[cryptome] Re: Cryptome is Back: BBC Monitoring Service.
- From: Shaun O'Connor <capricorn8159@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 00:20:35 +0100
well that information Frankly does not surprise me one iota. oh and on
the question of the BBC being impartial. I question whether they even
know what the word means.
and obviously they serve the governments hidden(?) agenda beautifully
because there have I think been a number of occasions whereby if
everything was played directly by the book the BBC should have been
stripped of its charter.
On 27/06/2014 23:12, doug wrote:
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
> Ah! How nice it is to see Cryptome back on line...it seems like an age
> where I have been living in the dark...not knowing what is happening
> in that world of ours which is so full of openness, democracy and the
> pursuit of happiness and human rights, that it is coming out of my
> ears! All that catching up to do too. I see I shall have to cut
> back my contributions to cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx...;-) .
> see url: http://www.monitor.bbc.co.uk/
>
> There was a programme on BBC last night called "Newsnight" which had
> an article on BBC Monitoring at Caversham. Apparently, the BBC, which
> is a state owned organisation created by Royal Charter and funded by
> every television owner in the UK whose television is capable of
> receiving live television, by paying an annual licence fee of almost
> £150, is collecting "open source" information on behalf of clients who
> request information or ask certain types of questions. For this they
> are charged a fee. However, if the information is classified as
> secret or confidential, it is not made available to the BBC as a
> whole, or, more importantly, to the license payer. BBC monitoring
> has been around for a long time and provides a valuable service
> gathering data, collating it and sorting and sifting it, but why is
> it, that I as a licence payer don't have access to it, and why is it
> that not all BBC journalists are allowed access to some of it.
>
> Apparently there is a small group of journalists, who do get told some
> of what is going on but they require security clearances, and can't
> divulge it to other BBC personnel. The spokesperson used a number of
> different justifications for the practice, but like the BBC World
> Service being the tool of the Foreign Office, again paid for by the
> licence payer, does this practice not affect the independence of the
> BBC according to its Charter? Not only that, but, according to a
> reporter who visited the property at Caversham, the CIA also has a
> floor there, which no one without a security clearance can visit. A
> historical anomaly....maybe...but where does that leave independent,
> unbiassed and open reporting...not that one would suggest that the
> C.I.A. is anything else but a law-abiding and democratic organisation,
> having all of our best interests at heart, even us foreigners who
> aren't covered by the U.S. Constitution...
>
> So much for the independence of the BBC, in terms of its reporting,
> once again it is the tax-payer wot foots the bill, subsidising stuff
> which would be better paid for elsewhere.
>
> Food for thought...
> ATB
> Dougie.
>
>
>
>
--
*_PRIVACY IS A BASIC RIGHT - NOT A CONCESSION _*
Other related posts:
