Here you go, an on-time and freshly manicured OPEN thread to start the week. Here’s where YOU detail the bias, in glorious technicolour.
START THE WEEK OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Rob in Cheshire April 25, 2024 at 1:59 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024If Packham's claim is untrue, Toby should sue the moron.
- Rob in Cheshire April 25, 2024 at 1:55 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024No St George flags to be seen, so the Met won't be interested.
- Rob in Cheshire April 25, 2024 at 1:53 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024I am sure the oaf Hutton supports the Net Zero scam, which has just closed down our steel industry.
- Rob in Cheshire April 25, 2024 at 1:49 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024They look like cadets to me, we should cut them some slack. I am pleased to see young people choose...
- harry142857 April 25, 2024 at 1:22 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024Also from Guido. Kia the car company have invented a car that can do a U turn on a voice...
- Up2snuff April 25, 2024 at 1:04 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024pug, re early election: the wisdom of John Curtice, psephologist extraordinaire, is that the Conservatives tend to do better with...
- pugnazious April 25, 2024 at 12:52 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1782013988542243238 From Guido.... 'Daily Sceptic editor Toby Young has just submitted a complaint to...
- pugnazious April 25, 2024 at 12:41 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024Curious how the BBC is not reporting on Ofsted but campaigning against it and weaponising Ruth Perry's suicide in a...
- pugnazious April 25, 2024 at 11:58 am on Midweek 24th April 2024'Nadine Dorries criticised for sharing edited image of Sunak wielding knife' 'Ministers have criticised Nadine Dorries for sharing a doctore...
- Fedup2 April 25, 2024 at 11:45 am on Midweek 24th April 2024Not bbc But with the democrat legal mafia in the US - what will happen when president trump is required...
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
BBC Christmas and birthday come together this morning as Labour launch their manifesto and Hilary Tweets her intention to run for the Presidency.
I defy anyone to put their hand on their heart and claim our national broadcastes isn’t rooting for both.
Well, the BBC is dishing out the scorn on British workers again,
this morning, and getting in a “uman rights” numpty in to pontificate over “fears”, over the care of Islamic schoolkid teenybombers, you couldn t make it up.
Where? … are your priorities ladies and gentlemen?
Apparently upping the “lie a day” quota for the Tories too, as they publish their fairy story … oops I mean manifesto.
Does that mean they actually have any policies, that they dare talk about? or is just more fag packet hot air tales … Grimm
The Tory “a lie a day” election quota goes into overdrive today, so in a sad repeat of their “council house sell off”, that initially depleted the nationally housing stock so severely, the new sell off now goes to housing associations too.
Soooo in a nation apparently desperate for extra housing?
Now the immediate replacement for these erm “sell offs” ? … uh oh!
Making sure that the housing associations do so?
Well the obfuscations and vague terms start, the cracks start to appear, anyone catch Tappeaser May, crash and burn this morning over just this issue?.
After the Post Office, behind the scenes NHS … just
more, “fire sale” mentality, in the desperation to give the illusion of the “recovery”.
In the most orchestrated, the most deceitful, the most person vindictive underhand election campaign.
Debates are now a part, but the government won t.
Explain policy under scrutiny, but the government can t.
The TRUE directives should the Tory return, the government refuse to say.
Lying about its record, doctoring its figures, selling out/
selling off our nation, and targeting the poorest/most vulnerable members of our society.
The housing stock is neither depleted nor inceased by passing from state to private ownership. Does a state owned house accommodate more occupants?
Council house tenants do not double or treble up when demand for housing rises.
But these properties will inevitably end up in the hands of Buy-to-Let “investors” who will then let them out at double the rent they were when they were social properties.
So it is a loss of social housing.
They will still be occupied but at a market rent rather than the gerrymandering rents charged by most Labour councils.
If there is a housing shortage in the UK it is not because BTL landlords are buying them up but because there are too many people in the country.
Also if Gibbo Brown had not stolen so many people’s pension funds there would not be the thirst for such investments in the first place.
Worth noting of course, that the Tories kept hitting on Browns raid on pensions via the removal of tax exemptions of dividends on investments by pension funds….er….but why did they not just reverse the tax when they gained power?….ask them…i did…they just blustered……..morons.
If a socially owned house is bought by its occupiers, the housing stock is neither increased nor decteased. If these occupiers remained in their house under social ownership, their house would still be occupied by them. The availabilty of social housing for those who wanted it would not be increased or decreased. You forget that the demand for social housing decreases by one, every time the occupier of a social house buys his own house. The actual demand for social housing is neither increased or decreased if the supply goes down by one and the demand goes down by one. What happens to the house afterwards is irrelevant. Someone who could count might think that net immigration of 250,000 per year would increase the demand for housing. I suppose they dismantle their domiciles in their homelands and reconstruct them over here.
Needed saying but never heard on TV – on any channel.
I think many objections have more to do with lefty dislike of property ownership, and the people who (they think) tend to be in a position to do this.
Vote Labour then Mr Noggin the Nog , cos kippers won`t be forming the next government .
What part of BBC bias are you highlighting Noggin?
“… and targeting the poorest/most vulnerable members of our society.”
Labour certainly targeted these, being the first government to increase the %age of GDP spent on benefits in a “good time” economy. Yet despite the billions shovelled their way the number of children in poverty barely moved and foodbanks felt the need to set up in the country.
Strangely with the benefits cap less children now live in homes with no-one working. The number of children in “poverty” has not changed.
Perhaps the answer is not to just keep throwing money at “problems”
Granted that there is not a lot to say in 90 seconds. What do you think is either missing or minimised? Hillary Clinton: Her life and career in 90 seconds
I couldn’t help noticing two mistakes in the very first frame.
• Rather mature for a new-born, don’t you think?
• Hillary Rodham only became Clinton after marriage to Bill. She wasn’t born with that name.
Bias, probably not. Just sloppy and unprofessional.
I wonder if Hilary will have that female assistant Huma Abedin the one who’s family are linked to terrorists and terrorist organisations as her adviser again? Be interesting to find out.
I would imagine so, I believe they are very close.
MMmmmm…..i would……take her out for a spin in the Chevvy, soda pop or two…..under the boardwalk…..get her home to her folks in time…..she was a looker….
we hear on the Today programme, on news items since 5:30am, that Conservatives and LibDems will publish their manifestos later in the week; no mention of UKIP of course. Perhaps they didn’t get the memo from The Electoral Commission that UKIP is a major party, perhaps they did and just ignore it as policy.
The BBC are in breach of broadcasting regulations and are doing all they can to ignore UKIP entirely, unless they can slag them off.
Good job UKIP are winning at getting their message out on social networks.
UKIP in Wales criticises the holy grail on climate change, so Beeboids get anti-UKIP soundbites from all FIVE other parties to oppose UKIP!:
“UKIP Wales leader Nathan Gill: Climate change not man made”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-wales-32276111
Will Beeboids apply this ‘impartial’ principle to everything which its beloved Labour Party says from now on?
“…Will Beeboids apply this ‘impartial’ principle to everything which its beloved Labour Party says from now on?”
Clearly not: as usual, comments are not enabled on that piece on the BBC website, so it’s ‘case closed’ as far as the Politburo is concerned. This means they can repeat such idiocy as:
“…More than 95% of experts agree that climate change is a man-made reality that poses danger to our communities.”
and never be held accountable for it. Isn’t it wonderful being the biggest, most powerful public service media Corporation in the UK (perhaps even the world)? Say whatever you want! Nobody can ever, ever disagree with you – because you can make sure they won’t!
Causational climate scientists do complain, but the BBC’s experts are Environmental activists, so the genuine experts have no chance of getting through to these morons. Piers Corbyn also tries to get through, but in many cases, the name of Professor Peter Cox keeps cropping up in replies from the BBC. He was the one who caused a rebellion amongst the Royal Society fellows. At the BBC, Professor Peter Cox investigates complaints about Professor Peter Cox.
Jasmine making those tough editorial calls?
With integrity, of course.
