with comments from Executive Editor Gavin Allen:

"We have to keep a constant editorial eye out for the best possible panel and this can of course mean last-minute alterations. To ensure the widest range of political views are heard there are occasions across the series when nationalists or minority parties are invited onto the panel."

This week the right leaning journalist Ms Philips was backing up former Tory Chair Teresa May. Then on the left we had Lord Faulkner and Claire Short, along with former Labour MP George Galloway.

Along with the Chilcot inquiry (when only Galloway join the Lib Dems on anti-war marches) this week we had euthanasia (you had a very conservative panel and while it didn't come up electoral reform from the death bed of New Labour was a potential topic.

How can the Question Time team and Mr Allen stand by his previous ascertation, when we are weeks away from a General Election being called?

Last time I wrote to you I expected a considered response and was left under the impression that action would be taken so that such blatant bias on the panel would not happen as evidently as it did tonight. I am greatly let down.

I will be forwarding my previous correspondence with this to OFCOM.

Yours very disappointedly

Stephen Glenn

Can You Spot the Missing Winner?

The BBC online Magazine has posted an article about the winners from the recent cold snap. They go into detail about various winners.

• Corners Shops
• Soups
• Car washing firms
• Pond life
• Winter Sun Destinations

You know what I think they are missing one very obvious one. Maybe is is because of the local news coverage that I get where I am, but certainly one winner of the recent month of winter has been the Scottish Ski Resorts where business is booming with some of the best snow conditions in Europe at present.

Should the BBC be Exorcised? - UPDATED

I give a hat tip to Caron for this who tweeted my attention to it via SohoPolitico.

Now I have friends who work, some of them quite high up, in BBC New Media, but I hope that none of them were involved in approving or setting up this debate in have your say. The question is "Should Homosexuals be executed?". I'm pretty sure my jaw dropping wasn't due to a particularly heavy swell hitting the ship but abject disbelieve that I am reading this on the BBC. Has the Daily Fail bought out the public broadcaster? It feels like it.

Of course the debate is about the Ugandan Government's sickening proposal to lock up anyone who commits a homosexual act for live, unless the person is HIV+ or has committed the act on someone under 18, then they will be summarily executed. I'm sure there are ways to have had a debate on this issue without phrasing the question as they have done. Even the BBC seem to realise that this question is going too far as the opening paragraph of explanation says:

"Yes, we accept it is a stark and disturbing question. But this is the reality behind an Anti-Homosexuality Bill being debated on Friday by the Ugandan parliament which would see some homosexual offences punishable by death."

I don't think that excuses them for saying it. What is disturbing even more is the little box on the side which says how the debate is going. When I logged on to the page it read:

• Comments posted 405
• Published comments 169
• Rejected comments 119
• Moderation queue 117

For a fully moderated BBC news threat that is a startling statistic. It equates to 41.3% of the comments that the moderators have so far looked at being deemed unpublishable on the BBC website.

There is one very sage comment that I picked up which sums up the Ugandan Parliaments attitude in a nutshell.

"It is ironic and disturbing that out of a so-called 'moral' view (i.e. homosexuality is wrong) one condones the act of murder. For that is what it is."

Handily the first sentence is 126 characters long (including the full stop). If you tweet replace one with Uganda and tweet away I say. Neighbouring MP Eric Joyce of Falkirk has also blogged on this issue.

UPDATE: Having finally got home having started to write this on the HSS I see that the BBC has finally closed comments on the debate, that shouldn't have been opened in the first place.

Of the 395 comments that were actually moderated on this subject before it was closed 189 or 47.8% had been rejected.

FURTHER UPDATE: The BBC have deemed it necessary to write an blog entry about the decision. I would class it in the category unpology.

It starts by saying that the editors of BBC Africa though "long and hard" about using the question. Then they go on to say:

"We agree that it is a stark and challenging question, but think that it accurately focuses on and illustrates the real issue at stake."

I have no question that there is a real issue at stake. People are going to lose their freedom because of who they end up loving and how they express it, the unfortunate ones will end up being killed, murdered. Of course the Ugandan Government is not threatening to kill HIV+ heterosexuals. Now that is a question that deserved to be debated.

They conclude by saying:

"We have sought to moderate these rigorously while at the same time trying to reflect the varied and hugely diverse views about homosexuality in Africa."

Now I don't see the word sorry anywhere in this statement from the BBC. What I do see is an attempt to shift the blame to African sensibilities. We didn't hear the BBC use such an excuse in the 1930s or 40s about German sensibilites. The BBC Africa section seem to have forgotten that the BBC stands for 'British' Broadcasting Corporation, if it really is them that are to blame.


The Times, the Guardian, The Independent, and Sky News are all covering the story this morning.

