Metropol

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.

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.

And what happens when the council tell you to go hang as well? Do you carry on bending over?

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

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.

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.

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

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 :

“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.

The problem here is that you appear to have assorted with lots of other like minded individuals in this quest to solve the 'mystery' of Jem Stone - you use the word "we" repeatedly in your responses. So, clearly you have exchanged tidbits with each other over an extended period of time that has lead to this perception. I'm not saying that invalidates your view, just that it puts it into perspective: when people with similar views get together, those views get more and more extreme until they are blown out of all proportion and reach this sort of level.

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.

Hardly a fair analogy is it? A fairer analogy would be that the guy comes along to fix the pothole but does a shoddy job. I may well ask him at the time, but if I wasn't satisfied with the response (as you are evidently not from this person), I would not keep talking to him about it because he has no obligation to answer my questions. The guy filling in potholes is accountable to the company the council employed, and the BBC guy you despise so much is accountable to the BBC.

Its still my money and it still gives me a stake in the way the BBC is run

Odd how you say all the right things, but yet come to all the wrong conclusions. It gives you a stake in how the BBC is run. Not a stake in directly questioning an employee and expecting answers. To claim your stake in how the BBC is run, you talk to the BBC. And if you're not satisfied with the way the BBC respond, you have a number of routes, the final one being to stop paying the license fee.

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

Assuming that a sticker makes someone a sort of subterfugey terrorist type person sounds like quite a big jump of logic if you ask me. Again, you are right that they "may or may not be true" - anything may or may not be true, the only relevant question is how likely it is. I've justified "not very likely" on the grounds that he seems like a fairly ordinary person from his blog, the sticker is in a public place, and the lack of substantial evidence to the contrary. You approach him assuming he's 'guilty' and working back from that - which, especially given you've joined the group you refer to as "we" in questioning him, is hardly a productive way of getting a respons from the indivdual.

think the sun shines out the arse of anyone who does whatever they like at the BBC [...] If you don’t beleive there are any problems you’re even more deluded than you claim I am

An awful lot of assumptions there if you ask me. None of them founded, since I haven't mentioned my views on the BBC as a corporation.

my opinon it's pretty obvious from his behaviour that Jem's not really motivated in the job he supposed to be doing

Wait a minute, first you say he's an evil henchman running around causing untold mayhem, and now you say he's "unmotivated"? One or the other, please. In any case yeah, that line seems more plausible.

The rest of your post seems to be a general BBC rant.

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

That's a topic you'll probably find a lot more company in. I'm sure you're aware there are a lot of people with that viewpoint for precisely the reason you describe.

Hardly a fair analogy is it? A fairer analogy would be that the guy comes along to fix the pothole but does a shoddy job.

No its fair. Jem is supposed to be the host of the 6Music Messagebaord. He's never there. That's not doing a shoddy job, that's not doing the job at all.

Wait a minute, first you say he's an evil henchman running around causing untold mayhem, and now you say he's "unmotivated"? One or the other, please. In any case yeah, that line seems more plausible.

I've never said he was an evil anything, I've just suggested alternatives and posed the question. You and your chums are the ones that have heavily focussed on the 'subterfugey terrorist' stuff. You've chosen to foster that impression of me because it makes it easier for you to dismiss my points offhand without the bother of trying to see any one elses opinion. If you want to be that mentally lazy then fine. I'll take that on board and treat you accordingly. Quite ironic that you then go on to accuse me of making assumptions about you. Did you Google that reference to 'transference' by any chance? Seems to be an epidemic on here.

The impression I have of most of the mob that have descended on my comments (with one notable exception) is that I should not have the temerity to question the BBC or any of its employees. Even those that I was previously engaged in an online conversation with. By the same token your overall defence of the corporation seems to be pretty comprehensive. If that's a false impression maybe you need to examine the way you are putting you own points across.

