Blinkered BBC

The BBC, in all of its various outputs, goes out of its way to demonstrate no political bias and senior management will vigorously defend their record, over the longer term if not by each hour. No issue there. However they have consistently fallen hook line and sinker over the last two years into the Farage trap and parrot fashion repeat his selected media slants as if that was fact and widely endorsed. No it isn't. So what is going on? The Farage emotive shorthand is that Britain has decided to leave the EU. That is the starting point, the underlying premise of all subsequent interviews and rationale for the oh so many programmes devoted to questioning and analysing the 'Brexit' debates. Britain most clearly did not decide. There was vote and there was a result, a split country, half and half with the leave side having the 'majority' by such a small margin. So small a margin that could, would, maywell have shifted several times either way in the space a couple of days depending who was sick, recovered,  whop left or came back from holiday, was or wasn't in a meeting elsewhere, submitted a spoilt paper or just was confused at the time. Such a small margin does not support the claim that "Britain decided". It suits Farage's soundbite politics to wrap it up so, but the BBC should not have been drawn in and persistently using that phrase as their reference point. It is wrong and slants all sequential comments.

This vote was not a vote for the first past the post two party election. This vote does not result in sequences of measure being put before Parliament to consider, reflect and endorse. This vote does not time lapse after five years for the country to reconsider and possibly make a different choice. No this vote has finality, the either country leaves the EU or stays within the EU. No wonder with a split Nation, referred to but only in the context of the 'decision to leave', the nation and its political party representatives cannot arrive an outcome that looks bothways and suits those that want to remain and those that want to leave. That is the issue the BBC should be presenting, not as a footnote but as the premise for all programming formats. Instead they capitulate to the Farage soundbite. So wrong.

The referendum designed as a sticking plaster over the Conservative Parties divisions was deeply flawed in its concept. But that is now history and we are stuck with an inconclusive outcome that is defying all attempts to bridge an impossible divide across the nation. So how should the BBC have responded and demonstrated its impartiality? If you can accept, which I cannot, that there was a decision with the merest of margins then the BBC should have setout to question the 'Remain in EU' benefits and show how they could be better served by 'Leave the EU'. Equally they should have tested all the supposed benefits from leaving the EU. Those two approaches should have been the rockbed for all programming decisions. Instead the BBC defers to the Farage rhetoric, and follows his lead and agenda. Why on earth is so much BBC media time allocated to "No-Deal Brexit", that Farage construct, dismissed by anyone who has a glimmer of understanding of the world political arena.

In a balanced society the high-octave emotive promises offered by 'Brexit' should have been countered by rigorous matter-of-fact explanations of the benefits that flow out of our EU membership. I can scarcely recollect any discussions where these pro-EU arguments were presented. The only counter, the bias balance to this Brexit posturing was by putting 'Remain' spokespersons on the backfoot to respond to the latest outrageous fantasy claims put out by the Brexit flavour of the moment face. Almost all Brexit stories were led by a Brexit at any cost spoke person, so all those Tories who clearly didn't want Brexit at any cost, all those Tories who wanted to remain within the EU, got scant coverage. Or if given a voice only to have them then counter the latest wild assertions. Bias? Oh yes. The BBC has signally failed to get above this story and set it into the so needed bigger picture. Without the BBC's leadership what chance does the nation have to absorb the real, not the emotive issues, and reach a consensus understanding where the Nation might be able to unite behind it. The BBC has let us all down spectacularly in our hour of most need.
.

Review of Reviews

Giving ordinary people a voice is such an important part of recent developments. Being able to share with others your own experience of a product or a service is so liberating and genuinely useful. Using an online presence you really never know who or what you are dealing with. A schoolchild operating out of their parents garage can be indistinguishable from a multinational corporation. Equally a scam site using a cloned website can be difficult to spot even if you are unusually cautious. To benefit from online you have to be online, exposed. So other users experiences are a vital check. First off is the Site a scam or are products actually delivered, next what are customer services like, do they respond to complaints or throw up a defensive smokescreen then finally what is the delivered product or service like. Is it worth the money or just poorly conceived?

Other users experience are vital then in weeding out those Site just not worth bothering about. The downside is that people are quick to vent their spleen when their expectations are not lived upto, but slow to praise for a job well done and then are often not very objective. So each review site for a product, has a range of high praise with possibly more vehement condemnation. We the readers have to step through this and set aside the more extreme comments, in either direction, and try to arrive at a balanced view. It is usually becomes quickly clear if a product is poor or its customer services does not function.

As beneficiary of others postings, so I have tried to return the benefit. Under my penname of TonySomerset (of Taunton) I have been posting my own reviews for the things encountered. What has become increasingly clear is that not all review sites are equal. Yet another minefield for the unwary to step through. Several sites use customer feedback solely as a means to bolster their cashflow from the product supplier. User reviews are incidentals, to provide a cloak of acceptability, not the primary purpose. They take a rake off from the product supplier for each visit and/or link from their own pages. A vested interest. Beware then, Sites like TopTable, Sugarvine or Ciao are only interested in the cash stream from their client sites so will not post negatives reviews. Their reviews are totally biased, as only good favourable reviews get posted.

As users know full well nothing is perfect, mistake happen and the odd bad days occur. That is not the point. The point is how does the supplier respond and deal with the inevitable problems that do occur. How useful to you is it to know that everything is top quality and only a minor blemish might sneak through as comment. Utterly worthless. What you need to form your own judgement is a balanced picture, the good countered with the bad. You can then form a view, where were the problems and how were they responded to. If just a matter of taste or too high an expectation that can be disregarded. However if the bad reviews pinpoint towards a customer crash course then avoid like the plague. The skill of surviving in business is to leave the customer not dissatisfied. It requires tact and people skills to manage successfully. Not every customer will always be satisfied but if a supplier leaves a trail of them foaming at the mouth, frustrated in getting any response to even a minor point and wanting to vent their spleen, that supplier is heading for disaster. We do all need to know so we too can avoid. So do beware of the Review Site you are using, check it out. Do they only show the positive upbeat spin?