Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> ____/ Mark Kent on Thursday 17 January 2008 17:26 : \____
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> ____/ Kier on Thursday 17 January 2008 09:50 : \____
>>>
>>>>> There's always some odd one who is prepared to defend OJ Simpson. After
>>>>> all, he's a good football player, right? What's not to like?
>>>>
>>>> Where did OJ Simpson enter into this?
>>>>
>>>> You have to *prove* accusation of this magnitude, Roy, and you haven't.
>>>>
>>>> And I am not a troll, any more than Tom Shelton is.
>>>
>>> I never thought you were (nor him).
>>>
>>
>> Indeed you didn't say that. As Kier claims to have no connection with
>> the BBC, therefore, no inside track, and as the BBC's DG to parliament,
>> the Telegraph, the Register and the Inquirer have all run articles
>> supporting the position of serious corruption at the BBC directly
>> related to this, and Private Eye has run articles confirming vast
>> wastage of resources, I rather think that the oness is on Kier and the
>> BBC to demonstrate that:
>>
>> 1. Paying £120 million for Silverlight/iPlayer with < 400,000 users was
>> not a criminal waste of taxpayer money.
>>
>> and:
>>
>> 2. The BBC's DG should provide a watertight reason for not knowing the
>> costs of the Silverlight/iPlayer other than "more than £20 millions"
>> when answering questions in parliament.
>>
>> 3. The BBC's ex-Microsoft staff should demonstrate why there was never a
>> tender for the vast sums of money being spent - this is a requiremnet by
>> EU law, and even if the figure is closer to £20 million than £100
>> million, the law has clearly been broken.
>>
>> 4. The BBC should explain why it refused to comply with the requests
>> from the OSC's representatives for multi-platform players *unless* the
>> EU forced it to.
>>
>> 5. The BBC should explain why the adobe-flash version of iPlayer was
>> developed and deployed in a few weeks, at negligible cost, and has
>> already got a much greater user-base.
>>
>> 6. The BBC should explain why it was launching a P2P system with no
>> means for customers to control the actions of their PCs, possibly
>> resulting in ISPs needing to take significant action.
>>
>> 7. The BBC should explain why its news department had *no coverage at
>> all* of the protests regarding its Silverlight/iPlayer.
>>
>> 8. The BBC should explain how it will seek recovery of the money spent
>> with Microsoft.
>
> As the Register pointed out, the DG also lied to the Parliament when he said
> that the Flash option has always been part of the plan. It wasn't!!
>
Ah, quite right! That means we should have a question 9, to cover that,
too. Something like:
9. The BBC should explain why it is now claimed that the flash version
of iPlayer was not initially part of the plan, and yet MPs were told
otherwise by the DG.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
