No entry to Britain: Is the Conservative immigration plan as simple as they say?
Lib Dem plan to help new mothers
Tories accused of ‘desperation’
The Tory stories all have negative headlines. But the headline that concerns the LibDems is presented as an offer to help. Those lovely LibDems. All they want is to be allowed to spread happiness. The story reads like a LibDems’ press release – the only criticism comes right at the end, and that from a Tory, Theresa May.
Ever noticed how the BBC often get Tories to do the negative stuff? That has two effects – it reinforces the image of the Tories as the dour, negative party, and it creates the impression that it’s only the Tories, and not any serious economists or analysts, who are against the proposal in question.
I have noticed this for a while. The
high spending policies get high praise, whereas the Tory policies of’saving money’get slated. This is strange, even though Labours money injections have been spent on mainly beaurocrats and regulations, the BBC still fails to see that spending lots does not equal good public services.
OFF TOPIC
Did anyone catch BBC Chairman Grade’s speech on the state of the BBC?
Better yet, check out the Telegraph’s take on it.
Grade’s speech here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/grade_cudlipp.shtml
Telegraph here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/25/nbbc25.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/01/25/ixhome.html
“The BBC chairman, Michael Grade, vented his frustration with BBC1 news last night, effectively acknowledging that it had “dumbed down” in a misguided attempt to improve ratings.”
My take here:
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/bbc-chairman-attacks-news-output.html
Small OT question Alistair: what exactly does “slated” mean in UK parlance? In the US it would mean something like “scheduled,” i.e. a usage which came from something being written down on an old-fashioned slate board for action or discussion.
In the UK it also means “scheduled,” Susan but in this case means “damned” or “derided”.
Heard the one about Charles Kennedy getting a hard time on the Today programme?
No, neither have I.
The BBC has Ragee Omah back reporting in Iraq. Currently saying that doctors all over Iraq are being threatened.
Wasn’t he discredited enough last time ? Little creep !
The Beeb is firing up the old violins again for the poor, persecuted “British” Gitmo releasees:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4203803.stm
Andrew, thanks. We don’t use that word in the same way. “Torpedoed” would be our equivalent, maybe, or perhaps “slammed.”
Perhaps Tory policies are all portrayed negativly because they are the party of negativity.
Well Gareth I think that is a fundamental problem. People are so taken in by the spin that they start to believe it.
I can’t say I have strong feelings for or against, but remembr once being told that the difference betyween Tory & Labour was that Tories tried to raise people to the highest common factor, whereas Labour tried to reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator.
Looking back on the past 7 years I can only concur with that analysis.
Hey Gareth
And perhaps the BBC portrays negatively anyone who doesn’t fit in with its EU-loving, UN-grovelling, Institionally Leftist worldview. The one that sees child murdering terrorists as “militants”, Jews as “guilty of being Jewish”, the US as being guilty of everything, and the rest of us as being suckers for having to pay for their crap.
But that’s only a guess. Who knows?
OT:
Gorse: “Tories tried to raise people to the highest common factor, whereas Labour tried to reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator.”
Firstly: Screw the BBC – I had to get that in. Unfortunately, arithmetically speaking, the the HCF [also known as the greatest common divisor (GCD)] is less than or equal to the LCD. But we know what was intended.
Pedant Appendix: That “lowest common denominator” metaphor is mathematically illiterate. The LCD of two numbers is at least as great as either one of them. Although it arises in the context of fractions (rationals), the LCD itself is a whole number (integer). E.g. 1/6 + 1/8 = 7/24, with 24 being the LCD. And it’s much bigger than 6 or 8. So the metaphor gets it arse over tit. Oh yes, screw the BBC.
P.S. Screw the BBC
Of course stories on the tories have negative headlines. We all know in the world of the Beeb the middle ground is far to the left of any tory party policy on any issue and therefore one has to put the tories on the defensive or have them accused of something.
