TODAY…

  By David Vance | March 15, 2010 - 9:08 am |

For those interested, here, and here, and here.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to TODAY…

  1. Mailman says:
    March 15, 2010 at 9:43 am

    You know if they got rid of the human rights commission or what ever the hell its called…think of the millions that could be saved and invested back in to crime prevention?

    The reality is that as long as the vast majority of crimes are committed by black young men then the majority of people stopped by stop and search should be black young men!

    As for that rubbish about sexism in how you order names? What a load of cods wallop!

    Mailman

       0 likes

  2. fred bloggs says:
    March 15, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    OFF SUBJECT: PROBABLY BEEN MENTIONED BEFORE?    just seen the Beeb midday news, on it was political corresponent Ben Wright.  This is  the son of Labour MP Tony Wright.  I expect he has been working for the Beeb for many years, but I had not noticed.  However, being made political correspondent again shows the beeb’s lack of ethics.  To show their lack of bias they should have got someone who is neutral, but oh, not the Beeb.

       0 likes

  3. Umbongo says:
    March 15, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    Rape was all over Today this morning.  However, just to highlight the crap journalism of BBC “journalists”, the Telegraph noted (from the Stern – another Stern! – Report) that droning on about the conviction rate as a percentage of reported rapes is unhelpful; not only because a common statistic for crime (conviction rate as a percentage of prosecutions) is over 60% in the case of rape but that rape is apparently the only crime where the conviction/report rate is taken (by activists and Harman) as the only measure of police “success”.  This may or may not be so but a journalist worth her salt, when the matter of the statistics came up on Today, would have asked the assembled rent-a-gobs what the conviction/report percentage is for similarly serious crimes.  Then we – the punters – could have worked out how much credence concerning police success or otherwise to give to the statistic commonly used.  Did Montague (I think it was Montague) ask the question?  Of course not – she just went off on a tut-tutting riff about the uncaring police.  So, forget about her other failings, she and Today fell at the first hurdle of journalistic ability and credibility.

       0 likes

  4. David Preiser (USA) says:
    March 15, 2010 at 2:09 pm

    Sarah Montague revealed her preconceived bias on the issue when she tried to play devil’s advocate by stating what she thought was the case in favor of stop-and-search.  She tried to make this about profiling for Islamic terrorists, and the guy from the EHRC had to correct her.  He was talking about ordinary street crime, not racial profiling in airports or whatever.  But the biased Montague already had her Narrative in place.   I can’t imagine that she simply was not informed about her guest’s entire reason for being there.

    No, I think she was just showing that she was emotionally affected by the story about the very white “Jihad Jane”.  That’s what she was thinking about, and not the actual issue her guest was there to discuss.

    One could also hear the bias against racial profiling in stop-and-search when she asked if there was evidence that the tactic helped at all.  Yes, that’s my inference about the tone in her voice, but it was obvious to anyone.

       0 likes

    • Cassandra King says:
      March 15, 2010 at 5:20 pm

      Montague had her straw man worked out well in advance and possibly worked out with the EHRC toad.
      Notice the evidence that stop and search tactics actually works was never actually aired but belittled as very unimportant, this is where the narrative shines through clearly, had toady been interested in the facts they would have provided actual evidence that stopping black and asian suspects actually works, black and asians are in fact more likely to have commited crimes and of those stopped and searched many more than the average have been arrested as a result.
      The aim of hamstringing the police in this way has more to do with weakening an already innefectual and timid police further, the police have been a target of those itching to politisise the police force and turn it into an obedient servent of the political narrative.

         0 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:
        March 15, 2010 at 5:36 pm

        I thought I heard the EHRC guy say that the evidence is that the tactic of stop-and-search doesn’t work, and that areas that try other tactics instead show a reduction in crime.  That’s fair enough, if true.  He’s got a position, he’s entitled to bring up something that backs it up.  I would assume that the producers had prepared Montague with that information beforehand, seeing as that’s how these things are done, enabling her to ask that leading question about it.

        So really there’s no excuse for Montague starting off as if this was about catching Islamic terrorists.  It’s pretty clear that she was all ready to make the case that stop-and-search wouldn’t have caught Jihad Jane.  The EHRC guy actually had to remind her that has nothing to do with it.

           0 likes

  5. David vance says:
    March 15, 2010 at 2:18 pm

    David

    I heard that too and you are quite right.

       0 likes

  6. George R says:
    March 15, 2010 at 4:28 pm

    Such is the BBC enthusiasm for Labour-Harman anti-men discrimination, that it is becomeing impossible to criticise  a woman’s comments on the BBC.

    This is very apparent in BBC Mr. Silver’s mild (largely Tory-free) radio profile of Barrenness ASHTON; the profile ends with Labour’s McShane and Labour’s Harman saying that she’s being

    unfairly criticised because she’s a woman. End of BBC profile. (‘Ashtonophobia’?!) BBC-Labour: don’t criticise Islam: it’s ‘Islamophobic’ or ‘racist’ or both; don’t criticise Ashton: it’s misogynist. No it’s

    BBC-Labour trying to defend the undefendable -Ashton, in this case; and being  MISANDRIC in the process. Vote Labour: Vote against Men.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8568129.stm

       0 likes

  7. ibjc says:
    March 16, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    That Prof. Quiggin bloke down under is a very unpleasant character. Accuses Steve McIntyre of instigating the Climategate whistle blow. I thought you should be able to recognise him, should he visit here, so please keep an eye out for him. Thanks.
    <img style=”width: 83px; height: 96px; cursor: pointer;” src=”http://js-kit.com/blob/obqEojgABFJxIMcozXUgQp.jpg”/>

       0 likes