Will you please stop dressing up opinion as fact. This is the third time you have said that Sarah Kennedy is staying - without a shred of evidence to support this. There hasn't been any formal announcement from the BBC to my knowledge.
Sarah Kennedy may decide to inform Dawn Patrollers of her future later this year.
mark (occy) is another one around here who thinks every thought needs to be imparted......and presented as fact!!
You don't. You have the right to watch and listen to TV and radio programmes. End of story. No more gives you the right to know about the personal life of a presenter than paying your council tax gives you the right to know about the health issues of anyone working for the council.
You're paying for a service and unless I'm mistaken Radio 2 is not silent between 6.00 and 7.30 when Ms Kennedy is indisposed. You're getting what you paid for.
Your statement is totally outrageous. Most of us in both the public and private sector are expected to perform our duties to a certain standard and are usually monitored to ensure that we do. If there are complaints from customers or service users then something is usually done to try and rectify the matter.
Why should the BBC with it's income derived from compulsory taxation be any different Sidekick ?
The BBC seems to regard itself as exempt from the need to comply with quality standards.
I don't think that any of the people that actually tune in to SK's show because they happen to like her programme actually care in the least whether her tunes run into the pips, or if she knows how to backtime, or whatever. I suspect that is reserved for those that tune in to confirm that they still don't like her.
Seriously, she is just nice, gentle, middle-England, old-lady fun, and pretty much the only place that gets broadcast anywhere these days. If R2 isn't the natural home for that, I don't know what is...
Youve hit the nail on the head.
Sadly with message boards such as this one especially because of its popularity you have all these people, most of whom probably dont even listen to Sarah's show, coming on here and saying she's this, done that, should be replaced with so and so etc etc. They do it because
a> these people want to make such a fuss in the hope of influencing the high brass at radio 2 with their decision making
b> it gives them a feeling of haughty self-importance and righteousness.
c> it gives them an opportunity to argue with other people who disagree with them filling up their boring day.
b> it gives them a feeling of haughty self-importance and righteousness.
c> it gives them an opportunity to argue with other people who disagree with them filling up their boring day.
Oh the irony.
I'd actually be a lot happier with SK if she did respect the music more. I listen to BBC 2 first and foremost for the music and like others was disappointed that Helen Shapiro got cut off after the first line due to poor time keeping. I think if SK could just get it together with the timing, not talk over the music as much as she does (mind you she seems to be improving of late so am quite happy) and get the artists right...I'd be ecstatic. I still prefer her to Chris Evans so am in two minds about how I'd feel when Terry leaves. I just don't think she does herself many favours with the way she treats the music.
It's not exactly a huge ask so am disappointed that after all these years she hasn't improved on that front.
Your statement is totally outrageous. Most of us in both the public and private sector are expected to perform our duties to a certain standard and are usually monitored to ensure that we do. If there are complaints from customers or service users then something is usually done to try and rectify the matter.
Why should the BBC with it's income derived from compulsory taxation be any different Sidekick ?
The BBC seems to regard itself as exempt from the need to comply with quality standards.
I believe that if I am charged a fee for a service being available to me, whether I use that service or not and simply by dint of the fact that I use a TV for any channel but the BBC, then I am paying a tax..
That said, I believe taxpayers have rights and these should include total transparancy under Freedom of Information Act. I would think it reasonable that my rights would extend to knowing what all BBC "Talent" are paid (a move already underway I understand) and also the right to constructively criticise without being accused of heracy and burnt at the stake, so to speak. Seems to happen a lot on here..
I also think it is about time the powers that be at the Beeb discontinued their obsession with using TV presenters on R2. IMO, they have neither the skill nor the face for radio..
That said, I believe taxpayers have rights and these should include total transparancy under Freedom of Information Act. I would think it reasonable that my rights would extend to knowing what all BBC "Talent" are paid (a move already underway I understand) and also the right to constructively criticise without being accused of heracy and burnt at the stake, so to speak. Seems to happen a lot on here..
Would that extend to the various bits of "constructive criticism" levelled at SK in this thread. Who's burning who at the stake now?
I very much doubt that the Freedom of Information Act would enable you to acquire deeply personal information about a radio presenter - and I'm not talking about their salary here.
And do you have any idea of how much of your taxpayers money is spent on dealing with FOI requests by public bodies each year? Quite possibly enough to pay someone like... Sarah Kennedy!
Sarah Kennedy's private life is none of your business! How would you feel if Sarah Kennedy, or any other "taxpayer" delved into your private life?
Read the papers. The Times, amongst others, reported in August that the BBC, in addition to the already reported remuneration paid to its top executives, would soon also have to publish the salaries they pay to their "Talent".. Like it or not, it is going to happen my friend..
