h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: BBC Censorship - A1001845
Author: Peregrine, 22nd Duke of Earl - U217868

Need I say any more ?

Can, indeed, you say more?

B
*punchdrunk, and cowed*

it basically looks like a rerun of the problems over the general election, shunting all stuff that even mentions in passing the subject onto one central place which is less flexible than the DNA engine.

they got a lot of flack for that, and I expect that they will get a lot of flack for this as well.

it basically comes down to the bbc not understanding that h2g2 is NOT a magazine that they publish, and thus the constraints are not the same.

What's flack? I suspect some form of strife?

?

it is. the term comes from all the anti-aircraft fire that they had to fly through during ww2. it was known as flack, and the more important the target, the more flack there was.

Flack... funny word

I would say that the fact that this posting is still visible four days after it was posted say a lot about Free Speach.

Stuart

Sorry Stuart, old bean, you'll have to explain yourself a little better than that.

If you think that the fact that my entry has not been removed after four days indicates that this site currently operates a policy of "free speech", then you have not been keeping up with the rest of the class. We are not allowed to talk about the THING. We are allowed to talk, to a limited degree, about the present policy censoring talk ABOUT the THING. Therefore my post, largely, has remained intact.

If you wish to remove my post regarding discussion about the policy banning discussion of the THING, then I suggest you make this clear, using, where appropriate, a spell-checker. Which is not a Witch, by the way.

Toodle Pip !

Perry.

Can someone help...I've written something on my personal page and i want to put it up for review by my peers...how is this done?

If it is your "Tears" entry, what you need to do is go to the page where you made the entry, and hit the "submit for review" button - top right, then AWW, if you want it to go here. Make a comment in the little box that then appears, then off ye go !

If your entry is regarding the THING, it may be removed though.

Still, give it a go.

>>Sorry Stuart, old bean, you'll have to explain yourself a little better than that.<<

I would have thought that the statement was self explanatory.

Your references to Tony Blair have no basis in fact. The BBC have a long history of not bowing to Government pressure of any description. I TB wanted to stifle free speech, the whole site would have been taken down, as happens in countries where free speech is stifled. There a plenty of places within the BBC where the war cam be discussed openly. Its just that you fail to or refuse to understand the reasons why some places are restricted.

Free speech is not absolute. It nver has been and never will be. I don’t think you can grasp that point.

As has been stated elsewhere, it’s the BBCs ball, they decide the game. If you don’t like it, start your own game with your own ball. You are free to do that. You reference to the Independent media is puerile. The BBC is recognised world wide as being the best source of independent information, free from government interference. There have been times when the Government have sought to influence the BBC, and the BBC have responded when it has been justified. There have also been many cases when the BBC have given the Government the two fingered salute. This one case where you happen to disagree with the BBCs actions, which has nothing to do with the Government, doesn’t warrant your vitriolic attack on the BBC.

I don’t understand you last paragraph. I do not wish to remove your post, have never suggested I wanted to and could not do so even if wanted to. Please explain!

Stuart

OK, Stuart - I will buy that the BBC is not a government lacky - however I don't buy that it is unbiased.

The BBC in my view definitely show a tendency to having their own agenda. The only question in my mind is whether or not it is a conscious agenda, or whether it is a result of consistant recruiting of people who will fit in with the corporate culture. If I was recruiting for any organisation, corporate-cultural-fit would be an important part of my recruiting requirements; so I don't criticise them for that, I merely observe.

a mere observer called Ben

I’ll go along with that Ben. The BBC does have its own corporate culture and like every large media organisation, will have its own agenda. From where I stand it seems to have moved slightly to the left of centre compared to what it used to be. No bad thing as long as it doesn’t go to far. I think its all down to who sits in the big chair at the top of the table.

There will always be a perceived bias. The fact that the BBC gets flack from both sides of the political spectrum suggests to me that they have it just about as right.

Stuart

Stuart,

Your statement was not self-explanatory.

You appeared to suggest that the fact that my "censorship" post still stood, was evidence of "free speech" on this website.

It must be patently clear to you that "free speech" is currently NOT encouraged on this website. If it did, we could discuss the THING.

"Its just that you fail to or refuse to understand the reasons why some places are restricted"

On the contrary, I understand perfectly well why the BBC have restricted discussion here. Discussion of the THING on h2g2 has been abolished because the BBC are frightened of peeing off the Government. The BBC is concerned that if we are allowed to discuss the THING, and exchange information on this site, they may be held liable, NOT for "unsubstantiated rumours", or breaches of security, but for publication of the sources of information which might be very embarrassing to HMG, and GW Bush.

"You reference to the Independent media is puerile. The BBC is recognised world wide as being the best source of independent information, free from government interference."

The problem which I have outlined concerns this website, NOT BBC television/radio coverage as a whole.

Can you please give me your view as to why the currrent ban on discussion of the THING on h2g2 is warranted ?

I will then reply to you.

Yours, in a Good Job, with Lots of Letters after my Name, and no Puerility,

Perry.

>>Discussion of the THING on h2g2 has been abolished because the BBC are frightened of peeing off the Government. <<

If the BBC were frightened of Peeing of the Government as you so eloquently put it, they would have banned discussion throughout BBC Online. They haven’t, it can be discussed openly elsewhere.

>>The problem which I have outlined concerns this website, NOT BBC television/radio coverage as a whole. <<

I’m not talking about TV/Radio coverage. I am referring to BBC Online. There is a whole lot more to BBC Online than h2g2 if you care to look. As BBC Online is owned, run and payed for by the BBC, you cannot seperate them.

>>Can you please give me your view as to why the current ban on discussion of the THING on h2g2 is warranted ? <<

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A735275

This just about says it all. Incidently I do agree with it and you may or may not believe it, I to have been moderated. That was just for a single sentence comment making reference to a certain town in relation to a certain person.

As I said before, it’s the BBCs ball, they set the game.

Stuart


PS

>>Yours, in a Good Job, with Lots of Letters after my Name, and no Puerility.<<

We used to have a saying in the Army refering to Officers with loads of University qualification.

"Bags of intelligence, no common sense."

Stuart

You have exposed my puerile arguments for what they are !

How could I have been so stupid ?

"Yours, in a Good Job, with Lots of Letters after my Name, and no Puerility..." ~ I was being sarcastic, of course. I'm actually educationally subnormal, I have no front teeth, and I live in a box in a tree beside a railway line.

Toodle Pip, old bean !!!

This post has been removed.