Well what did you all think of that performance yesterday? Surely BBC Scotland have crossed the line here with their antics on the Politics Show?

My question is, what can be done about this blatant attempt to derail the "open debate" promised (on the Glasgow East by-election) before it even began by its opening item - allegations by Mike Dailly of the Govan Law Centre that his grant from the Scottish Government had been "withdrawn" because he had criticised an SNP Councillor for being a "bad Landlord"?

BBC Scotland, in the form of Glenn Campbell with a smile a mile wide, wasted valuable time going over an issue which, by the end of the piece, exposed Dailly's lies about the Scottish Government playing "Party politics" with his grant. It turned out that TWENTY TWO other groups had experienced the same thing through an error made in Edinburgh. It also turned out that the Scottish Government had subsequently reinstated ALL of the grants, including Dailly's. Yet BBC Scotland ran with the item despite the fact that Dailly was the one playing Party politics by attempting to smear the SNP ahead of the Glasgow East by-election and divert the "open debate"! The only conclusion one can reach is that BBC Scotland participated willingly in the smear attempt. We had to listen to Dailly's rubbish and threats of legal action against the Scottish Government. Oh, and did I mention that Dailly is himself a member of the Labour Party? The smirk on Curran's face said it all and she used the matter to get at the SNP candidate several times during the "open debate" (when that eventually got started after Dailly's rant finally ended).

I know we are used to BBC Scotland's bias but this was truly astonishing.

As for the debate and Curran's conduct I was reminded of the movie "Educating Rita" (with Michael Caine and Julie Walters)and the point where Walters' character says to Caine's (of Lady Macbeth) "Wasn't she a complete cow!!!" Cos she was. (Curran I mean, not Lady Macbeth.) Arrogant, condescending, rude, obnoxious, ill-mannered and downright monstrous. Ugh! I wondered several times who was running the show. It certainly wasn't the anchor guy, that's for sure. Curran sat muttering and making snide comments every time Mason spoke.

It occurred to me actually about Mason that he is from a background where he treats women with respect and Curran exploited that I think, knowing he wouldn't get nasty. As a woman I found her behaviour absolutely appalling. I'm ashamed to say in his shoes I might have smacked her right in the mouth. What a common piece of lowlife she is in reality, incapable of dignified debate. I felt Mason, despite Curran's behaviour, came over as an honest sort of man who is committed to serving the constituency to the best of his ability if he is elected. Curran slipped up at one point however by stating that she sees her position of MP (if elected) as a "short term" plan. She then appeared to regret that when pressed regarding her intentions. Doesn't this prove she truly was thrown into this? Doesn't it also suggested she is hardly committed to the job if she wins it?

Anyway, as I said screeds ago, aren't there formal regulations governing impartiality and if enough people protest at this shocking display yesterday.......who is it we protest to because BBC Scotland won't respond will they? We are paying for the BBC, it is publicly funded and yet they are just becoming more and more outrageous. The coverage of this by-election has been astonishing as they blatantly promote Labour. What did you all think?

Oh, come on Clare - didn't you know that the BBC is biased against Labour ?

www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.va...against_SNP_bias.php

I didn't see all of it but as a debate it was a failure. Campbell is a very poor presenter who doesn't know when to shut up and to allow all that nonsense about the Labour run Govan Law Centre was really bad although the editor of the show is just as much to blame.
Mr Mason is too nice and he could do with being a bit more forceful especially with a harridan like Curran to deal with. The Limp Dem was limp as usual. Why is the rather charming young Tory woman described as "black"? I look blacker when I come back from my hols. Anyway she is too shy but seems to me to be genuine enough.
Sadly this programme highlights once again the inadequacy of BBC Scotland and the political bias that's always an obvious undercurrent in their output.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7504161.stm


This is what the BBC has to say about the debate today

Clare commented: Arrogant, condescending, rude, obnoxious, ill-mannered and downright monstrous. Ugh! I wondered several times who was running the show. It certainly wasn't the anchor guy, that's for sure. Curran sat muttering and making snide comments every time Mason spoke.

Rob and I watched the programme and agreed that she seemed to be suffering from verbal diahorrhea. Don't knock it - just think of the good it has done for the SNP's voting figures!

TLJ wrote:
Oh, come on Clare - didn't you know that the BBC is biased against Labour ?

The Scottish branch of the Labour party is hacked off that the Scottish public naturally want to use terms like "The Scottish Government" because that's an accurate description of what Holyrood is about. To distinguish two different institutions the London lot are "London or Westminster Government". It's very entertaining to watch Labour types, especially Westminster time servers like John McFall and Des Browne, almost gag when they say the words "Scottish Government". The usage is now so entrenched that even the Beeb are using it so Labour's partisan whines will get nowhere.

Well. to be honest it wasn't entirely unexpected, was it?

The negativity angle is a well used (some would say the only) tool by the unionist establishment, and such inherent bias shown by a self-proclaimed unbiased organ such as the BBC says much about the gravity with which they treat the present circumstances. Make no mistake - this is 'beyond a joke, chaps. The Scots are listening to these SNP types and worse, voting for them'.
The interview section was par for the course, in my opinion.

What really shows the shiver in the establishment desperately looking for a spine to run up was the party political broadcast masquerading as news at the beginning of the show. It was really the BBC equivalent of the Notorious Sun front page noose in May 2007. An unbiased organisation would be looking for an objective opinion from the viewer before any debate was entered into, and any conclusion to come from reasoned argument.

So I agree, Clare, the pravda bit at the start of the programme was beyond the pale. It was the BBC saying 'This is the take we have on the whole thing, and Auntie Beeb knows what's good for you'.

As Mr Cholmondley-Warner (Harry Enfield) didn't say:

JOCKS, KNOW YOUR PLACE!!

