Council staff taking lots of sick leave

In my last post I had a pop at the BBC, although I should say it was a very small part of what I wrote. Nice then to congratulate them (well BBC Devon in particular) for using the Freedom of Information Act to find out about sick leave in the County's district councils. This came to light in a discussion on today's early morning programme - in truth it might have been someone else using the FOI Act but the programme flagged up the results anyway.

The upshot of this investigation was that councils, or some in particular, had well above the average levels of absence through sickness. The results for Devon councils showed very marked differences: for instance the real bad boys were 'East Devon' with over 12 days off per year compared with say 'West Devon' with a sickness rate half that. Now such statistics need to come with a health warning - sorry about the pun! - for instance the per person absenteeism might be grossly distorted by a relative few on long term sick e.g. suffering from depression (a very real illness of course). Thinking back to the time I worked in the Civil Service there were certain people that I can only describe as "the usual suspects" who always seemed to be going sick although immediately before and after they appeared in the rudest of health! I have to say I have the good fortune to have so far avoided serious bouts of flu or any other stay at home sickness and toward the end of my time in the CivilService ones attendance record started to be noted on your annual report. During my stay at that office it was policy to move people around on a fairly regular basis so that one was forever answerable to a different supervisor and one of these was someone with a lamentable attendance record, a fact that peeved me when I came in almost without fail.

A quick aside here: when I left the Civil Service the then head boss of the office wrote me a very nice thank you letter for my endeavours and was kind enough to mention my excellent attendance record - that was much appreciated I have to say!

Back to the Radio Devon programme and it seems that the BBC staff lose a minimal number of days through sickness. So good for them! One area though that the BBC, using our money of course, could be much more economical in is that of travel it seems. Thanks to Paul Waugh of 'The Evening Standard', probably the best political blogger from the mainstream media, we know that London Mayor Boris Johnson and his team were in the economy section of the Eurostar train to Brussels when they were passed by John Sweeney and his BBC Panorama camera crew heading for First Class. Boris made a comment to Sweeney about he, Sweeney, making for the front of the train. Covered in embarrassment Sweeney mumbled that he had got a really really good deal in first class. Hm ... Paul finishes his piece by pointing out that another BBC crew is following Boris around today - Michael Crick and Newsnight's separate cameraman and producer! The BBC rightly gets flak for its profligate spending of the license fee. Having said that some of the best TV in the world emanates from it so not all bad.

The BBC gets it right with these programmes

The BBC, quite rightly in my opinion, has been on the receiving end of a lot of criticism as a result of the stupid prank on the Russell Brand show. I was one of those very concerned about the event, the fact that the BBC employed these idiots, payed them ridiculous amounts of money, and that they had dropped their standards to a new low. Without wanting to sound elitist I have to say that there are certain standards of respect and decency that a public service provider should not fall below. Period.

It is pleasing though to flag up two current series on BBC television that are, in their separate ways, absolutely superb and show just how good the corporation can be. The first one I would mention is running on Sunday evenings and it is following Stephen Fry on a trip around the USA. I guess that it is no coincidence that this is being shown around the period of the election over there! Certainly Mr Fry is doing a great job in showing the incredible diversity of people, culture and scenery in that amazing country. As I would expect the series is showing just how open Americans are as a people, and their personalities gel well with Stephen's laid back style. It was good to be reminded about just how empty much of this huge country is once you are away from the cities on the coastal plains and around the Great Lakes. As we are an island nation here in Britain I had never much thought about borders so it was a bit of a shock to see the fencing erected to inhibit incursions from Mexicans on the southern border. Stephen has been an excellent guide and I'm looking forward to the next episode when I think he gets towards the Pacific having started his journey on the Atlantic shoreline.

The other programme that deserves a bouquet is one on BBC2: this a follow up to the popular Dragons' Den programme. Dragons' Den of course is the show in which would be entrepreneurs make a pitch for cash and expertise to a panel of five very successful millionaires who have built their empires from scratch. Of course many folk go away empty handed but the great thing is that others do get a leg up with their businesses. Now I am a great admirer of all those people in this country who have great ideas and then want to put them into practice. We have had and still have incredible talent in this country to invent and make great products and come up with great ideas; of course the intention of the programme makers is to provide good entertainment for the viewers but to me it is really important to demonstrate our entrepreneurial instincts as a nation. As I said at the top of this paragraph this is a follow up to DD - there are five 1 hour programmes each looking at one of the Dragons, to look in on their family lives, how they run their businesses, what the other four dragons think of them (!) together with examples of the successes they have had in investing in the people who have nervously pitched before them. As usual Evan Davis keeps a welcome light touch on this background series, hardly intruding at all on the proceedings - other programme presenters please note! There are two down now and three to go, this series is very absorbing so well done to the BBC!