UPDATED: Peter Horrocks the director of the BBC World Service wrote this on the BBC Editors blogs.

"The original headline on our website was, in hindsight, too stark. We apologise for any offence it caused. But it's important that this does not detract from what is a crucial debate for Africans and the international community.

"The programme was a legitimate and responsible attempt to support a challenging discussion about proposed legislation that advocates the death penalty for those who undertake certain homosexual activities in Uganda - an important issue where the BBC can provide a platform for debate that otherwise would not exist across the continent and beyond."

Sadly of course it wasn't a platform for debate as my comment about the number of non-approved comments above showed. While it is a crucial issue for African's it shouldn't be the subject of debate whether such executions are right and legitimate. There were debates that could have been had around this issue, this Mr Horrocks was not the one to be had.

First posted at 17:34 on 16 December 2009

My View on Sports Personality of the Year

Earlier today I promised that I would give my take on the BBC's Sports Personality of the Year shortlist. So here we go.

First off here is the actual shortlist of 10

• Jenson Button
• Mark Cavendish
• Tom Daley
• Jessica Ennis
• Ryan Giggs
• David Haye
• Phillips Idowu
• Andy Murray
• Andrew Strauss
• Beth Tweddle

Let's start of the Football and Cricket, these two sports seem to have a right to have someone on the list. If you look at the full list of nominees from the press you may see why. Cricket had Stuart Broad, Andrew Flintoff and Charlotte Edwards nominated along with Strauss. Football had Kelly Smith, John Terry, Cristiano Ronaldo and Darren Fletcher keeping Giggs company.

Of course Strauss was the highest scorer in the Ashes series with 474 for an average of 52.66. So he was undoubtedly the batsman of the series add on to that captaining the side to regain the Ashes. But that sadly in my eyes is not enough to warrant winning this prize across all sports. As for Ryan Giggs yes he was again an integral part in his eleventh Premier League title with Man United, winning the PFA player of the year title in the process. But none of that in itself is enough to lift the award. If anything Ryan still playing at the top level for the same team should qualify for the Lifetime Achievement Award which is going to Seve Ballesteros tomorrow.

Boxing only have David Haye on the shortlist this year, both Amir Khan and Carl Froch were nominated. But Boxers don't fair well in winning. Ricky Hatton never did and Joe Calzaghe had to wait so long at the top before he won in 2007. Haye though has stepped up from Cruiserweight where he held the WBA, WBC and WBO world titles to take on the Heavyweights. He was originally to fight either of the Klitschko brothers Vitali the WBC Champ on 20 June ,the Vladimir IBF and WBA on the same date, only for Haye to pull out injured. In the end just last month he defeated the giant seven foot Nikolai Valuev. When Lennox Lewis and Joe Calzaghe won this title they were both undisputed World Champions admittedly something Haye almost did at Cruiserweight. A mighty achievement but he may and should be passed over for the Top spot this time.

Andy Murray may have won more tennis events in this year than any previous male tennis player in a season. Indeed his six tour titles not counting the slams was more than anyone else, even Federer and Nadal. But Greg Rusedski won his award for getting to the US open final, Andy did that last year. This prize will be Andy's in the future I'm sure when he breaks the British tennis duck since Fred Perry and lifts one of the Grand Slams. So not this year even though he was at one point number two in the world.

As for Jenson Button he had a blinding start to this season, but then somewhat tailed off to win his championship. He did hang in there to lift the world championship, but the early season form was as much a part of the ingenuity of Ross Brawn as the skills of JB, even though I love F1 I fell that Brawn GP should win the team award but not Jenson the individual. Jenson also has the disadvantage that sometimes our World Champs don't win while the losers do. Lewis Hamilton didn't win as Champion last year and Mansell and Damon Hill both won Sports Personality as losers before winning again as World Champs.

That leaves the other five from where I think the deserving winner. Four individual World Champions and the winningest man in his sport this year.

The world of cycling is limited to just one choice Mark Cavendish. Both Bradley Wiggins and Vitoria Pendleton were also on the nominations, Bradley had . Cav won an amazing six stages on the Tour de France after 3 stages in the Giro d'Italia and 2 in the Tour de Suisse. Some will say that Cav had the help of his lead out train, but not for all of these stage wins. For some he was riding on his opponents wheel which shows just how good a sprinter he was.

Athletics produces two worthy candidates Phillips Idowu following in the hop, step and jumps of Jonathan Edwards won the Triple Jump and Jessica Ennis continues the depth of British success in the multi-event disciplines. Denise Lewis never lifted the top prize for her Heptathlon indeed only Daley Thompson as a multi-event athlete has won SPotY. But she put aside the disappointment of injury in Olympic year and watching Kelly Sotherton fail to capitalise on the retirement of Kluft. However, for someone not of the typical heptathlete physique she towered above the more lengthy limbed opponents to lead with the third best day one score ever and end up only 100 points shy of Denise Lewis's British and Commonwealth record with 6,731 points.

