Reporting Scotland’s cruel deception

40 of Care Home Relatives Scotland‘s 360 Facebook members gather to protest about their lack of access to care homes, to visit relatives.

Headlined all day today by BBC Scotland, these ‘campaigners‘ represent a tiny percentage of those affected.

There around 35 000 residents in care home in Scotland:

Click to access 2018-09-11-CHCensus-Report.pdf

Those 40, at most, protesting above, represent 0.1% of the number of residents. However, if we take into account all of those related to or friends of those 35 000, they may be as little at 0.01%.

Given that so few relatives and friends of the 35 000 are protesting, is this a matter for individual care home managers and not government, to sort out?

9 thoughts on “Reporting Scotland’s cruel deception

    1. I don’t know, I would sit them down in front of a film of an ICU, see what staff have to say about visitors to care homes right now, so these people can make a decision. A living relative with (sadly) no visitors, or a wee visit, and no relative to visit a couple of weeks later.
      Which scenario do they prefer?

      Liked by 1 person

    2. ArtyHetty
      From what was said on the news tonight the residents can have a 30min visit from a ‘constant’ family member once per week. They have to keep to social distancing etc and can’t have cups of tea while they are visiting. I can see that might seem a bit miserly but I would take what I could get and be grateful that whoever I was visiting was being protected and their safety taken seriously.

      I am quite sure that the members of that group would be the first to complain if Covid was running through the home(s) again.

      Liked by 2 people

  1. What would BBC Scotland do, without its daily parade of victims as “news”?

    It would then have to resort to journalism–you know, ask questions, investigate facts, corroborate evidence, be impartial, give perspective and context.

    And how could it be expected to do so, without actual journalists?
    What comes first? Intent or action?
    Lies, half truths and out right propaganda are so easy–easier than actually doing your job!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. From the perspective of those alleged churnalists employed at the Glasgow Outpost of the Evil Empire, they probably believe they are doing the job they’re expected to do. Either that or they’re holding their nose, burying whatever values and principles they might have had and taking the money in hope of making it onto the TV or radio. Especially given they’ve been on what amounts to a ‘war footing’ at Fort Pacific for the past six years. In such circumstances, maybe it’s just easier to ditch concepts like evidence, research and investigation and simply dae whit yer telt by the management.
      It’s hard to imagine a real journalist with any principles who value truth, objectivity and balance as being cornerstones of journalistic good practice simply accepting ‘guidance’ on what and how to report and simply towing the party line at the Outpost.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Indications of failure in the BBC’s editorial standards in news coverage are being exposed here on an almost daily basis. Any single example might be thought unintentional and/or trivial by BBC apologists but when for alert users of its output it becomes almost commonplace it needs to be called out as often and as widely as possible.

      Another example today can be found at BBC News online. This time it concerns the adherence or otherwise of the Tory Government with international law.

      According to Hansard, this is what was said in the HOC:

      Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): “….will he assure us that nothing that is proposed in this legislation does, or potentially might, breach international legal obligations or international legal arrangements that we have entered into? Will he specifically answer the other point: was any ministerial direction given?”

      Brandon Lewis, the Secretary of State for NI in direct reply said: “I would say to my hon. Friend that yes, this does break international law in a very specific and limited way. “

      But BBC News online gives the public a different view today:


      The BBC article states: ‘It comes amid an ongoing row over the UK government’s Internal Markets Bill, which Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis told MPs COULD “break international law” by overriding the withdrawal agreement signed with the EU.’ (My emphasis and note where the quotation starts.)

      And again in a photo caption within the same article: ‘Brandon Lewis has insisted that the Internal Markets Bill COULD break international law despite Lord Keen arguing it does not’.

      Is there not a world of difference between the use of ‘COULD BREAK’ – the BBC’s (wrongly) chosen term – and the use of ‘DOES BREAK’ – the Minister’s chosen term as recorded in Hansard? Is it too much to expect a BBC journalist or editor to understand the distinction and avoid misreporting?

      No doubt just a slip of the pen!

      Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.