Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? 20:57 - Sep 30 with 1974 viewsSwailsey

Or have I missed it?

Glad that the correct decision was reached.

The fact that only she was complained about, rather than Dan Walker, shows the agenda behind the person who wrote it.

I also find it staggering that one person complaining can have such an impact.

Who said: "Colin Healy made Cesc Fabregas look like Colin Healy"? | We miss you TLA

1
No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 21:00 - Sep 30 with 1954 viewsm14_blue

Has it been reversed?

Madness that she was censured in the first place.
1
No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 21:11 - Sep 30 with 1926 viewsblueislander

No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 21:00 - Sep 30 by m14_blue

Has it been reversed?

Madness that she was censured in the first place.


It has. The DG himself intervened.
0
No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 21:17 - Sep 30 with 1916 viewsNthsuffolkblue

I agree the correct decision has now been reached but I heard both had been complained about. Was it only one complainant too? If it was that should be an indicator of the lack of offence but I don't think guilt or innocence should be determined on how many do or don't complain.

Poll: Is Jeremy Clarkson misogynistic, racist or plain nasty?
Blog: [Blog] Ghostbusters

0
No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 21:45 - Sep 30 with 1877 viewsSwansea_Blue

No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 21:11 - Sep 30 by blueislander

It has. The DG himself intervened.


Good. But I wonder why he reversed the decision. Because a wrong decision was made or because they got loads of bad publicity?

Poll: Do you think Pert is key to all of this?

0
No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 22:05 - Sep 30 with 1834 viewsxrayspecs

I am not sure the reversal was the right decision (hear me out please....)

Whatever the provocation, and Trump is an affront on decency at every level, she broke the BBC rules on impartiality. The original decision, quite rightly, found no issue with her expressing her views as someone who has been racially abused - how she felt at the time and about Trump comments. Where she crossed the line was to go on to opine on his motives, that is not the role of a presenter, it is for the audience to decide. She even said that she was not there to offer an opinion, them promptly did so. This was clear in the original decision and the fact that there was no sanction as a result of her transgression was also the right decision.

Over-turning the decision seems like a populist move rather than one based on principle. You either have rules or you do not.

Dan Walker was as much to blame, if not more, for asking questions that she should not have answered, under the BBC code.
-1
No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 22:07 - Sep 30 with 1829 viewssparks

No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 22:05 - Sep 30 by xrayspecs

I am not sure the reversal was the right decision (hear me out please....)

Whatever the provocation, and Trump is an affront on decency at every level, she broke the BBC rules on impartiality. The original decision, quite rightly, found no issue with her expressing her views as someone who has been racially abused - how she felt at the time and about Trump comments. Where she crossed the line was to go on to opine on his motives, that is not the role of a presenter, it is for the audience to decide. She even said that she was not there to offer an opinion, them promptly did so. This was clear in the original decision and the fact that there was no sanction as a result of her transgression was also the right decision.

Over-turning the decision seems like a populist move rather than one based on principle. You either have rules or you do not.

Dan Walker was as much to blame, if not more, for asking questions that she should not have answered, under the BBC code.


Nonsense.

She wasnt reading the 6 o clock news. It was an entirely justified and frankly indisputable comment.

The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it. (Sir Terry Pratchett)
Poll: Is Fred drunk this morning?

1
No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 22:16 - Sep 30 with 1793 viewsfactual_blue

No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 21:45 - Sep 30 by Swansea_Blue

Good. But I wonder why he reversed the decision. Because a wrong decision was made or because they got loads of bad publicity?


Another triumph for VAR?

Ta neige, Acadie, fait des larmes au soleil
Poll: Do you grind your gears
Blog: [Blog] The Shape We're In

0
No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 22:24 - Sep 30 with 1770 viewstabletopjoe

The BBC stopped being left wing for a day. Outrage caused. Normality now restored.

'Let the ignorant argue with themselves' -- CL

-6
Login to get fewer ads

No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 22:26 - Sep 30 with 1764 viewsxrayspecs

No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 22:07 - Sep 30 by sparks

Nonsense.

She wasnt reading the 6 o clock news. It was an entirely justified and frankly indisputable comment.


That the comment was indisputable is not a justification for breaking their rules?

She is employed and required to be impartial, she was not.

You lawyers want to have your cake and eat it....
[Post edited 30 Sep 2019 22:32]
-1
No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 22:49 - Sep 30 with 1706 viewsTractorWood

It seems the complaint was about Walker too. So not sure where you got your 'fact' from:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2019/sep/30/bbc-racism-ro

The statements they both made are irrefutably reasonable and pretty much factual but I can see why they were initially deemed not impartial. As usual the BBC are the party that come out looking stupid by steadfastly refusing to back down and then reversing their decision.