Phillips faced a different disappointment at Beijing, he went as the longest jumper in the world after his trials performance. Jumped further in the final but only took silver. But added the World Outdoor championships with a PB and World Best performance of 17.73 to his World Indoor, Commonwealth and European Indoor titles. He has jumped further than Jonathan Edwards indoors but has yet to get to the distance that the former Olympic champion did outdoors, but a constantly improving effort again this year from a man who is already one of the best in the world at the moment.

Tom Daley is currently Britain's youngest senior world champion. Having jumped in the synchronised event in Beijing, the youngster went solo to his success this year. Whilst he does not yet have the high level of difficulty of some of his opponents he kept consistent good scores and when they had a poor final round of dives soared ahead of the two Chinese to take gold. Quite an achievement for a lower tariff performer. In fact his winning score of 539.85 pts was higher than Matt Mitcham's 537.95 which secured gold at the Olympics last year. His new partnership with Max Brink only finished 9th in the final, but for a first year together the synchronisation needs time to bed in.

That leads to Beth Tweddle, who came third in 2006 when she was Britain's first world Champion on the Uneven Bars. However, this year she fell in her preferred event in qualifying in front of the home crowd in London. A couple of days later having qualified for her other event the floor for which she had never medalled in her previous two World Champ finals she pulled out all the stops and won. Indeed that failure in the uneven bars was the only time that she failed to top the podium in her two events in competition this year.

My personal preference for the top three this year is:

1. Beth Tweddle

2. Mark Cavendish

3. Tom Daley


I suspect I will be wrong as this omits any of the so called "big" sports and is based purely on another sportsman basis of meritocracy.

The BBC Fail To Answer My Concerns

I see Mark Thompson has beaten me to it posting about the BBC's response to the complaints about the recent removal at the last minute of Jo Swinson from a Question Time panel in Edinburgh. However, that befits a man who shares his name with the Director General. Like Mark I'd raised the issue that the Lib Dems were the most differing opinion on the war of Iraq a big story of that week, on top of that I mentioned a couple of the more Scottish-centric issues that also popped up that week, I'm not sure if Mark mentioned those in his complaint, but I did.

Yet we both got the same response.

Thank you for your e-mail regarding 'Question Time'.

We forwarded concerns on this issue to 'Question Time' Executive Editor Gavin Allen who explained that we constantly monitor the balance of the panel and that in light of their national electoral strength, the level of representation for the Liberal Democrats on the programme remains very strong.

He added that on this occasion the panel was rearranged to reflect a change in the prominence of some of the issues due to be discussed on the programme and in order to facilitate debate by having representatives willing to question the central political consensus on these issues, of which the Liberal Democrats are a part.

He also added that:

"It was regrettable - but necessary - that the decision to replace Jo Swinson was taken relatively late, but we have to keep a constant editorial eye out for the best possible panel and this can of course mean last-minute alterations. To ensure the widest range of political views are heard there are occasions across the series when nationalists or minority parties are invited onto the panel".

We'd like to assure you that we've registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.

The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.

Regards

BBC Complaints

I've highlighted a few of the issues that we of my own concern, issues that didn't answer the issues I raised.. One of mine was that while Nicola Sturgeon was on that show there wasn't a single other Scottish based member of the panel. I have, as I pointed out in my original complaint no qualms about the SNP appearing on Question Time. What I did raise that on a Question Time with a Scottish audience they removed the only other Scottish representation from the panel.

The prominence of the issues to be discussed. How they could know these 24 hours before the audience turned up to ask their questions is beyond be, however, I was far better at guessing these than the BBC editorial team seemed to be. Yes there was going to be the Iraq war enquiry and no the Lib Dems never have been part of the central political consensus on that issue. There were also Questions on:

• Jim Murphy's White paper delaying more powers to Scotland to the next Parliament
• the SNP alcohol's policy where the Lib Dems in Scotland do have an agreed alternative policy
  
• the banks getting away with more, another area that the Lib Dems are and have been leading the political debate

So how the BBC can justify

• a) dropping another Scot to counter Nicola Sturgeon, especially when they were already on the panel
• or
• b) dropping the one party that stand outs on many of the questions that were actually asked

is beyond me. I though it was meant to be "My BBC". Yet despite the questions that were going to be asked they went for three colours of sameness in Lord Falconer, David Davis and Melanie Phillips.

