BIASED BBC XMAS GIFT IDEAS

In the first of an occasional series dedicated to BBC-related Christmas gift ideas I would like to take this opportunity to draw our readers’ attention to the following items…



Further Xmas gift recommendations from Biased BBC readers are welcome.

SOCK-PUPPET BLACK



Spot the difference. Richard Black of the BBC leads the way in “sock-puppet journalism”. Jo Nova has a superb post showing how a select band of climate change eco-fanatics round the world have deployed 10 excuses to tell us that the Climategate emails should be ignored, for example, they are old, they were nicked, the timing is suspicious, or, the science is nevertheless valid. Surprise, surprise, Mr Black was the world leader off the blocks within a matter of hours, and deployed an impressive seven out of the ten sock-puppet excuses. I sense a Royal Television Society gong is in the offing for such impressive services to propaganda…

Meanwhile, from his boondoggle climate change guerilla post in sunny Durban, Mr Black continues the incessant campaign to send us back to the stone age. Here, he pushes a report on the evils of coal from Banktrack, an eco-fascist concern bankrolled by the usual suspects – Greenpeace and its ilk.

FREE MASONRY?

Newsnight's Paul Mason puts the case for rioting

Fascinating insight into the BBC’s Paul Mason here.

“In what will doubtless be seen as further evidence of a Left-wing agenda at the BBC, Paul Mason, the economics editor of Newsnight, posits the case in a new book that the summer riots were part of a “global revolution”.

The publishing house Verso gives a taste of the line that Mason takes inWhy It’s Kicking Off Everywhere: The New Global Revolutions in its latest catalogue.
Beneath a picture of the 144-year-old furniture store House of Reeves ablaze in Croydon during the riots in August, Mason is quoted as saying: “What has started with students in Millbank now erupts across the poverty-stricken streets of London: the network defeats the hierarchy; the political elite flounders, bereft of explanations.”
The bit that makes me wonder is here did Mason gain his credentials to talk about economics? As far as I can see he is qualified as a music teacher.

OPEN THREAD


Well, the public sector may be closed but we are OPEN and awaiting your comments. Just to let you know that I am going to be away for a few days on holiday so I pass the torch to my fellow writers. I shall return…,..

IN WORLD SERVICE, WE TRUST?

Here’s an interesting response to;

BBC: World Service Trust
Question
Asked by Lord Laird

“To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the Department for International Development has made a grant of £90 million to the BBC World Service Trust; what proportion of the trust’s income this grant represents; how they have assessed the cost-effectiveness of this grant; and whether they will place copies of the grant application correspondence in the Library of the House.[HL13438]

Baroness Northover: The Department for International Development has made a grant of £90 million to the BBC World Service (WST) in order to increase the scale of its impact on governance, health and humanitarian results. The grant will reach some 200 million people, across 14 countries, most of them fragile, in order to: improve democratic governance by enhancing political accountability and reducing the risk of conflict; improve the health of people living in poverty, particularly maternal and child health;improve communities’ ability to cope with humanitarian crises; and build a stronger evidence base by making sure that the results from the investment are closely monitored and are used to improve the effectiveness of aid spent on support to media and communication. The grant builds on development results already being achieved and delivered effectively by BBC WST. It puts the relationship on a longer-term, more strategic basis so as to increase global reach and impact. It increases efficiency by bringing together existing programmes funded by DfID in one place, and builds on the BBC WST proven track record of contributing to governance, health and humanitarian results through media.

The grant represents one-third of the BBC WST’s projected income over the life of the grant and will not exceed 40 per cent in any one year. The strategic grant was deemed to represent good value for money and be a cost-effective way of reaching a large number of people. The cost-effectiveness was assessed in a number of ways, including looking at the cost per person reached which is £0.45 and the cost of staff time to administer the grant which compares favourably to the cost of managing multiple grants.

The business case for the grant will be published on the DfID website.”

THE WORKERS, UNITED, WILL NEVER BE DIVIDED?

Theatre nurse Eleanor Smith (centre), President of Unison leads health workers out on strike at midnight from the Birmingham Women's Hospital
Well, here we are on November 30th – the day the State sector has chosen to hold us all to hostage. With Diversity and Equality co-ordinators off for the day, it’s gonna be a tough one. It’s also been a tough start to the day on the BBC what with the Met Office being out of commission, no sign of Humphyrs or the fragrant Sarah on Today, but Evan Davies and Justin Webb have been doing their best for the comrades on the picker lines. I was entertained by this interview with Trade Unionist Dave Prentice, with Webb claiming the government are “spoiling for a fight”. Really? If the government were any more supine on this they would be horizontal yet through the BBC prism this is Thatcher in 1979 all over again.

WHO ME, GUV?