Yes, the Labour Party manifestering. I put this onto the BBC Radio Devon facebook page this morning:
[Comedy Gold on BBC Radio Devon. BBC Radio Devon have been pushing the “Labour says” line all morning in that they are promoting the Labour Party mantra that they can be trusted with the economy. Comedy classic from BBC Radio Devon. I’ve been laughing all morning]
You see, if you have the will power, you can send an alternative message through the BBC’s own media outlets. All good fun.
This is the problem, the bBC has the capacity with the size of its network to widen its message.
eg, any Tory or of course UKIP member could say something that is ‘off message’ and favouring Labour, one may think because it was said on say Radio Devon only a handful will have heard it. But one forgets that by 8pm in the evening millions will have got the ‘message’ after it has has been broadcast across its whole network from local radio to Radio1, Radio3 and The Asian Network and from BBC1 News to BBC3’s kiddy news and all over its web pages.
The bBC is a big Labour supporting monopoly with the power and network to swing an election and needs to be broken up and to Camerons shame in the last 5 years he has not touched it.
Apart from that once fine city of Exeter now almost destroyed by that awful university Devon is a proper place. A shire county with fine proper people. Doubt anyone outside Exexter will take any notice.
Plymouth is in Devon and twice the size of Exeter at least. We too have an ‘awful’ university, plus a Labour MP a-piece. Not a shire county by the way but thanks for the compliments.
The Old Bloke is so right about Radio Devon.
In case you haven’t noticed, the BBC news websites are promoting the ground breaking news that Malala (“I’m a Brumbie now”) has had an asteroid named after her.
‘Malala… has had an asteroid named after her’ Well, she’s already a BBC star. Whether or not anyone else cares is a moot point.
Oh, an asteroid!
Picked it up wrong – I thought it was hemorrhoid.
Baroness Doreen will be pissed off at that news, or perhaps I missed the announcement.
Hmm so they have named a object travelling at high speed after a person who was hit by a object travelling at high speed ? funny what are they going to do next award her a copy of Bullet ?
I am sure that when she first arrived here for medical treatment it was stated that she would be returning home to continue spreading her ‘message’. Does anybody ever go home from this country? Too good an asset for the BBC to lose I would imagine, a female Mandela.
She is a target of our enemy (the other one, the Taliban). I’m happier for her to stay than many thousands who are siding with our enemy.
It was also said that he Pakistani Government would be paying for her treatment, a FOI request not long ago claimed the treatment was still ‘ongoing’ and so no, they havent yet!
No wonder the NHS is in trouble if they havent learned to collect interim payments.
Of course now she is an EU citizen then it changes all that anyway.
How the BBC’s HD DRM plot was kept secret … and why
How on earth could anyone justify that a broadcast which had been paid for by a viewer needs to be encoded, so it can’t be watched by anyone else. The BBCs excuse is truly pathetic and just about sums up their thinking.
It’s also worthwhile bearing in mind that this kind of DRM is illegal in the rest of Europe and the USA.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/nov/14/bbc-hd-drm
Great work there by the Guardian. Praise where praise is (very) due.
Shame on the BBC.
The BBC… plot… Ok, yet another one.
In the Graun.
Well, well.
‘The consultation received 459 responses. Of these, 432 of those came from individual licence payers, and 426 opposed the BBC’s proposal.
Clearly though, the BBC listened… and then went with corporate belief. Backed by a certain confidence in outcomes…
‘In this universe, Ofcom accepted the self-serving arguments of the companies they’re meant to be regulating, ignored the public whose interests they were meant to be safeguarding, and gave the BBC what it asked for.
Why did it do this? It’s a secret.’
OFCOM? Isn’t that the outfit once run by James Purnell’s office buddy at Labour? The one still in the running to ‘oversee’ the BBC on behalf of the licence fee payer, and editorial integrity.
That OFCOM?
‘Ofcom rejected the FOI request, saying that the law prohibited it from releasing “commercially sensitive” material.’
Now, where did they learn that trick from?
‘So, this is weird. Fundamentally, the BBC and Ofcom were claiming that it was in the public’s interest to deny the public’s wishes, but it wasn’t in the public interest to know why this was so.’
Actually… not too weird at all to any who ‘do business’ with them.
‘At last, the BBC names some names. Unfortunately, these aren’t very convincing names.’
This is the BBC we are supposed to trust on all things, on top of its commitment to transparency? I don’t think so.
‘The BBC refused to answer my emails until I sent copies of the unredacted text to the executives responsible for the memo. Then, a BBC spokesperson again refused to let me speak to anyone responsible’
Welcome to our world, chum.
‘In other words, “Auntie knows best, so shut up and run along and let us get on with breaking your TV’
Happens a lot.
Shouldn’t.
No time to read the comments, but well done that man. And the Graun.
This is not a corporation I trust on any measure, yet it holds the keys to vast social engineering, policy-making and election shaping.
By compulsion.
Final article on Radio 4 ‘Today’ was about vinyl records, and they said for those who haven’t experienced the sound here’s a selection, and then proceeded to introduce every single fault vinyl had, with pops crackles, stuck needles, jumping needles, and worn out poor sound.
Sure vinyl did have these faults, but not every single disc, and certainly not on the scale radio 4 broadcast.
It’s not political bias, but it is quantifiable bias against a particular format, and their actions show the lengths they will go to, to express their opinions. With the objective this bias is easy to show, with the subjective it’s much more difficult.
They have a fixed position on everything.
Why no criticism of Lo-Fi, low bitrate MP3 sound? IMO, one of the worst things to happen to recorded sound in decades.
You should be used as a doormat.
Oh be fair on old [very old] Bunty [ferrero] Rocher [or Muzzzzzz gold plated Nuts as we at the Hackney school for the betterment of pigs in a poke named her]
She only had on friend and he is now lurking under a headstone in the BBC memorial wing of Highgate cemetery !
This is another resurrected non story that crops up every so often. File under lazy journalism. Any increase in vinyl sales will be significant as it is now on such a low baseline. Of course cds as we now know are somewhat less than indestructible and as for MP3s boy did I laugh when my had drive failed.
http://www.virgin.com/music/vinyl-sales-experience-massive-increase-in-2014
http://mashable.com/2014/01/07/vinyl-comeback/
http://www.uncut.co.uk/news/uk-vinyl-market-sees-70-per-cent-increase-in-2012-26670
As you see from the links a re occurring none story.
This I’m afraid is not really part of the going conversations, but I don’t know where to put this ‘shout’.
I have been reading BiasedBBC for a couple of months & think what it is doing & stands for as politically one of the most important things going at the moment, you are all so correct in pointing out the disgraceful bias of a supposedly neutral organisation that we all finance (whether we want to or not). It is clear that Miliband & Sturgeon stand a very good chance of running this country after the election, & the BBC is instrumental in that disastrous outcome by their bias & machinations. This is an intolerable situation!
But what can be done about this? Why isn’t this bias contested? We can grumble about it here but what really can we do to stop this? It needs to go higher. Why isn’t this a major discussion on Conservative Home? The Telegraph a few years ago was covering the bias of the BBC, but now when this is a really vital issue why don’t they bring the subject back?
I despair, I do not want my future dictated by a left-leaning organisation that promotes its own brand of politics on us all, I know I am not alone because of all you stalwarts here doing a great job. Goodness, who can rid us of this meddlesome organisation!
Yes I agree , who can cut the BBC down to size and make it rigorously observe its charter obligations? I’m very much afraid that the only answer is a powerful right of centre government. But, of course, the work of the BBC over the past 40 years to move the politics of the country ever leftwards, makes it highly unlikely that we will ever see such a government in this country. I’m afraid that we are watching a country being taken over by a leftist clique who , in good revolutionary fashion, albeit a slow burning revolution, took over the local radio station and pumped out their propaganda 24/7.
Even if the Tories win the election, which is certainly possible, they are too frightened of the BBC to really deal with its leftist bias. So the Tories in power will conform to policies that the BBC finds broadly acceptable and essentially do nothing to rein the BBC in . Not of course policies the BBC would like but something they can live with until they get Labour re-elected, in what is still laughingly referred to as a democratic process.
The country will continue down this leftist path until the Islamic question breaks out into open conflict or until the country accepts Islam. Not much of future we are leaving to our grandchildren is it?
As much as I’d like to see UKIP do well, and continually increase their share of the vote in elections to come, my guess is that they would slowly merge into the LibLabCon consensus. Meaning that for every one step rightwards, the country still proceeds three steps leftwards.