Bear in mind the journalist who wrote the first article is Dominic Casciani who was reponsible for a series of articles on the BBC website called “Debunking asylum myths”. In which he went to a pro immigration group and published their criticisms of Migrationwatch UK without giving Mifrationwatch a chance to reply.
He also jumped at the chance to break a big story on the lack of staff in Britain’s curry houses as a reason for immigration. In fact the real story broke a couple of days later when none other than Migrationwatch UK revealed there was no reason for thousands of Bangladeshi immigrants when there were already thousands of unemployed Bangladeshis in London thus debunking his story.
OT May I say that I absolutely loved John Archer’s analysis and demolition of the cliché “Lowest Common Denominator”. Of course, he is perfectly right. I think the expression just started as a jokey play on words, the reference being to policies (or, say, TV programmes) which, when they are designed to appeal to everybody to some extent, can only appeal, it is thought, to some fairly “low” interest all have in common. But when you’re looking at what we all have in common (and thinking “If I go higher, I’ll lose some people”) you are in fact, correctly speaking, considering the “highest common factor” (the HCF is always relatively low). But this can’t be used for the joke, as it contains the word “highest”, which has a “good connotation” rather than a “bad connotation”, which is what is intended. Hence the mathematical illiteracy of the image.
OT: Thank you Denis. I fully agree with your amplification. It’s the connotations what dunnit. How easily people fall for form over content. (Just right for use by the BBC, then.) But there’s really no excuse – it’s primary school stuff, pre eleven-plus level in my day. Oh, I nearly forgot: Screw the BBC. I do hope you agree. 🙂
P.S. You know…
This is OT, but I know some people here were interested in the outcome of the murders of the Copt family in New Jersey by suspected Islamists. It appears that the authorities are being leaned on to softpedal the religious hatred aspect of the killings:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004795.php#comments
OT
The BBC downplays the significance of the recent rebuttal of Howard’s asylum policy initiative by Brussels like this:
“But the UN refugees agency is worried the policy sends the wrong message to poorer countries which receive the bulk of refugees.
And a spokesman for European Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner Franco Frattini said the plans would contravene EU asylum policy, which meant the UK could not simply refuse to hear an asylum case.
Refugee Council Chief Executive Maeve Sherlock called the plans “dangerous, ill thought-out and hugely irresponsible”.Lives could be put at risk if refugees were turned away once the quotas were filled, she warned. ”
The EU case is largely reported as just another opinion by another interest group, when in fact it is of far more significance. If you didn’t know anything much about it and just skim read the piece you could easily miss the implications. Meanwhile the piece by Straw on the benefits of the EU constitution
Francis
You are wrong to say there are thousands of unemployed Bangladeshis. In London there are TENS of thousands of unemployed Bangladeshis.
O/T perhaps but this morning Radio 5 Live have been doing their own poll of listeners to see if they approve of the EU Constitution.
It may or may not surprise you to know that the last figure I heard before turning off was 67% in favour and 33% against which I thought was almost the reverse of the public wide polls and therefore tells me much more about the BBC and the market it panders to than it does about the public at large.
OFF TOPIC
Quite an interesting opinion piece from the Times, on the BBC entitled ‘Starting The Day With A Sneer’.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1058-1456278,00.html
Anonymous – they got it the wrong way round! There was obvious shock in the voice of Victoria Derbyshire when she announced a few minutes ago that it was actually 67% against!
Notice they immediately went into defence mode – the poll was unscientific etc. Also they wheeled out a correspondent who tried to explain it away, partly by implying that those who vote against are somehow strange.
PS. I of course texted in “no”.
Lee – The BBC should take note – it has now been explicitly criticised on a number of occasions for bias in 2 broadsheets (Times and Telegraph).
The two right-wing broadsheets criticise the Beeb for not being right-wing? Colour me shocked.
john b
The Times is not a right wing broadsheet.
It is the lack of balance that is being highlighted by the papers, not calls for “right wing” viewpoints.
Reminds me of the times the Indy and Guadian criticized the Beeb for not being left-wing.
