There are often discussions on this forum about the BBC, and how well spent the money for programs are warranted.
BBC television have a program called BBC Parliament, and I wonder if any forum members as ever bothered to watch this program, perhaps via channel 81 on Freeview ?.
Over the last few days there have been Select Committee discussions on NHS Care Quality Commission and Privacy & Injunctions, and some very surprising facts have arisen from evidence being given, provided and discussed.
On the NHS Care Quality Commission, there was grave doubts as to how this body was working, and how long it was taking to establish practises. It was also questioned as to the increase of the pension rights to the CEO, and a request was made on how a substantial increase had been made here. Quite a number of other concerning issues were brought up. And perhaps in the public's interest, the CQC in its present form, might have a fit for purpose label, even though they say they are improving.
With the Privacy & Injunction meeting, Max Clifford and Phil Hall (ex NOW & Hello editor) were the main speakers. It became very evident that both these people had very big concerns about how the 'average person in the street' was not being represented on these issues, were people of celebrity status or money were. Booth these people gave some very strong views on the subject, and it was perhaps surprising how they appeared to go into depth with this.
The point why I was raising this, is the fact that evidence or facts that you may not hear about,or are part published as a media newspaper report, and what may concern you,more than you may think, is possibly readily (if shown) available for the time being as free to see.
For further information http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/committees/select
"why are mp's not pulled up as it looks so bad."
Have you ever sat in the gallery and watched the proceedings? We see footage of Prime Minister's question time on the TV news, and it all looks so cut and thrust, but the reality of day-to-day business in the House of Commons is that it can be incredibly dull.
I once sat there and watched a debate about Customs duty. There were only a few members present, and twenty minutes into a speech I found myself nodding off - it was like watching concrete set.
When I toured the Palace of Westminster I was shown the speakers which are situated in the back of every seat. I was told that when the M.P.'s are sitting sort of sideways listening to these speakers, it makes them look as if they are sleeping.... Well it's as good an excuse as any I suppose. I still want to know why M.P's bounce up and down when it is question time.
The only time I've ever turned to channel 81 was when the BBC used that channel for some events during the last Olympics
fourm member. I must point out that the speakers fitted in to the backs of the seats, were done long before the broadcasting of programs started. The hanging microphones we now see are a new addition, compared to the old fashioned speaker things in the backs of the seats. I don't think they had microphones before the broadcasting began. No doubt someone else will know though.
The microphones were first installed in 1950, but not used for broadcast until 1975, maybe they were used for the speakers...
Like the FE, I once watched a debate in the Commons. And like him, how I managed not to fall asleep I shall never know. As to the subject of said debate....sorry, not a clue!! It must have been enthralling - not!
I came across 81 quite by accident one day and I often tune in to the Scottish parliament which seems very civilised when compared to the H of C. Maybe it has to do with the layout or better accoustics but the debates do seem less dull and boring.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.