Thursday, August 29, 2013
BBC FoI - TheyDon't Even Attempt To Deny They Werre Deliberatly Lying To Promote FascisM
FoI to the BBC:
"(10.22 Radio Scotland Saturday) the BBC has once again had a "debate" on UK in which the various BBC employees have said UKIP contains racists, are "idiots", and should not have a right to speak.
Nobody from the UKIP side of the "debate"
The BBC have, on Thursday, claimed as fact that UKIP are opposed to debate. Thus, unless the BBC are an obscene, wholly corrupt, fascist propaganda organisation with not only no slightest trace of honesty but being committed to telling the exact and complete opposite of the truth it must be true and the BBC must have invited a UKIP spokesperson on to answer or debate the obscene lies the BBC were broadcasting. And UKIP must have specifically refused to produce one. Under the FoI I wish to ask which BBC employee invited this debater and what reason UKIP gave for refusing.
Obviously had no such invitation been made it would be impossible to claim that the BBC or any employee is anything other than a corrupt, obscene, lying, thieving, Nazi whore with less integrity or human decency than the people, rightly, hung for running Auschwitz. So I have to assume you will not admit this to be a proper assessment of BBC employees by refusing to confirm having invited UKIP to your "debate".
The information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’..."
Which is what I expected. The BBC always rely on the journalism exclusion even, or perhaps particularly, when the question has nothing to do with protecting journalistic sources, they nominal reason they got the exclusion.
However that doesn't matter. What matters is that
(A) the claim that UKIP had refused to debate is clearly a total and deliberate fascist that no organisation not wholly and completely corrupt could have maintained, even if we accept they could have told the lie in the heat of the moment &
(B) the BBC are maintaining this lie as representing the standard of honesty to which they aspire.
Which proves, beyond any possibility of dispute that the standard to which the BBC and its employees aspire is to be wholly and completely corrupt lying totalitarian fascists without aspiring to any trace of honesty6 or decency.
Which brings me to another part of their reply:
" However, I would note that, had the information been covered by the Act, under section 14(1) of the Act public authorities are not obliged to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious. The Information Commissioner’s guidance with respect to vexatious requests states that ‘determining whether a request is vexatious is a balancing exercise, taking into account the context and history of the request. The key question is whether the request is likely to cause unjustified distress, disruption or irritation’.
The BBC is of the view that the following questions, which the ICO recommends an organisation considers, are of particular relevance to your request:
Is the request harassing the authority or causing distress to staff?
Does the tone or language of the requester’s correspondence go beyond the level of criticism that a public authority or its employees should reasonably expect to receive? Is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance?
This request could fairly be characterised in terms of the Information Commissioner’s guidance on the matter as ‘harassing the authority’, uses language that ‘goes beyond the level of criticism that a public authority or its employees should reasonably expect to receive’ and is ‘designed to cause disruption or annoyance’. Based on these factors, had the information requested been covered by the Act, we are of the view that the BBC would not have been obliged to comply with this request.
Appeal Rights
Ian Small Head of Public Policy & Corporate Affairs BBC Scotland
Dear Mr Small,
I note your offensive reply. I am due a public apology on 2 grounds.
I said nothing about you beeboids which was not totally factual, as your refusal to dispute having lied deliberately in the totalitarian cause on air proves beyond dispute.
2 - If a correct and truthful description of the BBC and its employees, not even denied to be such, is claimed to be offensive merely because it contains words like "corrupt, obscene, lying, thieving, Nazi whore" then the BBC's continuing claim that everybody who doubts we are experiencing catastrophic global warming is the moral equivalent of a child rapist is unjustified (& indeed would be had the BBC not acknowledged it was wholly false). In which case you obscenities owe most of the population of the country a public apology. I again hereby ask for it.
I would also like to ask, under the FoI if there are any statements made by any BBC employee which can under any circumstances be treated as not the Fascist lies you aspire to and if so what evidence you have to support the contention?
Neil Craig
"(10.22 Radio Scotland Saturday) the BBC has once again had a "debate" on UK in which the various BBC employees have said UKIP contains racists, are "idiots", and should not have a right to speak.
Nobody from the UKIP side of the "debate"
The BBC have, on Thursday, claimed as fact that UKIP are opposed to debate. Thus, unless the BBC are an obscene, wholly corrupt, fascist propaganda organisation with not only no slightest trace of honesty but being committed to telling the exact and complete opposite of the truth it must be true and the BBC must have invited a UKIP spokesperson on to answer or debate the obscene lies the BBC were broadcasting. And UKIP must have specifically refused to produce one. Under the FoI I wish to ask which BBC employee invited this debater and what reason UKIP gave for refusing.
Obviously had no such invitation been made it would be impossible to claim that the BBC or any employee is anything other than a corrupt, obscene, lying, thieving, Nazi whore with less integrity or human decency than the people, rightly, hung for running Auschwitz. So I have to assume you will not admit this to be a proper assessment of BBC employees by refusing to confirm having invited UKIP to your "debate".
The information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’..."
Which is what I expected. The BBC always rely on the journalism exclusion even, or perhaps particularly, when the question has nothing to do with protecting journalistic sources, they nominal reason they got the exclusion.
However that doesn't matter. What matters is that
(A) the claim that UKIP had refused to debate is clearly a total and deliberate fascist that no organisation not wholly and completely corrupt could have maintained, even if we accept they could have told the lie in the heat of the moment &
(B) the BBC are maintaining this lie as representing the standard of honesty to which they aspire.
Which proves, beyond any possibility of dispute that the standard to which the BBC and its employees aspire is to be wholly and completely corrupt lying totalitarian fascists without aspiring to any trace of honesty6 or decency.
Which brings me to another part of their reply:
" However, I would note that, had the information been covered by the Act, under section 14(1) of the Act public authorities are not obliged to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious. The Information Commissioner’s guidance with respect to vexatious requests states that ‘determining whether a request is vexatious is a balancing exercise, taking into account the context and history of the request. The key question is whether the request is likely to cause unjustified distress, disruption or irritation’.
The BBC is of the view that the following questions, which the ICO recommends an organisation considers, are of particular relevance to your request:
Is the request harassing the authority or causing distress to staff?
Does the tone or language of the requester’s correspondence go beyond the level of criticism that a public authority or its employees should reasonably expect to receive? Is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance?
This request could fairly be characterised in terms of the Information Commissioner’s guidance on the matter as ‘harassing the authority’, uses language that ‘goes beyond the level of criticism that a public authority or its employees should reasonably expect to receive’ and is ‘designed to cause disruption or annoyance’. Based on these factors, had the information requested been covered by the Act, we are of the view that the BBC would not have been obliged to comply with this request.
Appeal Rights
Ian Small Head of Public Policy & Corporate Affairs BBC Scotland
Dear Mr Small,
I note your offensive reply. I am due a public apology on 2 grounds.
I said nothing about you beeboids which was not totally factual, as your refusal to dispute having lied deliberately in the totalitarian cause on air proves beyond dispute.
2 - If a correct and truthful description of the BBC and its employees, not even denied to be such, is claimed to be offensive merely because it contains words like "corrupt, obscene, lying, thieving, Nazi whore" then the BBC's continuing claim that everybody who doubts we are experiencing catastrophic global warming is the moral equivalent of a child rapist is unjustified (& indeed would be had the BBC not acknowledged it was wholly false). In which case you obscenities owe most of the population of the country a public apology. I again hereby ask for it.
I would also like to ask, under the FoI if there are any statements made by any BBC employee which can under any circumstances be treated as not the Fascist lies you aspire to and if so what evidence you have to support the contention?
Neil Craig
Labels: BBC, British politics, Media
