<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Freedom of Information Act Does Not Apply To The BBC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://hurryupharry.org/2009/10/04/freedom-of-information-act-does-not-apply-to-the-bbc/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://hurryupharry.org/2009/10/04/freedom-of-information-act-does-not-apply-to-the-bbc/</link>
	<description>Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don&#039;t want to hear</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 22:09:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michael Rosen</title>
		<link>http://hurryupharry.org/2009/10/04/freedom-of-information-act-does-not-apply-to-the-bbc/comment-page-1/#comment-395939</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Rosen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:57:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hurryupharry.org/?p=22359#comment-395939</guid>
		<description>apols &#039;I don&#039;t know&#039; = I don&#039;t now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>apols &#8216;I don&#8217;t know&#8217; = I don&#8217;t now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Rosen</title>
		<link>http://hurryupharry.org/2009/10/04/freedom-of-information-act-does-not-apply-to-the-bbc/comment-page-1/#comment-395938</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Rosen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hurryupharry.org/?p=22359#comment-395938</guid>
		<description>By the way, for the record, I didn&#039;t think of Debray as a &#039;marxist luminary&#039; at the time. I don&#039;t know. I thought he was a bit of a jerk. I still do. However, he played a part in 1960s history, particularly in Latin America at that moment. You may remember his &#039;foco&#039; theory which informed Guevara&#039;s approach and partly explains his failure. Perhaps Judy thinks that radio and TV shouldn&#039;t make programmes about people she disagrees with. An interesting idea.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By the way, for the record, I didn&#8217;t think of Debray as a &#8216;marxist luminary&#8217; at the time. I don&#8217;t know. I thought he was a bit of a jerk. I still do. However, he played a part in 1960s history, particularly in Latin America at that moment. You may remember his &#8216;foco&#8217; theory which informed Guevara&#8217;s approach and partly explains his failure. Perhaps Judy thinks that radio and TV shouldn&#8217;t make programmes about people she disagrees with. An interesting idea.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Rosen</title>
		<link>http://hurryupharry.org/2009/10/04/freedom-of-information-act-does-not-apply-to-the-bbc/comment-page-1/#comment-395937</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Rosen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:47:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hurryupharry.org/?p=22359#comment-395937</guid>
		<description>If anyone is still reading this, perhaps it will be no surprise that know-all Judy, while correcting others&#039; mistakes, makes mistakes of her own. I quote and insert in caps in her text where she is wrong.:

&quot;It was Michael Rosen who was blacklisted, and the man responsible was a Brigadier Michael Stonham [NO HIS NAME WAS &#039;RONNIE&#039;] who was stationed in Broadcasting House as an in-house vetting officer on behalf of MI5 for the supposedly “independent” BBC.

The role of Brigadier Stonham was documented in an Observer expose published on 18th August 1985, which detailed the facts about the non-confirmation of Michael Rosen’s permanent contract [NO, IT WASN&#039;T A &#039;PERMANENT&#039; CONTRACT] following his blacklisting by Stonham. Rosen had previously been a trainee [NO, THAT&#039;S WHAT I WAS AT THE TIME OF STONHAM&#039;S INTERVENTION. IE A &#039;TRAINEE&#039;] at the Beeb, had openly declared his marxist afflliations when recruited and had subsequently made pro marxist [THAT&#039;S A LIE] and anti US documentaries [THAT&#039;S A LIE]. &quot;

I MADE ONE RADIO DOCUMENTARY ABOUT THE ILL-FATED LAST EXPEDITION BY GUEVARA SEEMINGLY INSPIRED BY REGIS DEBRAY. MY OWN ATTITUDE TO THIS EXPEDITION, TO DEBRAY AND TO GUEVARA AT THE TIME WAS THAT IT WAS MUDDLE-HEADED, POLITICALLY CRAZY AND DOOMED FROM THE START. MOST OF THE DOCUMENTARY CONSISTED OF READINGS FROM GUEVARA&#039;S DIARY THAT IN EFFECT CONDEMNED HIS LACK OF PREPAREDNESS AND WRONG-HEADED APPROACH IN HIS OWN WORDS. 

AS FOR &#039;ANTI-AMERICAN&#039; APPROACH, THE DOCUMENTARY OF COURSE TOLD THE STORY OF HOW HE WAS KILLED WHICH INVOLVED CIA INTERVENTION. 

I ALSO MADE SEVERAL DOCUMENTARIES FOR SCHOOLS TELEVISION. THESE WERE NO MORE THAN CUT AND PASTE JOBS USING ARCHIVE ALREADY OWNED BY THE BBC. ONE OF THESE WAS ABOUT CHEMICAL WARFARE. IN THE BBC ARCHIVE WAS A SHORT CLIP OF THE US ARMY USING LSD ON ONE OF ITS OWN SOLDIERS IN ORDER TO SEE WHAT THE EFFECT WOULD BE IF IT WAS ADMINISTERED TO ENEMIES. YOU SEE IN THE CLIP A MAN UNABLE TO COMPLETE AN ASSAULT COURSE. I INCLUDED THE CLIP. THE BBC RECEIVED A COMPLAINT FROM THE US EMBASSY. THE CLIP WAS REMOVED FROM THE DOCUMENTARY THE NEXT TIME IT WAS PUT OUT.