The major parties (to me) are but three different flavours of communism. Sometimes I think only a military take over can reverse the creeping slide into dystopia and civil war. I don’t want to see that happen.
Good points CranbrookPhil!
Yet whenever I offer to help local Tories and UKiP to counter the endemic, ritualised bias as shown by the BBC-they all think it a bit beneath them , and not worth the work.
Seems petty, involving a rebuttal unit that they can`t pin a rosette upon.
I hate the left-used to be a lefty green zealot myself way back-and( as you say) there is bags of experience at this site…as well as the “is the BBC biased” website of Craig and Sue-formerly of this parish!
But UKIP and the Tories won`t take the BBC on-seems to me that they don`t have the venom, the self-righteous snarl of the Left like the SNP , McClusky, etc.
I KNOW that all the Left want is their funded salaries to be ensured…and to be held to be virtuous into the bargain as they rape and pillage, crash and burn-and “run out of other peoples money”, as Mrs T said.
If we don`t get some fire in their bellies-the New Right that follows will force the agenda to come-and it will not be nice, I `m afraid to say….
The right haven’t had a good snarler since Norman Tebbit. Few have a brain that sharp. UKIP is a new-party mix. Carswell is a polite theorist; Suzanne Evans is a good PR person. Farage has had a dig at the Beeb now and again but he can’t do everything and they’re all probably wary of the brutal power the Beeb have to ruin them. It’s an elephant v a gnat.
Tories are a coalition. The larger part has actually been engaged in moving the party to the left. The traditional ones are waiting and watching; you rarely hear from Redwood, Bone, Patterson or Fox but they will be the big story of the next two years if Cameron remains PM. As the ‘negotiations’ start and the referendum gets close, the Beeb will surely attempt to rubbish them and they will be forced to fight back. It’s hard to imagine that ‘BBC bias’ will not be a story in the campaign.
Something can only be done via the Charter renewal process and then only if the Tories win an outright majority at the election.
This is one of the reasons why the BBC have given up all pretence of impartiality now, in their election reporting. Turkeys do not vote for Xmas.
I think you mean Winterval surely?
Or Eid if they were Turkish turkeys ?
At present the govt debt is a gigantic £1.5 trillion. A truly massive and important issue. Why aren’t there thousands of people blogging about this? Why isn’t it a central plank of Tory, Labour or Liberal manifestos?
Is it because it doesn’t really exist?
+ £5 Trillion unfunded liabilities.
But that doesn’t exist either.
Tebbit did a brilliant interview a few weeks back on RTE Radio 1 (Ireland’s version of Radio 4, I suppose, although it is a bit more like the old Home Service, says he, showing his age). The podcast is here, for anyone who is interested:
20150308_rteradio1-sundaywithmiriam-normantebb_c20740089_20740091_232_
He has still got it!
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/end-the-bbc-licence-fee
Maybe some of the posters here are ready to step up from blogging here, and move onto campaigning against BBC bias? Combine with other blogs critical of the BBC and share tips on how to complain? Work together, and maybe even support independent media.
grow up
Off you go, then – you have no time to waste here.
Not a savvy IT whizz me, nor social media expert, but is it possible some crafty souls have sussed that the investment of a few words on a regular basis can, if made unpalatable enough, result in excising that often removes babies with the dregs?
Making it a result on any basis.
getting FARAGE?
Oh bunty I remember when you got that awful case of the NKVD’s off dear uncle Jim at the BBC gulag themed party 1997! they were hell to shift even with Cold war shower and double dose of Check point Charley !
double post
Sorry to hark back to Friday’s Newsnight but still suffering from post traumatic syndrome after Will Self’s appearance.
The ludicrous Dr No jacket, as occasionally favoured by George Galloway, another friend of stone age barbarism.
The smirking self-love, the drawling supposed superiority – while getting the facts wrong. Peter Oborne pointed out the limitations of pontificating if you don’t know anything about policy.
Self’s surprised the media portray the Milliband brothers opposing each other, an unhelpful ‘binary narrative’ no doubt.
His brother wrote a book about this pompous buffoon which could have been titled Waddock Hunt. Maybe the BBC could adapt it, although they won’t find anyone ugly enough for the lead role.
Remarkable ‘balance’ on that programme; O’Brien as the chair, with Self and Caroline Flint as two of three panellists. I’m not sure if it was a programme on Labour as part of a series… or just hideously biased.
Well after years of in-depth investigation the only reason I can find for Mr Will Self [important ] existing is that just after creation the universe had some bit’s left over that were of no use to anyone anywhere, so threw in in a corner until it got so mouldy and so resentful that one day it got out to infect the world !
The true definition of a “hate” channel…
https://twitter.com/bunny_laroche
D and C, Having a minute to spare I looked up the hate channel and was not surprised to note complete absence of argument so characteristic of the Nazi style left. All one has to to is declare hatred for Farage (or whoever the fuhrer tells you to hate) and post away. Ditto on the Stand up to Ukip, UAF, et al Facebook pages.
Oh Bunty I really hoped you had got over that nasty affair in 1979 when you realised nothing you said would ever be heard by anyone ever and blamed the PM because that nice BBC man you met in that car park in Ipswich told you it was her fault ! by the way did you ever get that £10 off him for service rendered ?
Has it all gone a bit pear shape on the site at the moment?
BBc this morning pushing the Liebour manifestation. Complete with Balls & unequivocal promises. No one from the opposition on to comment of course. Didn’t the prime mentalist have some “Golden ” rule on borrowing before? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/3267763/Gordon-Brown-signals-that-golden-rule-on-borrowing-is-to-be-scrapped.html
Another stop me if you’ve heard this one before story.
Elsewhere British workers are less productive than elsewhere. The reporter informs us statistics don’t lie. There was me thinking statistics can mean anything you want them to. mean. ( http://www.irs-recruitment.com/latest-news/British-Employees-Work-the-Longest-Hours-in-Europe-28 ) However this appears to be a story from a couple of months ago they have decided, I’m sure there must be a reason, to resurrect. http://theconversation.com/fact-check-are-british-workers-less-productive-than-germans-and-french-37829
Ed Balls had a car crash of an interview on Today this morning.
It`s as if he has gone from sixth form economics back to year ten CSE remedial.
He really had no answers to even the simplest questions from Justin Webb-who, to be fair, mangled Balls at every turn of the worm.
Basically all Balls could say was that the Tories were awful…his every answer brought us back to that meme of his.
NO accounting for the thirteen years where himself, Ed and Brown tanked the economy and hoped that all that time would stay below the waterline.
But the Tories have refloated it despite Labours efforts to keep it scuttled-and the BBC doing its damnedest to point at a pastie atop a petrol container from 2012.
They call this analysis-but Balls was toasted today, without Webb even having to try…Balls just hasn`t got a clue what to do.
I missed that interview, I switch off the radio whenever Ed Balls is due, I value my blood pressure!
Not much mention of UKIP over at the BBC election page – that seems to be the strategy – keep them off the front page, deny the oxygen of publicity unless there is something negative to say then say it loud and long… No discussion allowed about how the country is effectively bankrupted by the one party by 3 names and all the promises of money for the NHS, welfare, DFID can’t actually be afforded and that we have had to borrow the country up to our eyeballs to pay for it….because to the BBC all spending is good all welfare recipients and foreign causes are worthy and money grows on trees at the bottom of the garden in the socialist la la land…No doubt any minute the BBC in the interests of impartiality is going to have a ‘drama’ about what the first 100 days of the next socialist lib/lab/con government is going to mean…more tax rises, uncontrolled immigration, more debt, more political correctness a la Rotherham – and definitely don’t, whatever you do, mention Rotherham. I’ll fetch my coat.
BBC-NUJ will hate restricting NHS to British people-
‘Daily Mail,’ page 1-
“Show passport to use the NHS: Clampdown to stop migrants and tourists abusing the Health Service, which costs £2bn-a-year.
“Hospitals told to ensure everyone can prove they’re entitled to free care.
“Patients will have to fill in forms stating passport number and expiry date.
“Trusts which fail to charge health tourists will be hit with financial penalties.