A quick aside: I have just had a quick peak at the BBC's Dragons' Den website (to make sure I spelt the presenter's name correctly!) and was surprised to see that the original Dragons' Den or its equivalent came from Japan. They say you learn something new every day!

Where now for Jonathan Ross

Things have certainly moved apace in the last day or two in the Russell Brand/Jonathan Ross prank phone call episode: Brand has resigned from the BBC as indeed has Radio2 controller Lesley Douglas. Ross is suspended from his BBC shows for 12 weeks without pay - a gross loss to him of about £1.5 million. It is evident that the BBC feel that they can draw a line under things, for the moment at least. Looking at the fallout so far we are told that Douglas was good at her job and was held in high esteem by Radio2's presenters. She may not be the person who agreed that particular edition of Brand's show could go on air but it was she who employed him and I can understand why she believed she should be the sacrificial lamb in this instance. Brand took the sensible decision to go anyway which obviated any need for the BBC to discipline him. But the corporation still have problems: they have to decide what action to take against whoever sanctioned this show with its obscene phone calls should hit the airwaves. Then what happens with Ross after he has served his ban? Maybe he will make the decision for them by leaving the BBC, that would be good riddance so far as I am concerned. If Ross stays I think he will have quite a job regaining acceptance from not only other employees of the BBC but the licence payer as well. Ofcom are now involved and if they decide to fine the BBC and Ross has resumed his alleged £6 million a year pay packet then one could expect a further outcry from the general public.

It's interesting to go back in time a little. I remember how in the 1950s the BBC was a highly revered institution, it was regarded rather like the doctor, the vicar and the bank manager. It was impartial, it was warm and safe. Of course commercial television had just started but this wasn't perceived as a big threat initially; I don't recall just when pirate radio had its heyday but eventually Radio1 took over from that. I do remember though the minor shock wave that arrived with 'That Was The Week That Was' fronted by David Frost in the early sixties. Suddenly satire had become mainstream. Things would never be quite the same again. As I see it I grew up in an age when rightly or wrongly standards were very clearly defined, it was all very sharp edges if you like whereas today what is or is not acceptable has become much more blurred. This is particularly the case with comedy. There has been much use in the past few days of phrases like "edgy comedy" and "pushing the boundaries" and some have used such expressions to excuse the antics of Brand and Ross. However let's be totally clear on this - what these two did was not funny in any way shape or form, it was totally unacceptable behaviour.

Although this incident was absolutely one not to be tolerated there were amazingly only two complaints prior to the 'Mail on Sunday' breaking the story. I don't know the present total of complainants but believe it is over 30,000, an extraordinary total for an incident which most would not have been aware of but for the press intervention. This reaction has shaken the BBC to the core. Here are my thoughts on just why so many folk have taken the BBC to task - I think we can assume that most of them are simply appalled at the behaviour of both Brand and Ross but because it has become such a huge story in the media and in the BBC's news programmes as well, with constant updates on numbers of complainants, then a lot of people are contacting the BBC whereas normally the story might have passed them by. In other words the whole thing has been feeding on itself. Now put into the mix that the injured party was Andrew Sachs, not just any old person but someone who, through his portrayal of Manuel in 'Fawlty Towers', has gained a lot of affection from the British public. The other thing of course is that we are aware that Ross gets a huge slice of money from the BBC (indirectly from us) and there is the perception that we shouldn't be paying a person £6 million per year for using the 'F' word down a mobile phone. This might sound a little simplistic but is basically where we are at.

The 12 week suspension for Jonathan Ross will at least give him time to come to terms with his absolute stupidity and allow him to reflect on whether he really should try to mend his career with the BBC.

BBC demonstrates its worst side

There is quite a furore, rightly, at the moment about telephone calls left on a mobile and subsequently broadcast live on the BBC's Radio 2 network. This had happened apparently on the Russell Brand Show - there had been an expectation that actor Andrew Sachs (best known as hapless waiter Manuel in Fawlty Towers but also someone who has narrated various documentary programmes) would appear on the programme but for whatever reason he wasn't able to come. So Mr Brand, accompanied in the studio by Jonathan Ross, decided to call Andrew on his mobile. They were unable to speak to the actor so left messages on his voicemail, in fact they did this four times. Brant made lewd comments about Andrew's granddaughter during the course of these telephone calls and the excitable Ross used the 'F' word apparently. This was an absolute disgrace in itself but what made things even worse was the fact that all of this was pre-recorded and the BBC saw no problem in broadcasting it.

