BBC

[Swango1980]

i was scared of telling people (especially my boss) that i had MH issues but i noticed that it was taking me ages to do the simplest of tasks.

my boss told me to take 10 days off then we would talk about reducing my hours for a while until I felt i could cope with things.

there is still a "he's mental" attitide to this and i am in no doubt that some "celebs" may use MH as an excuse for their poor behaviour.

Not just "celebs". There are people in all walks of life that will use mental health as an excuse for their poor behaviour. For example, a poorly behaved child may now use ADHD as the reason for their bad behaviour (or their parents on their behalf).

Truth is though, they may all be legitimate excuses, albeit not excuses that absolve someone of wrongdoing. If someone does something bad, especially something considered pretty appalling, then they are bound to have some issue within their mentality that made them do it in first place. As opposed to most other people who would never do such a thing. Perhaps they have depression, schizophrenia, ADHD, they are a sociopath, etc. Perhaps they've had a troubled past, and that has impacted on their decision making in later life.

I guess you just have to judge each person individually, both cause and effect, as to whether you want to have a sympathetic view or otherwise. By sounds of it, this guy has had mental health issues for years, so it doesn't seem that this news has only suddenly come out now, and before it did he was living happily, free from any mental health conditions.

 

[Tashyboy]

Not just "celebs". There are people in all walks of life that will use mental health as an excuse for their poor behaviour. For example, a poorly behaved child may now use ADHD as the reason for their bad behaviour (or their parents on their behalf).

Truth is though, they may all be legitimate excuses, albeit not excuses that absolve someone of wrongdoing. If someone does something bad, especially something considered pretty appalling, then they are bound to have some issue within their mentality that made them do it in first place. As opposed to most other people who would never do such a thing. Perhaps they have depression, schizophrenia, ADHD, they are a sociopath, etc. Perhaps they've had a troubled past, and that has impacted on their decision making in later life.

I guess you just have to judge each person individually, both cause and effect, as to whether you want to have a sympathetic view or otherwise. By sounds of it, this guy has had mental health issues for years, so it doesn't seem that this news has only suddenly come out now, and before it did he was living happily, free from any mental health conditions.

And this is why I am saying “if”. Having dealt with a lot of people who have had mental health issues it is heartbreaking to see them and their spouses and family’s devastated. I have also seen folk extract the Michael when using mental health especially when trying to finish there mining careers through Ill health which meant a full pension.

 

[TimShady]

https://www.intelligentspeculation.com/blog/anecdotal-fallacy👍

Am I. Unfortunately for me to give my reasons why he may or may not have mental health issues, (and I have not stated that he has not). I would have to quote my experiences of dealing with people who have had mental health issues whilst working in the Pits. However if I have to have mention my experiences which influence my opinions of both good and bad when dealing with mental health, it comes under anecdotal fallacy.

You clearly don’t have the knowledge of mental health to go beyond your prejudices of those with mental illness. You don’t see it in yourself but the language you use shows that it is there.

 

[WGCRider]

If, and I use the term if very loosely, Huw did have mental health problems then the BBC have a lot to answer for. They have a duty of care for all their employees. He should have been taken off air a long time ago.

unfortunately this is another
“ Celeb” from a long line of celebs that have made wrong choices. People will talk and Gossip about Huw until the next name comes along.

So the timeline of this nonsense as we have it of this;

- Married man uses dating app to meet younger man. They never actually meet but exchange photos.
- Blokes parents go to police with "evidence". Police say no crime.
- Parents complain to BBC. BBC ask for more info but parents don't respond.
- Parents go the Sun.
- Sun asks young person about it. Young person says nothing happened. Sun publishes nothing story anyway
- BBC meet police. Police review again. Again no crime.
- Sun confirms it paid for "story".
- Person that non story was about has a breakdown cause of the impact on their life.

So the conclusions we should all draw is that the company you work for is responsible for your behaviour on dating apps - please register all app usage with your employer and that we may now need to rerecord the queens funeral??

 

[RichA]

Haven't seen anybody suggesting somebody should be sacked for having mental health issues.
It seems like common sense that an employer, upon realising that an employee is suffering serious mental health problems, should be removing the employee from a frontline role where they have potential to worsen their problems and damage their own and the employer's reputation.
Removing from harm's way and helping is not sacking. It would be the actions of a responsible employer, wouldn't it?

 

[Dando]

apparently the "parents" have recorded an interview with TalkTV but didnt want paying for it!

yeah ok, whatever

 

[Tashyboy]

You clearly don’t have the knowledge of mental health to go beyond your prejudices of those with mental illness. You don’t see it in yourself but the language you use shows that it is there.

So now I have prejudices. Says the guy who quotes anecdotal fallacy. Thanks for that. My views not prejudices are based on dealing with those who have and have not had mental health issues.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

In the same way that someone with an addiction may be able to continue working perfectly successfully as functioning addicts, many with mental health issues can continue working just as successfully. That both can work successfully and without negatively impacting work colleagues does not diminish the illnesses that both suffer from.

 

[rudebhoy]

So the timeline of this nonsense as we have it of this;

- Married man uses dating app to meet younger man. They never actually meet but exchange photos.
- Blokes parents go to police with "evidence". Police say no crime.
- Parents complain to BBC. BBC ask for more info but parents don't respond.
- Parents go the Sun.
- Sun asks young person about it. Young person says nothing happened. Sun publishes nothing story anyway
- BBC meet police. Police review again. Again no crime.
- Sun confirms it paid for "story".
- Person that non story was about has a breakdown cause of the impact on their life.

