“Organisation makes contractually obligated payments to staff based on previously agreed staff performance shock!” was a possible early draft of this headline…
“Organisation makes contractually obligated payments to staff based on previously agreed staff performance metrics shock!” was a possible early draft of this headline… (note extra word… sorry!)
Don’t we have to pay bonuses to attract top quality staff and stop Britain suffering a brain drains? Oh, sorry. I forgot that only applies to CBI members!
I’m disappointed with the Mail today. Where’s the hatred, fear and disgust of a black left-wing man ecoming the most powerful person in the world? Obviously they’re letting their guard down!
Anyone watch Russell Howard at the Apollo the other night, he did an entire sketch in which he took the piss out of the Mail.
The mail are hilarious today. They’ve got a story in which they talk about a gypsy camp being removed because its illegal, not failing to realise that this is why the governments trying to give them permanent land.
I love how the Mail only hates capitalism when the government is involved.
Plenty of other banks which failed just as badly as Northern Rock, but only survived because the government lent them money before they collapsed rather than bought them outright after they collapsed as happened in this case simply due to it being unluckily the first, are all handing out bonuses.
Do the Mail care? Course not! They only want an excuse to bash the government, nothing more.
There’s actually bizarrely quite a salient point in the comments on that page that stresses if the BBC was broken up does anybody think commercial broadcasters would be any more ‘decent’? And that in fact they’d probably be far worse as they chased ratings.
Case in point being shows like Big Brother that purposely stirred up racist tensions, the Farm on 5 that famously had Rebecca Loos wanking a pig off. Does the Mail demand resignations, etc there?
Is iit just me, or have the BBC always been largely supportive of whatever government has been in power anyway? I’m fairly sure at least one director was a member of the Tory party back in the day and that this was just accepted.
I don’t think it’s a case of being supportive, just not critical, and that’s actually a good quality as it shows impartiality which is ingrained in not just its charter, but also other terrestrial stations.
Nobody would ever try to ascribe a political agenda to ITV or 5, but with the BBC they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t – even when such behaviour is mandated by their regulator!
Who to you think are talking balls. The great black and white dope will do what he thinks is right for America. Unlike or own great brown dope who does what he thinks will keep him in office. If he really wanted to do the right thing, for the country, he would call an election as the majority would probably call it right. If he wins his decisions will be validated.
Case in point today – the BBC refused to run a DEC charity appeal for civilian victims of Israel’s attack on Gaza and have been accused as right-wing zionist government lapdogs!
This must come as a shock to those at the BBC who only recently were being accused of being left-wing terrorist’ sympathising traitors!
Basically it comes down to that peculiarly pathetic British failing which is a fondness for unnecessarily being an absolute twat towards anything and everything we think we have some kind of financial stake in that isn’t allowed to shout back. It’s the same as insecure little power hungry worms who scream at checkout girls at Tescos over nothing.
The BBC can’t do anything right, ever, because people believe because they’ve ‘paid’ for it, they have a right to constantly attack it almost psychotically for not bending over backwards to please them,
They don’t do it to ITV or Sky because they would just tell them to fuck off and there’s not a thing they could do about it.
I’m not sure what to think with the whole BBC not running a charity appeal. Does it denote guilt in the crisis at Israel’s feet? Or is simply giving aid nothing to do with politics? I never knew humanitarian aid was a biased thing to do. Why do people assume that when you want to give people in Gaza money for food and water that you’re ignoring the question of Israeli security?
Whatever the answer to those questions are, the BBC needs to grow a backbone. They’re too scared of the Mail, the knuckledragging soul sucking whiners who have managed to make every joke, every foul word uttered on the BBC be followed by an apology.
The thing is choosing a charity to support is political. Why doesn’t the BBC run AIDS or cancer charity adverts? Or how about for refugees and victims of war in Darfur? It can’t support them all so the act of choosing to focus on one over the other is a political statement. The fact is though the BBC generally doesn’t do this kind of thing at all, and to run a Gaza appeal would be political as the only reason they would make an exception is because people are bitching.
