Metropol

Nini

Its interesting that all your posts in response to my question are littered with put downs, a bit short on reasoned argument and heavy on supposition. Also interesting that you accuse me of that very same things. Maybe you should Google the term 'Freudian transference', I think you'd find it enlightening. I'm happy to debate, but as you don't actually further any of my points, its a little difficult to engage with you. Simply saying "No you're wrong and probably just a loony" doesn't really cut it in most debating societies I think you'll find. You're pretty nippy with that quote button though, so that's a skill to put on your next CV.

As a message board host its reasonable for me to expect Jem to answer a question when I post it on one of his MBs. This isn't just a personal reference, he's specifically attached it to his work at the BBC which directly affects me as a user of the service he is supposed to be running. If he's made these references to himself he presumably believes his activities have some relevance to the term Black Ops. If its a simple joke then why not come out and say so? If we are all paranoiacs then why not come out and settle the matter by explaining what he means?

He's attached this term to the BBC logo. The BBC are a publicly funded corporation and as such I'm entitled to an explanation of what an employee of the BBC, who's specific job it is to interact with its audience - of which I am part, means by it. Anything else is just a cop out or ducking the issue. If someone in his position thinks its OK to put those sorts of images of himself out there he’s got to be able to explain them. You can make as many excuses for his lack of response as you like, but in the end he either can't or won't answer. Either way he's wrong. Sorry and all that but no one put a gun to his head and made him post those pictures up. If he never thought he'd be asked to explain them he's probably as naive as you appear to be.

A revolution? It might be for those of us who enjoy posting on BBC messageboards. So far they’ve closed about 3 of them. That’s not paranoia its fact. You might not think that’s important, I do. We’re both entitled to our opinion, in my world anyway.

Not sure where my faulty logic is or how I’ve contradicted myself in the same post. I’m assuming that you’re just ranting now but if you’ve got an example of this, outside your own construct of what you think I'm saying, please elaborate.

"Why ask at all"? You really do live by that creed don't you? Well to each his own I guess. Personally if I find something I don't agree with or something that worries me I question it. If someone doesn't want to answer the question that makes me all the more suspicious. Suspicion is part of what makes us human. Its a survival strategy and its also part of living in a free society. You obviously don’t agree with that philosophy so I'm guessing you're not big on social issues. I also guess you’d regard any questioning of authority as opprobrium, but that’s fine. I hope things aren’t too claustrophobic for you down there with your head in the sand.

Gavin

Thanks for the reasoned response. Nice to see someone takes the trouble on here. Some valid points which I take on board. If the others put their pitchforks down for a while we may be able to explore them a bit if you're interested.

Lets see.

The one thing I would take issue with is that I've been 'given the answer'. I haven't. Not by the person I asked the question of anyway. So until I do I'll have to keep asking. Sorry if that upsets anyone.

I agree with your point that the "I pay my licence fee" comments are bit crass and I don't expect a right of hire and fire. I don't think I've suggested that. But I do think I'm entitled to a simple answer to a simple question as I've explained above. As would any user of a publicly funded service. If that person seems to be going out of his way to avoid answering, that makes me all the more curious and determined. I don't see why that is such an unreasonable concept for some people on this thread to accept.

What happened to the BBC Blackops logo that was on the page header earlier this evening? Did someone have second thoughts?

Mozo wrote:What happened to the BBC Blackops logo that was on the page header earlier this evening? Did someone have second thoughts?

In the same way someone had 'second thoughts' when the logo and background was changed to "OMG TVF is broke" for an evening or so before reverting back. In short almost certainly has nothing to do with second thoughts.

Mozo wrote:What happened to the BBC Blackops logo that was on the page header earlier this evening? Did someone have second thoughts?

I thought the joke had reached its natural conclusion after a day, I could put it back if you want. I am planning t drag this topic back on topic and discuss the potential closure so i thought I'd try and resolve this debate on the sticker with a nice little poll up top and let that decide the answer.

Mozo - you keep using the term 'entitled to an explanation'. But you're not, since you don't directly employ Jem Stone. It's true some miniscule fraction of your cash reaches him through the TV License (assuming you pay that), but your argument is like saying I am entitled to explanations off you because I consume the services your employer provides (which is quite possible depending on the size of your employer) - it's just flawed logic. Employee are accountable to employers, and employers are accountable to the public.

The reason Jem Stone isn't responding to your requests for what the word means is because of the fuss that preceded your polite request. I'm not certain you would accept an explanation, and that's probably what he thinks: better not to respond and not to get involved.

Mozo - if you don't like the services the BBC provide, why do you browse their message boards, and presumably own a TV and pay them a TV license? You don't have to pay the BBC a penny if you don't want to.

Mozo wrote:Gavin

Thanks for the reasoned response. Nice to see someone takes the trouble on here. Some valid points which I take on board. If the others put their pitchforks down for a while we may be able to explore them a bit if you're interested.

Lets see.

The one thing I would take issue with is that I've been 'given the answer'. I haven't. Not by the person I asked the question of anyway. So until I do I'll have to keep asking. Sorry if that upsets anyone.