Roger Harrabin has responded to the clear evidence that he (and the BBC)were bunged thousands of pounds to work with climate “scientists” at the UEA to indoctrinate BBC journalists about climate alarmism. Sadly I haven’t the time to dissect his “I’m right, you’re wrong” response in full – and commenters at Bishop Hill have already done a magnificent job. I urge you to read his weasel words in full. What I will say is this:

1.Mr Harrabin clearly inhabits a parallel universe, where he still bloody-mindedly refers to a “consensus” among scientists for his authority for peddling propaganda. He seems totally oblivious, still, to the irony that the BBC event that decided there was such a consensus was stuffed full of warmist bigots (invited by him and his eco fascist colleagues)who had only one agenda, namely to spread more alarmism.
2.He tells us, in effect, that the reason he accepted the UEA cash and organised the seminars, and then went on to virtually exclude sceptics from talking on BBC programmes was because his bosses in BBC News (Tony Hall and then Helen Boaden), as well as the trustees, sanctioned it. Well that’s OK then. Bosses at the BBC are always right and don’t have agendas. Do they?
3.Mr Harrabin then tells us that HSBC, Vivendi, WWF, Economic and Social Research Council, Dept of Environment, Shell, as well as the Tyndall Centre for climate research, were all keen to have a “better” public debate about climate change”. Like hell they were. Those that didn’t have a direct axe to grind (eg the eco fascists at WWF) were clearly keen to get their snouts into the climate change subsidy trough and to ensure that the BBC was doing its bit to spread approporiate alarmism.

What’s terrifying about this missive is its total disregard for the obvious. Mr Harrabin still believes he’s done nothing wrong and is not even aware of the stench his actions have generated. And clearly those above him have not moved one iota, either.

Jeremy Bowen’s Bias Revealed: Muslim Brotherhood "Conservative, Moderate and Non-Violent"

Yesterday, As I See It posted a comment in the open thread about how Lyse Doucet gave a report on Radio 5 in which she gently sanitized the Muslim Brotherhood ( I can’t find a link to it right now, but if someone points to it I’ll add it here).  At one point, she apparently slipped up and said that Salafists are “extremists….er…..let me say strict….”  Oops, nearly tanked the Narrative there.  In any case, I was reminded of a post I saw by Jeremy Bowen back in February, where he said that the Muslim Brotherhood are “conservative, moderate and non-violent”.

WTF? I said to myself.  How can  they be both?  By definition one cannot be the other.  Any group calling for Shariah Law cannot be moderate. Yet Bowen saw no problem saying it.  However, somebody had a problem with it, as he stealth-edited it out quickly.  I failed to take a screenshot at the time, assuming News Sniffer would catch it if anything happened, but when I went back the next day, “moderate” had been removed, and News Sniffer had nothing.  So I gave up on it.

Fortunately,  I’ve just remembered the Wayback Machine.  Within a minute, I found this:

Why would he say such a thing?  Somebody pointed it out to him, and he or an astute BBC News Online sub-editor sent it down the memory hole.  Wake me up when a Beeboid says the same thing about the Tea Party movement.

If anyone still had a modicum of trust in Bowen’s reporting, it’s surely shredded to pieces now.  He’s obviously partisan, and not thinking clearly.  Defenders of the indefensible may dismiss this simply because it’s 10 months old, but I fail to see how that makes any difference.  Bowen truly believed it, and clearly meant to sanitize the Muslim Brotherhood so the license fee payers wouldn’t get too worried about them.  He’s not, so why should you be?  I’m sure his superiors at the BBC know all about what he really thinks, and simply don’t care.  Some of them may even agree with him. It’s irresponsible, not to mention delusional.  I’d say it’s impossible to trust his reporting on Egypt any longer. 

TRUE COLOURS

The BBC seem almost GIDDY with delight that Chancellor Osborne is up against it when it comes to making his update on the UK economy today. Evan Davies and Stephanie “Two Eds” Flanders were chuckling and making all sorts of sarcastic comments about “Plan A” now becoming “Plan B” on Today. It’s truly pathetic stuff butt all we can expect from the BBC. They WANT Labour back.

THE REAL COST OF PUBLIC PENSIONS

As the Public Sector strike draws nigh, a Biased BBC reader generously provides us with the sort of insight which the State Broadcaster conspicuously ignores;

“REAL COST OF PUBLIC SECTOR PENSIONS REVEALED AS 40% “

If you want irrefutable evidence of the real cost of public sector pensions a public sector trade union has unwittingly provided a convincing example of the mammoth cost from its annual accounts. An example that is substantive, not speculative.

In accordance with an agreement with their staff trade union, the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance (NIPSA – 46,000 members) provides pension benefits for its employees comparable to those of the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS). NIPSA, has however to invest its employer contributions with insurance companies to obtain comparable superannuation benefits for its retiring staff.

