Monday 11 January 2016

Hugh Sykes again

For those who aren't allergic to Twitter conversations, here's DB's encounter with Hugh Sykes (almost) in full (following on from yesterdays' Broadcasting House)...

(If you're not into Twitter you might like to think of it as an epistolary short story!)

And here's Part Two:  DB gatecrashing a love-in between Hugh and a fan:


  1. Twitter is a great way to annoy the puffed up and the pompous it would seem. I might have a go one of these days!

    Why hasn't Hug Sykes reported on the much better documented conspiracy theory put forward by Helsinki police. They had intelligence from refugee camps about what was being planned for NYE and were able to put on extra police patrols to make sure it didn't - at least not on the scale of Cologne.

  2. That's a lot to wade through... to find out Hugh was not about to answer the only relevant question no matter what. Likely his only option.

    I'm surprised he did not bring in a BBC DPA Director to ban DB 'for the purposes of keeping things the BBC's little secret'.

    Still, a precedent of sorts is set. Basically a BBC 'reporter' (I use BBC 'quotes' here) can say anyone said anything and it becomes true, especially if they say it often enough.

    And with integrity.

    But they don't need to back it up.

    I wonder Hugh's groupies ever actually go... 'hold on, he is actually unaccountable by any means, and can say what he likes just because he is employed by the BBC. That could go very wrong, fast'?

    If not... scary.

    1. And in his replies to DB he still kept on giving his 'respected' anonymous guys (or gals) and their crazy conspiracy theory some credence, despite all his so-called caveats....

      "Oh, it seems like such an own goal for the 'refugees'. Therefore, COULDN'T it be a vast right-wing conspiracy after all, like my (nameless) respected friends are saying? #justsaying"

    2. I think he's also been hoping, with his insults directed at DB, to incite DB to write something that he can then report to the authorities as a malicious communication.

      At times he seems like a harmless survival from the hippy era, but then when he starts peddling dangerous nonsense you see how he really shouldn't be trusted in such a position.

    3. There are certain ironies to Hugh's playing up of the apparent unacceptable side of (irrelevant) anonymity in online debate with another whilst defending his not having to actually cite his sources as a reporter on a national broadcaster.

    4. Well spotted! And I speak as an anonymous.

      It's not just a question of not identifying his sources, but not even giving us a clue e.g. "academic", "police officer" or "my taxi driver". The suspicion is this conspiracy theory will have originated in the Muslim community since they are awash with conspiracy theories.

  3. I've got another conspiracy theory for Mr Sykes - that the BBC covered up a serious assault on one of their reporters in Pakistan, whilst making a documentary, in order to hide the truth about Islamic cultural practices.


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