And quite right too.. though, thinking about it, there might be a loophole for SK if it only applies to talent..
Ah well, time for bed and a good night's sleep.. Nighty-night
Read the papers. The Times, amongst others, reported in August that the BBC, in addition to the already reported remuneration paid to its top executives, would soon also have to publish the salaries they pay to their "Talent".. Like it or not, it is going to happen my friend..
And quite right too.. though, thinking about it, there might be a loophole for SK if it only applies to talent..
Ah well, time for bed and a good night's sleep.. Nighty-night
Why the constantat attacks on Sarah Kennedy? Have you nothing else better to do?
VickyBit, under the FOI I want to know your personal details i.e. name, sex, date of birth, annual salary, your occupation, your bank account details etc.
Your statement is totally outrageous. Most of us in both the public and private sector are expected to perform our duties to a certain standard and are usually monitored to ensure that we do. If there are complaints from customers or service users then something is usually done to try and rectify the matter.
Why should the BBC with it's income derived from compulsory taxation be any different Sidekick ?
The BBC seems to regard itself as exempt from the need to comply with quality standards.
Calm down !
My statement is not "totally outrageous", it's not even outrageous. Whether Ms Kennedy or anyone else for that matter is not performing their duties to a certain standard is an issue for the employer. Can people suffering poor service complain? Absolutely. That however wasn't the point I was making and if you had contained your outrage a bit you might have realised it.
My point was that we have no right to know anything about the personal health issues of Ms Kennedy. My reply to myscimitar's post was in response to his assertion that as licence payers we have the right to know what is wrong with her.
We don't. It's none of our business.
If she is performing badly, we are entitled to complain. The reason for her poor performance or absences? Well, we don't have any entitlement to that information.
Would that extend to the various bits of "constructive criticism" levelled at SK in this thread. Who's burning who at the stake now?
I very much doubt that the Freedom of Information Act would enable you to acquire deeply personal information about a radio presenter - and I'm not talking about their salary here.
And do you have any idea of how much of your taxpayers money is spent on dealing with FOI requests by public bodies each year? Quite possibly enough to pay someone like... Sarah Kennedy!
I would say that there is a lot of constructive criticism of Sarah Kennedy in this forum. The suggestion that someone in her position should be reasonably skilled at backtiming, should giver the correct title and performer for each disc and should recognise the fact that people want to listen to the music without interruptions in the middle of the track for example.
Of course the nature of any serious health problem is none of our business. The fact that she does not carry out her duties to anything like a generally recognised good standard certainly is.
My statement is not "totally outrageous", it's not even outrageous. Whether Ms Kennedy or anyone else for that matter is not performing their duties to a certain standard is an issue for the employer. Can people suffering poor service complain? Absolutely. That however wasn't the point I was making and if you had contained your outrage a bit you might have realised it.
My point was that we have no right to know anything about the personal health issues of Ms Kennedy. My reply to myscimitar's post was in response to his assertion that as licence payers we have the right to know what is wrong with her.
We don't. It's none of our business.
If she is performing badly, we are entitled to complain. The reason for her poor performance or absences? Well, we don't have any entitlement to that information.
Oh give over. Jonathan Ross is paid an £18 million salary which is far more reason for tax payers to complain about than what ever poor Sarah Kennedy says or does on the radio and who I imagine earns a fraction of Ross's wages. Get your priorities right.
Kennedy's style is suited to Radio 2 which is why she has a large audeience and been in her current slot for over 15 years. She hasnt changed and her views are well known, so stop listening and find another station. It will be better for your health.
My statement is not "totally outrageous", it's not even outrageous. Whether Ms Kennedy or anyone else for that matter is not performing their duties to a certain standard is an issue for the employer. Can people suffering poor service complain? Absolutely. That however wasn't the point I was making and if you had contained your outrage a bit you might have realised it.
My point was that we have no right to know anything about the personal health issues of Ms Kennedy. My reply to myscimitar's post was in response to his assertion that as licence payers we have the right to know what is wrong with her.
We don't. It's none of our business.
If she is performing badly, we are entitled to complain. The reason for her poor performance or absences? Well, we don't have any entitlement to that information.
You're paying for a service and unless I'm mistaken Radio 2 is not silent between 6.00 and 7.30 when Ms Kennedy is indisposed. You're getting what you paid for.
We have sound coming out of the speakers so that's the extent of the Beeb's responsibilty ?
Jellies0 if you are going to quote me at least get the context correct - don't misquote me please.
I have never at any point in this thread said that we don't have a right to complain. Read my last post and you will see that I specifically state that we have the right to complain.