“Senior doctors have said the current system is being widely abused.”
By SOPHIE BORLAND
FOR THE DAILY MAIL.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3036152/Show-passport-use-NHS-Clampdown-stop-migrants-tourists-abusing-Health-Service-costs-2bn-year.html#ixzz3XBRemcUG
Of course, Beeboids want British people to finance NHS as an International Health Service, open to provide for Labour Party-enabled, mass immigration patients.
Deja vu all over again. It’s just the DM campaigning for the Tories. We get that story at every election. After the election, the doctors give the government a two-word response, second of which is ‘off’, and the government say ‘OK, then.’ But that’s irrelevant, it will pick up some votes.
From a couple of years ago:
Doctors should not make immigration judgements – BMA
It is not a problem in the socialist utopia of France, where you pay and then claim it back, if you are entitled to.
You also pay for your bed and board in hospital, and there are not public ambulances dee-dahing about everywhere.
And of course France has a better system than we do, we are told. No wonder with all that extra income from residents and visitors alike.
I’ll be screwed then I haven’t had a passport for years and I’m loath to pay for one just to prove I’m English. At the last job interview I went into grenade mode because they said I’d need to prove my right to work in the UK. When I informed them I didn’t sit in a Panzer freezing my arse off in the Federal Republic of Germany with the British Army on the Rhine in the 1980s for this kind of crap, it probably didn’t help my chances of employment there. But this is the farcical state we are now in that you need to prove you are actually English.
It’s just another of those little rules put in place to placate the public that something is being done about illegal immigration.
Several owners of restaurants and butchers will know the penalties that can be imposed for failing to comply.
It’s like the checking of passports to get out of the country. It holds us up, but you cannot have one rule for Dave and one rule for everybody else.
We all have an NHS card with our NHS number on it. Have you ever been asked to produce it? I haven’t. Quaintly, I believe the NHS number system was based on the National Registration numbers used on ID cards in WWII. The NHS is of course very much of that era of socialist planning, and the gentleman in Whitehall knowing best.
“My very costly few weeks with Red Ed, by Stephanie Flanders:
“Former BBC economics editor breaks silence over ‘fleeting’ relationship with Miliband
“Ms Flanders was ‘secretly’ dating Labour leader when he first met Justine.
“Yesterday she confirmed story, tweeting: ‘We ‘dated’ fleetingly in 2004′
“Miss Flanders, 46, accused the media of ‘raking over’ Mr Miliband’s past.”
By JASON GROVES
FOR THE DAILY MAIL,
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3036196/My-costly-weeks-Red-Ed-Stephanie-Flanders-Former-BBC-economics-editor-breaks-silence-fleeting-relationship-Miliband.html#ixzz3XBUVYFBD
Mr Rentoul said: ‘Could the secrecy have been because he was a Treasury special adviser and Stephanie Flanders was a BBC economics journalist?’
What gets caught up in a rake tine can still have a great bearing on the health of the garden. Which is why we need investigative journalism that reveals nasty clumps.
And the likes of Leveson, backed by Labour and its best buds at the BBC, would see such information suppressed?
Leveson was largely engendered by the NOTW hacking.
Going through the civil courts at the moment is hacking by the Mirror Group, which seems to make the NOTW look a bit like amateurs.
Anyone noticed anything on the BBC? Anyone like to bet it would be different if it involved a Murdoch title?
This is without doubt the no-choice, phoney election. Take the EU. Opinion polls say that the majority of Britons would vote to leave if given the chance. That is why David Cameron and Ed Miliband are actually working to shut down debate on both the UK’s relationship with the EU and its closely-related bedfellow, immigration.
David Cameron is as much in his own way a Brussels enthusiast as Kenneth Clarke, Ted Heath or Michael Heseltine…
The clearest evidence of BBC bias in the News at 10 sequence came in the final contribution by economics editor Robert Peston.
Pulling the lens back for a moment, BBC news now treats these contributions by correspondents as a main fulcrum of their coverage. Major stories are not complete without them. The idea is that they explain, put into context and summarise the key points. But in an organisation with its own agendas – which the BBC now has in areas such as the EU and climate change – they have instead become a powerful propaganda tool.
Cameron, Miliband and the BBC all conspire to shut down debate on quitting the EU
Al Beeb refers to UKIP as ‘Far Right’?
Strange , because I know quite a few ex Labour voters who are voting UKIP.
I keep asking the question what does the term far right mean and I still don’t have a clue. I think that there must be a psychology term for implanting words and phrases into everyday speech that conjure an image of love or hate regardless of whether anyone actually knows why they have a positive or negative feeling when they hear it. It’s obviously successful because apart from far right, other terms such as racist and islamophobe are also part of the brainwashing technique. What isn’t surprising is that this deceit is practised by communists and is not used by normal people who generally tend to remain attached to the truth in language. The other thing I notice is that when communists use this method, it is exclusively to promote hate and not love.
In modern usage, the term ‘far right’ appears to be applied by the MSM as follows:
Far right = What a leftist disagrees with, but can not rebut through use of evidence, logic and reason.
Also
From my amateur understanding of the last century of world history, I would offer:
Far right = What the left becomes when it gets further left.
And from my (obsessive) monitoring of BBC News output:
Far Right = People who the BBC need to be thought of as bad people who are not to be listened to because they are bad, far right, possible Nazis.
I seem to recall from my youth, that the terms left and right had useful, socially understood meanings. (i) an economic connotation (individual liberty and free markets to the right, nationalised control of means of production on the left) and (ii) a social connotation (conservatives to the right/ liberals to the left). But when the two are mixed (ie a communist (left) who believes in the death penalty (perceived as ‘right wing’?) or a free marketeer (right) who believes in decriminalisation of certain ‘drugs’ (left)) then the use of the words left and right becomes polarising, confusing and unhelpful, particularly to young people.
I’m with you john. The terms are rendered meaningless with the paucity of honour, integrity and vision in our society’s elites. I look at right and wrong rather than right and left and find that a much clearer lens through which to view matters and I encourage my children to do this also.
Nigel Farage will have the last word.
I hope Farage attacks ALL the other parties on their willingness to drive the UK deeper and deeper into debt. And attacks the BBC for failing to point this out – and failing to cover properly the issues of Europe and immigration that voters say are the most important issues right now.
Farage could say that in his memory, Wilson’s first Government in the 1960s devalued the pound and caused a balance of payments crisis, the second Labour Government under Wilson and then Callaghan had a bale-out from the IMF bailiffs plus 30% inflation, and the Blair/Brown Governments presided over rampant debt and the bank crisis.
Just as bad – the Tories and LibDems have virtually doubled the national debt. Those are the poinjts Farage should hammer home – none of the major parties are fiscally responsible, they would all leave us even worse off in 5 years time.
You & yours broadcasting a piece about Royal fail post privatisation, and claiming its failures are because of management chasing profit. They didn’t take into account that complaints and failures are down nor that pre privatisation complaints just weren’t handled at all!
Typical BBC trying to imply that privatisation makes services worse when it in reality improves them no end !
On “news where you are” in London last night the main item – in terms of time devoted – concerned squatters near Runnymede. The BBC “reporter” informed us – confirmed by 2 interviews with the squatters – that, contrary to Magna Carta (or its spirit anyway) two apparently non-British (by their names and accents probably Spanish and Rumanian) “families” are being evicted from the lands of their ancestors on the Thames by the present (legal) owner of the land.
As presented, this wasn’t “news”. This was a barely disguised lefty piece of agit-prop demonstrating how the poor trodden-down masses – represented here by foreign
parasitesmigrants – are being victimised by rich capitalists. At no point were we informed why the squaatters were in the UK, where they’d come from, how they supported themselves or, rather and more to the point, who was supporting them.The only possible “news” (or Panorama-lite “investigation”) element in this – relating it to the “local” bit where the squatting is taking place – could have been an exposé of how easily, despite Magna Carta, private property can be effectively seized from its rightful owners. The thieves – enabled by the BBC – pronounced themselves scandalised that their seizure of private property was being contested by the owner of the land and whined about Magna Carta implying that they have a right to anybody else’s property, particularly that of the “rich”: uncoincidentally a sentiment right in tune with the policies of the political party which enjoys the support of the BBC.