Well my point was, really, that perhaps you should redirect your question. Wouldn't the manager of the Department in question be better equipped to write a response? The message boards - although a perfectly legitimate route for most points about the organisation - just may not be the best place in this particular case.

My suggestion was not to drop the matter, if you feel strongly about it, but to seek an answer from the person responsible for the actions of their team. I think you're more likely to reach a conclusion - satisfactory or not, from someone able to speak for his member of staff.

I agree with your point that the "I pay my licence fee" comments are bit crass and I don't expect a right of hire and fire. I don't think I've suggested that. But I do think I'm entitled to a simple answer to a simple question as I've explained above. As would any user of a publicly funded service. If that person seems to be going out of his way to avoid answering, that makes me all the more curious and determined. I don't see why that is such an unreasonable concept for some people on this thread to accept.

Your principle is perfectly sound - and many of us face similar frustrations in our dealings with apparently "accountable" bodies; the NHS, the Police, our politicians, for heavens sake. There's no shortage of examples of publicly funded bodies who fail to live up to the expectations of my tax £.

But I think you have to get smarter about to whom you address your questions.

A well worded letter to the Department head will yield, at least, a written response back. Its very much more difficult for someone in that position to ignore a recorded delivery letter, than it is for a website moderator who doesn't really "get" your concern.

Would I be correct in surmising that you probably don't believe this "Black Ops" matter to be serious, but one you'd still like an answer to?

I would certainly defend your right to pose the question - but go to the boss, not to a message board mod. There's a limit to how much the latter knows, or even cares.

Mozo - you keep using the term 'entitled to an explanation'. But you're not, since you don't directly employ Jem Stone

Its got bugger all to do with if I am his boss or not. At what point do you decide that a publicly funded employee has no responsibility to you then? Do you take the same attitude if your local council refuses to fix that pothole outside your front door?

Jem IS a public employee who's job description is to interface between the BBC community boards and those who contribute to those boards, of which I am a member. As such he has a responsibility to interact with the boards that he is supposed to be hosting. He doesn't. He ignores us.

Regardless of if you think he's justified in doing that, its not his decision. Any more than its would be a bus driver's decision not to let you on his bus because he doesn't like your face. And before any of you pipe up and say a bus driver could refuse to let you on if you insulted him, we haven't insulted Jem. We've been perfectly reasonable to him and he's treated us with contempt. Not just over this issue but over a number of others going back months.

If he doesn't want to do the job he's being paid for then fine. I'm quite happy for him to sod off and find someone else to do it. Someone who might be better at it than him, which frankly wouldn't be a tall order. But whilst he is still in that position, being paid out of the public purse, and whilst he continues to use the BBC logo in a way that I'm uncomfortable about, I'm entitled to ask for an explanation and his job is to give one to the members of the BBC messageboard he is hosting. This isn't a personal choice, he works for the BBC, he's used the BBC logo inappropriately, he should be able to defend that to licence fee payers (of which I am one).

If he doesn't want to do that via a message board he has other options. We've suggested several. So now Its simple, he needs to shit or get off the pot.

PS if anyone knows who his departmental head is I'm quite happy to write to him or her as well. This was another question we asked Jem, but as usual he ignored it. I'll give it a go, but lets be realistic, complaining to the BBC is like pissing into the wind.

I must admit Mozo, you scare me.

I wouldn't reply to you either.

Do you take the same attitude if your local council refuses to fix that pothole outside your front door?

You've hit the nail on the head - 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. I don't have a business relationship with him, so he's not accountable to me. The same applies to this BBC situation.

1. 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 - you've already decided this person is sinister and have only been considering evidence that supports that view. Hence, you give lots of weight to the fact he has a sticker with a sinister word on his laptop, but little or no weight to the fact it's in a public place. This is called 'confirmation bias'. Of course this is only my view - but I'm not the only one saying this and generally we're a reasonable lot

2. The BBC message boards aren't an official forum for complaint about the BBC, so you can't very well complain if you don't get a response. It took me 30 seconds to find this address:
BBC Complaints,
PO Box 1922
Glasgow

THOSE are the people who are, as you keep saying, 'accountable' to you as a license-fee payer.

3. The phrase "publicly funded" is pretty tenuous isn't it? I mean, your license fee probably has to go through countless departments before his paycheck is authorised. If you were directly handing over £X to him every month I could have some sympathy for that point of view, but you're not, you're giving the BBC £X to do with as they wish - and so if you have a problem with the behaviour of one of its employees (and, as such, with the way it's distributing your cash), you need to complain to the organisation you're giving the cash to. This applies to every large organisation.

4. The public service provided by the BBC is an optional one, so if you do not agree with points 2 and 3 above and instead believe the problem is more endemic to the organisation, why not simply stop consuming the BBC's services and stop paying the license fee? That would be rational behaviour.

I don't think we'll all be ridiculing Mozo's views on this situation when Mr Stone is found dead from polonium 210 poisoning

I'm not ridiculing, I'm genuinely trying to understand his viewpoint. He's not a troll in the brainless sense, so I'm curious to find out why he views what he does as so probable!