Oh, wait…
Hello John b
I think if you agree with the BBC, you do not think it is biased. If you disagree with it, you obviously think it is biased. It is a strange coincidence (?) that the right of centre newspapers think that the BBC is biased and the left-of-centre publications think that it needs protecting. For example, Polly Toynbee (of the Guardian) said that all people who ‘loved’ the BBC needed to ‘stand up’ for it and here is another one of her articles:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/jubilee/story/0,11550,728916,00.html
You can tell it is by Polly, because there are the inevitable corrections at the bottom.
On this theme, you might find this article from The Economist relatively interesting.
‘When the BBC’s Greg Dyke talks about truth, you should smell a rat’
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1748630
Unfortunately, I think it requires subscription
“GREG DYKE, head of the BBC, declares himself “shocked” by the American news networks’ coverage of the Iraq war. He contrasted the “gung-ho patriotism” and “narrow, pro-American agenda” of American TV news with what he described as “the drive for accurate and impartial reporting” which is “in the DNA” of the BBC. In a speech liberally sprinkled with self-congratulatory references to the corporation’s “impartiality”, “balance” and “independence”, Mr Dyke presented the BBC as a rock of objectivity in a commercial, Americanised sea of uncritical jingoism. ..
Which prompts a cynical thought: might Mr Dyke’s concern with truth owe quite a lot to economics? Thanks partly to the rise of Fox’s sister station, Sky
Contd…
Thanks partly to the rise of Fox’s sister station, Sky News, British TV news is more competitive than it was when the mighty BBC towered over everybody else. But it is also far more regulated than American TV news. Mr Dyke fears that, with a bill that would open Britain’s top commercial TV station to American ownership currently before Parliament, British news will “become Americanised”.
In short, it may have been business strategy as much as shock that inspired Mr Dyke’s attack on American TV news. The man who embodies the world’s best known public-service corporation may simply have been making a sales pitch for the American market. He may also have been making another self-serving case, addressing a British constituency that must decide whether in 2006 to renew the charter giving the BBC its generous licence fee (a tax on having a TV set). Britons—or, at least, politically influential ones—may be more sympathetic to the idea of lavishing public money on an institut
may be more sympathetic to the idea of lavishing public money on an institution if it is seen as a bulwark against the ghastly Americanisation of the British airwaves.”
Nail.Head.Hit?
Apologies for bad editing
john b
Good fella, always ready to supply a laugh. His site supplies plenty of’em. As he mentioned this place I’ll go right ahead and mention his. A post from 34/01/2005 titled ‘I hate my countrymen’ caught my eye. It’s about the Tories’ plan to limit immigration. Soory, it’s actually about ‘anti-immigrant bigotry’. Shocked, I tell you, I’m shocked! Jeez it gets worse. Apparently any Brits agreeing with the proposals are ‘dumbasses who believe any old bollocks they read in the press’ or they’re … drum roll … Nazi bigots! Noooo say it ain’t so. That explains the constant thud of jackboots up and down my street these last few years. I know self-awareness isn’t a quality widely in evidence on the left, but this from someone who’s blog is named after Stalin! Keep’em coming, john b, we’re rolling in the aisles.
“”GREG DYKE, head of the BBC, declares himself “shocked” by the American news networks’ coverage of the Iraq war. He contrasted the “gung-ho patriotism” and “narrow, pro-American agenda” of American TV news”
I’d like to know what channel he’s been watching. The Mainstream American Media is very anit-war and not only desperate to see the war in Iraq fail but ready to do whatever they have to help it along.
The ignominous retreat from Vietnam and abandonment of its people to the tender mercies of the northern communists was the American Left’s proudest moment and they are eager to repeat the experience.
The fact that this time retreat will invite further attacks on our own soil doesn’t bother them in the least. They like to see Americans suffer – according to them we deserve it.
I’ve never seen a “right-winger” show up here and defend the Beeb. It’s always lefties — usually extreme lefties.
Kind of telling evidence of the Beeb’s bias, don’t you think?
