R3 - an online petition

[french frank]

I've just been notified of an e-petition, addressed to Roger Wright which has been launched. This is neither a forum, nor a FoR3, initiative, but simply a group of friends unknown (to us).

If you want to take a look, and sign if you approve, it's here: http://www.petitiononline.co.uk/peti...-turn-off/4186

My meeting with RW was under the auspices of FoR3, so I'll be reporting what there is to report first in a newsletter to them, though I'll say a bit or two about it here in a day or two. There are some very, very tiny doors open but not much will be able to get in and out; and they may be closed again any way

FoR3's policy has always been to talk with the BBC and it's my conviction that we should continue to do that, as always, in a civil and friendly way. That's the reason why I keep insisting that the forum and FoR3 are separate: as individual listeners you are free to say (more or less) what you like here. But it doesn't help us if we're perceived as being part of any personal invective towards BBC staff.

Meanwhile, the petition is here.

[Anna]

But, looking at it, you have to sign using either Facebook, Google or Twitter (none of which I have nor ever intend to have.) None of the online petitions about various things I have signed need anything more than a valid email address. Personally, having regard to this, I wouldn't sign as it involves creating an account with aforesaid, and also I would like to know who has instigated the petition. I would, of course, sign a FoR3 petition with no hesitation!

[french frank]

Oh, dear. I haven't any of those accounts either (or do I have Google?).

The initiator is the first signatory and I now have full details of the name, address, post code, email address (of course) and a website. All fine as far as I'm concerned. We'll see if we can get round the account difficulty.

[Norfolk Born]

I've signed it (I don't 'DO' social networking, but I do use gmail).

[BBMmk2]

When it said about viewing my email address etc, I am not sure about this?

[Anna]

Oh, dear. I haven't any of those accounts either (or do I have Google?).

The initiator is the first signatory and I now have full details of the name, address, post code, email address (of course) and a website. All fine as far as I'm concerned. We'll see if we can get round the account difficulty.

Well, the first signatory seems to be JudeJ (who he?) and other signatories seem to have avatar type names like domdom. If you cannot put your real name and email address to a petition, to me, it becomes invalid, we can all create a 1000+ false Facebook or Google accounts. However, I will await further deliberations from you!

[Eric]

Petition does not need social networking.

All it needs is an email address (that works).

Eric

[Anna]

Petition does not need social networking.
All it needs is an email address (that works).Eric

well then the petition is flawed is it not by saying you have to have Facebook, Google or Twitter when you can in fact sign with an ordinary, say a Virgin or BT email address? Whoever set it up - that's a major mistake. Edit: And looking at signatories, most say 'unverified' so what does that mean?

[Richard Tarleton]

What do we know about the petition site? It seems, judging by the banner at the top advertising all sorts of strange things, to be a commercial site of some sort. I don't think I'll be signing.

[Osborn]

FoR3's policy has always been to talk with the BBC and it's my conviction that we should continue to do that, as always, in a civil and friendly way. That's the reason why I keep insisting that the forum and FoR3 are separate: as individual listeners you are free to say (more or less) what you like here. But it doesn't help us if we're perceived as being part of any personal invective towards BBC staff.

I totally agree with that.

I think the petition is rubbish - it seems to have been copied from the moaners here - though in fairness our moaners have always identified early morning programming as the problem. If you 'sign' the petition you are telling Roger Wright that whatever day it is, whatever time it is, R3 is 'an entertainment station' and is 'relentlessly upbeat'. That's ridiculous and he'll laugh so much that he'll drop his digestive in his coffee. I don't think anyone here should sign it as it stands.

[DracoM]

Concerned about [a] security and [b] who gets hold of personal info so posted.
Sorry. not signing.

[Lateralthinking1]

french frank - Your latest initiative and ongoing hard work are to be applauded. What worries me slightly is the phrase "personal invective". I am a sensitive sort but could generally see the difference between criticism of me and my work. It sounds like the armour of those who believe that an offensive should never be questioned. As for the petition, I tend to agree with Anna.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i will not sign any petitions nor back any discussions with the present leadership of the bbc and r3 in particular .... they are not open to influence and have their minds made up about what they are doing

we should complain in public forums so that their replacement will be facilitated and a different context for appointment established .... the time begins again with Thompson's replacement

in the meantime a positive statement of what listeners want from r3 in terms of content style etc should be lodged in public settings and with the Trust ...

[french frank]

What worries me slightly is the phrase "personal invective". I am a sensitive sort but could generally see the difference between criticism of me and my work. It sounds like the armour of those who believe that an offensive should never be questioned.

Not quite sure what you want to say here, Lat.

The forum was one of the things I discussed with Roger. Overall he expressed his approval, particularly with the way we (i.e. Hosts) post up the details of forthcoming programmes, and encourage people to listen and discuss them. He recognised that we (me) can't be responsible for what people say on a public forum. That includes what they say about BBC staff. And my own view is that it isn't acceptable to welcome (fulsome) praise but complain about nasty personal attacks. If you're in the public eye/ear you have to put up with the comments (dammit! I have to ). But I prefer to abstain from personal criticism.

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes, I find myself agreeing with you and Calum, although your posts sound different from each other. With all due respect to Roger Wright, I think I (just) prefer dialogue to approval (even in my weaker moments). Alyn Shipton and Mary Ann Kennedy are particularly good at providing programmes that are enjoyed. This might just be because they make the effort to keep in touch with their respective audiences and potential ones. I would like to assure Roger and his team that the next sentence is about something more substantial than the overtly personal. I am still very much hoping for a reply to this e-mail of mine dated 1 September 2011:

Dear Roger Wright, I am writing to formally complain about the change to the Radio 3 schedule which places Jazz Library in a single slot at midnight and reduces the number of monthly programmes to two. Alyn Shipton has provided very loyal service both to the BBC and to listeners. He is one of the few presenters who makes a special effort to consider and respond to feedback. He deserves better treatment.

Furthermore, as someone who is attempting to learn more about jazz music - one of the comparatively recent recruits Radio 3 claims to welcome - it is Jazz Library that I turn to for education. Of the programmes on jazz, I find it the most informative and accessible. I also understand that this change is a reversal of the policy that you yourself introduced. That seems peculiar.

Additionally, the move of World Routes to Sunday night raises alarm bells. To my mind, it is the flagship world music programme on Radio 3 and the one that most closely fits with the remit. While I can live with this change, I very much hope that it doesn't signify the beginning of a trend to draw back on your world music commitments. Any future, more severe, changes to world music programmes would be met with fierce opposition. Kind regards, LT1