Ultimately it relates to one complaint from the public. I bet 30 people have been in meetings for a month about this.
[Post edited 30 Sep 2019 22:50]

I know that was then, but it could be again..
Poll: At present who do you think you'll vote for?

0
No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 23:20 - Sep 30 with 1642 viewsxrayspecs

No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 22:49 - Sep 30 by TractorWood

It seems the complaint was about Walker too. So not sure where you got your 'fact' from:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2019/sep/30/bbc-racism-ro

The statements they both made are irrefutably reasonable and pretty much factual but I can see why they were initially deemed not impartial. As usual the BBC are the party that come out looking stupid by steadfastly refusing to back down and then reversing their decision.

Ultimately it relates to one complaint from the public. I bet 30 people have been in meetings for a month about this.
[Post edited 30 Sep 2019 22:50]


Naga broke the rules and Walker encourgaed her. Both should have known better. While the subject matter is vile, they both need to remember the terms under which they are employed.

The BBC were correct in their original decision - that Naga had broke the rules but under the circumstance no sanction was warranted. They could not take a view on DW as noone had complained. The volte-face today though seems populist.

Whether it is 1 or 100 complaints, the same tests need to be applied - did they break the rules and if so what is the appropriate sanction.
-3
No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 00:29 - Oct 1 with 1575 viewswkj

No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 22:24 - Sep 30 by tabletopjoe

The BBC stopped being left wing for a day. Outrage caused. Normality now restored.


Hi HolyGoalie, Welcome back

Crybaby
Poll: Who do you want to have win the playoffs then?
Blog: The Identity Crisis of Modern Football

0
No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 06:11 - Oct 1 with 1483 viewsSwailsey

No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 22:49 - Sep 30 by TractorWood

It seems the complaint was about Walker too. So not sure where you got your 'fact' from:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2019/sep/30/bbc-racism-ro

The statements they both made are irrefutably reasonable and pretty much factual but I can see why they were initially deemed not impartial. As usual the BBC are the party that come out looking stupid by steadfastly refusing to back down and then reversing their decision.

Ultimately it relates to one complaint from the public. I bet 30 people have been in meetings for a month about this.
[Post edited 30 Sep 2019 22:50]


Oh apologies - it was only the third stage of the complaint that the person removed Walker.

Who said: "Colin Healy made Cesc Fabregas look like Colin Healy"? | We miss you TLA

0
No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 06:51 - Oct 1 with 1450 viewsTractorWood

No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 23:20 - Sep 30 by xrayspecs

Naga broke the rules and Walker encourgaed her. Both should have known better. While the subject matter is vile, they both need to remember the terms under which they are employed.

The BBC were correct in their original decision - that Naga had broke the rules but under the circumstance no sanction was warranted. They could not take a view on DW as noone had complained. The volte-face today though seems populist.

Whether it is 1 or 100 complaints, the same tests need to be applied - did they break the rules and if so what is the appropriate sanction.


The complaint is clearly about both of them. It's linked in my post above.

I know that was then, but it could be again..
Poll: At present who do you think you'll vote for?

0
No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 07:10 - Oct 1 with 1434 viewsSwailsey

No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 06:51 - Oct 1 by TractorWood

The complaint is clearly about both of them. It's linked in my post above.


Apologies - although I think the point remains valid:

“A viewer complained to the BBC about both presenters, however they focused only on Munchetty at the third and final stage of the complaints process”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-49883952

Who said: "Colin Healy made Cesc Fabregas look like Colin Healy"? | We miss you TLA

0
No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 07:25 - Oct 1 with 1407 viewsxrayspecs

No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 06:51 - Oct 1 by TractorWood

The complaint is clearly about both of them. It's linked in my post above.


Stand corrected on DW not being subject to a complaint the rest of my post remains unchanged.
0
No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 10:48 - Oct 1 with 1287 viewsChurchman

When I read the transcript of the conversation, I didn’t see any problem with it. In fact, I thought her perspective was very informative.
0
No mention of Naga Munchetty on here? on 11:25 - Oct 1 with 1243 viewsNo9

I listened to the 'story behind the story' last night.
The original complaint was about both NM & DW but the BBC complaints dept saw fit to deal with NM only despite the fact some saw it as DW leading?

The BBC has been a complete mess for a while now tiem for Tony Hall to have a clear-out
0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© TWTD 1995-2024