Reading this you might think that I am a prude: I'm not. I confess that under stress I have used the 'F' word, I've known those with an obviously limited vocabulary use this word in every other sentence but just accept that as the way they are - no problem. If people want to talk to each other in a highly sexual manner and they are clearly not offending others then again no problem. But I very strongly object to these two highly paid twerps (and the BBC are using your money and my money remember) using this sort of language and thinking it smart or funny - it's not. And as for the Beeb letting this go out live, well Lord Reith must be turning in his grave right now. The way I understand it with the BBC, when it comes to making an editorial judgement, if there is doubt then the matter is referred up the line. Was this done in this instance?

So what to do now. Via the internet I have heard Brand make a most insincere apology about the incident, the most insincere apology that I can remember anyone uttering. I believe that Ross has also made an apology of sorts to Andrew Sachs. This is what I would like to see:

• Brand and Ross to each make a donation of at least £100,000 to a charity of Mr Sachs's choice (they can easily afford it) as a condition for their continuing to get employment with the BBC
• The person who is found to have decided that this programme should go out on air in the form that it did should be sacked.

Will this happen? Better not to hold your breath. Today's general attitude that anything goes anywhere is just not acceptable.

BBC repeats? - Yes please!

I smile with some amusement if I hear 'Joe Bloggs' complaining on a BBC radio phone in about too many repeats on TV and that the licence is a waste of money. That person will conveniently overlook the fact that his licence fee is allowing him to broadcast his moan for all and sundry to hear! Whilst accepting that not everything is right in BBC land I do believe that the licence does provide value if one uses a fair number of the services they provide and not just TV channels. Younger readers of this blog may not realise that in the old days you had to purchase a licence to listen to the radio and I have to put my hand up to say I remember when that was so. Then of course there are the thousands of pages the Beeb has on the 'net'. Certainly their news pages are excellent for linking into other sites. The facility to listen again to radio programmes is also another bonus.

What really initiated this entry though is the fact that yes there certainly is at least one repeat scheduled for tonight. The one I'm thinking of is 'Dads Army'. I know it has been repeated more than a few times(!) but for me it was and still is the pinnacle of small screen comedy. The writing, casting and acting was of the very highest order and even knowing the 'plot' so well I still get a great deal of pleasure from watching it and can't fail to burst out laughing again at some of the antics on the show. However I musn't get too excited about all this for one simple reason: Dad's Army is following the snooker! I know that the Beeb have done this trick before - if the snooker is at a particularly exciting stage then they will stay with it and Dad's Army fans will have to wait for their fix as the BBC know that DA is certainly one programme they can cancel at short notice.

On the subject of repeats one series I would very much like to see again on terrestrial TV is the run, I think it was six in number, of great railway journeys of the World. These were on the box so many years ago that they would appear to be new to many viewers. There must be vast numbers of tapes in the BBC vaults of such interesting programmes that would be worth showing again.

So will Dads Army be on tonight? I won't have to wait long to find out!

UPDATE: Yes it was on! I think to continue with the snooker the viewer was invited to press the red button on their remote or some such thing. I don't have that technology on my TV!

BBC need to sack Jeremy Clarkson

Way back in December 2006 I wrote about the misuse of the 999 system. I also made the point in that piece about our police force having a bit of a blitz on people using mobiles while driving. And that led me to mention Jeremy Clarkson of 'Top Gear' infamy who sees absolutely nothing wrong in that practice. Now it's one thing being an idiot, another being a very dangerous idiot. I'm raising this matter now because a picture of Clarkson with a mobile phone to his ear whilst allegedly driving at 70 mph in his Mercedes was shown to me in today's Daily Mirror. To be honest I have seen Clarkson do a couple of non motoring programmes on the box and do a good job. But my rant is about him on 'Top Gear'. Even if 99.999% of viewers ignore his stupidity on that programme that still leaves a significant number of impressionable people who might try and copy his irresponsible behaviour. I'm not asking him to be politically correct (I don't like PC myself). However the BBC is paid for by the public and should not be tacitly condoning his dangerous attitudes to driving.

The BBC now needs to have the guts to show him the door.

Taking the BBC to task

Time for one or two gripes about the Beeb. First up is the way they trail forthcoming TV programmes. I'm not too upset if subjected to a very small number of trailers but what is annoying is the way they keep repeating a preview of just one programme. I certainly don't have the inclination to watch BBC1 morning, noon and night but during the past week or more keep getting told about 'Happy Birthday Brucie', a celebration of Bruce Forsyth's 80th birthday. This was shown earlier this evening - I didn't watch it, sorry Bruce! I recognise he is very popular with a lot of people and is to be congratulated that he can still do the business with his programmes. But these shows just aren't my cup of tea and I'm not into celebrity culture.

