Food fury rocks BBC as mystery thief steals staff members’ lunches

Louise Minchin gatecrashes BBC Breakfast interview

We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More info

Broadcasters and journalists have fallen victim to a thief who has raided shared fridges at the broadcaster’s offices. Staff members report homemade curries, ready meals and sandwiches going missing.

Portions of deserts, yoghurt and honey have even been pilfered by the mystery thief.

Security at the BBC have been alerted, but MailOnline reports that so far only warning notes have been put up urging people not to take other people’s food.

Producer Barbara George said she had a Thai green curry with prawns taken with her emptied lunchbox returned to the fridge.

She was so aggrieved that she left a note in the fridge which read: “Thank you for eating my lunch. I hope you enjoyed it. The green Thai curry, prawns and rice were all homemade!”

Ms George wrote on Twitter: “Someone has full on taken my work lunch in the BBC fridge – eaten it and has put the empty lunchbox back in the fridge in another bag. Hope your day is better than mine – I left a note for them too.”

She went on to say she had to get chips from the canteen, which were “not on the same level”.

The report prompted colleagues to come forward with their own stories, including senior news journalist Annie Green who said she was targeted at least five times.

Ms Green added that BBC security told her they would put notes on the fridges.


Broadcast journalist Robert Townsend said he witnessed someone eating his yoghurt right in front of him.

He said: “Someone once opened that fridge in front of me and ate my very own yogurt in front of my very eyes.”

Yasmin Khatun Dewan said: “Someone took my cafetière and honey from the cupboard.”

News of the alleged thefts comes as a new report said the BBC’s economics reporting does not lean conclusively towards the left or right politically, but can be influenced by groupthink and hype.

An analysis of the corporation’s coverage, which its authors said also largely applies to the rest of the UK media, found “too many journalists lack understanding of basic economics or lack confidence reporting it”. It highlighted public debt as one of the areas most affected.

‘Highly dangerous’ woman jailed after sexually assaulting young girl [REPORT]
Prince Harry ‘wants to win’ in coronation negotiations [LATEST]
Prince Harry dubbed Meghan’s ‘third child’ as experts poke fun at Duke [OPINION]

It revealed the BBC’s economic coverage at times shows bias towards both the left and the right, making “a charge of systematic political bias in this area hard to sustain”.

The review said “the main issue is lack of impartiality caused by uninformed groupthink and lack of confidence to challenge arguments, often given an extra twist by hype”.

It said some journalists “feel instinctively” that debt is bad and do not realise this is a contestable position.

And it questioned the influence of politics on the corporation’s reporting, with what is said in Westminster often meaning economic issues are reported on by political journalists.

The report said: “‘The Westminster frame on things is the elephant in the room here,’ said one senior journalist, who argued that the political angle of the day often determines coverage whether the specialist judges it significant or not.”

One person outside the BBC told the authors political editors are asked to understand economics, trade, law, and political negotiations as well as the ins and outs of daily politics, “and nobody can do that”.

Reporting often also “subcontract(s) judgment” to “a few established names” like the Bank of England, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation, the report said.

It added: “On fiscal policy, as with other policies, BBC journalists should beware saying or implying that a government ‘must’ raise taxes, cut debt, cut spending, raise spending, etc – in any area.

“These are choices. To imply a ‘must’ might sound to the journalist like a statement of economic necessity, but it’s often to side with one political choice over others.

“This is not impartial. Governments often claim their choices are acts of necessity; this does not make them so.”

The report was written by Michael Blastland and Sir Andrew Dilnot, who created BBC Radio 4’s More Or Less programme, and touched on many aspects of the BBC’s economics reporting.

It warned against headlines which say a measure of the economy has reached the highest or lowest on record when the records sometimes only go back 20 years or less. It also argued for the BBC to be clearer about uncertainty in economics, and trade-offs between different types of public spending.

It highlighted that the corporation can sometimes seem to suggest that spending by the Government is good and that tax cuts are also good.

The report found: “Several general assumptions seem to lurk like this, either unnoticed or uncorrected.

“Others that outsiders observed in BBC coverage were ‘more public spending is good’ and ‘tax cuts are good’. Whilst these views might seem to make intuitive sense, all favour some interests above others.”

The wide-ranging review also asked why so much coverage of tax puts more focus on income tax than VAT, when in many areas of the country people pay more VAT than they pay income tax.

It also questioned why spending on railways appears to be more favoured in coverage than spending on buses, which is the only transport option for many, especially those on lower incomes.

In response, the BBC board said: “We note that the reviewers found widespread appreciation for BBC coverage of tax, public spending, debt and borrowing, and they conclude that they did not find evidence of political bias in this output.

“However, they also concluded that significant interests and perspectives in these areas could be better served by BBC output and the review as a whole provides clear indications for how we can improve editorial standards and audience impact as a result.”

Source: Read Full Article