General BBC-related comment thread!

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.


Well now, did you catch the boy Cameron being interviewed on the Today programme by newbie Evan Davies? Interviewed is probably the wrong word - harassed is perhaps more accurate. He was not given a chance by Davies, he was constantly interrupted, his answers were dismissed, his agenda thrown aside – all in all it was an attack piece. How things can change in a week. Last week, we had the fragrant Sarah Brown and her allegedly statesman-like husband, Gordon. Solid and reliable. This week we have the hated Tories and they have been treated appallingly by the BBC, in my view. I say that as someone who has grave reservations about Cameron and co but I also speak as someone who believes in fairness. True BBC colours shine through folks, even in Evan Davies.


I was reading this BBC report which is little more than a PR item for those in the ever expanding poverty industry. Basically it just presents the little fantasy dreamed up by Unicef, Barnardo’s and co that there are “millions” of children here in the UK suffering from “poverty.” In a wonderful example of creative maths, they estimate that this could be almost 10% of the total UK population and..wait for it..up to 98% in some areas. Well, before we contact Band Aid to seek them to reform to re-record “Feed the World” (UK remix) maybe the BBC could try and find the space for those who dispute the phony statistics behind all this nonsense from these fatcat charities. They are retailing a liberal invention- “relative poverty” - and trying to pass it off as if it were real poverty. It is nothing of the kind. But why does the BBC only allow one side of this debate to be heard? The suggestion I make is that the liberals in the BBC are actually propagandising on behalf of the poverty hustlers and refuse to countenance another point of view.


Oh dear – on the day that Prudence Brown decides to buy the toxic debt of the Bradford & Bingley and manages to crash the UK banking shares market comes the news that the lower house of the US congress has rejected the Bush bail out of Wall St toxic debt! Looking forward to the BBC now pleading for everyone to support Bush!


He must be doing it deliberately, surely. Please tell me how this can be defended. It’s Webb, of course – on Palin, of course, who he describes as “the woman rational, educated Americans regard with ever-increasing horror”. What exactly is the point of the editorial guidelines when they’re so clearly ignored by the senior staff? Is there anyone stupid enough to now doubt where Webb would put his vote, and if not how can he possibly be said to be reporting impartially?


It’s one of the things that most enrages me. Each day, brave British soldiers risk life and limb fighting the Islamic hordes of the Taliban and Al Queda. Many British households have an empty chair this morning – loved ones having fallen at the hands of these depraved Islamic killers overseas. Similarly, many British households also mourn the loss of loved ones following the Al Queda homicide attacks in London on 7/7. There is much pain out there, much hurt. And yet our military fights on and when you hear from those doing the fighting in the field, there is so much to be proud about. The BBC sees it differently. You see in their self-loathing world, the war on terror is having no effect whatsoever. Indeed they have commissioned a poll to prove this contention. Indeed, 30% of those the BBC had interviewed reckon Al Queda is stronger because we fight back against them. So the sacrifices being made are in vain – goes the beat of the defeatist subtext.

Let me declare my bias. I am unambiguously in favour of wiping Al Queda “off the face of the earth”, to coin a phrase. I believe that we ARE in a long-term war against militant Islam and either we win or they win. I prefer the former outcome as I have children and I would prefer them to enjoy liberty without the shadow of Islam blighting their lives. But the BBC has been relentless in attacking the very decision to fight back. The BBC has systematically undermined the British public’s support for the war on terror, indeed the BBC has become a key outlet for Al Queda and their apologists to spread toxic propaganda. They know they can never beat us on the battlefield but they sure as hell can use the likes of the BBC to demoralise our military. So this latest effort from the BBC is just one more instance of how it subtly reduces the valour of our soldiers and the imperative to fight back against Bin Laden’s goon squad. I hate the fact that I am forced to fund Al Queda propaganda care of the sickeningly biased BBC, don’t you?


What is it with the BBC’s love-in with Vince Cable? Just after 7am this morning on Today, the nationalisation of the Bradford & Bingley was being covered and WHO do the BBC invite on for a bit of a chin-wag on the topic? A member of the Government perhaps? Nope. A member of the Opposition then? Nope. Instead Lib Dem Vince Cable is afforded yet ANOTHER prime time media slot care of the BBC, giving him the opportunity to explain why if only people had listened to him back when the Building Societies were being de-mutualised, then none of this current chaos afflicting them would have happened. Blah Blab Blah. I have no problem with Vince Cable mouthing his Lib-Dem platitudes, I do have a problem with the amazingly high profile he is given by the BBC, which is out of all proportion to that given to wee Georgie Osbourne, for example. Does Vince have friends in high places?