I'm not upset by the BBC screening this programme (he's only 80 once afterall!). No it's the way that the whole thing is being rammed down our throats which bothers me. I certainly couldn't fail to notice that he was coming up to his 80th. In fact I'm more aware of his age than that of anyone else on the planet!

If this wasn't enough I'm now going to moan about the half hour programme 'Spotlight' our local half hour news/magazine programme on Monday to Friday. In reality it's not the programme itself which is the subject of my ire but the fact that it never is a half hour programme. I've looked at the BBC1 website which makes it clear that the local news shows go on till 7 o'clock. Well like heck they do. Normally Spotlight finishes some five minutes short of that time. Then we have these troublesome trailers whilst the next programme 'The One Show' starts about a couple of minutes prior to its scheduled time. Nothing at all against 'The One Show' - I watch it on occasion - but I feel I'm being robbed of part of my local programme and am fed up with it. If the powers that be consider that Spotlight should finish at 18.55 then they should be honest and say so.

A slight change of tack now. Sometimes in regard to the TV licence fee one hears the moan "the TV licence isn't worth the money with all the repeats and everything". Now I'm know more enthusiastic about shelling out money for any licence than the next person. But so far as the cost is concerned the TV output is only part of the picture not the whole. I can remember when every radio had to have a licence; now of course the one licence covers everything. Then there is the little matter of the BBC presence on the internet with a vast amount of information, links, blogs and opportunities to comment. Add on the BBC World Service. Whilst I don't doubt for a moment that there is plenty of scope for money to be saved I just wanted to make the point that the BBC is far more than a few TV channels.

I hope that I've redressed the balance a bit with the last paragraph!

ITV likely to change our local news programme

The nature and scope of the media is changing fast and it's no secret that TV's Channel 3, or ITV if you prefer, is faced with the decision about how to make some substantial cost savings to keep the show on the road. At present there are 17 regional news programmes and it has been announced that they would like to reduce this to just nine.

Up until now we have had the choice of ITV or BBC news programmes that have concentrated on Devon and Cornwall. Having said that 'Spotlight' on BBC1 does have reporters in Somerset and Dorset and there might be the very occasional report from Bridgwater or Weymouth say but the vast majority of their stories relate to 'my' two counties.

Under this ITV proposal it looks as if there will be one regional programme to cover everything west of Bristol at least. The geography of our peninsula is such that this would become far too big an area for a news programme and I think that their audience share will be eroded. Our local ITV network started with the much loved 'Westward' to be followed by Television South West, or TSW for short. Then 'Westcountry' took over the franchise; I have to admit to being more comfortable with the BBC offering, feeling that Spotlight is somehow more homely apart from anything else.

Certainly our local ITV service have put on some interesting local documentaries and series over the years and it's a shame that they and the BBC have had to include such a high proportion of national programmes in their output. I feel even more the need to blog about local matters and would love to at least double my output if time would only permit. There are so many more subjects I would like to write about, one of the big problems is to choose from the huge selection available but to make the blog readable and digestible - well that's the theory anyway!

Meanwhile I'm waiting for someone to invent the 30 hour day!

Wasting our License Fee

I tend to watch the BBC's 6 o'clock news on a fairly regular basis. For a long time now the weekday editions have been fronted by two newscasters costing us a good deal of money. Now I'm not overly worried about that because we are in a market economy so far as TV is concerned and no doubt the Beeb would say they have to pay the going rate. But what really bugs me is the way the BBC is dispatching one or other of the two to the scene of action when a supposedly important story breaks.

The most recent one occurred last week when the repatriated sailors and marines were flown by helicopter to the Royal Marines Base at Chivenor in North Devon to meet up with their loved ones. On that particular day all we saw were the relatives embracing their homecomers, it wasn't until the following day that a news conference by some of the detainees was held. So the question is was it so vital to send national newscaster Jane Hill down from London to cover this particular story all at our expense. I think not. And bear in mind we do have regional reporters more than capable of handling such a situation. Yes the BBC which is a treasured institution in many ways really need to stop tossing our money about like there's no tomorrow.

Dr Kelly documentary was excellent

On the 25th February (ie last Sunday) I had blogged that there was going to be a very important documentary on BBC tv, one of the series 'The Conspiracy Files', about the death of Dr David Kelly. I felt it was well balanced and produced in a calm non-sensational way. All credit goes to concerned blogger Rowena Thursby and Libdem MP Norman Baker for their unremitting search for the truth. A couple of days ago Rowena put up a link to a video of the whole programme on her blog dr-david-kelly.blogspot.com I will be watching it again.