If she is performing badly, we are entitled to complain. The reason for her poor performance or absences? Well, we don't have any entitlement to that information.
When I said "You don't. You have the right to watch and listen to TV and radio programmes. End of story." I was replying to myscimitar saying that paying the licence fee means he has the right to know what is wrong with Ms Kennedy.
I've never read such a load of nonesense.. obviously written by some imagining what the want the law to say, rather than what it actually says.. And anyone who disagrees is berated?
"The Freedom of Information (FOI) Act
The FOI gives you the right to ask any public body for all the information they have on any subject you choose. Also, unless there’s a good reason, the organisation must provide the information within a month. You can also ask for all the personal information they hold on you."
You can't argue with that because it is the law.. though on recent form, what difference will that make to some on here?
I've never read such a load of nonesense.. obviously written by some imagining what the want the law to say, rather than what it actually says.. And anyone who disagrees is berated?
"The Freedom of Information (FOI) Act
The FOI gives you the right to ask any public body for all the information they have on any subject you choose. Also, unless there’s a good reason, the organisation must provide the information within a month. You can also ask for all the personal information they hold on you."
You can't argue with that because it is the law.. though on recent form, what difference will that make to some on here?
Why have you got the knives out for Sarah Kennedy? You're like a man (or woman) possessed. Please explain.
I've never read such a load of nonesense.. obviously written by some imagining what the want the law to say, rather than what it actually says.. And anyone who disagrees is berated?
"The Freedom of Information (FOI) Act
The FOI gives you the right to ask any public body for all the information they have on any subject you choose. Also, unless there’s a good reason, the organisation must provide the information within a month. You can also ask for all the personal information they hold on you."
You can't argue with that because it is the law.. though on recent form, what difference will that make to some on here?
My neice was doing her A Levels last year and her chemistry teacher had 5 periods of absence due to sickness during the year. She had 5 different sub teachers who knew nothing about chemistry. Can my sister ask the education board for the reason for the teachers absence?
I would doubt it very very much and the education board is a public body just like the BBC.
A persons health either public or private employee is confidential.
Jellies0 if you are going to quote me at least get the context correct - don't misquote me please.
I have never at any point in this thread said that we don't have a right to complain. Read my last post and you will see that I specifically state that we have the right to complain.
When I said "You don't. You have the right to watch and listen to TV and radio programmes. End of story." I was replying to myscimitar saying that paying the licence fee means he has the right to know what is wrong with Ms Kennedy.
Not sure why AndyJk has quoted me - I have only given my opinion that Ms Kennedy's health status is none of our business.
If nobody likes to listen to SK why get uptight and bitter they are other stations i listen to but if one presenter comes on i don't like i switch the radio off or re-tune to another station.
people must have sad lifes if SK on Radio 2 annoys them get a life or another radio station instead of moaning about her lifes to short!
Comments
mark (occy) is another one around here who thinks every thought needs to be imparted......and presented as fact!!
Your statement is totally outrageous. Most of us in both the public and private sector are expected to perform our duties to a certain standard and are usually monitored to ensure that we do. If there are complaints from customers or service users then something is usually done to try and rectify the matter.
Why should the BBC with it's income derived from compulsory taxation be any different Sidekick ?
The BBC seems to regard itself as exempt from the need to comply with quality standards.
Youve hit the nail on the head.
Sadly with message boards such as this one especially because of its popularity you have all these people, most of whom probably dont even listen to Sarah's show, coming on here and saying she's this, done that, should be replaced with so and so etc etc. They do it because
a> these people want to make such a fuss in the hope of influencing the high brass at radio 2 with their decision making
b> it gives them a feeling of haughty self-importance and righteousness.
c> it gives them an opportunity to argue with other people who disagree with them filling up their boring day.
PLEEEZZE God let this be true !!
you really dont have to!!
Oh the irony.
I'd actually be a lot happier with SK if she did respect the music more. I listen to BBC 2 first and foremost for the music and like others was disappointed that Helen Shapiro got cut off after the first line due to poor time keeping. I think if SK could just get it together with the timing, not talk over the music as much as she does (mind you she seems to be improving of late so am quite happy) and get the artists right...I'd be ecstatic. I still prefer her to Chris Evans so am in two minds about how I'd feel when Terry leaves. I just don't think she does herself many favours with the way she treats the music.
It's not exactly a huge ask so am disappointed that after all these years she hasn't improved on that front.
Oh I sure I be back I here bubonic plague is making a come back..bye 4 now
I believe that if I am charged a fee for a service being available to me, whether I use that service or not and simply by dint of the fact that I use a TV for any channel but the BBC, then I am paying a tax..