General BBC-related comment thread!

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.

MardyMarr’s casual smear

It was so noticeable in his interview today with the Conservative leader how much less friendly Andy Marr is to David Cameron than he is with Gordon Brown.

At 19.30 in the Cameron interview here Marr starts from nowhere by asking DC if he agrees that mass immigration has done something terrible to Britain. If it were a Labour man Marr was interviewing, he would gently quote the source before accepting serenely the response that it was an attempt to make a wider point.

Well, what happens when he interviews a Conservative? A misquote, hauled from nowhere, planted in hostile fashion following another attack on Cameron’s “broken society” theme. The misquote was the standard one: immigration confused with multiculturalism. But what followed was more telling still. When Cameron leapt lightly up and quoted the source (Dominic Grieve, Shadow Home Secretary in the Observer) and explained it thoroughly, the sour Marr culminated in the bitter throwaway line that Grieve “talks about the long-term inhabitants of Britain, by which he presumably means white people”.

Cameron had no chance to reply to that particular smear and the conversation cross-examination moved on. Yet why did the BBC journalist feel free to put words in the mouth of the Opposition?

Standard BBC smear in what was evidently a premeditated atmosphere of hostility.



The BBC reports that the United Nations Security Council has approved a new resolution on Iran, reaffirming demands it stop enriching uranium, but imposing no new sanctions. The BBC correspondent adds that it appears that the US and European powers have scrambled to find a face-saving document that would paper over any disagreements. If you glance across to the “Analysis and background” section you will see it is headed by a smiling Ahmadinejad giving the V for victory sign. We get the picture.


How interesting. The BBC reports that London’s population has soared by more than half a million in a decade. This is down to “people moving from abroad”- apparently. Mmmm – wonder if there is any more detail on who these people might be and where exactly they might have come from? Do you think there is any chance that ten years of Labour having abandoned any pretence of national borders might just possibly have had an impact on London’s booming population?


I see that the BBC have managed to claim the political scalp of a senior republican in New Mexico. Fernando de Baca, the chairman of the Republican Party in Bernalillo County, New Mexico, also said Hispanics “won’t vote for a black president”. Mr de Baca had been approached by the BBC’s Jon Kelly for comments on the presidential election campaign at the New Mexico State Fair in Albuquerque, part of Bernalillo County. He was explaining why he thought John McCain would do well in the state, which has large population of Hispanics. “The truth is that Hispanics came here as conquerors. African-Americans came here as slaves.”Naturally this allowed the MSM thought police to hound de Baca from his position. One little victory for our non-partisan State Broadcaster.


So, two men of Somali origin are arrested by police in Germany on a plane preparing to take off from Cologne-Bonn airport. They were said to be “possibly planning attacks” and had left suicide notes at their flats expressing their wish to die in a “holy war.” Mmmm, something missing though, isn’t there? Is it possible, do you think, that these two guys were followers of the Religion of peace and love? Might it just be conceivable they are Muslims? If we follow the BBC, we will never know!


I accidentally caught the first ten minutes of the News Quiz on Radio 4 this evening. Hosted by dwarf lesbian Sandi Toksvig, her guests included hard left Jeremy Hardy, and the ubiquitous lesbian comedienne Sue Perkins. I see Mark Steel will grace the programme in the near future.
Within 60 seconds, the usual spleen was being directed towards John McCain and Sarah Palin. Naturally the Chosen One was left alone. These BBC alleged “comedy” programmes are nothing of the sort. They are a contrived platform afforded to left wing trolls like Hardy and Steel to spew out their venom. And while I’m at it, I see that Marcus Brigstocke now has his own programme on Radio 4 entitled “I’ve never seen Star Wars” – in which he invites guests to experience something they have never done before. In his case, that would involve being funny.

“Rather caddish”

Contributors to the BBC’s Climate Wars have complained to Offcom that the documentary misrepresented them, say the Telegraph and Independent. “The BBC very gravely misrepresented me and several others, as well as the science behind our argument,” Lord Monckton told the Indie. “It is a breach of its code of conduct.” Nothing new there, then. Still, I look forward to the Richard Black report to match this piece, should Offcom find against it.

Thanks to Peter in the comments.