The organisation that is willing to criticise the salaries and bonuses of bankers but not the pay-offs paid to its own staff (currently under investigation by the SFO according to Reuters, but not reported on the BBC ho actually claim there was no crime, and I don't remember any police investigation of bankers' pay), the organisation that is willing to criticise the phone tampering of other journalists but is curiously uncensorious about the kiddie fiddling of its own staff, which it is quite likely they had know about for years, has done it again (if you can follow the logic of such a long sentence).
The ASA has decided to investigate the banners on the back the Home Office's "go home or face arrest" vans following 60 complaints, although the ASA say that since the BBC started reporting the story they have received many calls of support. The BBC run with the idea that even though the vans clearly say that they only apply to illegal immigrants, they are clearly threatening.
Now let us compare that with the behaviour of TV Licensing, like this:
A fairly common letter from TV Licensing, and typical of the letters they send, but one which is clearly threatening the recipient, even though the only reason for sending a letter is that the recipient doesn't have a TV license, which of course he is not obliged to have if he doesn't have a TV. Nor is he obliged to answer the BBC's persistent mail. But that doesn't stop the BBC sending people an "Official Warning" that they are being "investigated".
1 comment:
Hi Alex, you're absolutely right about BBC hypocrisy - no other organisation could get away with the legal half-truths and threats they print in their TV Licensing letters. Anyone who doesn't watch TV programmes does not need a TV licence and can safely ignore their letters.
Peter - from the tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk
Post a Comment