Right. So this guy's on your doorstep telling you to go fuck yourself and you just say, “I'm going to complain to your superiors my good man”. I can see it now.if my local council (or someone who worked for the council) refused to fix a pothole, I might well complain to the council. But the last person I would complain to is the guy who fills in potholes.
And what happens when the council tell you to go hang as well? Do you carry on bending over?
Well judging from that you don't know how long the history is. It actually goes back further than you appear to have read. Regular posters on the 6MMB welcomed his arrival as our new host on the 6MMB, even after he had put all of us on pre-mod for no discernable reason. We discussed how we were concerned about the way the station had strayed from its remit and suggested ways that the feedback process could be enhanced, how a forum could be set up, which were the best ways for us to get our views across to the relevant people in the BBC (we'd all complained numerous times through the 'proper' channels and received fob off replies). Jem seemed sympathetic, he made noises about passing the information on and getting back to us. Then came comments about how he was 'tracking' us on the boards just before he disappeared altogether. It became obvious at that point that he was simply there to dampen down the fires after the Brandgate affair. We'd appeared on the radar as a possible source of conflict when Leslie Douglas resigned, so he was sent in to see how the land lay. In the end he had no intention of properly engaging with a sizeable portion of the audience who simply wanted to acheive something positive. As soon as he made up his mind we weren't a problem he buggered off without a word.In my humble opinion you have not "been perfectly reasonable to him". Your posts imply a long history of animosity, revealing persistent attempts to research this person - given that you believe in using usernames on internet forums, you must appreciate privacy and thus appreciate how unpleasant it feels when it is violated. It seems like you're on a witchhunt
Ever get the feeling you've been played? Well we did and we didn't like it. A witch-hunt? Well that's original! I don't think this is anything of the sort, but if you do have a lady in a black pointy hat flying around your neighbourhood on a broomstick dropping spells on people, perhaps a witch-hunt is what you need. Mind you its a bit strong coming from a group where the majority appear to be happy to string up anyone that you regard as an 'idiot' simply for asking a few awkward questions.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with the comment about privacy. No one has invaded Jem's privacy as far as I know. I certainly haven't. I use the name he uses on the BBC board and have only ever been concerned with his professional role at the BBC. I don't know anything about him other than what he's chosen to put into the public domain. I think its fair enough for me to reference that information if involves the BBC logo or his work at the BBC.
So bloody what?? I don't care if it goes through the digestive tract of the Director General and gets fished out the executive toilet. Its still my money and it still gives me a stake in the way the BBC is run. Otherwise why have a state run broadcaster at all, and why are they going to so much trouble to appear to be concerned about our opinions? If an employee of the BBC, paid for out of publicly raised funds publicises what is arguably a dubious persona, involving the BBC logo, he should be big enough to stand up for himself when challenged on it. If all these plausible explanations you’ve put forward hold water, let him come forward and say so. The last comment he made to us was :The phrase "publicly funded" is pretty tenuous isn't it? I mean, your license fee probably has to go through countless departments before his pay check is authorised
“Yep. Thanks for the constructive suggestions. I'm reading, sharing and will respond. But not necessarily today. Soon”
That was something like three and a half weeks ago and since then we’ve heard zip, except for him closing the original thread he promised to respond to us on after just under a week. So he's accepted the principle of discussion via the BBC MBs, but unfortunatley he hasn't followed it through. Does that sound like someone who respects the members of the community he’s supposed to be supporting? Wouldn’t you be a bit pissed off with someone like that, especially when you see him pratting about all over the web with childish stickers on his laptop? Moreover childish stickers that could, in the context of the way he treats the BBC online community, actually betray his true attitude towards that community. In my opinion, that along with the very real possibility that the BBC agenda is to close down the messageboard system, deserves closer scrutiny than you all seem to think.
Confirmation bias? Haven’t heard that one for a while. Not really though is it? I’m not making any assumptions, I’m suggesting explanations that, in the absence of any confirmation or otherwise from Jem, may or may not be true. The fact that you place so much weight on him having this sticker on his computer in a public place is just as empirically flawed if you want to really argue the point. You are putting your interpretation on the meaning just as much as you claim I am. Anyway how public is public? I can’t really tell from that photograph. The term would also likely be meaningless to anyone not involved with the BBC or the peripheral issues. My first thought when I saw it was that it referred to a BBC programme. Regardless of if there’s any real subterfuge going on, in my opinon it's pretty obvious from his behaviour that Jem's not really motivated in the job he supposed to be doing. At best he's being offhand and flippant about his role which I don't think sits very well with his responsibilities. So in those circumstances I still think he should explain what he means by Black Ops.
Anyway we're never going to agree on this point so lets stop going around in circles. You think the sun shines out the arse of anyone who does whatever they like at the BBC. The rest of the perhaps slightly more discerning world, thinks that if someone who is paid to talk to the public sticks his head up that same arse and says ‘fuck you’ that’s just a tad on the irksome side. I'll leave you to your carefree world and you can leave the rest of us out here to stand up for something we believe in. And before you all start carping again, I'm not just talking about Jem and his little fantasy world, thats just a sad indication of wider management problems that I think are endemic at the BBC. If you don’t beleive there are any problems you’re even more deluded than you claim I am.
The BBC complaints department you have so kindly posted up the address of, deal with complaints about programmes, not employees (as far as I know). In any event, have you ever actually complained to the BBC? I have, quite a few times actually (bet that’s no surprise) as well as to Ofcom. They are all without doubt the most slippery bunch of mealy mouthed apologists that you could ever hope to encounter. Cut and paste replies are the order of the day, usually with a smattering of whatever buzzword is currently in vogue. The usual favourites are, surreal, irreverent and tongue in cheek. Almost always used after the fact and when all other explanations of someone's big mouth has failed to impress.
The BBC policing themselves? Don't make me laugh! In case you haven't been keeping up with current events, they can't go for longer than 48 hours without someone dropping a bollock the size of Manchester and then calling in the PR boys to try to clear the mess up. You might all want to suck up to auntie and tell her that every little screw up is OK, but some of us would like to see some real openness in the corporation, rather than just lip service and middle management wankers holding internal seminars on Web 2.0. You can console yourself that I and my fellow protesters are all paranoid idiots, but then that seems to be a difficult paradigm to shift you from, so I think I'll give up trying.
As for the BBC service being optional. Well when they change the law so that I can watch TV or satellite (that I also pay separately for) whilst electing not to watch BBC programmes, thus avoiding paying the licence fee, please let me know. Although I’ll be honest, I'd probably still pay it because I believe in the BBC. The difference between me and you is that I don't believe blindly.
Right, I think we've exhuasted this subject now. I've said my piece so I'm shutting up about it for the time being. Don't all cheer too loudly now, or I'll get a complex.