As for it being regrettable but necessary to drop Jo Swinson, this is the second time this year she has been dropped at such sort notice. At least this time she hadn't made plans to go out of her way. Edinburgh after all isn't that far away from her East Dunbartonshire constituency. Also when have they ever dropped the Labour or Conservative politician from the panel to add diversity, or indeed ever dropped one not to be replaced by another. Indeed only last week as well as a Conservative MP we had Kirsty Allsop who is advising the Tories on housing, where is the balance in such a panel. Often the Lib Dems only have a liberal leaning celebrity to raise our points instead not as well as a politician.

Strictly Come Jailhouse Rock

The frontrunner for most of this season's Strictly Come Dancing Ricky Whittle, star of Hollyoaks, found himself behind bars last night on suspicion of assault. It is an unusual case of fact imitating fiction as Ricky's character is Calvin Valentine the cop who has been led to the other side of the law by resident bad guy Warren Fox.

The incident which occurred in the small hours of this morning involved a collision between a motorist and a male Pedestrian in Liverpool's Duke Street. It is not clear how his arrest will affect his appearance on Saturday nights show, even if he were to be released on bail, the BBC may well prevent the star appearing on the family entertainment show on Saturday night.

The show has already lost one of this season's favourites for the final Jade Johnson when the long-jumper suffered ligament damage in her knee during the dress rehearsal 3 weeks ago, hours before the live show. That was the same week that Ronnie Corbett appeared as the purveyor of Bruce Forsyth's catchphrases while the host was invalided with flu.

This week is the Charleston and Rock week, it may be that if found guilty Ricky may be facing some jailhouse rock.

Update: As Caron has pointed out in the comment Ali Bastian , Brian Fortuna's partner is also on the injurt list with a bad foot.

Time to Question When the #BBCFail

Earlier this week Jo Swinson tweeted that she had been dropped from the BBC Question Time panel in Edinburgh less than 48 hours before it was scheduled. What we ended up getting was the Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, up against Blair's good mate Derry Falconer, David Davis of the Tories, comedian Marcus Brigstocke and Daily Fail columnist Melanie Philips. Apart from part of Lord Falconer's education being in Scotland none of the others has much Scottish experience.

The questions were largely predictable.

• The Iraq Inquiry - but the one party that wasn't fooled by Blair's dossier weren't on the panel.
• Jim Murphy's White Paper - Neither Falconer nor Davis seemed to know what their parties were up to on this, and the most pro-Calman party of the three co-sponsors was not represented.
• There was the question of the leaked emails over climate change - to be fair most of the others handled Melanie Philips quite well on this question.
  
• There was a question about the bank winning their supreme court appeal - the former Lord Chancellor took the bankers side, others including David Davis did say there was more to the issue with banks. One of the audience members ended up having to bring the Lib Dem point about the banks being penalised for their own overdraft rather than the tax payers.
• There was also the issue of the SNP's alcohol plans. Only two of the Scottish parties that I am aware of have had a debate on these issues at full conference. Both were in the Autumn of 2008 and there were different road maps drawn up. Of course one of those parties was not represented by the dropping of Jo Swinson.

All in all it was a disgrace for the BBC to unilaterally stifle the angle of debate by omitting a Lib Dem when we already knew the areas that were going to come up for discussion. They also brought in four English based representatives unto the panel in Edinburgh. Jo Swinson once she was up in Scotland would have stayed up for constituency business so would not have been a wasted journey for a one hour show.

Also the question on Calman and indeed alcohol allowed Nicola Sturgeon free-reign to tar all the other three main parties in Scotland with the same brush, when as I've pointed out above on a number of occasions that is not so.

This is the second time in the last month that there has not been a Lib Dem on the Question Time panel. The BBC are already shifting into two party politics before we get to the stage where they have to be balanced before the general election. They are setting their own narrow political agenda and ignoring the fact that there is active, visible and viable difference of opinion to issues.

Were they running scared of debate, or was someone else on the panel running scared of debate? But to drop a political representative with less than 48 hours notice, especially when their party had differing views on a number of the weeks topical debates is a disgrace from the BBC. It never happens to Labour or the Conservatives. But it has happened in a city where the leaders on the council, with two MSPs, one MP and challenging for two more, is just the sort of city where Lib Dem opinion is strong.

Is Now the Time for Balanced Election Coverage?

The bias of the media towards two party politics has been highlighted and condemned by Chris Huhne writing in the Independent today. It comes after Jeremy Hunt, the Conservative Party's media spokesperson accused the BBC of Labour bias and demanded they employ more Conservative-inclined reporters.

Chris point out:

"A hiring policy that sought out particular views in people who are meant to be professionally impartial would be a dangerous step towards a Berlusconi-style system. It would probably be illegal under anti-discrimination law."

