The BBC itself has admitted during today (Tuesday 01 April 2014) to being sorry over the disclosure in the last 48 hours that the BBC'sd own lax management had allowed sources' data to be disclsoed to the supposed subject of last night's Panaroma episide abouut London's Tower Hamlets Borough Council.
The BBC itself has admitted during today (Tuesday 01 April 2014) to being sorry over the disclosure in the last 48 hours that the BBC'sd own lax management had allowed sources' data to be disclsoed to the supposed subject of last night's Panaroma episide abouut London's Tower Hamlets Borough Council.
This is the latest episode in the saga of the Panaroma programme being in the news about its role over sources and 'participants'.
The previous one of course involved the LSE students' alleged absue by the
Panarima programme over its North Korea "investigation".
So what about any substance in the hype that so many familiar couriers of the PR about Tower Hamlets Hamelts Borough Council have been indulging in?
The only thing that will be remembered for any length of time is the claim that the
incumbent "executive mayor" in Toweer Hamlets Council had allowed several £Millions worth of funding from the Council's "reserves" to recruit electoral support by favouring "Bengali and Somalina" groups, some "charities" based in Tower Hamlets.
The rest of the routines carried in the Panaroma episode are not new, as they had been already publicised by a number of the PR people doing the marketing of the
Panaroma episode.
Those did their bids via identufiable blogs and a small number of Fleet Street-linked outlets.
Posing against those is the Guardian and most noticeably their London blogger Dave Hill.
If the Guardian were ever investigated for bias, nepotism or alleged corruption then Dave Hill would certainkly feature in the list of the first five.
Hill is a lazy apologist for Council abse and misuse.
So what was the point of this Panorama?
If supporters of demicray and accoyuntabuility weere expecting any susbvnace to use in thweir claims then they weere dispaoouinmted.
It may be that in the near futire, more revelatons will conmdfirm as to how much public miney Tower Hamklets Council applied to stop the investigfayion.
One source that the BBC is irked about is of coyurse the woman decsriobed as being 24 and from a place ouitrsdie of London and as a "Bengali" who worked very brifely in the production team before turning into a useful supporter of the Tower Hamlets Council regime.
She was able to hand over a heavy duty set of materials to the Council.
Those materials contained sensitive details on the alleged absue as well as about the sources, quite a few insdie the Council itself.
Given that PRIVATE EYE had publsihed clear evidence of the tussle that had been going on over the udner-production Panorama, how was it that the BBC did not own uip to the heavy duty breavh until after tarnsmission last night?
That question is only the first on a very long list.
This is the latest episode in the saga of the Panaroma programme being in the news about its role over sources and 'participants'.
The previous one of course involved the LSE students' alleged absue by the
Panarima programme over its North Korea "investigation".
So what about any substance in the hype that so many familiar couriers of the PR about Tower Hamlets Hamelts Borough Council have been indulging in?
The only thing that will be remembered for any length of time is the claim that the
incumbent "executive mayor" in Toweer Hamlets Council had allowed several £Millions worth of funding from the Council's "reserves" to recruit electoral support by favouring "Bengali and Somalina" groups, some "charities" based in Tower Hamlets.
The rest of the routines carried in the Panaroma episode are not new, as they had been already publicised by a number of the PR people doing the marketing of the
Panaroma episode.
Those did their bids via identufiable blogs and a small number of Fleet Street-linked outlets.
Posing against those is the Guardian and most noticeably their London blogger Dave Hill.
If the Guardian were ever investigated for bias, nepotism or alleged corruption then Dave Hill would certainkly feature in the list of the first five.
Hill is a lazy apologist for Council abse and misuse.
So what was the point of this Panorama?
If supporters of demicray and accoyuntabuility weere expecting any susbvnace to use in thweir claims then they weere dispaoouinmted.
It may be that in the near futire, more revelatons will conmdfirm as to how much public miney Tower Hamklets Council applied to stop the investigfayion.
One source that the BBC is irked about is of coyurse the woman decsriobed as being 24 and from a place ouitrsdie of London and as a "Bengali" who worked very brifely in the production team before turning into a useful supporter of the Tower Hamlets Council regime.
She was able to hand over a heavy duty set of materials to the Council.
Those materials contained sensitive details on the alleged absue as well as about the sources, quite a few insdie the Council itself.
Given that PRIVATE EYE had publsihed clear evidence of the tussle that had been going on over the udner-production Panorama, how was it that the BBC did not own uip to the heavy duty breavh until after tarnsmission last night?
That question is only the first on a very long list.
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
Typing
02.04.2014 03:20
Unbanked | 01.04.2014 16:29 | Indymedia | Other Press | Social Struggles | London | World
The BBC itself has admitted during today (Tuesday 01 April 2014) to being sorry over the disclosure in the last 48 hours that the BBC'sd own lax management had allowed sources' data to be disclosed to the supposed subject of last night's Panorama episode about London's Tower Hamlets Borough Council.
The BBC itself has admitted during today (Tuesday 01 April 2014) to being sorry over the disclosure in the last 48 hours that the BBC'sd own lax management had allowed sources' data to be disclosed to the supposed subject of last night's Panorama episode about London's Tower Hamlets Borough Council.
This is the latest episode in the saga of the Panorama programme being in the news about its role over sources and 'participants'.
The previous one of course involved the LSE students' alleged abuse by the
Panorama programme over its North Korea "investigation".
So what about any substance in the hype that so many familiar couriers of the PR about Tower Hamlets Hamlets Borough Council have been indulging in?
The only thing that will be remembered for any length of time is the claim that the
incumbent "executive mayor" in Tower Hamlets Council had allowed several £Millions worth of funding from the Council's "reserves" to recruit electoral support by favouring "Bengali and Somalian" groups, some "charities" based in Tower Hamlets.
The rest of the routines carried in the Panorama episode are not new, as they had been already publicised by a number of the PR people doing the marketing of the
Panaroma episode.
Those did their bids via identifiable blogs and a small number of Fleet Street-linked outlets.
Posing against those is the Guardian and most noticeably their London blogger Dave Hill.
If the Guardian were ever investigated for bias, nepotism or alleged corruption then Dave Hill would certainly feature in the list of the first five.
Hill is a lazy apologist for Council abuse and misuse.
So what was the point of this Panorama?
If supporters of democracy and accountability were expecting any substance to use in their claims then they were disappointed.
It may be that in the near future, more revelations will confirm as to how much public money Tower Hamlets Council applied to stop the investigation.
One source that the BBC is irked about is of course the woman described as being 24 and from a place outside of London and as a "Bengali" who worked very briefly in the production team before turning into a useful supporter of the Tower Hamlets Council regime.
She was able to hand over a heavy duty set of materials to the Council.
Those materials contained sensitive details on the alleged abuse as well as about the sources, quite a few inside the Council itself.
Given that PRIVATE EYE had published clear evidence of the tussle that had been going on over the underproduction Panorama, how was it that the BBC did not own up to the heavy duty breach until after transmission last night?
That question is only the first on a very long list.
Unbanked
reader
Daily Telegraph's Andrew Gilligan appears to have been served legal notice
03.04.2014 21:22
The Gilligan piece promised a lot this miring.
But after only 4 comments, visitors have been unable to post any comments.
Is that to do with Tower Hamlets Council sending Gilligan a legal action notice?
Londonresident