January 29, 2004

TIMES CHANGE, BUT CLICHES PLUNGE ON

Then:

Tony Blair was plunged into the biggest crisis of his premiership last night after a leading Ministry of Defence adviser who became caught up in No 10's vitriolic battle with the BBC was found dead in woodland near his Oxfordshire home.

Now:

The BBC was plunged into the biggest crisis in its history today when its multi-millionaire chairman Gavyn Davies quit after the corporation was heavily criticised and the British Government cleared unequivocally by the Hutton report.

UPDATE:

BBC director general Greg Dyke today dramatically resigned as the corporation struggles to deal with the biggest crisis in its 82-year history.

Posted by Tim Blair at January 29, 2004 10:50 PM
Comments

Also breaking news on ch 10 - new virus biggest threat "in cyber-history".

Posted by: Observer at January 29, 2004 at 11:23 PM

Just a note from the US midwest - the Chicago Tribune, the more repected of the two local dailes, buried the Blair article on their website.

Of course, the big headline on the front page of the actual (printed) newspaper? "Ex-inspector: Weapons Intelligence Was Flawed."

Yep, no bias here, just move along.

Posted by: Percy Dovetonsils at January 30, 2004 at 12:39 AM

Let the blood flow at Beeb HQ. More heads, please.

Posted by: Jeffersonian at January 30, 2004 at 04:59 AM

I deal with crisis by pulling out all the stops.

Posted by: Ron Hardin at January 30, 2004 at 05:02 AM

On the BBC website
“In the wake of his resignation there were spontaneous walkouts at BBC offices in Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow, Cardiff and Londonderry.”

Spontaneous walkouts to the local pubs more like. Why don’t they keep walking? Fat chance.

Posted by: Simon at January 30, 2004 at 06:33 AM

"dramatically resigned"

Did he have a big drama queen episode, or impale himself with his resignation letter or?

Posted by: kevin at January 30, 2004 at 07:15 AM

Did anyone read the typical claptrap from Richard Ackland in the Silly MH this morning - the problem apparently was that a judge carried out the Inquiry, thus introducing findings of actual FACTS into the process, and this is very unfair to the almighty MEEDYA, especially the BBC, which can't be expected to concern themselves with such pedestrian matters. The judge was OK when he was espected to fall into line with what the almighty MEEDYA had already decreed, ie that it was all the fault of Tony BLIAR, but not when he actually had the collossal gall to criticise the BBC!!

Posted by: Richard at January 30, 2004 at 07:36 AM

Dykes response to a journo, `No,I won't resign'.Source, morning radio news.The whine in his voice was unmistakeable,that of a noisome brat of a child or, adolscent (these days),this from presumably a man who also happens to run the BBC. On the other hand, whining is the main defence of not only the BBC and its inmates but,ABC.Just another very good reason to cut them off the drip of the extortion racket (pay up up or will thrwo you into prison) whose name is taxation.

Posted by: d at January 30, 2004 at 07:57 AM

In other news, ground coffee beans were plunged into the biggest crisis since yesterday's breakfast. "We're in real hot water," a spokesbean stated.

Fuck off, let's see you do better at 8.59am!

Posted by: Fidens at January 30, 2004 at 07:59 AM

Greg Dyke said absolutely nothing about taking responsibility.

Posted by: ilibcc at January 30, 2004 at 09:26 AM

On Fox News in the US Brit Hume stated that one of Dyke's career highlights was introducing a wisecracking sock puppet as a news reader. Although he appeared straightfaced, a gloat was detected in Hume. But it was a tasteful gloat...

Posted by: Jim at January 30, 2004 at 09:55 AM

The new head of the Beeb will get things turned around.

New BBC Chair Benny Hill Vows Staff Jiggle-Up

Posted by: iowahawk at January 30, 2004 at 10:39 AM

"dramatically resigned"

Did he have a big drama queen episode, or impale himself with his resignation letter or?

Maybe he just quoted some verses from Hamlet

Posted by: Johnny Wishbone at January 30, 2004 at 10:41 AM

yes Richard I've also read Ackland's anti-judge comments. I've also been listening to some radio interviews from the UK, and, SURPRISE SURPRISE, suddenly the judge is an incompenent, dishonest loser whose report should be shredded, in fact these interviewees (who in the preceding weeks and months, seemed so certain the report would lead to the end of Blair) now argue the report is meaningless and that they support the BBC more strongly than ever.

Which leads me to ask - what is the f***ing point of having these inquiries in the first place?

Posted by: Tom at January 30, 2004 at 01:11 PM

Fidens, I personally didn't have a problem with it.
And let me be the first to congratulate you on your usage of the word "spokesbean"

Posted by: Johnny Wishbone at January 30, 2004 at 04:30 PM

More heads! Yes! Gilligan on a platter, with garnish.

I listened to the BBC on their "troubles" last night, and the insufferable tone of it...

On the BBC walk-out...don't let the door smack your a** on the way out, and keep on walking.

Posted by: Timothy Lang at January 30, 2004 at 05:22 PM

Just a guess, would Greg Dyke be a feminist construct?

Posted by: Blindsideflanker at January 30, 2004 at 08:14 PM

It is not difficult to imagine, Tom, what a fine fellow Hutton would have been if he'd only followed the MEEDYA script, and found Blair, Campbell etc guilty as charged (by the MEEDYA). The cries for Blair's immediate resignation from the Beeb and all its fellow travellers would have been deafening, followed quickly by charges of not abiding by the umpire's decision if he hadn't.
I guess then you're right about the value of such inquiries.
The left-liberal establishment are never wrong, never deeated, always have an excuse, or an ability to render previous attitudes or statements 'inoperative', in the immortal words of Tricky Dick.

Posted by: Richard at January 30, 2004 at 08:14 PM

Well, on a more rational note, I am puzzled by the respose by Conservative members of Parliament who claim that the BBC was on to a good thing and should have stuck to their story.

I understand that the role of the Opposition is to oppose, but surely any Conservative who supports the BBC is like the proverbial turkey voting for Christmas. Can the Conservatives be taken seriously? Does Britain need a dose of the Lunar Left, and the huge damage they will inflict on the society and infrastructure of the UK, before the Conservatives can become a credible alternative to New Labour?


Posted by: Blindsideflanker at January 30, 2004 at 09:20 PM

Frankly, Blindsideflanker, who gives a shit?

Posted by: Richard at January 30, 2004 at 10:45 PM

>"dramatically resigned"
>
>Did he have a big drama queen episode, or >impale himself with his resignation letter or?

This is in fact the standard use of the word "resigned" in the business press. It means "He was sacked".

Posted by: Michael Jennings at January 30, 2004 at 11:58 PM

I am puzzled by the respose by Conservative members of Parliament who claim that the BBC was on to a good thing and should have stuck to their story.

No, its not that difficult to understand. The Conservative members have contracted "Oppose everythning" disease, which many members of the Australian Senate have had for years. Its where your only policies are defined in opposition to the governments.

Posted by: Quentin George at January 31, 2004 at 08:23 AM

Greg can now spend more time with his rat Roland

Posted by: Peter at January 31, 2004 at 08:44 AM

It's alright, I've called the RSPCA and they're on their way.

Posted by: ilibcc at January 31, 2004 at 06:20 PM