Pete_London: Re John B’s ‘I hate my countrymen’
Given his sympathies, and the focus of his hate, John B clearly excludes immigrants (darling muslims, especially, no doubt) and their issue from his class of ‘countrymen’. Well, at least we can agree on that.
Now if he’d written ‘my so-called fellow countrymen’ I’d have been strongly tempted to sympathise, to say the least. But as it stands he and his chums are to the rest of us as gangrene is to the body.
By the way, and I know others have alluded to this, the BBC goes out of its way to assimilate all and sundry under ‘British’ and ‘Briton’ – as in Guantanamo-Bay ‘Britons’, for God’s sake. So I wonder how long it will be before ‘Englishman’ is (ab)used in the same way. How, then, will we refer to ourselves? But that’s the idea, isn’t it?
Meanwhile, the distinction between legally British and ethnically (truly) British is one they love to fudge. The game here is to gull the unwitting into equating the tw
Cont’d…
Meanwhile, the distinction between legally British and ethnically (truly) British is one they love to fudge. The game here is to gull the unwitting into equating the two. I know from experience that even some intelligent people can be flummoxed on this point – they are certainly aware of the distinction but only at a kind of semi-conscious level, and it’s easy for them to fall for the rhetorical trick, in public anyway. Another triumph here for form over content. I’ve heard discussions of ‘British’ on the BBC where it seems that the idea of a word having more than one meaning is completely alien. Now, there’s a word.
Oh yes, what is the cure for gangrene?
Screw the BBC.
ive put the EU constitution text vote ‘incident’ here, as a testament to bbc bias.
[audio src="http://upload4free.com/files/1810.mp3" /]
right-on derbyshire must have assumed that the whole of britain is pro-europe, since everyone she works with and interviewsis. The shock in her voice when she realises the truth reveals a corporation entrenched in left-wing bias from theteaboy to the channel controllers.
I’m listening live to Radio 4’s news program ‘PM’ and two issues have caught my ear. The first is that there is an initiative to protect young British women from forced marriages. The second is that foreign terrorist suspects shall no longer be held in jail without trial but shall be subject to house arrest with restrictions to internet access and visitors – this shall also apply to British subjects. On this issue, the presenter (Carolyn Quinn – is there something about the name Carolyn which impedes impartiality?) asked whether animal rights activists or Irish suspects would be interned in their own homes, and also whether a suspect under house arrest in a “community” would have an “incendiary effect” on those around them thus boosting recruitment of terrorists.
The BBC goes through Houdini’s contortions to avoid the use of the word ‘Muslim’ in a negative context and it renders their reports almost laughable – like reporting WW2 without mentioning ‘Nazis’. Strangely, I c
Strangely, I can’t picture Islam in a positive light.
Heavens, Allan! Next you’ll be telling us you don’t find goats attractive.
Hello Roxana
You must bear in mind that Greg Dyke is a retard, who was only able to sell 6,000 copies of his book. Which is quite pitifull. People were not as interested in what he had to say as he thought. He does keep appearing on the BBC though, was he not one of the BBCs people of the year.
Good job they are not insular?
I’m surprised you missed the Ragee Omah shocker on Tuesday on R4. During a completely impartial feature on how the Iraq elections felt to those in the less reported parts of the country, he interviewed a Doctor in a hospital ; someone who he had, apparently, known for four years. The Dr complained about how hard it was to send a patient suffering from cancer to Bagdad for treatment, saying ‘its just so expensive, and’, at this point Ragee Omah jumps in and says (demands) ‘dangerous!? Dangerous?’, to whit the Dr responds ‘ er yes Dangerous’. Not that the BBC prompt their independent interviewees, obviously.
JJSH
I felt that the whole purpose of Ragee Omah’s piece was to suggest that the Brit-administered southern parts of iraq were in chaos and that opinion there was sharply divided about whether to vote. All the information I have seen suggests that the voting turnout there will be pretty high – probably higher than in the US election, maybe at or above UK levels. But Omah’s piece had none of that sense. Amateur little creep !