IF THIS IS WHAT JUDY MEANS BY &#039;ANTI-AMERICAN&#039;, SHE&#039;S TALKING OUT OF HER TUKKHES. IT MAY HAVE BEEN MILDLY ANTI-MILITARY BUT NO MORE THAN THAT. I&#039;M NOT &#039;ANTI-AMERICAN&#039;. HALF OF MY FAMILY IS AMERICAN.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If anyone is still reading this, perhaps it will be no surprise that know-all Judy, while correcting others&#8217; mistakes, makes mistakes of her own. I quote and insert in caps in her text where she is wrong.:</p>
<p>&#8220;It was Michael Rosen who was blacklisted, and the man responsible was a Brigadier Michael Stonham [NO HIS NAME WAS 'RONNIE'] who was stationed in Broadcasting House as an in-house vetting officer on behalf of MI5 for the supposedly “independent” BBC.</p>
<p>The role of Brigadier Stonham was documented in an Observer expose published on 18th August 1985, which detailed the facts about the non-confirmation of Michael Rosen’s permanent contract [NO, IT WASN'T A 'PERMANENT' CONTRACT] following his blacklisting by Stonham. Rosen had previously been a trainee [NO, THAT'S WHAT I WAS AT THE TIME OF STONHAM'S INTERVENTION. IE A 'TRAINEE'] at the Beeb, had openly declared his marxist afflliations when recruited and had subsequently made pro marxist [THAT'S A LIE] and anti US documentaries [THAT'S A LIE]. &#8221;</p>
<p>I MADE ONE RADIO DOCUMENTARY ABOUT THE ILL-FATED LAST EXPEDITION BY GUEVARA SEEMINGLY INSPIRED BY REGIS DEBRAY. MY OWN ATTITUDE TO THIS EXPEDITION, TO DEBRAY AND TO GUEVARA AT THE TIME WAS THAT IT WAS MUDDLE-HEADED, POLITICALLY CRAZY AND DOOMED FROM THE START. MOST OF THE DOCUMENTARY CONSISTED OF READINGS FROM GUEVARA&#8217;S DIARY THAT IN EFFECT CONDEMNED HIS LACK OF PREPAREDNESS AND WRONG-HEADED APPROACH IN HIS OWN WORDS. </p>
<p>AS FOR &#8216;ANTI-AMERICAN&#8217; APPROACH, THE DOCUMENTARY OF COURSE TOLD THE STORY OF HOW HE WAS KILLED WHICH INVOLVED CIA INTERVENTION. </p>
<p>I ALSO MADE SEVERAL DOCUMENTARIES FOR SCHOOLS TELEVISION. THESE WERE NO MORE THAN CUT AND PASTE JOBS USING ARCHIVE ALREADY OWNED BY THE BBC. ONE OF THESE WAS ABOUT CHEMICAL WARFARE. IN THE BBC ARCHIVE WAS A SHORT CLIP OF THE US ARMY USING LSD ON ONE OF ITS OWN SOLDIERS IN ORDER TO SEE WHAT THE EFFECT WOULD BE IF IT WAS ADMINISTERED TO ENEMIES. YOU SEE IN THE CLIP A MAN UNABLE TO COMPLETE AN ASSAULT COURSE. I INCLUDED THE CLIP. THE BBC RECEIVED A COMPLAINT FROM THE US EMBASSY. THE CLIP WAS REMOVED FROM THE DOCUMENTARY THE NEXT TIME IT WAS PUT OUT.</p>
<p>IF THIS IS WHAT JUDY MEANS BY &#8216;ANTI-AMERICAN&#8217;, SHE&#8217;S TALKING OUT OF HER TUKKHES. IT MAY HAVE BEEN MILDLY ANTI-MILITARY BUT NO MORE THAN THAT. I&#8217;M NOT &#8216;ANTI-AMERICAN&#8217;. HALF OF MY FAMILY IS AMERICAN.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel P</title>
		<link>http://hurryupharry.org/2009/10/04/freedom-of-information-act-does-not-apply-to-the-bbc/comment-page-1/#comment-394926</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel P</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:50:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hurryupharry.org/?p=22359#comment-394926</guid>
		<description>I guess this is going to seem very naive, but I always assumed that the BBC published all of their financial information given that it is not a private company and has no money of its own - only taxpayers funds. Given that it does not need to compete, and that its run by a small cabal of managers and thus open to abuse, it would seem sensible that a full accounting of their financial expenditure should be available.

I can&#039;t believe I&#039;m reading that the BBC is deliberately obfuscating.  Why on Earth would they try to keep things like this secret unless they have something to hide?

The sickening thing is they have been given a green light to keep information out of the taxpayer&#039;s view.  That&#039;s a little bit like a private company withholding financial data from its shareholders.  