What is needed is not a biased load of journalists for one of the big two parties but to a genuine impartiality. As Chris points out in all bar one election since 1979 the Liberal Democrats have climbed in support from the opinion polls one month out; the average increase being 3.9%. This is due to the media at that point having to drop their two-party view of politics in the UK and becoming more impartial. If the same happens again this time, on current opinion polls it would result in 22 more Lib Dem MPs.

At the heart of Chris's piece is the message that the media are already prejudging, indeed helping to ensure that General Elections in this country will return one of two parties as the main party and the other as the main opposition. He says in conclusion:

"Britain's broadcasters should not prejudge the voters, let alone the electoral system. The only fair approach, at a time of heightened political sensitivity, is to apply the rules as they would be applied in the general election.

"After all, both Labour and the Conservatives have recently announced their election campaigns have begun. It is time for broadcasters to begin election-style fairness too, and let the contest of ideas begin."

There has been a lot of discussion lately about the fairness of not of the proposed leadership debates prior to the next Westminster election. Alex Salmond even says it is unfair to exclude him from such a meeting.

However, one thing that Salmond doesn't have to contend with is being sidelined or excluded from mainline political discussion in the years between elections, here in Scotland the SNPs views are widely covered on Scottish news and politics shows. Yet the Lib Dems are often fighting for a voice on the national stage.

How often do you find Labour or the Conservatives not having a representative on Question Time? Never, but the same applies to the Lib Dems on a regular basis. Following that every Thursday you get This Week which has Michael Portillo and Diane Abbott as the two main foils to Andrew Neill, the Lib Dems get the even more infrequent guest slot on that.

It is an issue that Alex Salmond and his SNP don't really encounter, they are included on Newsnight Scotland and the Politics Show Scotland and therein lies an essence against Alex's argument to be on the UK-wide debate. The BBC already does make allowances for the SNP here in Scotland, indeed to some extent here too they focus on two party politics only this time between Labour and the SNP, there is however less exclusion of the others but it still occurs subliminally on the amount of airtime or positioning of the parties.

So with the main two parties, and for that matter the SNP declaring at the weekend that the General Election race is now on, why must we wait until the election is called to get fair representation of views in the media. For five months the Lib Dems could, on past evidence, be losing ground where they have been so close in recent times to overtaking Labour in the popular vote.

Nick Robinson Doesn't Quite Get It

In his latest blog piece the BBC political editor Nick Robinson says:

"Another half-empty conference hall this morning. It's been like that most days at all the major party conferences. Thousands of people there but few of them willing to sit through the pre-packed, made-for-TV, corporate-away-day-style presentations that the parties have substituted for what we used to call debates."

For starters was he at Bournemouth where the one party that does have debates on policy still, well, debated? For seconds I'm not sure about the other parties but at the Lib Dem conference it was a key time for training and other opportunities. This was the last full week before the general election ahead that all the party will be gathered for so long in one place. I'd be shocked if the other parties didn't also have some training for candidates, agents, councillors, activists etc going on along side the main event.

So yeah there is a pre-packed, made-for-TV, corporate-away-day-style element to party conferences, but when the inevitable is just around a corner, a General Election there are other things just as pressing for the typical conference attendee.

Of course Nick is quite right that the main stage at the Labour and Conservative conferences does lack the drama of actually debating something, anything of substance. The Liberal Democrats though can still be seat of your pants stuff as someone else lays into another element of the party, or the leadership. Or if somebody suddenly turns out to have changed their view on nuclear power, or Europe or heaven forbid the type of electoral reform we need. It gets all the more interesting if speaker after speaker from the Policy Committee speaks against parts of their own motion, then you know that something is afoot.

But then the BBC called that wrong. When they see real debate they call it division. You see the BBC really want to have the stage-managed, pre-packed, made-for-TV, corporate-away-day-style presentations that Nick complains about. They then know what is going on in the main hall and can wander off elsewhere and try and trip up PPCs (although the Tories will keep stoom), create their own news, try to find a leadership battle (lacking in Brighton to their dismay), or whatever. The problem with the Lib Dems is that we could through a spanner in the works with their careful planning. Andrew Neil, Nick Robinson et al, may be away looking for something to do when a vote goes unexpectedly (for the media) in the hall, the body politic has spoken.

Jennie wrote at the time of our conference that the media didn't get Lib Dem conference. Now we have Nick Robinson complaining, yet compalining about just what they didn't understand at the Lib Dem conference as being missing. Looks like facts can really never get in the way of a good BBC moan.

Latest Clamp Down By Child Catcher Brown

First we may not be able to drive them to sports or other clubs without a criminal check, now they may lose some of their factual television output due to over reactionary Government clampdowns.