This year is the 800th. anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta and to all intents and purposes, rather than being celebrated as the bedrock of our way of life, it is being treated as some kind of historical curiosity, of no significance to modern England, when that is, it’s not being ignored altogether.
I wish Romanians and gypsies would squat in Salford
Muslims: Rochdale-Turkey-Syria-Rochdale.
Beeboids go for Labour Party-Islamic line on this:-
‘Daily Mail’-
“Pictured grinning on his way home: Son of Labour councillor accused of trying to sneak into Syria with eight relatives returning to the UK.
“Waheed Ahmed, 21, detained alongside eight family members in Turkey.
“Rochdale Labour councillor Shakil Ahmed’s son accused of fleeing to Syria.
“He was arrested in Turkish border town with family, including four children.
“Will return to UK on a flight to Manchester from Dalaman later this evening.”
By EMMA GLANFIELD
FOR MAILONLINE
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3035886/Son-Labour-councillor-accused-trying-sneak-Syria-eight-relatives-way-UK.html#ixzz3XBlwqLEf
INBBC:-
“Waheed Ahmed: ‘Syria-bound’ councillor’s son to return to UK”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32279366
More and more Muslims join the Islamofascist barbarians of Islamic State.
“More than 6,000 have left Europe for Isis jihad: EU”
http://www.thelocal.de/20150413/up-to-6000-europeans-fighting-for-islamic-groups-isis-syria-iraq?
Why do we want or need the likes of this person back here amongst us and how much has it cost you and me to bring him back (I don’t say home because he obviously doesn’t regard this as his home).
I know this supine government won’t, but they should be charged with treason, given a custodial sentence, have their passports removed and on release given a one-way ticket to their favourite hell-hole with no right of return.
and what would their Saudi paymasters think of that ?
If someone has gone abroad to join ISIS there has to be a working assumption that they have committed crimes in Syria and Iraq. Hand them over to the Iraqi government for their activities to be investigated.
No point in putting a lighted candle in the window for their return – you can’t get a big enough candle
BBC all over the Labour book of lies they grandiosely call a ‘manifesto’.
Of course it’s no different to any of the other parties, they all have their books of lies. Lies of commission, lies of omission, and other assorted lies.
Of more interest is what isn’t in the manifestos which are unpleasant, and wouldn’t get public support that they don’t want to tell us they are going to do. Mass Immigration, Political Correctness, and Gay Marriage, all policies which were never in a manifesto, and never subject to democratic process.
Time that the BBC made an expose of the lies in these fantast documents, and time that the law was changed to make the manifestos legally binding and policies not included, illegal to introduce post election.
Fair play to Brillo on DP, He made Chucckkerr UMumagumma look stupid.
To be fair, that isn’t difficult.
Poor old Chukka. Even the simplest of maths concepts defeat him.
When asked on QT if net immigration of 250,000 would exacerbate the housing shortage he replied “I’m not going to blame immigrants”
Likewise when Brillo confuses him with relative and absolute measures of deficit increase/decrease, he replies “You’re just trying to get me to say we’re going to borrow lots”
A five year old could come up with more sophisticated equivocations.
Pope says something controversial…. but the BBC aren’t putting it front and centre of their news – so I’m interested…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32272604
“Turkey anger at Pope Francis Armenian ‘genocide’ claim”
Gosh, there’s a stonker of a headline – scarequotes, rebuttal given priority, fake neutrality with the use of the word weasilword ‘claim’ – this BBC headline’s got the lot.
“The BBC’s James Reynolds examines the Pope’s comments”
Phew, Gawd forbid the BBC leave us to make our own interpretations.
“Turkey has recalled its envoy to the Vatican after Pope Francis described the mass killing of Armenians under Ottoman rule in WW1 as “genocide”.”
One wonders what, if anthing, the Turks or indeed the BBC would want us to call such mass killings.
Blame it on the Ottomans – with a bit of luck the Comprehensive educated will think that’s a posh blanket box or better yet a sort of pouffe.
“Turkey has reacted with anger to the comment made by the Pope at a service in Rome earlier on Sunday. ”
Have to resepect “Anger” y’know. Leftists are always ‘angry’. Whilst those on the right suffer from ‘hate’. Remember that, it will help your understanding.
“Armenia and many historians say up to 1.5 million Armenian Christians were killed by Ottoman forces in 1915.”
Note the rather large smidgen of doubt injected by the BBC here.
It always helps to try the same words in a slightly different context and see how that goes… ahem… Israel and many historians say up to 6 million Jews were killed by Nazi forces in 1940…. you get the idea?
“But Turkey has always disputed that figure and said the deaths were part of a civil conflict triggered by WW1.”
Good luck with that, I think Pol Pot said the same thing. Did I mention Rwanda yet?
“He said that humanity had lived through “three massive and unprecedented tragedies” in the last century”
Interesting, I wonder where he’s going with this?
“Pope Francis also referred to the crimes “perpetrated by Nazism and Stalinism””
Good for him. I like the sound of this chap.
“But Turkey immediately summoned the Vatican’s ambassador to Ankara for an explanation, and then later recalled its ambassador from Rome. The foreign ministry said it felt “great disappointment and sadness” at the Pope’s remarks, which it said would cause a “problem of trust” between them. Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu tweeted: “The Pope’s statement, which is far from the legal and historical reality, cannot be accepted.”
See you in Court? Or is this just a PR fight? I note nowadays the Turks like Twitter.
“”Religious authorities are not the places to incite resentment and hatred with baseless allegations,” he added.”
Really? Now the BBC don’t say so but Turkey has that Mosquey sort of religion, right? So don’t get us started on places to incite resentment and hatred ….
“Analysis: David Willey, BBC News, Rome”
Ah good, another Beeboid expert turns up to provide a prism through which reality can be refracted
“Pope Francis, who visited Turkey last year, would have been perfectly conscious that he would offend the moderate Muslim country by his use of the word “genocide”. ”
I think I’ll leave it there… deliberate offence caused and all.
But before we go… Ladies and gentlemen, may I introduce my friends from Turkey the ‘moderate Muslims’
Shame that large numbers of the massacres occurred in the coastal cities as the Greeks retreated in 1923 taking the Greek population with them but leaving the Armenians behind. Not many survived. As it was 1923 there was no WW1 and no Ottoman empire, so those lame excuses kind of fall away. Shame about the research, eh?
There is far, far more evidence of the massacres of Armenians by the Turks than for Climate Change. In fact, there’s no evidence for Climate Change.
But the BBC accept Climate Change as an absolute fact.
Hmmm…let me think about that.
..
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn’t the Pope’s statement make the Vatican only the third state after France and Armenia. itself, to officially recognise the Armenian Genocide? [Perhaps someone familiar with the Vatican could answer when a statement by the Pope is Vatican policy and when it is only a personal opinion?]
Shouldn’t the real question be why the United Kingdom Parliament doesn’t recognise it?
Labour’s manifesto is out, is anyone counting the number of times today we hear the BBC say “but the Tories say…” against any of the promises. Bet it won’t be that many times, and certainly when the Tory manifesto comes out there will be many more instances of “but Labour says…”
Easy to check let’s count.
BBC Home page:
Miliband: I’m ready to lead country
No scare quotes, no ‘claims’ – say no more
Come on BBC, give us a gay wildlife story…
Ah here it is – penguins
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32283933
“A picture book about two male penguins raising a baby penguin has again made a list of books to have received the most complaints from library users”
What horrid nasty oboe-phobes we are, eh?
Oh, turns out this was in America.
Refund on my Licence please.
Meanwhile, on FaceBook, and not doing well in the comments…
BBC World News
The country with the least sexist banknotes is…
My fave is from a guy responding to flouncers claiming its critical news fare pointing out it’s next to the vital news that Kanye West jumped in a pond.
“The country with the least sexist banknotes is…”
I’m on it (not the bank note – the PC greivance story) see below.
BBC News
Britain may have reached “peak beard” but it is not in evidence on the frontbenches #GE2015
#BBCGoFigure
I’m presuming this is self-mocking parody (#BBCGoFigure surely is), but if not the BBC really has too many people trying to fill too much space with not very much.