I don&#039;t hate the BBC - they can be a force for good.  But recently they have sunk far too far into their comfort zone, turning into a club of smug, liberal cheerleaders.  There are quite a few people who work for the BBC that I still respect - I like Andrew Marr, and I have a huge amount of respect for their roving political journalist who turns up on Newsnight but whose name escapes me.  I would count these as genuinely independent and good value.

I have a suspicion that before long the BBC will transform into something akin to the wet, liberal Channel 4 News.  That will be a sad day for us all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess this is going to seem very naive, but I always assumed that the BBC published all of their financial information given that it is not a private company and has no money of its own &#8211; only taxpayers funds. Given that it does not need to compete, and that its run by a small cabal of managers and thus open to abuse, it would seem sensible that a full accounting of their financial expenditure should be available.</p>
<p>I can&#8217;t believe I&#8217;m reading that the BBC is deliberately obfuscating.  Why on Earth would they try to keep things like this secret unless they have something to hide?</p>
<p>The sickening thing is they have been given a green light to keep information out of the taxpayer&#8217;s view.  That&#8217;s a little bit like a private company withholding financial data from its shareholders.  </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t hate the BBC &#8211; they can be a force for good.  But recently they have sunk far too far into their comfort zone, turning into a club of smug, liberal cheerleaders.  There are quite a few people who work for the BBC that I still respect &#8211; I like Andrew Marr, and I have a huge amount of respect for their roving political journalist who turns up on Newsnight but whose name escapes me.  I would count these as genuinely independent and good value.</p>
<p>I have a suspicion that before long the BBC will transform into something akin to the wet, liberal Channel 4 News.  That will be a sad day for us all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David All</title>
		<link>http://hurryupharry.org/2009/10/04/freedom-of-information-act-does-not-apply-to-the-bbc/comment-page-1/#comment-394895</link>
		<dc:creator>David All</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:52:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hurryupharry.org/?p=22359#comment-394895</guid>
		<description>And now for something completely different:

Monty Python turns forty! 
Forty years ago today, on Oct. 5, 1969, the first episode of
 Monty Python was broadcast on BBC2.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And now for something completely different:</p>
<p>Monty Python turns forty!<br />
Forty years ago today, on Oct. 5, 1969, the first episode of<br />
 Monty Python was broadcast on BBC2.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roley Poley Dahl</title>
		<link>http://hurryupharry.org/2009/10/04/freedom-of-information-act-does-not-apply-to-the-bbc/comment-page-1/#comment-394872</link>
		<dc:creator>Roley Poley Dahl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:54:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hurryupharry.org/?p=22359#comment-394872</guid>
		<description>Alec. The Open Secrets blog is written by Martin Rosenbaum, not Michael Rosenbaum. Please do not confuse him with Michael Rosen.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alec. The Open Secrets blog is written by Martin Rosenbaum, not Michael Rosenbaum. Please do not confuse him with Michael Rosen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alec</title>
		<link>http://hurryupharry.org/2009/10/04/freedom-of-information-act-does-not-apply-to-the-bbc/comment-page-1/#comment-394711</link>
		<dc:creator>Alec</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:38:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hurryupharry.org/?p=22359#comment-394711</guid>
		<description>Sue, I prefer to look to the Rev Stiggins for moral guidance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sue, I prefer to look to the Rev Stiggins for moral guidance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sue R</title>
		<link>http://hurryupharry.org/2009/10/04/freedom-of-information-act-does-not-apply-to-the-bbc/comment-page-1/#comment-394664</link>
		<dc:creator>Sue R</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:38:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hurryupharry.org/?p=22359#comment-394664</guid>
		<description>Alec, you should remember the motto of the Circumlocution Office in Dicken&#039;s &#039;Little Dorrit&#039;; &#039;How Not To Do It&#039;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alec, you should remember the motto of the Circumlocution Office in Dicken&#8217;s &#8216;Little Dorrit&#8217;; &#8216;How Not To Do It&#8217;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Comstock</title>
		<link>http://hurryupharry.org/2009/10/04/freedom-of-information-act-does-not-apply-to-the-bbc/comment-page-1/#comment-394661</link>
		<dc:creator>Comstock</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:17:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hurryupharry.org/?p=22359#comment-394661</guid>
		<description>Some of you think Radio 4 is biased but try the world service. If you thought  Grendal  evil try  his mother! The world service  is not of this planet!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some of you think Radio 4 is biased but try the world service. If you thought  Grendal  evil try  his mother! The world service  is not of this planet!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amused</title>
		<link>http://hurryupharry.org/2009/10/04/freedom-of-information-act-does-not-apply-to-the-bbc/comment-page-1/#comment-394640</link>
		<dc:creator>Amused</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 00:36:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hurryupharry.org/?p=22359#comment-394640</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt; If you read the Times, you can fairly well predict who is going to turn up on Radio 4 next week &lt;/i&gt;

Murdoch&#039;s grip on the British media knows no bounds</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i> If you read the Times, you can fairly well predict who is going to turn up on Radio 4 next week </i></p>
<p>Murdoch&#8217;s grip on the British media knows no bounds</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

