The news that Iraq plans to significantly increase it’s oil production in the next year or so is being hailed by the BBC this evening as conclusive evidence that THIS is what motivated the US invasion. If only! The BBC are real truthers on this – incapable or unwilling of understanding that removing the Saddamite thugocracy was virtuous in itself! It is such an insult to all those brave servicemen and women – US and UK – who have made the ultimate sacrifice trying to give Iraqis a shot at democracy to put it all down to a lust for cheap oil. But since when did the BBC care about our military….
Did you see that the BBC’s specially commissioned poll to mark 60 years of the NHS has come up with the …ahem…. “surprising” revelation that the majority of people here in the UK want to see more State interference and greater State spending in the health service? You have to admire the BBC’s brassneck – using this anniversary to push for more Statism and enhanced taxation all to be poured down the gaping maw of the Stalinist NHS. Not much of a mention of the thousands that DIE each year in this vast filthy monolith. Like the BBC, the NHS is politically driven, overstaffed with bureaucrats removed from reality, and in need of demolition.
The liberal assumptions that govern the BBC’s output can be seen in the following two articles here and here.
In the first Robert Piggot begins his article on Anglicans and their splits:
“Word has got about that traditionalist Anglicans have something against gay people – and that is what is driving the Communion towards disintegration.
Of course some of them might not like homosexual people, but, as they never tire of pointing out, that is not what this historic rift is about.”
So, in an ironic sort of way, he concedes that there may be more to the Anglican conservatve position than pure bigotry- as they “never tire of saying”.
Matt Frei meanwhile is one of those whose inability to overcome his innate prejudices is almost comically obvious. America, he says while reporting the mourning for Tim Russert “likes a good yarn and here they still appreciate good journalists as master story tellers.”
This fondness for a good yarn (as opposed to the more adult and rigorous reality that Frei deals in) sets them apart from the rest of the world who are more firmly “weary of “the media”". All well and good, but did Frei ever ask himself just how it is that the only major media networks that have a modicum of independence are all Western? People in China, in Africa, in South America haven’t really had the time to become weary of the media. Having some to speak of might be a novelty in some cases.
. Oh no – not ANOTHER post on the BBC’s coverage of Mugabe! Yes, ‘fraid so. You see until I tuned in to the BBC this morning, I did not fully appreciate that the way for the Zimbabwean tyrant to be toppled from power is to force Waitrose from trading with some small family fishing and agricultural enterprises in Zimbabwe. Peter Hain, that model of financial propriety, was on Today this morning to explain that corporate Britain should be banned from having any trading links with Zimbabwe, regardless of the misery this would have on those denied the chance to export their produce. The BBC interviewer did not demur from Hain’s line of thinking, so absolving African nations from their responsibility to isolate the tyrant and instead putting corporate Britain in the frame.
Touching to read this report from the BBC in which Red Ken Livingstone praises Mr Broon, absolving him of any blame for his defeat at the hands of Boris Johnson. It really is a gushing little tribute to Brown from the odious Livingstone – all part of Operation Save Gordon which is now a central part of the daily BBC agenda at the moment. I laughed at the last line in this report where Livingstone shrills about Brown “there will be a record of delivery.” Quite right – Brown will deliver a Conservative government in 2010 and all this pathetic shilling from the State Broadcaster will do NOTHING to change that.
Is it just me or do you also detect that the BBC has been spinning madly wildly and deeply for Mr Brown in regard to his serial mutterings over Mugabe in Zimbabwe? Not a day goes by without some new headline on the BBC expressing the Great Leader’s “outrage” at just about everything the thug Mugabe is doing. Now don’t get me wrong, I would like to see Mugabe meet his maker right now -( in whatever way would facilitate such a meeting) – but I suspect there is a cynical hand at play here and even as Labour disintegrates in front of our eyes Brown gets fawning coverage on this issue from the BBC, He makes lot of noise about Zimbabwe whilst actually doing NOTHING of any substance. Why does the BBC not query why Labour has sat back over the past decade of Mugabe’s violence against his own people and done nothing? I suppose when it was just white farmers and their workers being ethnically cleansed and murdered there was little need for the BBC to stir from mute complacency?
Poor Wendy Alexander – her only crime was to act “in good faith”! Reading this article on the BBC one could be forgiven for thinking that Wendy had simply followed bad advice and was the victim of SNP intrigue! It’s fascinating to consider how the BBC treat Alexander’s financial incompetency and compare that how they treat a nine year old examination into Caroline Spelman’s financial affairs. It must break BBC hearts to have “Bring it On” Wendy forced to walk the plank due to her own crass stupidity and arrogance and I reckon that you can expect the BBC to now seek Spelman’s head as revenge.
! Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. This is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely.
. It’s my view that the BBC despises the Royal Family and never misses the chance to put the boot in. Take this headline “Royals ‘cost the taxpayer £40m’ . The report faithfully reports the pro-Republican mantra that the Her Majesty should be paid a salary and the Monarchy treated as if it were just another branch of government. Check out the headings given to each section within this item – more subtle propagandising against our Royal Family. Whilst I accept the imperfections of Monarchy, I sure as hell think it provides better value for the people of this country than the bloated BBC monolith which costs us £££billions.