A leaked memo from the Department of Children, Schools and Families (DCSF)is aiming to ban children from appearing on TV unless they are singing, acting or dancing. The aim is noble because of some of the reality shows that have shown children such as Channel 4's Boys and Girls Alone, but the implications yet again go far further than Labour seem to think, or have thought. Factual shows like Blue Peter or Newsround rely on their young viewers input.

The memo sent to local authorities who have to licence children to appear on TV is the first to update the rules since 1968. It moves the latest time which 5 to 16-year-old can perform from 7pm to 11pm, but compulsory 'emotional risk assessments' would be introduced, as well as programme makers having to engage child psychologists to ensure the child's well being. However, it is the ban on certain types of appearance that is going to hit factual children's TV hardest. The memo says:

"We will highlight the application of existing primary legislation that says that many more factual programmes must be licensed, and that children under 14 cannot take part unless they are singing, dancing or acting."

The broadcasters are up in arms at this advise another Government tightening of control, the BBC issued a statement saying:

"The BBC understands the need for sensible licensing of child performers but is very concerned that it looks like the participation of children under 14 in factual entertainment shows could be threatened by an over-bureacratic and over-extensive system.

"This would have a direct and negative impact on such shows as Newsround's Press Packers, and CBBC's Me and My Movie as it would prevent children’s voices being heard in entirely appropriate circumstances."

All sorts of programmes would be affected, even Children in Need and Comic Relief would be affected as the documentaries to show the needs that they aim to help would surely not fit within the letter of that statement.

John McVay, the chief executive of the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television, which represents the Independent Producers considers the latest Government clampdown 'absolutely chilling' saying:

"It would be a disaster for the young children of Britain if they weren't able to see themselves on television doing the everyday things that they enjoy."

What is telling is that even those groups that were lobbying for tighter control have said that the Government has gone too far. Melanie Gill, the forensic child psychologist who led the complaints against Boys and Girls Alone said:

"It takes it too far, it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We think that children under 14 should be allowed to be on television, as long as it’s done in a psychologically safe environment."

The DCSF rather that denying or clarifying the ability for factual TV makers to use children sensibly and appropriately issued a statement saying:

"This is not about clamping down on popular talent programmes but making sure that the regulations and guidance, which haven’t been updated in 40 years, enables children to take full advantage of the opportunities television and other forms of entertainment can offer in a safe and sensible way."

How are they going to take full advantage if they can only perform on TV? Think of all the stuff we would have missed under these rules. Why Don't You? or Jim'll Fix It couldn't have been made, now could Swap Shop or Tiswas. On Blue Peter we wouldn't have seen young Lewis Hamilton racing a remote-controlled car but the fire taking light in front of the Girl Guides would have been fine as they were singing. There would be no more Junior Mastermind candidates under 14. Even schools educational programming would take a hit in some aspects unless we start having singing and dancing Maths programmes.

For those of us who remember Margaret Thatcher as the milk snatcher it seems that on Gordon Brown's watch our country is rapidly turning into Vulgaria from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, which him child catcher in chief.

Belfast to Star in Top Gear Mini Adventure

The old Victorian sewers in Belfast are currently undergoing a £100m refurbishment scheme. But somebody at Northern Ireland Water said, "Hang on lads, I've got a great idea."

The idea was to approach the BBC with a number of proposals to use the new six mile series of tunnels in programming. The idea that struck was the possibility to recreate the classic scene from The Italian Job where Michael Caine and the team flee through the sewers of Turin (although the ones in Coventry were used for the shoot).

But who to do such a thing.

Some say they are on the most wanted list of the homophobic deep South.

Some say that no caravan in save within a 3 mile radius of them behind the wheel of a car.

Well in the coming weeks Jeremy Clarkson, Richard 'Hamster' Hammond and James 'Captain Slow' May who have driven to the North Pole, taken on planes, trains, bobsleighs and mountaineering base jumpers will be going underground. So let the boys all drive and the boys all shoot for the challenge.

BBC Fail the Hooded Man

I've only missed a few episodes of the BBC drama Robin Hood when it has aired. One of those was last Saturdays, when I like over 12m other viewers was watching Andy Murray at Wimbledon.

Now I've learned before getting around to iPlayer-ing the episode I find out that not only have the BBC killed off Robin, but have axed the series as well. A BBC spokesman said:

'Viewers have enjoyed three fantastic series of Robin Hood but with the death of Robin in last week's finale, we feel that the show has reached its natural conclusion.'

Balderdash! Any executive at the BBC will recall the ITV series Robin of Sherwood and if they missed it they can catch it on ITV2 or something. When Michael Praed wanted out of the show they switched to one of the alternative legends of who Robin could have been and replaced Robin of Loxley with Robert of Huntingdon in the guise of Jason Connery.