In Northern Ireland, and in GB (with its Principal Civil Service Superannuation Scheme or PCSPS), civil servants who joined before 2008 contribute nothing toward their pensions which are unfunded, inflation-proofed and based on final salary. NIPSA’s employees are however, like those civil servants, required to pay a contribution of 1.5% (refundable) towards the cost of dependents’ benefits.

In its 2009 valuation, NIPSA’s actuary assessed a shortfall in its pension scheme funding of some £1.9m and recommended the employer contribution rate should be 39.3% from 2010 with a contribution of £210,000 p.a. to recover the funding shortfall. The employer rate, previously 40.8%. (see 2009 accounts) was insufficient to bring the scheme out of deficit!

Presumably other trade unions who match civil service pensions for their staff are experiencing the same shortfalls despite an employer contribution of 40% of staff salaries.

So there you have indisputable evidence-based proof: We pay at least 40% on top of a civil servant’s salary to provide them with their pensions and lump sums (3 x annual pension rate).

And they are on strike because they are being asked to pay 3% more.

In fairness it should be 35% more. “

I do hope the BBC will ensure that important fact based data like this is properly reflected in the debate and my thanks again for the contribution.

POLICE TO BLAME FOR RIOTS

Here’s a wonderful example of some BBC dissembling. Remember those deplorable summer riots? Guess who is “to blame”? That’s right – the Police!

A lack of confidence in the police response to the initial riots in London in August led to further disturbances across England, a report has concluded. The Riots, Communities and Victims Panel found it had “encouraged people to test reactions in other areas”. The panel found there was no single cause of the riots but said it was shocked at the “collective pessimism” among the young people it spoke to.It warned that such riots would happen again unless action was taken.

Right then, so people were forced to “test reactions” in other areas of the UK because the Met held back? I see. Not only that but with all this pessimism about, how on Earth could anyone be expected to hold back from looting and arson? The Panel that has produced this nonsense is allowed to pontificate with NO voice of response on the BBC report.

Wake up Call

“Now for a party political broadcast on behalf of Islam.”
Not heard in so many words on the BBC, but the strategy of bringing Muslims and Islam into our lives with a series of “they’re just like us” programming has been hammering away at the audience with the intensity of one of Saatchi’s finest ad campaigns.

As well as programmes about Islam itself, programmes about Muslim family life, programmes about Islamic culture, dramas with Muslim heroes, plots where all things Islamic are depicted as virtuous, often contrasted with some indigenous British scroungers, scoundrels and amoral good-for-nothings just in case we haven’t already got the message that Islam is thoroughly and benignly British, there is the increasing role Islamic preachers are playing in mainstream religious broadcasting.

This would be all very well if they were willing and able to openly mention and examine the negative characteristics associated with Islam and Islamist practices, as honestly and readily as they obviously expect us to accept all the rest of it.
When such things inevitably feature in the news, overtly politically correct attempts to distance them from the ‘religion of peace’ prevents the connection from being openly and realistically acknowledged. Not only terrorism, but honour killings and forced marriages. When we hear scary tales about these, it’s made very clear that they’re not exclusively Muslim, but Asian. Similarly, there are ‘unmentionable’ aspects of the sexual grooming phenomenon that are worth mentioning. Apparently statistics say the perpetrators of sex crimes are predominantly white, but the figures don’t show whether there are behaviour patterns and attitudes within this broad grouping that are specific to Asian gangs. There is also the unasked and unanswered question of whether Muslims’ alleged moral superiority makes it all the more incongruous that any of them indulge in this crime in the first place. Or does repressed sexuality and a contemptuous attitude towards non Muslims constitute an explosive combination?
Additionally, there’s the question of whether the number of sex crimes, or criminality in general by Muslim offenders is relative and proportionate to the population as a whole.
Must we assume that the high number of Muslims in the prison population is because of Islamophobia in the justice system, or unfair targeting of Muslims by the institutionally racist police? Or is it for some other mysterious reason.
All over the papers yesterday, but, at the time of writing, absent from the BBC, was the incident involving a Christian worker at Heathrow airport who allegedly lost her job after being bullied by Muslim colleagues. Most concerning to many of the online commenters was the predominance of overtly Muslim employees at the UK’s largest and busiest airport. The gateway to the UK gives new arrivals the impression that they’ve landed in an Islamic state. Several people alluded to foxes guarding the henhouse.

This morning’s Start the Week discussed the Arab Spring, and various speakers assured us the new Islamist ideologies are moderate and tolerant. Someone told Andrew Marr that Erdogan is so popular with the Turkish people “because of his attitude towards Israel and Syria.” This went unchallenged. Not unusual, because Andrew Marr habitually lets this sort of thing pass without a murmur. Criticism of Israel, the assumption that it’s evil, lumping it together with Syria, etc. is an everyday occurrence on that programme.

