Campaign: I want my £145 back - round two

Here is the (stock~) email response I received from the BBC a regards my complaint over the PM Debacle. Needless to say (but I will anyway) we now move on to the courts;

BBC Complaints - Case number 85931‏

Dear Andrew

Reference 85931

Thanks for your e-mail regarding the Prime Ministerial Debates.

I understand that you were unhappy the SNP and Green parties didn’t take part in these debates.

Televised debates between those party leaders who aspire to be Prime Minister of the UK had never taken place before, despite some evidence that the electorate would welcome such a development. The BBC - along with ITV and Sky - put forward proposals aimed at establishing in principle that such debates would take place during the recent General Election campaign for the Westminster Parliament.

It was announced on December 21st that the three largest parties at Westminster had agreed, in principle, to the broadcasters’ proposal.

The broadcasters also made it clear that each - individually - would put forward additional proposals to ensure due impartiality across the UK. The BBC also held election debates between the largest parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

You can read more in the following blog by the BBC's Chief Adviser, Politics, Ric Bailey:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/03/prime_ministerial_debates.html

Further information on the Prime Ministerial debates and the leaders debates in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is also available on the BBC Press Office website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2010/03_march/02/debates.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2010/03_march/02/debates2.shtml

For all other parties, the BBC brought forward proposals to ensure that there were opportunities for their views to be given appropriate coverage in the context of the UK-wide debate.

The basis on which judgements are made about relative levels of coverage rests on past and current electoral support. For the election to the House of Commons in 2010, the starting point is the last General Election, in 2005.

The Green Party received around 1% of the vote at the last general election, winning no representation. It polled around 8% of the vote in the European election in 2009, securing two seats in the European Parliament, around the same level as the 2004 European election. There is no evidence that the party’s level of support in European elections is any more likely to carry over to a Westminster first-past-the-post election than was the case between 2004 and 2005. In all elections, the Green Party is significantly behind the three largest parties.

For the Westminster Parliament, that context is the aspiration to form a government and to become Prime Minister. The Scottish National Party, fielding candidates in only one part of the UK, do not aspire to win a majority of the seats in the House of Commons. The party leader does not aspire to be Prime Minister of the UK.

On the basis of the 2005 General Election, the number of seats held by the SNP is a fraction of those held by the Liberal Democrats.

It is entirely appropriate and consistent, therefore, for the BBC's Prime Ministerial debate to have included the three largest UK-wide parties. Other parties, including the SNP, were given the opportunity for their views to receive appropriate coverage, both in national debates in Scotland and Wales and additional coverage across the BBC in response to the UK-wide debate.

Nevertheless, I appreciate that you may continue to disagree and as we’re guided by the feedback that we receive, I'd like to assure you that I've registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, programme makers, channel controllers and other senior managers.

The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.

Kind Regards

Craig Thompson

Constitutional Conventional Warfare

There is an argument for exploring every avenue to independence of which a constitutional convention would be one. I do not agree with it. The last one gave us devolution, a useful stepping stone to full self determination, however …

“Great armies and navies are always tempted to fight the last war, especially if they won it. The British Army entered World War I wedded to the “up and at ‘em” infantry advances of Waterloo—even though by the turn of the century the Maxim gun had made such tactics tantamount to suicide. Truly fearsome militaries prepare to fight the next war. Think of how the German Army used planes and tanks in a coordinated blitzkrieg to outmaneuver the Allies at the outset of World War II.” - Newsweek

Theonehundred is only one division in a large army fighting against the legion of doom but we can assume their feral intelligence will have by now worked out ways to circumnavigate the threat posed by a convention. Do not revisit past glories, new tactics please!

Not for Glory, nor Riches, for Honours

A.

BBC Campaign Medal unveiled

Members of theonehundred who attend the silent protest outside the BBC in June(?...tbc) will each receive the Order of Glencamblyness, 1st Class. pictured left.

Rumours of an Adambolton bar engraved with an historic motto "Ireallycareaboutthiscountry" and embellished with a fine patina of jingoistic tears seem unfounded ... at this time.

On Trolling... 18thC style

“Disputes with men, pertinaciously obstinate in their principles, are of all others, the most irksome; except,perhaps, those with persons, entirely disingenuous, who really do not believe the opinions they defend, but engage in the controversy, from affectation, from a spirit of opposition, or from a desire of showing wit and ingenuity, superior to the rest of mankind. The same blind adherence to their own arguments is to be expected in both; that same contempt of the antagonists; and the same passionate vehemence, in forcing sophistry and falsehood. And as reasoning is not the source, whence either disputant derives his tenets; it is in vain to expect, that any logic, which speaks not to the affectations, will ever engage him to embrace sounder principles”. - David Hume.