That said, I believe taxpayers have rights and these should include total transparancy under Freedom of Information Act. I would think it reasonable that my rights would extend to knowing what all BBC "Talent" are paid (a move already underway I understand) and also the right to constructively criticise without being accused of heracy and burnt at the stake, so to speak. Seems to happen a lot on here..
I also think it is about time the powers that be at the Beeb discontinued their obsession with using TV presenters on R2. IMO, they have neither the skill nor the face for radio..
Would that extend to the various bits of "constructive criticism" levelled at SK in this thread. Who's burning who at the stake now?
I very much doubt that the Freedom of Information Act would enable you to acquire deeply personal information about a radio presenter - and I'm not talking about their salary here.
And do you have any idea of how much of your taxpayers money is spent on dealing with FOI requests by public bodies each year? Quite possibly enough to pay someone like... Sarah Kennedy!
It really annoys me when people present their opinion, rumour or speculation as fact. Chinese whispers!
Sarah Kennedy's private life is none of your business! How would you feel if Sarah Kennedy, or any other "taxpayer" delved into your private life?
Read the papers. The Times, amongst others, reported in August that the BBC, in addition to the already reported remuneration paid to its top executives, would soon also have to publish the salaries they pay to their "Talent".. Like it or not, it is going to happen my friend..
And quite right too.. though, thinking about it, there might be a loophole for SK if it only applies to talent..
Ah well, time for bed and a good night's sleep.. Nighty-night
Why the constantat attacks on Sarah Kennedy? Have you nothing else better to do?
VickyBit, under the FOI I want to know your personal details i.e. name, sex, date of birth, annual salary, your occupation, your bank account details etc.
Perhaps I could take advantage of a loophole too?
Calm down !
My statement is not "totally outrageous", it's not even outrageous. Whether Ms Kennedy or anyone else for that matter is not performing their duties to a certain standard is an issue for the employer. Can people suffering poor service complain? Absolutely. That however wasn't the point I was making and if you had contained your outrage a bit you might have realised it.
My point was that we have no right to know anything about the personal health issues of Ms Kennedy. My reply to myscimitar's post was in response to his assertion that as licence payers we have the right to know what is wrong with her.
We don't. It's none of our business.
If she is performing badly, we are entitled to complain. The reason for her poor performance or absences? Well, we don't have any entitlement to that information.
I would say that there is a lot of constructive criticism of Sarah Kennedy in this forum. The suggestion that someone in her position should be reasonably skilled at backtiming, should giver the correct title and performer for each disc and should recognise the fact that people want to listen to the music without interruptions in the middle of the track for example.
Of course the nature of any serious health problem is none of our business. The fact that she does not carry out her duties to anything like a generally recognised good standard certainly is.
Oh give over. Jonathan Ross is paid an £18 million salary which is far more reason for tax payers to complain about than what ever poor Sarah Kennedy says or does on the radio and who I imagine earns a fraction of Ross's wages. Get your priorities right.
Kennedy's style is suited to Radio 2 which is why she has a large audeience and been in her current slot for over 15 years. She hasnt changed and her views are well known, so stop listening and find another station. It will be better for your health.
Ahem ! :rolleyes:
We have a right to listen but not to complain at the poor standard of same ?
We have sound coming out of the speakers so that's the extent of the Beeb's responsibilty ?
I have never at any point in this thread said that we don't have a right to complain. Read my last post and you will see that I specifically state that we have the right to complain.
When I said "You don't. You have the right to watch and listen to TV and radio programmes. End of story." I was replying to myscimitar saying that paying the licence fee means he has the right to know what is wrong with Ms Kennedy.
Not sure why AndyJk has quoted me - I have only given my opinion that Ms Kennedy's health status is none of our business.
Please read comments before you misquote.
See.. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Yourrightsandresponsibilities/DG_4003239 from the Gov't's own website and I quote..
"The Freedom of Information (FOI) Act
The FOI gives you the right to ask any public body for all the information they have on any subject you choose. Also, unless there’s a good reason, the organisation must provide the information within a month. You can also ask for all the personal information they hold on you."
You can't argue with that because it is the law.. though on recent form, what difference will that make to some on here?
Why have you got the knives out for Sarah Kennedy? You're like a man (or woman) possessed. Please explain.
My neice was doing her A Levels last year and her chemistry teacher had 5 periods of absence due to sickness during the year. She had 5 different sub teachers who knew nothing about chemistry. Can my sister ask the education board for the reason for the teachers absence?
I would doubt it very very much and the education board is a public body just like the BBC.
A persons health either public or private employee is confidential.
Sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick.
people must have sad lifes if SK on Radio 2 annoys them get a life or another radio station instead of moaning about her lifes to short!