All I've actually said from my first post is that I'd like to know what he meant by the term. It obviously means something to him and its simple enough for him to explain it. At the point I originally asked him he seemed to be in the process of conversing with me and a group of regular posters on the BBC messageboard. Why then should I start running to his bosses asking the same question?

The sinister 'we' you are implying, refers to the group of regular posters on the 6MMB in the thread that I have already given the link for. No backroom swapping of stories, its out in the open. Sorry if that doesn’t fit with the legend you're trying to create for us. We're probably much the same as you and Sput et al who seem to be the core of this group.

In terms of the 'rant' description I'd refer you back the point about transference I've already made. I've got to say though that if you don't have your own agenda on here, you're doing a pretty fair impression of people who do.

Mozo wrote:All I've actually said from my first post is that I'd like to know what he meant by the term. It obviously means something to him and its simple enough for him to explain it. At the point I originally asked him he seemed to be in the process of conversing with me and a group of regular posters on the BBC messageboard. Why then should I start running to his bosses asking the same question?

Why? To seek an answer to your question. I thought that was your objective.

I have to wonder if you really do want an answer now. I have tried to understand your dilemma, and given you the best possible advice I can, but what I'm reading above is that you'd rather debate your "right to ask" than resolve your query.

If that's the case, then so be it - but I'd prefer my site wasn't used as a place to announce your dissatisfaction when you flatly refuse to use due process and write to the BBC, formally, to complain.

Incidentally, you don't need to know his manager's name. You have his name, and that's all you need.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what a "host" is in message board terms, and I'd say it was a poorly chosen word by the bbc. It's not supposed to be a like a host at a party, who mills around chatting and introducing people and making sure everyone has a good time but rather someone who ensures things stay on-topic and civil. It's actually more of a caretaking role than anything.

Is it wrong that all I want from the BBC is to watch television, listen to the radio, and maybe use the News website occasionally? If something on the channel changes, either for better or worse, I perhaps stop watching or listening for a while, and find something else to my taste.

I don't spend hours on the "6MMB" complaining about it and pestering some poorly paid techie with about 4000 jobs to do since the rest of the staff got fired to explain what a comedy sticker on his laptop is there for.

This famous "BBC Blackops" sticker that you keep referring to is the BBC's equivalent of writing "I WISH MY WIFE WAS AS DIRTY AS THIS" on the back of a white van - if anything, it's a little bit of humour in what would otherwise probably be a very difficult job. Not everyone at the BBC is vastly overpaid like some Daily Mail educated simpletons seem to think.

I always know with Auntie that there will be something on somewhere to my taste. If not - then I'll go on iPlayer and find something. That way I'm still using a service which I'm paying for - and getting more than my money's worth, in some cases.

Mozo. Whether or not the case it has got to the point where it appears that you are on some kind of personal and public campaign against an individual member of BBC staff.

I'm uncomfortable with this, as I would be uncomfortable with you berating and accusing any individual from any organisation, publicly funded or not.

As Gavin has said, there are ways to deal with this situation, and if you have a genuine cause for complaint then it will be fully investigated. I also feel that while you appear to have some genuine questions (though you seem to feel they're of more importance than I do), they are becoming lost in a morass of conspiracy theories.

You can complain via the website, or if you prefer to write to BBC Information (who will pass your complaint to the relevant department) the postal address is on the website. http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

If you do manage to speak to him can you ask hinm if they sell those stickers. They are fantastic - I would gladly pay a fiver for one.

Defently a tech joke, Love it.
Some people take life far to seriously.

Nidave. Sorry there aren't any left.
The stickers were (someone elses) geeky tech joke.

Mozo wrote: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.

well its not really is it, its more like this guy is ignoring the little notes you've shoved under his windscreen asking why he has a toy skull and cross bones on the front of his van.

I do apologise for not reading the rest of your incredibly long posts but I suspect they're going round in circles and I had enough of that trying to talk on the points of view board.

If you've been affected by any of the posts on the Points of View messageboards and would like sources of information and support, please call the BBC Action Line.