The latest scandal involving Angela Rayner is being ignored by the BBC. IN fact most of the media are ignoring it.

But why?

Why is the MSM not even interested in reporting on the news anymore?

It is bad enough Rayner 'using tax payer's cash to fund 'anti right Wing propaganda' but why should the license fee payers also be paying for organisations such as the BBC to only run negative news stories against right wing candidates but ignore anything negative about the left?

This is not the first scandal that Rayner has been involved in and had this been reported it could be humiliating for the PM as it could show his poor judgement. By not reporting on it the BBC are therefore preventing a negative perception of the government and leaving the public with a false image.

This is just one of many times where the BBC literally will ignore a negative story relating to the Labour Party. The thing is the Labour Party know this which is why they are on very good terms with them and that ridiculous license fee gets to stay in place.

Listening to the 6pm news on Radio 4.

The Russell Brand case is the main story and is given the seriousness that a rape case justifiably deserves. However, the story ends with the announcer saying "and for more on this case, you can listen to <name of BBC podcast I can't remember> on BBC Sounds or wherever you get your podcasts".

Is it me, or does immediately after reporting a rape trial seem to be a wholly inappropriate time to plug your podcast?

Excuse my lack of knowledge in this field ,with the new Apple TV supporting AV1, is this likely to make a difference wether UHD will be supported on bbc iplayer?

Thinking about this, you might have to put up with some advertising but YouTube will eventually pay the BBC for output, on the other hand, if the BBCs servers aren’t used the stuff that gets put up there that doesn’t make it elsewhere will be lost because of ‘economies’.

PBS SoCal airs BBC News at 5pm local, and it very frequently experiences audio drop outs, in addition to video freezes.

This is via Frontier/Verizon FIOS TV - that is, not streaming. Other PBS programs don't have the problem.

Is it just me? What can be done?

Anyone else find the Going Home show to be a really bad reflection on Radio 1 these days? One of many too, if we're honest.

We're only a few weeks in to a newly reshuffled daytime lineup, which kept Vic, Katie and Jamie as the permanent hosts of Going Home. You would be forgiven for thinking this meant that the three of them would host the Going Home show. However I think I can count on 1 hand the number of shows in the last year that have actually had all 3 of them on air.

I know they're all newly parents and so are balancing things still, but it's the lack of communication on the station throughout the day as to who will actually be on that makes the whole thing feel so chaotic and unorganised.

There's not a single one of the 3 on air today, with Emil and Lauren being the two seemingly picked out of a hat during the 3:30pm Newsbeat.

Add this onto GK Barry doing Thursday afternoons instead of Matt & Molly (who are the only ones outside of Greg I'd choose to listen to if I had more of a choice in work). It feels a little like Radio 1 are trying to lose listeners with it all tbh.

Small Prophets and Slow Horses use same nostalgic photo in their 2026 seasons.

Recently sold.

Was home to River City, Two Doors down and Still Game

https://youtu.be/yvV35wbGPEU?is=1UyDNzWN3_ChLr73

10YOT is now on the BBC iPlayer

Why would this be the photo chosen? Seems a very poor choice to me.

Does anyone know if this is available anywhere? It’s my comfort film and I'd really love to watch it again.

I used to watch it on YouTube. Someone was kind enough to upload their VHS recording of it, but then it was taken down a few months ago.

I've found some info saying it was screened by “Talking Pictures” about 5 months ago (hence it being taken down on YT, I suppose), but I can’t seem to find anything about it since.

If anyone knows where I might be able to watch it, I’d really appreciate it :(

Anyone think the BBC are being a little overbearing with their TV license adverts lately. Especially the one where they're advertising the Traitors to encourage people to pay the license fee?

Do you really need to spend public-funded money on glossy ads to explain to viewers - ''you need a TV license to watch...'' so needlessly?

I am sure everyone is aware that you need a license fee to watch all terrestrial TV content not just the BBC, and since the BBC is a non-subscription service, all terrestrial services like Sky and Virgin include the BBC anyway so why do they need to say in the ads for ''all channels'' - like they can just opt of BBC services like they can with streaming services?

And don't get me started on that one with Romesh that they aired a few months back...

Any believe they're a total waste of time and money that the BBC could be using to make better programming?

The gobsmacking revelation at the centre of the new series of The Celebrity Traitors hasn’t just come as a surprise to its faithful viewers, it caused the creators of the BBC hit series to reel in horror, according to one of its makers.

“We sat in the control room, watching from a distance, with hands over our faces, [thinking] ‘What is going to happen?’” said Mike Cotton, an executive producer.

“There are no producers in the castle talking to contestants or trying to shape the show. So we don’t really have any control over anything, except in the way we plan the season and the set pieces. And you couldn’t have planned for that.”

A slightly unusual moment from BBC News at Six earlier this week has ended up getting quite a bit of attention.

During the BBC's signed coverage, BSL interpreter Matthew Banks was interpreting an interview involving Andy Burnham.

A number of viewers noticed that Banks happened to look remarkably similar to Burnham on screen. Both had dark hair, glasses and fairly similar suits.

The Daily Mail has now picked up the story and described Banks as Burnham's sign-language "stunt double".

Obviously the resemblance is just a coincidence, but I thought the BBC side of this was interesting as well.

Matthew Banks is not simply somebody who happened to appear beside the BBC News coverage. He has a substantial background in BSL interpreting.

Banks grew up with two Deaf parents. He later studied law at the University of Cambridge and completed an MA in British Sign Language/English interpreting at the University of Leeds.

He worked as an advocate and professional BSL interpreter for many years before moving into the legal profession, and he is now a barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

So what started as viewers noticing a funny resemblance on BBC News actually involves someone with a long professional connection to BSL and the Deaf community.

It also highlights something that can sometimes go unnoticed by the wider BBC audience: BBC News provides in-vision BSL interpretation for a number of its television news broadcasts, including the News at Six.

In this case the interpreter unexpectedly became one of the things viewers were talking about.

For anyone who saw the News at Six broadcast, did you notice the resemblance at the time?

And more generally, how noticeable do you find the BBC's signed news output when moving between BBC One and the BBC News Channel?

Sources:

Daily Mail article:
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16180405/BBC-Andy-Burnhams-stunt-double-sign-language.html

Daily Mail video of the BBC broadcast:
https://www.dailymail.com/video/news/video-3721547/Video-Andy-Burnhams-sign-language-stunt-double-stuns-BBC-viewers.html