“A picture book about two male penguins raising a baby penguin has again made a list of books to have received the most complaints from library users”
Penguins? Puffins, surely.
“Which country has the least sexist banknotes?”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32204664
I would have thought that the fact that Queen Elizabeth has appeared on all UK currancy for the last 60 years would have made this particular greivance story a non-starter – but I’m beginning to be convinced that much of this crap Politically Correct nonsense is US-based.
“There are calls for the US and Canada to put a woman on a banknote”
Who, what, where, when?
No no no, that’s old-style journalism – what’s the cause, who’s got the greivance, what do we want?
“Now there are calls for the US to put a female on the $20 bill. “The United States needs to show the world that we, too, recognise and value the contributions of women””
“I would have thought that the fact that Queen Elizabeth has appeared on all UK currancy for the last 60 years would have made this particular greivance story a non-starter”
Yes because, like Margaret Thatcher you see, she is the wrong type of woman, just for different reasons. Elizabeth I wasn’t exactly a low achiever either but, again, the wrong type of woman. Perhaps Dianne Abbott would be more suitable but it wouldn’t exactly enhance the £s value.
Happy to see Birgit Nilsson on a Swedish note though. Heard her sing when she was past her best but she was still amazing.
‘Elizabeth I wasn’t exactly a low achiever either’
I can almost hear the BBC saying in reply:
Yes, she was a woman, yes she won a war… but she must have been a ‘divisive’ leader and anyway what did Elizabeth actually DO for women?
Plus the people from Cadiz can never forgive her for destroying their Armada community
And when we put a woman on the reverse side of a bank note it was Florence Nightingale not Mary Seacole. When we’re not being sexist we’re racist (again)
Sarc off.
One thing is for sure the BBC wheels are being set in motion to convince us that it is time for the U.S. to have its first female President, and like with the present incumbent, all of the world’s problems would be solved (again).
Michele Bachmann was an impressive performer but the Beeb seemed to lack enthusiasm for her. Yet they are beside themselves about stiff, prickly Hillary. Go figure.
I’d vote for her – if she was endorsed by US Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
But I never hear anything on the BBC about Benghazi. Something best swept under the carpet in case it upsets the children.
Canadian banknotes used to have a portrait of HM the Queen until the early 1980s IIRC.
It won’t be Palin for some reason or other…
..
From another day, and another ‘plot’ but not sure if this was shared…
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/569919/SNP-want-axe-BBC-Scotland
Hoots.
Obviously the Scottish national socialists will want control of their own Reich propaganda ministry. Why seek power if you do not control the airwaves?
Not news (c) A Newsroom Tealady.
http://bbcwatch.org/2015/04/13/what-percentage-of-q1-2015-terror-attacks-against-israelis-was-reported-by-the-bbc/
‘the BBC reported less than 1% of the incidents which took place’
1%? That’s between 0 and 100, so on BBC 10:10 maffs, that’s darn near saturation coverage.
Every death is tragic, and often circumstances can elevate public interest, but if such metrics exist I’d be interested in comparisons of BBC reporting of murders overseas to see what tickles their fancy in face of the percentages overall, and what sees them pass.
What percentage of terrorism does the BBC report outside Israel and the Palestinian Territories? My feeling is that unless the terrorism is on a spectacular scale; committed by non Muslims or inside a very limited group of countries, chiefly USA the answer is almost none.
Shutting down the EU debate
http://conservativewoman.co.uk/david-keighley-cameron-miliband-and-the-bbc-all-conspire-to-shut-down-debate-on-quitting-the-eu/
“but the details have remained conspicuously and suspiciously vague
This about Tories and the EU?. … or is it Welfare t?, or is it the NHS? or or
And in other news, on a lighter note…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/ruminative.html
Do I detect mockery from with the Farce?
“Orf with his pension!”
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/pro-amateur.html
‘Saturday night saw the return of Atlantis from its cold store near Chepstow’
It burns! And, frankly, sucks. I lasted not very long before the cringe took hold. I wonder how much this commission cost, and who signed off?
A boat race took place at the weekend and the BBC was euphoric that the women rowed on the same day as the men, thought the BBC weren’t suppose to have views ?
The next phase will be women in the same boat as the men.
Contrast and compare Andrew Neal interview with Paul Weston, constant interruptions, talking over, gotcha questions, first question out of the blocks, ” Why are you a waaycist ? and Neal’s interview with Jimmy Savile, a pedo, a necrophile, but hey, at least Savile wasn’t a waaycist !!
Andrew Neal interviews Jimmy Savile
Be fair David. The opening question was valid and was a straight segue into Mr Weston discussing his video entitled “My name is Paul Weston, and I am a racist”.
An interesting video which I would encourage everyone to watch.
Of course Mr Weston is not a racist and possibly Andrew Neil had (heaven forbid?) not done his homework and actually watched the video? Which is a pity, as the interview could have developed the question as to whether Muslims should be employed in positions of responsibility in our public sector a little more fully.
The interview by Andrew Neil is the first time I have witnessed the issues Paul Weston (quite rightly and bravely) raises, even being mentioned on the BBC.
That Andrew Neil (who I think is generally the most effective interviewer in the MSM ‘political field’) is so alien to the concept of even considering that this is a matter for conversation in ‘polite society’ is a sad indication of how political correctness and Common Purpose has undermined our merest sense of our freedom to share thoughts and to freely express our ideas.
Whilst the freedom to share thoughts and ideas is an anathema to followers of Islam, this is England and these conversations need to be had. And the sooner, the better.
The BBC should interview Mr Weston more thoroughly, if the valid concerns he raises are to be addressed and, as nesessary, rebutted with reason and logic rather than ad hominem.
I don’t mind it when Andrew Neil gets stroppy with those who avoid answering his direct questions. But on this occasion, Andrew Neil was certainly not as polite to Mr Weston (as is his duty as an impartial commentator) as he usually is to people happy to answer questions and this was not ‘Brillo’s’ best work in recent weeks.
Neil was not so polite with Tommy Robinson and seemed very anxious to reveal Robinson’s real name, rather than interview the man on his views.
G W F.
We’ll see how this plays out with Andrew Neil. The Tommy Robinson interview was after Lee Rigby’s murder and before the murders in Paris this year. I suspect Andrew Neil has a bit more time for Mr Robinson now and possibly understands the real world dangers that real people face and how anonymity is not just a game. Andrew Neil was certainly affected big time by the events in Paris this year, much more so than his younger colleagues, who genuinely don’t seem to acknowledge that there is a problem.
I for one hope Andrew Neil keeps fit, stays at the BBC and outlives the licence fee.
Vote Brillo.
Christ almighty. Here is the headline on the front page of the BBC News website:
Miliband: I’m ready to lead country
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news
This is somehow classified as not just front page news, but headline news – top story. Could the BBC be any more explicit in it’s unadulterated bias?
Clearly, the BBC is now without any doubt Labour’s Election Campaign HQ.
Now that should definitely be in scare quotes!
Miliband?
He’s not ready to lead a dog.
Or to lead a chimney stack. (one for roofers!)
And he has refused (for 8 years) to be interviewed by Andrew Neil. Why? Because his vacuousness may be revealed?
BBC have gone full Leftard this week, as a brief perusal of the Labour Party Website (or is that the BBC Election homepage?). 110% behind the Special Ed election drive! Did the BBC comrades not get the memo? Never go FULL Leftard!
They are putting their shirt on Labour and have left their subtlety (whatever they had) in the past. If Labour don’t get in, we could be witnessing the process of the BBC being killed off by the overt, unashamed institutionalised bias of their current staff.
killed by whom ? Spineless Dave and his bunch of chinless wonders? Don’t make me laugh! That lot couldn’t handle a squirrel attacking them let alone a £4 Bn propaganda machine !
More a public suicide. If their bias is exposed by their own ineptness in its delivery, ‘public opinion’ may guide the hand of ‘spineless Dave’. Well he won’t be lead by principle or supported by a backbone will he? Then again, his vote base is collapsing because he’s alienated them.
And we learn last week that Miss Flanders: ‘impartial’ former BBC economics editor; Financial sector trougher; lauded BBC commentator (still coining it in from the Beeb -well done Steph!) and Keynesian cultist, likes men dressed to the left? I didn’t think either Ed had it in him.