Of course sharp witted readers amongst you are going to point out that there were also only three series over 26 episodes of Robin of Sherwood therefore 13 less than the BBC's own adaptation: but that's not really the point.

Jonas Armstrong was certainly Robin to Hoody Man to the hoody generation. Much as previous versions were to their forebears. I say though we can expect another TV adaptation of the hero of Sherwood Forest some time in the 2030s if current frequency of returning to a good yarn are anything to go by.

The Gay Muslim in Eastenders and Reality

The other week both The Speaker wrote in disgust of how the Eastenders storyline where Syed Masood starts an affair with Christian Clarke in his own words that the BBC were using what 'frowned upon within [Islam]' and South Asian culture and 'exploiting that is totally wrong'.

While it may be frowned upon it is not, as one recent Gallop poll declared, that 0% of British Muslims believed that homosexuality was morally wrong. This month's Attitude magazine looks at the story from the side of those looked down upon not just from the Islamophobia that has sprung out of 9/11 and 7/7 et al but also from Homophobia within their own families and communities. Indeed contrary to what The Speaker thinks the writer of the article, Jamie Hakim, spoke to a number of gay Muslim groups and experts in the area each one of which was consulted by Eastenders in their research. Being a gay Muslim is just like being a gay in other religion where the leaders say it is wrong a hard thing for the individual to deal with. However, no matter how closeted they may feel they have to be doesn't mean they do not exist.

Asghar Bukhari of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee said of the Eastenders storyline:

'The Muslim community deserves a character that represents them to the wider public because Islamophobia is so great right now. There's a lack of understanding of Muslims already and I think that Eastenders really lost an opportunity to present a normal Muslim character to the British public.'

Of course ignores the fact that Syed is a recently returned prodigal his mother, father, sister and brother have been portraying a normal Muslim family on Albert Square before his recent return. Indeed the three gay Muslims all took a differing view to Mr Bukhari's comments. One said:

'What's to say he isn't normal? He could be a model example of someone who is proud to be British and Muslim and he just happens to be gay.'

Another:

'The story is very brave and positive. It's a real opportunity to show the Muslim community not as one homogenous block, because we're not.'

And the other, who is a South Asian Gay Men's Worker at the Naz Project in London:

'It's about time that the invisible became visible. It's a positive step for gay Muslims and for the gay community as a whole to be honest..... I'm glad that the BBC had the guts to go ahead with it'

Sadly it is still a matter of courage that's the thing. We had the first gay kiss on British TV in Albert Square back in the 80s of course one of the partakers in now Michael Cashman MEP. We recently had Hollyoaks cross the Catholic line of John Paul's l McQueens's love for and with Father Kieron Hobbs.

We've yet to see how the BBC and the Eastenders scriptwriters play the story arc out. The Masoods appear to be a normal family so I suspect there will the normal range of family reactions to the story. After it adds to the drama and reality of the storyline if not all of the family are fine with the discovery of Syed's sexuality. As indeed the man himself seems to be having issues himself coming to terms with it. He may well be in for pleasant surprises when they do find out. I hope so as that was far easier for me than I dreaded it would.

Stark Waving Starkey

I may come from a feeble nation and live in another according to David Starkey on BBC Question Time. But surely as an historian he should know that us Celts won't take such abush lying down.

Even if he thinks that the police action at the G20 protest was "shocking, disgraceful and totally un-English" it is no excuse for his own shocking, disgraceful and totally little Englander attitude. He came unto QT and tried to dominate. Maybe as he is so fund of Tudor governance he thought that he was holding court. But the king (played by David Dimbleby) from his throne chair at one point quite early on told his "David just shut up for a minute" but he didn't and later on in the show Conservative MP Philip Hammond added "Thanks David it was my go".

However, one thing that the Twitscoop cloud (on the right) shows is that a great many more people were watching QT and twitting that were using the #bbcqt tag. Both on on this snapshop taken at the end of the show. Starkey is the largest font on the screen and the hastag is just visible on normal font.

Civil War in the BBC Newsroom

Subtly and very carefully bits of the Disaster Emergency Committee (DEC) Gaza Appeal have been slipping out from the BBC Newsroom even if the Director General Mark Thompson and the senior editors have taken the stance that is shouldn't.

The following clip from Tuesday Morning shows the newspapers add plus the phone and website address from the video itself over coverage of the story.



The fact that the newsroom are doing what they can to get the message out there is surely doing more to flaunt the impartiality of the BBC's reporting than if the appeal had been shown in the first place, separate and distinct from the news bulletin itself. It is making an absolute ridicule of the empty platitudes that the top levels of the BBC have churned out on air, in emails or interviews.