Did you see QT last night? Wasn’t it a delight to have a cross-dresser in the shape of Grayson Perry on the panel – perhaps the only man/woman in Britain who wants to pay “10%” more tax if we believe what he says? I presume this was a blow for gender equality in the minds of those who put together this show? QT is increasingly a freak-show and should be viewed on that basis. This kind of dross dumbs down political debate – maybe that is the intent? And wasn ‘t Mr Dimbleby gentle on the financial expenses -challenged Ms Yvette Cooper?
Following on from Nick Robinson’s onslaught against the Conservative Party tonight, (see previous post) I now see that the offensive against Caroline Spelman led by the BBC continues. It alleges that some (un-named) Tory MPs are calling for Pparty chairman Caroline Spelman to be sacked, after further evidence emerged about her payments to her nanny. Mrs Spelman’s secretary complained in 1999 that the Meriden MP was using Parliamentary allowances in this way, BBC Two’s Newsnight has learned. Well, it MUST be true then. Hey, look like we’re gonna party like it’s 1999 again – with the BBC remorselessly pursuing Spelman for her decade old alleged sins whilst the likes of Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper, not to mention the blessed Wendy Alexander, get a sympathetic hearing for their totally understandable financial accounting misunderstandings.
I wonder if any B-BBC readers happened to catch an amazing hatchet-job on the Conservative Party carried out by Nick Robinson on the 10 0′Clock News? The background to Robinson’s “analysis” was tomorrows excellent poll showing for Cameron’s party and Robinson instantly brought up references to “Tory Sleaze” with Spelman once more being used to undermine Cameron. Robinson intoned that Conservative poll ratings would most likely fall (wishful thinking Nick?) and threw in some images of the 1970′s as Thatcher fought to bring the Unions under control. I thought this was an amazing instance of bias and wonder if anyone else has comment on it? It seems that the BBC are determined to try and undermine Cameron and give whatever aid they can to the busted flush Brown.
[UPDATE BY NATALIE SOLENT: Actually it seems Brown is ahead in the polls. Brown is at 46%, Cameron at 28%. This may surprise some of you, so here is a picture from BBC News to prove it. Hat tip: Moonbat Nibbler.]
. I see that Palestinian terrorists are continuing to fire rockets into Israel, one week into the much vaunted “truce.” I was intrigued to read this BBC report which states that the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade said they fired the rocket, which fell harmlessly, to retaliate for alleged Israeli violations of the truce. Subtle, eh? OK so the Palis did FIRE a rocket or two but they were harmless and anyway those pesky Jews had violated the “truce” so retaliation was only to be expected, right? Why is the BBC so relentlessly pro-Palestinian no matter how blatant the savagery from Al Aqsa and Hamas? Notice the way in which the BBC gives Hamas claims priority in this story.
. The BBC is always enthusiastic to put across ONE side of the environmental debate. If you check out this latest news item concerning the announcement by UK PM Gordon Brown that thousands of new wind turbines could be built across the UK over the coming decade as part of a £100bn plan to boost renewable energy you only get to read one side of the issue. Brown warns that this surge in wind power would not come from “business as usual” and he called for a national debate on achieving the UK’s target of 15% renewable energy by 2020. But where is the debate folks? The article provides us with several sources all trying to outdo each other as to just how great windpower will be but there is NO balance of this kind for example..
Professor David J C MacKay of the Cambridge University Physics Department has some fascinating conclusions on renewables. “MacKay offers maps and figures indicating the staggering scale of the engineering. Britain would be literally covered with — and girdled by — massive wind farms, tidal barriers and wave barrages, and every sizeable body of water in the land would rise and fall to the strange new tides of the national grid. We would have literally rebuilt the British Isles as a single mighty renewable generator, pouring concrete and erecting steel on a scale so far matched only by human habitation — industrialising the land and sea in a way that would make intensive agribusiness look like a wildlife refuge. And still we’d be importing power.” How about the BBC does what their master Brown asks and gives us a debate – not a one-sided litany?
. Social engineering is very much at the heart of Labour policy and the State Broadcaster always falls in line with this as can be seen from this outrageous report into controlling how private enterprise can operate under the guise of “Age Discrimination.” Note how a report which starts off talking about the need to outlaw all forms of age discrimination ends up advocating the requirement to hire women and ethnic minorities ahead of white men. Also note the witch-hunt proposed against the private sector via targeted “investigations” by the independent Equalities and Human Rights Commission. The idea that an employer might seek to reward an employee solely on the basis of merit is alien to the Government and the BBC seems to sell the same line. Indeed the idea is floated that private firms are threatened with loss of public sector contracts UNLESS they have the right ethnic minority mix (whatever that means?) it sails by without a murmur of comment by the State Broadcaster. What could be more natural than forcing diversity at all costs even at a time when every business in the land is trying to control costs? The danger for our society is that we have a left of centre Government hell-bent to socially engineer and a State Broadcaster which acts as its propaganda arm.