It didn't work in May 2007 though, so I doubt it'll work now.

Here it is (minus the pravda bit at the beginning) for those who missed it.











If you watch them, think of them in the context of this on another thread, and see how it compares.

Thank you all. My point however is that the BBC is publicly funded and they are seriously defying their obligation under clear regulations to remain neutral. Where do we go about that? I've written already to The Politics Show. What is the official body to approach tho?

"Dear Sirs

This email relates to the second part of your programme yesterday in which four of the candidates standing in the by-election in Glasgow-East participated in a studio debate. I would like to complain formally about BBC Scotland's handling of the debate and in particular about the decision to introduce, immediately before it, an issue which, frankly, did not deserve air-time.

As the debate was about to begin the studio presenter announced that another matter had arisen which Glen Campbell would now enlighten viewers regarding. Mr Campbell then presented the matter in question which, it turned out, was a complete non-story. My question is why did BBC Scotland deem the issue worthy of inclusion?

The matter concerned a lawyer called Mike Dailly who runs the Govan Law Centre. The "story" was that he had been awarded a grant from the Scottish Government to assist in setting up a further branch in Govanhill in order to support asylum seekers who were being badly treated by particular landlords who were renting them accommodation in the Govanhill area. Mr Dailly claimed that he was notified of his award and then, following his criticism of an SNP councillor who owns and lets property in Govanhill, the Scottish Government withdrew his grant. He actually stated this. Indeed he went further. He said the Scottish Government was indulging in "Party politics" because of his comments about the Councillor in a Scottish newspaper and because he is a member of the Labour Party. He issued notice that he intended to "sue" the Scottish Government as he had already accepted the grant formally (by email) before receiving the notification that the grant had been awarded in error and therefore considered that a contract had been entered into . He was permitted to make various other statements all attacking the Scottish Government. Astonishingly Glen Campbell then went on to provide more information regarding the matter and when the true facts emerged it became obvious that Mr Dailly was not the victim of any "Party political" decision on the part of the Scottish Government but was in fact one of TWENTY TWO groups who had received award notifications which were later withdrawn due to an administration error by civil servants. Furthermore the Scottish Government had now acted on the matter and ALL grants originally notified to these groups had been reinstated. Thus there was NO Party political exercise ever, simply a mistake and there was no victimisation of Mike Dailly as an individual. What existed was a blatant attempt by Mike Dailly, assisted to an alarming extent by BBC Scotland, to indulge in Party politics immediately ahead of a studio debate on the Glasgow East by-election. BBC Scotland had the whole story yet still ran with the allegation that Mike Dailly had been victimised by the Scottish Government for political reasons. BBC Scotland knew this allegation did not stand up. TWENTY TWO groups were affected by the same error. Why did they focus on Mike Dailly and give him air time to publicly allege something they knew would be completely disproved by the end of the broadcast? In participating in such conduct BBC Scotland was surely breaching its responsibility on impartiality. The timing of Dailly's performance spoke for itself and it was clearly meant to damage the SNP. BBC Scotland simply cannot indulge in such behaviour. It is funded by taxpayers and this behaviour is simply not acceptable. The person who gained most from the inclusion of the non-story was of course Margaret Curran and she took full advantage by using the item to goad the SNP candidate several times.

I would like a full response as a matter of urgency.

I would also suggest that BBC Scotland staff should learn how to shut politicians up when they attempt to dominate any debate by simply giving them a crash course in basic manners before debates. Margaret Curran behaved appallingly, was permitted to interupt almost constantly and generally ran the whole show. Was this deliberate also on the part of BBC Scotland?

The Glasgow East by-election is obviously of great interest to many but for people like me who are genuinely interested in politics rather than Party-politics the conduct of BBC Scotland yesterday was vomit-inducing such was the clear bias on display. Again I would remind you that the BBC is funded by the taxpayer and so I would like to know why the BBC feels able to indulge so freely in conduct which blatantly contravenes broadcasting regulations.

Yours faithfully

I'll let you know what I get back.

Great letter Claire I hope you get a worthy response. Knowing the BBC I will be surprised if you get a response.

DWS thank you for posting the above I did not see that program.

I think letters about the general level of bias in reporting the news would be appropriate to the BBC.

I will come back to you Claire on the appropriate body to complain to.

I think it is ofcom

www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/psb_review/digitalpsb/

www.tvlicensing.co.uk/aboutus/complaints.jsp

It may also be The broadcast standards commission

I missed the broadcast having taken pain relief for my wrecked spine.
Thank you all for updating me on this appalling event. I concur with most of the views expressed, and thanks to dws for the videos. The BBC has several issues to defend, or at least answer, regarding this program, and I hope Clare gets a sufficient reply.

DoricMan wrote:
I missed the broadcast having taken pain relief for my wrecked spine.
Thank you all for updating me on this appalling event. I concur with most of the views expressed, and thanks to dws for the videos. The BBC has several issues to defend, or at least answer, regarding this program, and I hope Clare gets a sufficient reply.

Doricman

I hope your spine feels a wee bit better now.

The BBC have a lot to answetr for but it is run from London so what can we expect.

Doricman I'm sorry to learn of your discomfort. I hope you feel better soon.

Lydia BBC Scotland itself runs that section of the Politics Programme as they do Reporting Scotland. There are plenty of Scots based there who are willing to play dirty without any interference from London I would say. Yesterday's debacle proved that conclusively. Campbell wasn't able to disguise his glee as he gave the ludicrous introduction regarding the Mike Dailly item.

I haven't followed this..but I heard a comment on Radio Scotland last week that as an MsP and an MP Curran would have two difficult jobs. Excuse me..has she been elected yet|??

Thank you all for your kind wishes regarding my wrecked bones.