I applaud whichever members of the BBC family are doing what they can to get the humanitarian message across despite the shockingly biased and far from impartial decision taken by whatever level decided to ban the appeal.

BBC's Response Re: DEC Gaza Appeal

For the sake of balance after posting Sky's response here is the one I received from the BBC this morning at 5:36.

Thank you for your e-mail.

We note your disappointment at our decision
not to broadcast an appeal by the Disasters Emergency Committee to raise funds
for Gaza.

We decided not to broadcast the DEC's public appeal because we
wished to avoid any risk of compromising public confidence in the BBC's
impartiality in the context of covering a continuing news story where issues of
responsibility for civilian suffering and distress are intrinsic to the story
and remain highly contentious. We also could not be confident that the aid
resulting from audience donations could reach those it was intended for at a
time of a fragile ceasefire and sporadic border access. We will of course
continue to report the humanitarian story in Gaza.

The BBC's
director-general Mark Thompson has therefore explained the decision in more
detail in a number of television and radio broadcasts and online at our Editors'
blog. Please follow the link to read his explanation in full:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/01/bbc_and_the_gaza_appeal.html

Please be assured that we have registered your comments on our audience
log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for
all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their
senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we
receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

Once again, thank
you for taking the time to contact us.

Regards

BBC Complaints

So nothing really new or exciting to add there then. They still are less confident than the DEC members that aid will get where it is intended and the continuing mask of responsibility.

One thing that does stand out was the line "We will of course continue to report the humanitarian story in Gaza" so that while the BBC admits there is a humanitarian story in Gaza it isn't prepared to give its viewers a chance to act on that in the most convenient way.

Also saying that "issues of responsibility for civilian suffering and distress" which remain highly contentious. I'm sure we can all see that 1,300 deaths many civilian against 13 death all military would be a hight contentious issue, only if you were wanted to be impartial about it in favour of the side with the least casualties.

Sky's Standard Response

I have heard back from Sky regarding my complaint about their stance on the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) Gaza Appeal. Working as I do in the customer services industry I can spot that this is a standard response. However, it is more than the BBC have managed so far.

Dear Stephen

Thank you for your message. John Ryley, Head of Sky News made the
following statement explaining our position on Monday 26 January 2009.

"The conflict in Gaza forms part of one of the most challenging and
contentious stories for any news organisation to cover.

"Our commitment as journalists is to cover all sides of that story with
uncompromising objectivity. We have provided, and we will continue to provide,
extensive coverage from Gaza and from the wider region on the conflict and its
human consequences for people on both sides. Our team is on the ground in the
region and will continue to cover the story in the coming days and weeks.

"The absolute impartiality of our output is fundamental to Sky News and
its journalism. That is why, after very careful consideration, we have concluded
that broadcasting an appeal for Gaza at this time is incompatible with our role
in providing balanced and objective reporting of this continuing situation to
our audiences in the UK and around the world.

"It is important to state that this decision is not a judgement on the
good intentions of the appeal. No one could fail to be touched by the human
suffering on both sides of the conflict, which has been the focus of much of our
own reporting in the region.

"However, the nature of an appeal is that it sets out to provoke a
specific response from the viewer. We don’t believe that broadcasting such an
appeal on Sky News can be combined with the balance and context that impartial
journalism aims to bring to the highly charged and continuing conflict in
Gaza.

"Unlike some other UK broadcasters, Sky News is widely viewed across
the Middle East. In order to continue to serve all our audiences, we must ensure
that our journalists can continue to operate effectively in difficult
conditions. This must remain the first priority for any news
organisation."

I appreciate that this is not the conclusion you would have liked us to
come to, but nevertheless I hope you will understand why we came to this
decision.

Kind regards

Viewer Relations

Three points I have to raise.

Sky say they are against showing the "appeal at this time" but the whole point of the DEC is to respond in prompt time to real emergencies as they occur. There is not later time that the DEC would be acting together to raise money for funds at this time.

Second as with the BBC they hide behind "incompatible with our role in providing balanced and objective reporting of this continuing situation". The situation with Israel and Palestine has been ongoing for years, centuries, even millennia if we want to be accurate about it. The fact that they deem the situation to be continuing also means that things could very easily still get worse for those who are suffering.

Finally "the nature of an appeal is that it sets out to provoke a specific response from the viewer" yeah it is there to play at people heartstrings to dig into their pockets and donate to alleviate suffering. If we pussy foot around people who cause that suffering because they may be offended to see just what collateral damage they have caused how is that helping anyone.

So at least Sky have responded even if with indefensible platitudes. But nothing yet from "MY" (as they like to remind me) BBC.