We also have Peter Kelner helping the public understand (through his YouGov Polls) which way (red or blue, Labour or Tory) we ought to be voting. Even though Peter is married to a Labour peer and (guess what?) has made a healthy living over a long period being paid from taxpayer coffers to provide the right data for the purposes of…. well, a Common Purpose perhaps?
And good old Mr Johnson, friend of Ed Balls and chief spokesperson for the ‘independent’ (yes INDEPENDENT,) IFS (did I mention that they are independent?). I guess he’ll get more air time that a whole political party over the coming weeks so we can get lots of independent advice from the independent Mr Johnson (cerebral bedfellow of Ed Balls) of the independent IFS. Rather than a hearing of the policies of UKIP for instance.
Yeah, Headline Miliband, I’m ready to lead the country.
Next sentence is missing, which should be
BUT Conservatives say.
Give them a break, they just omitted the last two words “….into penury”.
Two points!
And if you thought climate change was relegated to the back burner:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/13/wheres-the-evidence-labour-puts-climate-change-at-heart-of-manifesto/
Milband says:
“And we will push for a goal of net zero global emissions in the second half of this century, for transparent and universal rules for measuring, verifying and reporting emissions, and for an equitable deal in which richer countries provide support to poorer nations in combatting climate change.”
Yes, absolutely. This is the ‘social justice’ half of the ‘climate change’ eco-socialist agenda, aka redistribution of wealth. The other half of the agenda is ‘sustainability’, aka anti-capitalism, and we see plenty of that from Ed too.
And it’s ALL so very socialist, so very Agenda21.
Robin Brant is the Beeb’s ‘UKIP campaign correspondent’ or something. I’m sure they feel honoured. If you plough through his tweets, you will find the odd matter-of-fact one. But negativity is the order of the day.
WARNING: I just clicked on the ICM twitter link. Most tweets are old. Then clicked on the link to their site:
h t t p ://www.icmunlimited.com/
Virus scanner blocked it with a big warning of Phishing URL. Best avoided!
That ICM poll is rogue, Tory’s 6 points up? Greens on 7% with UKIP? There is an agenda behind this one most definitely, watch the Labour post manifesto launch ‘bounce’ on the next ICM poll.
Populus this morning had topline figures of CON 33%, LAB 33%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 15%, GRN 5%
a welcome caveat from ICM’s Martin Boon about the inevitability of random variation and the sample perhaps being a touch too Tory. I’ll just leave it with the usual caveats – it’s one poll, and an odd looking one at that. Sure, it could be the start of some Tory surge, but if it is we will see it echoed in other polls today…and luckily enough we have at least three of them.
ukpolling.com
The BBC frequently quotes or interviews the IFS – whose director is close to Labour ?
So how come we are not getting this quote amplified by the Beeb at every opportunity ?
“Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, commenting on Labour’s manifesto launch:
“Literally we would not know what we were voting for if we were going to vote for Labour.”
He did say that. I spilled my coffee such was the shock.
“Literally we would not know what we were voting for if we were going to vote for Labour.” From a fully paid, well remunerated, paid up Labour bum-boy.
Beeboid editorial emergency team to the recovery! That Paul Johnson quote will soon be found in room 101. Not on the main 6 o’clock or 10’o’clock news bulletins I wager. And a re-education course for Mr Johnson is no doubt already underway. Had his autocue malfunctioned?
BBC – Election Days Report
Bunny la Roache … on BBC 5Live drive programme 17.25pm
… the impartial moderate commentator voice on UKIP?
…I m Gonna Get You FARAGE!
‘The Jamaican was free to kill Miss Duffy despite being ordered to be deported in 2007 after a brutal attack on a previous girlfriend.’
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/leighann-duffy-justice-has-been-done-says-mother-of-woman-murdered-in-front-of-sixyearold-child-10172346.html?origin=internalSearch
The left-leaning Evening Standard highlights the case of a victim of Labour’s somewhat lax ‘immigration control’ last time around.
I’ve heard Miliband say they’ll tighten up next time. Now remind me, what’s that old argument for us not having the death penalty – something about not being able to correct mistakes….?
‘End of haddock and chips’ – climate change shocker!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32286800
I’m shocked.
And Helen Briggs advises the unsuspecting British Public that the North Sea temperatures are going to rise by 1.8 C over the next 50 years.. ‘say scientists’, (get in there! experts say, scientists say, blah,blah). OK Helen. Which scientists? Any references to their work? Are Laws of Thermodynamics to be adjusted soon? New Labour policy perhaps? Could they adjust the gravitational constant while they are at it to make stuff easier to lift?
We’ve got (yes you’ve guessed it) Climate models! From the MET! Well done Helen. (Could you report on how the predictions from these models have matched the subsequently collected real world data, and how these models can be assessed in the light of this updated knowledge base?)
And Helen will of course, no doubt, be the future ‘go to’ Beeboid on the science of reporting science, with her academic work in the interfaces between government, scientists and journalists:
Click to access The%20badgers%20moved%20the%20goalposts%20%E2%80%93%20reporting%20science%20in%20the%20British%20media.pdf
I’m sure a doctorate, a professorship and a BBC slush fund will follow, with a few gongs to stick on the mantlepiece. As they say, you really couldn’t make this up.
Looks to me like a stone wall case of “Scientists given funding to advise government of likely fish species location implications of seas warming by a given amount (1.8 degree Centigrade).” I’d rather the government let me keep that money. I could spend it more wisely. But what the hell do I know. I am but a tax farmed pleb.
The Reality Deniers keep on calling the masses to prayer at the alter of Climate Change. And they sure are coining it in, from all angles. Climate Change – Kerrchingg!!!!
The Atmospheric temperature has risen by 0.76 Kelvin in 200 years, and the Seas have a mass 270 times that of the Atmosphere. So using thermodynamics and the 800 year thermal lag, I calculate that the Atmospheric temperature would have to increase by 28.8 Kelvin to achieve that increase in that time. But then it would be much easier to increase it by 1.8 Kelvin if there was a massive reduction in Cloud cover. But Astronomers are predicting the gradual increase in Cloud cover will accelerate. Already we find that the top of the oceans are cooling because the total global solar energy input has been found to have decreased from 2000 to 2012.
Desperate times for warmistas call for ever-more desperate ‘news’ scarestories. It’s actually quite entertaining.
What is more entertaining is that the deniers find themselves increasingly lonely voices.
I tend to believe a scientific consensus, rather than assumptions.
Scientific consensus seems to work fine in other areas of scientific research, so I don’t quite understand why it should break down when it comes to man’s ability to cause atmospheric warming?
If you ‘believe’ in scientific consensus, you fail to understand the very nature of scientific enquiry.
You are quite correct. You do not understand, but there is no ‘quite’ about it. Sorry, but there are no short cuts – you need up to ‘A’ level standard Maths Physics Chemistry Biology, and further study to degree level in a scientific / applied science field. Add in a dose of metaphysics and logic.
Then you will be armed with a few tools to enable you to wade through the clusterfuck that is the current situation we find ourselves in with published scientific and pseudoscientific papers, rebuttals, re-rebuttals and through the misuse and abuse of the extremely limited understanding that we have about man’s influence on ‘climate’ or ‘global warming’, and what, if anything, can or should be done about whatever we don’t know it is.
I can ask a ‘modeller’ to predict the dispersion of a drop of ink into a glass of water, and they wouldn’t get it right.
‘Believe’ if you like. Many humans need a religion, and many of today’s westerners choose the Warmons.
I’ll continue monitoring the data as it comes in, and continue wondering why the predictions from the government sponsored army of scientists from yesteryear doesn’t accord with the real world data now accrued. Polar Ice melt? Polar Bear population? Polar Ice mass? Is the truth really as you imagine it? Have you even checked?
The end is Nigh? Where have I read that before?
I agree that it’s a very complex area of scientific enquiry, but I don’t believe that I need to equip myself with a degree just to understand that there’s a consensus.
The underlying science is quite simple. Co2 is a greenhouse gas and we’ve been pumping huge quantities of it into the atmosphere for quite some time. Of course, there are many other variables – but from what I’ve read it seems that the majority of scientists agree that our actions in doing so will/are having a measurable effect.