So the conclusions we should all draw is that the company you work for is responsible for your behaviour on dating apps - please register all app usage with your employer and that we may now need to rerecord the queens funeral??

Not for the first time, the behaviour of The Sun has been absolutely despicable.

 

[stefanovic]

When it comes to climate change (with very high temperatures predicted this week in lands not so far away), the BBC need to balance it all out.
If folk like Nigel Lawson and Donald Trump are in denial and it's even a conspiracy, then any mention of a warming planet needs to be offset by those who consider it just to be a blip.
The BBC needs to be impartial, otherwise the government could take away their licence.

BBC admits ‘we get climate change coverage wrong too often’

Briefing sent to editorial staff on global warming says ‘you do not need a denier to balance the debate’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Deleted member 18121]

When it comes to climate change (with very high temperatures predicted this week in lands not so far away), the BBC need to balance it all out.
If folk like Nigel Lawson and Donald Trump are in denial and it's even a conspiracy, then any mention of a warming planet needs to be offset by those who consider it just to be a blip.
The BBC needs to be impartial, otherwise the government could take away their licence.

BBC admits ‘we get climate change coverage wrong too often’

Briefing sent to editorial staff on global warming says ‘you do not need a denier to balance the debate’

www.theguardian.com

I've said the same for a while on scientific subjects.... I always try to keep in mind that the scientists funding is based on their research into a specific subject. So if they turn around and say that "there's no evidence of xyz" then their funding stops.

I also like to keep in mind that there are always scientists with opposing views who aren't chosen to be published by the MSM, who are just as credible.

 

[WGCRider]

When it comes to climate change (with very high temperatures predicted this week in lands not so far away), the BBC need to balance it all out.
If folk like Nigel Lawson and Donald Trump are in denial and it's even a conspiracy, then any mention of a warming planet needs to be offset by those who consider it just to be a blip.
The BBC needs to be impartial, otherwise the government could take away their licence.

BBC admits ‘we get climate change coverage wrong too often’

Briefing sent to editorial staff on global warming says ‘you do not need a denier to balance the debate’

www.theguardian.com

I agree to an extent. But much like the question time audience split is "fixed" to reflect the way people vote for climate it should be "fixed" in the same way. So for every 1 Nigel we have to listen too we should have about 35 people to balance him out.

 

[Mudball]

Last evening’s paper, (may not be to eeveryone's opinion)

 

[stefanovic]

Save our NHS. Blow up the BBC unless they mend their ways very soon.
They sure do cater for cooks. Too many cooks on BBC. Cheap to make and popular too.
They cater for cooks but not for young men who want something quite a lot more exciting.
Perhaps there should be a BBC1 for men and a BBC for women.
Pay for it by scrapping the superfluous rock and pop programs on radio.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

Save our NHS. Blow up the BBC unless they mend their ways very soon.
They sure do cater for cooks. Too many cooks on BBC. Cheap to make and popular too.
They cater for cooks but not for young men who want something quite a lot more exciting.
Perhaps there should be a BBC1 for men and a BBC for women.
Pay for it by scrapping the superfluous rock and pop programs on radio.

In a World where fast food is so entrenched, what is wrong with many being inspired to learn how to and want to cook real meals?
As far as the radio goes, Brahms doesnt cut it.

 

[D-S]

They sure do cater for cooks. Too many cooks on BBC. Cheap to make and popular too.
They cater for cooks but not for young men who want something quite a lot more exciting.
Perhaps there should be a BBC1 for men and a BBC for women.

So only women are interested in cooking?

 

[Mudball]

Save our NHS. Blow up the BBC unless they mend their ways very soon.
They sure do cater for cooks. Too many cooks on BBC. Cheap to make and popular too.
They cater for cooks but not for young men who want something quite a lot more exciting.
Perhaps there should be a BBC1 for men and a BBC for women.
Pay for it by scrapping the superfluous rock and pop programs on radio.

Just saying.. given it is the BBC.. they would be forced to create BBC1.5

 

[bobmac]

I know the Open Championship won't be live on the BBC TV but I've just checked to see when the highlights are on.... 8pm till 10pm.
The oldest and most famous golf championship in the world...and 4 days reduced to 8 hours of highlights....they should be ashamed of themselves.
I know it's down to money but they could make a start by sacking Linneker and Zoe Ball.

Can you imagine the Americans paying for a cable company who only show highlights of the Superbowl?

 

[rudebhoy]

I know the Open Championship won't be live on the BBC TV but I've just checked to see when the highlights are on.... 8pm till 10pm.
The oldest and most famous golf championship in the world...and 4 days reduced to 8 hours of highlights....they should be ashamed of themselves.
I know it's down to money but they could make a start by sacking Linneker and Zoe Ball.

Can you imagine the Americans paying for a cable company who only show highlights of the Superbowl?

If the BBC are showing 2 hours highlights every night, I think that's pretty decent for golf fans who can't or won't pay for Sky.

Sky paid £75m for a 5 year deal starting in 2017. I don't know how much they paid to renew last year, but you can bet it will have been more per annum.

Can you imagine the outrage if BBC had paid those sort of sums for a sporting event that 90% of the population couldn't care less about?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I know the Open Championship won't be live on the BBC TV but I've just checked to see when the highlights are on.... 8pm till 10pm.
The oldest and most famous golf championship in the world...and 4 days reduced to 8 hours of highlights....they should be ashamed of themselves.
I know it's down to money but they could make a start by sacking Linneker and Zoe Ball.

Can you imagine the Americans paying for a cable company who only show highlights of the Superbowl?

what time should the highlights be on when you consider that the rounds are not finishing until around 8-9 ?

And what does Ball and Lineker have to do with anything