Friday 29 May 2015

"Views here my own and do not reflect BBC"

At least some BBC journalists appear to take notice of blogs (though they may pretend otherwise).

Senior BBC producer (BBC Business Unit) Louise Greenwood featured in a post here one week ago.

She was the one who tweeted, "Hopefully that's the last we've heard of this lot", following UKIP's election results. 

She reappeared in a post from yesterday denouncing "spineless public servants locally & Whitehall". 

Overnight, she's deleted all of the tweets featured here at Is the BBC biased? and changed her profile from: 


As you'll have noticed, the flippant "etc" has been now replaced by "and do not reflect BBC".

Her deleted tweets show that she knows she crossed BBC editorial guidelines - and that she's been caught out.

Update (17:26): Oh my, and now Louise has just changed her profile again...just to make things clear!

Smile, you are beautiful, Louise! 


  1. "Her deleted tweets show that she knows she crossed BBC editorial guidelines - and that she's been caught out."

    All good stuff. The tangible consequence of it all being... ?

    They do all this until caught, stop, then wait a bit until doing it again.

    Has no one at the BBC ever had kids?

    I feel an FOI coming on to discover how many of these disclaimers there are, are still missing, and who composed and authorised their use.

    1. You've got me regularly checking out the FOI site for any BBC-related material now.

      I see your latest attempt got 'rejected' - the one asking how many FOI submissions the BBC made to other government
      departments/agencies (a very interesting question), and which ones. (Something I'd love to know).

      OK, I'm downloading their response now...why are they 'refusing' it?...

      "The information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature."

      Well, there's a surprise!

    2. Before I could post a new one I had to update the status of the others. All, bar one (I think), rejected for various less than sensible reasons.

      That one needs rephrasing before the really reject it (I may not be joshing), but I also can appeal on the others.

      I might just do that. All I need is a wee moment spare. I suspect there is a deadline for closing lurking.

      At the very least they will one day need to explain the backlog of rejections on no other basis than they don't want to answer.

    3. That one really does seem like a 'We don't want to answer' response.

      It would be very rum - and hypocritical - if the BBC absolutely refuses to answer a simple FOI request about its own FOI requests.

      It's the BBC though, so they won't bat an eyelid about doing so.

  2. How can a senior producer for a business unit have such poor reading comprehension? The more management tells her not to sound off in a partisan way even if it's her personal views, the more she doubles down on telling everyone it's her personal views.

    It's so obvious there's no real accountability other than a brisk talking to for giving right-wing enemies of the BBC an opportunity to pounce.

    Rod Liddle, who made more of an effort at balance and impartiality than every current BBC editor combined, got sacked for less.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.