Look at all the protesters over this, they’re the usual Palestinian pressure groups and the fact that ITV and 5 have bent shows the BBC have a backbone. The people who need to grow a backbone are the government who are the ones who really bow to pressure regularly and then force the BBC to do the same. Look at the Jonathan Ross and David Kelley affairs – in both cases the BBC initially stood firm until the government sold them out.
The public have got so used to the BBC capitulating that everyone has become an armchair director general and enjoys bullying it at the slightest opportunity when other outlets don’t get anywhere near the same level of scrutiny.
While criticising the BBC, would the Mail set an example and give over a full page of advertising to the DEC appeal for Gaza? Would it fuck as like! Nobody will notice or complain either, and if they did they’d get short shrift too.
As far as i’m concerned the most important thing is that the advert gets showed, not where. If people know that there is an appeal they can donate too it if they see fit. Which channels choose to show the advert is irrelevant and the row is just another excuse to have a go at the bbc.
Per the Rock (I’m going to see the bank on stage next week).
Let’s not forget that the staff have worked incredibly hard to meet all objectives that they were set on the nationalisation.
Not only that, a really important point that they have repaid a considerable proportion of the money lent and at 12% interest. I think that the Govt have come on top of that one. But as usual why let the facts get in the way of sales!!
The Mail serfs spent a lot of time on this page.
That’s a lot of balls.
Some balls are held for charity, and some for fancy dress,
But when they’re held for pleasure they’re the balls that I like best.
I hope Michelle Obama didn’t try and walk away whilst Barak was standing on her dress.
“Organisation makes contractually obligated payments to staff based on previously agreed staff performance shock!” was a possible early draft of this headline…
“Organisation makes contractually obligated payments to staff based on previously agreed staff performance metrics shock!” was a possible early draft of this headline… (note extra word… sorry!)
Presumably Hillary kept Bill away from all the balls so he didn’t go talent spotting again.
Don’t we have to pay bonuses to attract top quality staff and stop Britain suffering a brain drains? Oh, sorry. I forgot that only applies to CBI members!
Michelle Obama. I would. She’s fitter than Nancy Reagan!
I’m disappointed with the Mail today. Where’s the hatred, fear and disgust of a black left-wing man ecoming the most powerful person in the world? Obviously they’re letting their guard down!
Sorry, “becoming”.
“The Rock?” It’s a bank not a nightclub!
Anyone watch Russell Howard at the Apollo the other night, he did an entire sketch in which he took the piss out of the Mail.
The mail are hilarious today. They’ve got a story in which they talk about a gypsy camp being removed because its illegal, not failing to realise that this is why the governments trying to give them permanent land.
Whats the WWE wrestler up to now.
He’s president of the United States.
I love how the Mail only hates capitalism when the government is involved.
Plenty of other banks which failed just as badly as Northern Rock, but only survived because the government lent them money before they collapsed rather than bought them outright after they collapsed as happened in this case simply due to it being unluckily the first, are all handing out bonuses.
Do the Mail care? Course not! They only want an excuse to bash the government, nothing more.
Read a great comment on the Media Guardian website today too that said the Mail and Express are the Bush and Palin of daily newspapers. So true!
I can guess which one Palin is.
The Express is Palin
LOL! Johnathan Ross is a legend
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1126583/Disgraced-Ross-returns-BBC-chat–foul-mouthed-ever.html
Please continue
CAN YOU SMELL WHAT THE ROCK IS COOKING?
There’s actually bizarrely quite a salient point in the comments on that page that stresses if the BBC was broken up does anybody think commercial broadcasters would be any more ‘decent’? And that in fact they’d probably be far worse as they chased ratings.
Case in point being shows like Big Brother that purposely stirred up racist tensions, the Farm on 5 that famously had Rebecca Loos wanking a pig off. Does the Mail demand resignations, etc there?
Of course not, it’s because they hate the BBC because they see public service broadcasting as a competitor. Thank god for it is all I can say.
“He’s president of the United States.”