And so what goes around comes around, for gods sake stop engaging the trolls. If a poster won't take your logic move on he's only winding you up and feeding of your righteous indignation. ;o)

Propaganda

No good movement is without it: Machiavelli, Goebbels, Satchii & Satchii.

First Draft of Dave Cameron with Young Danny Alexander as a sporran, wanted to make him his 'Jock-Strap' but the Mrs vetoed it...

Blowing smoke up my ar...

Ms McAlpine describes the Big Lie perfectly but fails to carry through to any sort of remedy. Bear with me it may seem a little wordy, redundant and off topic …

A man sits in a waiting room for an interview, several other candidates are with him. Smoke starts to pour out under one of the doors. Humans think in two ways in any given situation, first the evolutionary route, lower reasoning, and then the educated, higher reasoning path, and strictly in that order. When placed in a situation we will think 'have I seen this before' if yes we will adopt whatever strategy got us safely through it before. If no we will engage higher reasoning to help us formulate a new strategy using where possible similar scenarios we may have encountered, but also we will rely on our peers. The guy won't leave the building that seems to be on fire 'cause every one else sits around and does nothing. What has this to do with political lying? Well...

The Big Lie works so well, for the established authority because it bypasses higher reasoning and instead relies on connecting direct to the primal fear/greed centres of the brain. Notice how Big Lies are always a threat or promises of jam tomorrow? Why then does this strategy not work as easily for those outside authority as indeed the SNP are regarded by many, even though in 'power' at Holyrood? Back to human thinking. We are a social species, we require to know where we stand in it, even those amongst us who do not believe in a pecking order still look up to those we admire and down on those we despise. Inn the absence of immediate peers and precedent we look to authority to guide us elders/leaders who with greater experience and intellect can guide us through. Our man sits and his peers sit they are all equals so he looks to any perceived authority, the receptionist sits in the corner, but he too remains calm, maybe smoke always comes out the door? What to do?

The man remembers a friend who works for the Fire Brigade telling him some basic facts about fire. He stands and walks to the door and puts his hand on it, the door is cold. He touches the handle gently at first and then firmly, still cold. Feeling a bit scared and embarrassed as the other candidates start to take notice he turns the handle opens the door to reveal … Jim Murphy and Ian Gray with a smoking oily rag and a cheap plastic fan out of a 99p shop.

Mass education, PPB's, TV debates are not enough as the SNP are not perceived as peers or authorities in the areas (primarily central belt) where they need to get their message across. Yes these thing are essential and will help but the strategy needs to take account that Glaswegians are not stupid or ignorant but human and as such should also be told on a human, one to one, level. We need more personal communicators (are we not told the SNP is a one man band, a huge negative lie?), I would like to see more people on the streets getting the basic facts out about ALL the big lies; too wee, too poor, too stoopid.

A good beggining...

First off let me say thank you to all of you who have responded, in any way, so far. I had never anticipated a massive rush to what was( is?) a fairly anonymous post and blog but am immensely encouraged by the quality of responses so far.

As you may know theonehundred is my response to Ian Hamilton's recent call for American revolutionary style 'Minutemen'. The reasons why I personally could not respond to him have been outlined elsewhere and on the blog, I shall not restate them here. However as I am the first to admit that this is still a work in progress and therefore the blogs may seem rambling, incoherent or plain odd I would like to make clear my vision for theonehundred.

Theonehundred's purpose is to circumvent the democratic deficit of institutional bias within the print, broadcast and on-line media by taking the arguments for self determination direct to the people of Scotland.

Theonehundred's membership consists of like minded individuals and organisations desiring Self Determination for the peoples of Scotland.

Theonehundred will aid the cause of independence by non-violent means.

Theonehundred will conduct its business in a manner bringing credit to both ourselves and the peoples of Scotland.

Sorry this seems a bit like a mission statement but hey ho.

I know it upsets some people but there are two words deliberately missing from the stated aims above.
Nationalism. I have already said why I think its negative connotations are easily exploited by the forces of Unionism, let us leave politics behind and use 'self determination' and 'independence' they easily fit and are harder to argue against.
Democratic. Whilst the wishes of the membership will shape the movement there may be times when actions must move faster than votes. My caveat to this is there will be guiding principles established prior to any activity taking place in the name of theonehundred. As examples; there must be a quorum of 100 from the membership taking part in any protest, all relevant authorities will be informed if there is a public order issue, any event will have a named leader responsible for the conduct of the group, etc.

Up till now I have been working on this in isolation and I am sure I have a better vision in my head than comes across in words. I urge you to think about what I am proposing as the start of a great force for good in Scottish civic life and please contribute what you can.

Andrew.

Not for Glory, nor Riches, nor Honours.