But just moments earlier, Today put out a lengthy promotional piece about Alan Yentob’s upcoming radio 4 programme on the dwindling number of Jews in Iraq. The trail even featured the remarkable Canon Andrew White ‘the vicar of Baghdad’, who told us that the recent Wikileaks exposure of their names and addresses put the lives of the seven remaining Jews still living there in grave danger.

During this feature John Humphrys sounded sympathetic to their plight and that of the thousands of Jews who had been hounded out of Iraq. No doubt, had he been involved in that conversation, Andrew Marr too would have responded sympathetically, and gone ‘mmmm,’ as he is wont to do. But the cognitive dissonance displayed here, by which I mean the disconnect between the BBC’s sympathy with persecuted Jews, alongside their own simultaneous compliance with and participation in Israel’s vilification is staggering.

Yet Alan Yentob’s programme information has this.
“Nazism, Arab-nationalism and anti-Zionist feeling created a wave of anti-Semitism“
In black and white, the BBC has allowed a writer to link Nazism with Arab-nationalism. They’ve even gone so far as to connect the terms ‘created’ and ‘a wave of antisemitism’. Normally, antisemitism is regarded by them as something that just exists, out of nowhere, and persecution of Jews arises from nothing, and is not created by Nazism and Arab Nationalism, nor fueled by the antismitism inherent in Islam.

A recent From Our Own Correspondent featured one of the few Jews remaining in Macedonia, an 89 year-old holocaust survivor who remembers the deportation of Macedonia’s Jews. In the same section of From Our Own Correspondent, the reporter himself, Mark Lowen, recounted a moving tale about his own grandmother, a concert pianist who had been sent, with her sister, to the concentration camp that was immortalised in the film “Schindler’s List.” Furthermore these items were briefly featured and linked to on a main BBC news webpage, under the heading ‘Features and Analysis’ before being relegated to another section.

Is this a sea change somewhere in the bowels of the BBC, or is it just part of the same ‘old one step forward, two steps back’ progress we’re more used to. The BBC is still some way off from connecting the current waves of antisemitism with events in the present day Arab world. They seem uncannily eager to impress upon us that every newly, or about-to-be, democratically elected Islamist party is moderate. The Muslim Brotherhood, Ennahda, the moderate Islamist party that recently won the elections in Morocco, and last but not least our moderate friend Mahmoud Abbas. But it seems these moderates swiftly impose restrictions on the population as soon as they get the chance. Veils in universities, modest dress, polygamy and hatred of Jews, Israel and the West may seem moderate to some people, but surely not here in ‘Great’ Britain.

Programmes and items about the holocaust are not unusual. The BBC and the film industry have always been interested in depicting the holocaust. The pathos can sometimes appear self indulgent and gratuitous, but when people refer to “the holocaust industry” they don’t mean that. What they actually mean is that in their opinion the holocaust is being cynically and exploitatively used by Jews to shut down debate and act as a smokescreen to obscure the wrongdoings of Israel. This accusation works just the same in reverse, shutting down debate from the other side and unconvincingly masking the antisemitism that lies behind the accusation. Remembering the holocaust does more than beg for the universal sympathy vote. It reminds us how far things can escalate before they’re acknowledged, properly recognised and seen for what they really are. Hindsight shows how easily people can abandon reason, and should warn us to be vigilant lest history repeats. Be vigilant, BBC, and wake up.

HALF THE STORY, ALL THE TIME!

A Biased BBC reader notes;

“A new article on the BBC website headlined CO2 climate sensitivity ‘overestimated’ By Jennifer Carpenter, starts off hopefully with the statement; “Global temperatures could be less sensitive to changing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels than previously thought, a study suggests.”
Then we immediately get in the next paragraph; “The researchers said people should still expect to see “drastic changes” in climate worldwide, but that the risk was a little less imminent.” And as we near the end we get; “The results of this paper are the result of the analysis of [a] cold climate during the glacial maximum (the most recent ice age),” he told BBC News. “There is evidence the relationship between CO2 and surface temperatures is likely to be different [during] very cold periods than warmer.” Scientists, he said, would therefore prefer to analyse periods of the Earth’s history that are much warmer than now when making their projections about future temperatures.”

This comes across to me as a blatant admission that they won’t look at data that won’t support their point of view.

OCCUPY THE BBC

Well just as the Occupy jamboree outside St Paul’s is disappearing off radar, up pops the BBC to tell us about the Occupy Leeds “camp.” Evan Davies takes a remarkably relaxed view of the “aims” of the rabble in Leeds doing his best to portray their support for Big Government, their hatred of the free market, their envy of those who actually work for a living and are successful, as “reasoned”.  He then gets a response from market town of Skipton to evaluate what support the protesters have from those who are not protesting,as the BBC carefully puts it. But since the anarcho-communist rabble have only the most convoluted of “ideas”, surely Davies is acting as more of a cheerleader for their alleged objectives.