An important documentary

On BBC2 tonight there will be screened a very very important programme. This is one in the sequence of 'The Conspiracy Files' and will be looking at the death of weapons expert Dr David Kelly. Last weeks programme was on 9/11 and I certainly didn't see a conspiracy by the Americans there. Incompetence yes, but no conspiracy. The David Kelly business is a totally different kettle of fish. I have read a lot about this and, like Lewes MP Norman Baker, I am absolutely convinced it was murder not suicide. I would strongly recommend reading Rowena Thursby's blog here.

There is tremendous detail in Rowena's blog but one point I want to particularly point out is this: a coroner has the power to call witnesses and to require they submit evidence under oath. I have no reason to doubt that the coroner would have done so if the Hutton enquiry hadn't effectively taken over from the inquest. Hutton didn't have those powers I've just referred to enjoyed by a coroner. Normally the coroner would have issued an interim death certificate confirming that death had taken place and the body buried while the public enquiry was taking place. Now what follows is almost unbelievable - the Coroner issues a FULL death certificate with a conclusion that Kelly committed suicide, this while Hutton was still taking evidence! And Hutton wasn't informed of this. If you wrote a novel with this sequence of events a publisher would ask you to rewrite it with a more believable storyline.

I don't have a very good sense of smell but the stench from this whole sorry saga is overwhelming.

Verdict on 'The Verdict'

I have watched more TV this week than usual having become absorbed in the BBC's 'The Verdict'. In summary a jury of 12 celebrities had to make a judgment on the guilt or innocence of 2 young men in a fictitious case of rape. The fiction stopped there because it was filmed in a real courtroom with real barristers and a real judge. It was a truly fascinating few days of programmes and quite disturbing in some regards.

It was slightly ironic that the one juror who arguably shouldn't have been there (Jeffrey Archer who was convicted and imprisoned on a charge of perjury) was the one who changed his mind so causing the verdict on count 1 to be "not guilty". Although the case was fiction the jurors appeared to get very emotionally involved so heaven knows what it would be like in a real trial. In this particular case if Jeffrey hadn't changed his mind the case could have conceivably gone to a retrial, such is the incredibly fine line the judicial system works on. For all its drawbacks it is difficult to see how our methods of justice could be improved. It seems to me that rape is one of the most despicable crimes whilst at the same time proving incredibly difficult when it comes to passing the right verdict sometimes.

What was very interesting too was to watch the mechanisms of the court proceedings. I had never thought about the judge and the barristers having to kick their heels during the time the jury were deliberating. Fascinating too that the programme put the strengths and weaknesses of the celebrities under the spotlight. I have to say that although I normally love to hear the sound of a female voice talking there were one or two of the lady jurors whose voices really jarred and almost made me throw something at the TV! A good decision I thought to elect Michael Portillo as the jury foreman - his was a voice of quiet reason and good sense whilst others were getting so emotionally wound up.

For a really thought provoking female viewpoint I would suggest reading Rachel's blog here. There is a load of background info at the bbc.co.uk/bbctwo website. All in all well done to the BBC for this production.

Comfortable with Radio4

We live in a fast changing world and there are times when I'm tempted to say "Whoa! Slow down a moment!" There are such a plethora of new laws all the time that it becomes difficult to keep up. And we are in the middle of an information revolution that is just as huge in its effect as the agrarian and industrial revolutions of centuries past. Then of course there is the revolution in travel as a direct result of the invention of the jet engine. To someone like me, born in the middle of the Second World War, and remembering the incredibly slow changes of yesteryear today's rapidity of change is something I'm not always comfortable with.

Fortunately living in a village where there is little scope for expansion I do not see very much difference in my surroundings year on year unlike many urban areas with their altered road layouts and new shopping malls. I don't think I'm a Luddite with regard to modern technology and ways of doing things but I'm not seduced by all of today's must have latest gizmos. One particular aspect of life I still find reassuring is the sense of continuity one gets with the BBC, in particular with radio4. Not just the programmes (although quite rightly they are entitled to try something new now and again) but I'm thinking at the moment about the newsreaders/ announcers. I usually turn on radio4 first thing in the morning to be welcomed by such voices as those of Susan Rae or Peter Donaldson, Charlotte Green or Vaughan Savidge for instance. Those familiar sounds are incredibly comforting I think, more so for those on their own and housebound. One can read a little about them on the BBC radio4 website. I hope to hear them for many years to come!