David Robjant
@DavidRobjant
Rosbif, étant né qqpart, j'admire surtout Georges Brassens- My articles on Plato, Wittgenstein, & Iris Murdoch (some about all 3) listed @RobjantDavid
You might like
I wrote a thing about Orwell and "patriotism"; the odd and interesting "love" part in "love of country", that isn't dinner dates but might be to do with possession and jealousy. You should read it because it is amusing, some think insightful. abc.net.au/religion/the-p…
To understand what's happened at the BBC in the last few days, it helps to look at how it's run. Latest video - produced by Katerina Karelli. bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cg…
If the BBC’s woes are all abt Trump & far right saboteurs, & have nothing to do with their massive 10-yr fail on women & gender (unmentioned by Robinson, Simpson & co)… …how come their women & gender coverage has in the blink of an eye been transformed beyond all recognition?
Very good report on the Darlington nurses just now on @bbcradio4 6pm news. 'Born male but identifies as a woman', no inaccurate pronouns used, the views of both sides, and a clip of some of the actual nurses speaking about what has happened. Accuracy and balance, easy! #BBC
It was a huge institutional failure that for the early years of this debate (2014-2019ish), the BBC and the main political parties endorsed the idea that Britain should have a big legal change to equality law but also that no one should talk about it or question it.
The gender issue is unique, because a small cadre of activists effectively jammed the BBC's ability to report on it, by refusing to take part in "balanced" discussions (which then didn't happen at all). And for years the BBC really didn't get a handle on how to deal with that.
Is there ever any attempt to distinguish “trans people” from “trans rights [self-ID] activists”? I mean these two groups certainly do overlap. But not as much as such elisions actually require.
I feel that if you can publicly call trans people fascists as a BBC employee with no issue of impartiality that’s proof of Lewis Goodall’s point that the balance of power has certainly shifted.
Good start. But such is his dominance across various committees that I suspect he is the real power in the institution with others in merely titular positions of leadership.. that antagonism between Gibb and other staff plays multiple roles in this disaster.
However Nandy does imply that Robbie Gibb will be removed from the BBC’s editorial standards committee and she says she would “very much welcome” such a change
“Who’s in charge here?” I don’t think this unrelated to “Who should resign?” “Who needs to explain themself in front of a parliamentary committee?” And yet, and yet.
I can’t resist a powerful impression that Davie was only the titular DG, Shah the titular Chair. For in domination of various meetings & committees & appointments to the point of holding up outcomes, Gibb strikes me as the actual power. &in that case it’s him to stand account.
So now we’ve had the big @BylineTimes reveal. And still:
You are not wrong. That right, that information, absolutely. But a lot of people will ask themselves: why is Peter talking about a “lobbying background” when we know the upshot already from simply watching the nightly news, reading the website? More people than you think.
It’s paradoxical because it’s partly the fact that it’s Prescott and Gibb imparting this information that makes the staff body as a whole incapable of hearing it. And this is the better reason why Gibb has to go. Not because he’s launched a “coup”. But mutual radicalisation.
And I am pretty convinced- although this is entirely guesswork -that Gibb is such a divisive and overtly partisan figure that one source of ideological buggeration at the BBC is rank &file reacting against whatever side Gibb is on, rather than responding to _facts_.
A guess, ten hours ago. But more than confirmed by reports of todays internal BBC freakshow.
And I am pretty convinced- although this is entirely guesswork -that Gibb is such a divisive and overtly partisan figure that one source of ideological buggeration at the BBC is rank &file reacting against whatever side Gibb is on, rather than responding to _facts_.
We go live to the BBC newsroom...
A large round of applause was heard in the BBC newsroom's management area after Deborah Turness spoke to her editorial leadership team and told them the organisation is not institutionally bias and people had to carry on doing BBC journalism.
“theory has taken root that” er, “it’s a coup” For understandable reasons. Doesn’t matter if theory true. The matter: a) BBC staff &Gibb cannot share an organisation constructively b) Gibb shouldn’t have been appointed, &, er, c) Prescott/Gibb complaints are true, need gripping
New: BBC employees in open revolt about Robbie Gibb on all-staff call this morning. BBC chair Samir Shah said attacks on board members are "disrespectful" and shut down talk of a Conservative coup as "fanciful." deadline.com/2025/11/bbc-sa…
“sulphurous and mutinous” These sound like exactly the sort of Roman brothers of noble family to appoint to the board. But this is exactly the problem with Robbie Gibb. That he provokes disastrous mutual radicalision in Auntie, in two directions at once.
Astonishing scenes from the @BBCNews meeting with Tim Davie and Samir Shah. * Chairman sait it was disrespectful to suggest board wasn’t upholding BBC values, causing widespread fury * Explained the week long delay in commenting on @Telegraph leak was because of need to check…
You create a situation in which to retain or advance your status or work position you need allies. And all those allies divide along ideological lines. There will be a Gibb camp, and a woke antizionist camp, and the installed preists of gender. None of them want _truths_.
What intense politicisiation of any public function tends to do, isn’t only to pressure a line towards this or that ideology, or even both simultaneously. What it fundamentally does is push out people who respond sensitively to objective reality.
I think the plan is to persuade women that they haven’t actually seen, with their eyes, what they saw. This has potential to score points in living rooms where good points once were made- but it isn’t going to actually address a scandal that you still mistake for a wedge issue.
We’ve looked Prescott’s supposedly ‘neutral sources’ for his report, and it doesn’t stack up. More anon on Byline Times
The thing about “Ed Reardon’s Week” is that it rewards full attention and can’t be enjoyed with your mind on something else. Like…. (but the mind boggles) reading a book. bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0…
United States Trends
- 1. Northern Lights 44.1K posts
- 2. #Aurora 9,246 posts
- 3. #DWTS 52.8K posts
- 4. #RHOSLC 7,055 posts
- 5. Sabonis 6,214 posts
- 6. H-1B 33.8K posts
- 7. AI-driven Web3 1,031 posts
- 8. Justin Edwards 2,432 posts
- 9. #GoAvsGo 1,561 posts
- 10. Gonzaga 2,966 posts
- 11. #MakeOffer 8,886 posts
- 12. Louisville 18K posts
- 13. Creighton 2,283 posts
- 14. Eubanks N/A
- 15. Lowe 12.8K posts
- 16. Jamal Murray N/A
- 17. Schroder N/A
- 18. Andy 60.6K posts
- 19. JT Toppin N/A
- 20. Cleto 2,480 posts
You might like
-
Angie Hobbs
@drangiehobbs -
Andrew Levi
@AndrewPRLevi -
Jensen Suther
@jensensuther -
Peter Godfrey-Smith
@pgodfreysmith -
Miles Leeson
@miles_leeson -
John Lichfield
@john_lichfield -
Eduard Habsburg
@EduardHabsburg -
ergopraxis.bsky.social
@ergo_praxis -
Gabe Gottlieb
@xgabegottliebx -
Russell Merryman
@merryarty -
Rory Hearne
@RoryHearneGaffs -
Rebecca Morris
@beckyphilmath -
Jamie Woodhouse
@JamieWoodhouse -
Platypus Affiliated Society
@platypus1917 -
MCNULTY
@rationalcreatur
Something went wrong.
Something went wrong.