Obama did actually turn up on WWE programming last year and did indeed say “If you smell what Barack is cookin’”.
I think Barack is more smoke than substance – He changes policy more often than I change my underwear.
Is iit just me, or have the BBC always been largely supportive of whatever government has been in power anyway? I’m fairly sure at least one director was a member of the Tory party back in the day and that this was just accepted.
I don’t think it’s a case of being supportive, just not critical, and that’s actually a good quality as it shows impartiality which is ingrained in not just its charter, but also other terrestrial stations.
Nobody would ever try to ascribe a political agenda to ITV or 5, but with the BBC they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t – even when such behaviour is mandated by their regulator!
Who to you think are talking balls. The great black and white dope will do what he thinks is right for America. Unlike or own great brown dope who does what he thinks will keep him in office. If he really wanted to do the right thing, for the country, he would call an election as the majority would probably call it right. If he wins his decisions will be validated.
I don’t at all agree with the DM on the point that the BBC is too “lefty.” It’s just not as right wing as they would like it to be.
Case in point today – the BBC refused to run a DEC charity appeal for civilian victims of Israel’s attack on Gaza and have been accused as right-wing zionist government lapdogs!
This must come as a shock to those at the BBC who only recently were being accused of being left-wing terrorist’ sympathising traitors!
Basically it comes down to that peculiarly pathetic British failing which is a fondness for unnecessarily being an absolute twat towards anything and everything we think we have some kind of financial stake in that isn’t allowed to shout back. It’s the same as insecure little power hungry worms who scream at checkout girls at Tescos over nothing.
The BBC can’t do anything right, ever, because people believe because they’ve ‘paid’ for it, they have a right to constantly attack it almost psychotically for not bending over backwards to please them,
They don’t do it to ITV or Sky because they would just tell them to fuck off and there’s not a thing they could do about it.
Couldn’t agree with you more Steven.
I’m not sure what to think with the whole BBC not running a charity appeal. Does it denote guilt in the crisis at Israel’s feet? Or is simply giving aid nothing to do with politics? I never knew humanitarian aid was a biased thing to do. Why do people assume that when you want to give people in Gaza money for food and water that you’re ignoring the question of Israeli security?
Whatever the answer to those questions are, the BBC needs to grow a backbone. They’re too scared of the Mail, the knuckledragging soul sucking whiners who have managed to make every joke, every foul word uttered on the BBC be followed by an apology.
The thing is choosing a charity to support is political. Why doesn’t the BBC run AIDS or cancer charity adverts? Or how about for refugees and victims of war in Darfur? It can’t support them all so the act of choosing to focus on one over the other is a political statement. The fact is though the BBC generally doesn’t do this kind of thing at all, and to run a Gaza appeal would be political as the only reason they would make an exception is because people are bitching.
Look at all the protesters over this, they’re the usual Palestinian pressure groups and the fact that ITV and 5 have bent shows the BBC have a backbone. The people who need to grow a backbone are the government who are the ones who really bow to pressure regularly and then force the BBC to do the same. Look at the Jonathan Ross and David Kelley affairs – in both cases the BBC initially stood firm until the government sold them out.
The public have got so used to the BBC capitulating that everyone has become an armchair director general and enjoys bullying it at the slightest opportunity when other outlets don’t get anywhere near the same level of scrutiny.
While criticising the BBC, would the Mail set an example and give over a full page of advertising to the DEC appeal for Gaza? Would it fuck as like! Nobody will notice or complain either, and if they did they’d get short shrift too.
As far as i’m concerned the most important thing is that the advert gets showed, not where. If people know that there is an appeal they can donate too it if they see fit. Which channels choose to show the advert is irrelevant and the row is just another excuse to have a go at the bbc.
Per the Rock (I’m going to see the bank on stage next week).
Let’s not forget that the staff have worked incredibly hard to meet all objectives that they were set on the nationalisation.
Not only that, a really important point that they have repaid a considerable proportion of the money lent and at 12% interest. I think that the Govt have come on top of that one. But as usual why let the facts get in the way of sales!!