I don’t have a degree in applied ballistics, but I still know that a gun can fire a bullet. I trust experts in ballistics to explain to me how a gun works. The same applies to climate change and man’s involvement.
I’m aware that there are individual scientists who have sceptical views as the origins and effects of global warming, but there are no scientific bodies who reject the findings of anthropogenic climate change.
If we start from your premise that each individual needs to arm themselves with the relevant qualifications and then wade through huge amounts of peer-reviewed reports and data in order to form an opinion, then nobody would believe anything. We can’t all be experts on everything. That’s why there are experts and specialists in certain fields of scientific research. When enough of them reach a consensus – 95% certainty in this case – then surely we should give credence to their expertise, otherwise no-one would believe anything ever.
I disagree that we have ‘limited understanding’ of man’s effect on climate. It appears that we have a pretty thorough understanding now.
Of course, it could all be a massive conspiracy but that’s a rather lazy and cynical supposition. Thousands of scientists in hundreds of faculties and research centres across the world appear to have come up with a consensus.
I disagree with your assertion about predictions. Arctic sea ice is thinning and reducing dramatically, the Greenland ice cap is melting and I have seen the retreat of a number of Alpine glaciers with my own eyes since when I was a schoolboy to now, 40 years later. Most tropical mountain glaciers are now gone and have vanished in a generation after existing for thousands of years.
What we do about it and whether or not a warming climate is a good or bad thing is a different matter entirely.
The complex bit is bullshit. Intelligence is about finding a simple answer to a problem, the complexity is an illusion produced by the many scientists needing to justify employment by continually playing about on the sidelines with irrelevant pursuits, rather than getting the core basics correct first, such as calibrating carbon dioxide warming. As the “Great Explainer” Richard Feynman said “if you don’t understand it then it’s Bullshit”
Simple facts (1) Isotopic analysis shows that only 4 percent of Atmospheric CO2 could be Man-Made (2) Atmospheric CO2 makes up only 0.04 percent of the Atmosphere (3) The mass of the Oceans are 270 times greater than the Atmosphere (4) Therefore, the morons think that a gas, 0.0000048 percent of the system, rules Climate Change. (5) A formula that works for Calibrating CO2 warming for two Planets with over 90 percent of warming due to CO2, implies that warming on Earth should be too small to be detected (6) Length of Solar cycle correlates with Climate Change.
That last one, number (6) is heavily censored outside of Astronomy, but has undergone a revolution in the understanding of the harmonics of Solar tidal influences on Climate Change.
Firstly, I don’t think that calling thousands of scientists who have studied this for years as ‘morons’ is the right way to debate.
Of course man-made CO2 is tiny compared to that naturally occurring. Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, it is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.
Natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time –we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere directly in ice cores.
Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years. (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.
It’s very clear that warming is occurring and I believe it’s principally because we’re burning increasing amounts of fossil fuels and the natural CO2 balance is being disrupted.
Those errors where probably supplied to the IPCC by the Grantham Institute. These errors created problems that were corrected about four years ago in a debate with two other Mensa members. They found that according to the worlds most experienced expert on Ice Core measurements, Zbigniew Jaworowski, CO2 concentrations in the Ice Core data are about 40 percent lower than the original Atmosphere. This is confirmed by (Hird 2006) and proved by chemical analysis of the Atmosphere in the 19th Century. For instance Ernst-Georg Beck reveals that CO2 levels where higher than today in the 1820’s. But as usual and as with the Hockey Stick and many other issues, the IPCC sticks to Scientific errors, if the truth is fatal to the Political cause. As is the case with the Carbon Cycle, Tom Segalstad shows that the IPCC error is caused by a circular assumption using the “evasion buffer factor” instead of “Henry’s Law”. The simple fact is that an 800 year thermal lag in Sea Temperature determines Atmospheric CO2 levels today, and the Medieval warm period peaked 800 years ago.
“As the “Great Explainer” Richard Feynman said “if you don’t understand it then it’s Bullshit”
Yeah. He never said anything of the sort. He called philosophy “bullshit” and he said “if you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don’t”. You seem to have conflated the two.
‘I disagree that we have ‘limited understanding’ of man’s effect on climate. It appears that we have a pretty thorough understanding now. ‘
Which is why none of the models, based on this ‘pretty thorough understanding’, predicted 18 years of no warming?
That’s just plain delusional.
‘Of course, it could all be a massive conspiracy but that’s a rather lazy and cynical supposition.’
See Agenda21 aka ‘mitigating actions against climate change’ aka ‘world eco-socialist government’ aka ‘UN’s totalitarian aims’.
See Green Party Manifesto (Agenda21 in party political form).
See 28gate – the BBC secretly getting into bed with rabid environmentalists to discuss how it can spread the ‘climate change’ message, then trying to deny/suppress details of the event at the cost of a huge legal bill.
See Patrick Moore on Greenpeace: ‘But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2794116/greenpeace-condemned-original-founder-evil-guilty-losing-humanitarian-roots.html
See Club of Rome: ‘“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself,” states the report, which can be read in full at the end of this article.
The passage appears under a sub headline entitled, “The common enemy of humanity is Man.”
No conspiracy. In fact, if you want to find the real agenda behind ‘climate change’, it’s all out there in plain view.
But then, avid warmists like yourself knew this already.
You have concentrated on the atmosphere and ignored the oceans and it is simplistic to measure warming over such a short time period. There are short term influences that can cause fluctuations in the rate of warming.
Re conspiracy. You mention Greenpeace and the Green Party but you ignore the thousands of scientists who have nothing to do with those two organisations who stand by their research.
It is indisputable that the tropical glaciers have vanished, that the Alpine, Himalayan and American glaciers are retreating rapidly, that the Arctic and Greenland ice sheets are thinning and that the oceans are warming. All of this is measurable and measured.
Therefore, ‘something’ is warming the planet, rather than a gigantic conspiracy.
You have concentrated on the atmosphere and ignored the oceans and it is simplistic to measure warming over such a short time period.
Which is exactly what the models have done. Exactly. They told us as CO2 rises in the atmosphere so will atmospheric temperature. Unequivocal. No ifs, no buts. And you obviously missed my post about models here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/14/open-letter-to-u-s-senators-ted-cruz-james-inhofe-and-marco-rubio/
Then they realised it wan’t happening. So first we had the re-branding: ‘man-made global warming’ became ‘climate change’. Then as the lack of warming persisted, panic set in, so they scrambled and fussed and huffed and puffed to find an explanation.
Some, like yourself, have settled for ‘ocean warming’. Ok, but answer these two questions:
1) Why was ocean warming not factored into the models
2) Where is the proof. Specifically: where are the historic ocean temperature records against which comparisons can be made, how were those measurements taken and over what area of the world’s oceans and b) ditto for the more recent ocean temperature records.
It’s Groundhog Day! Hope you have a ticket for the Omnibus.
If you , believe in Global Warming , & want to,” Save the Planet” , just get a one way ticket, to that clinic ,in Switzerland . You will then leave this mortal coil , happy in the Knowledge ,that you have left more “resources” for the rest of us , & your “Carbon Footprint” will forever be Zero .
Well said! (for once!) 😉
Yeah ,well . I am .a Conservative , Never believed in Global Warming , hate the BBC , would , leave the EU , unless we get a good deal on ,renegotiation. Stop immigration , Increase Defence Spending . Carry on Fracking & pump oil out of the Sussex Weald , Give Scotland independence .But , I don`t like UKIP , they are,very wierd , & not my cup of Tea .Some of them ARE very racist , I have nothing against , Western Europeans , Indians , Japanese , & Hong Kong Chinese ,& Gurkha`s . Ukip DO have problems with these people .
“I tend to believe a scientific consensus, rather than assumptions”
The problem is with the words “believe” “Consensus and “Assumptions”
“At the BBC, belief, speculation, assumptions, consensus and political ideology are preferred to facts, proof, evidence, observations, correlations, results from experiments and the scientific method”
That was from an article about BBC Censorship of Science, Scientists and Scientific debate. The people complaining were causational climate scientists. The people at the BBC implementing the censorship are left-wing Environmental activists with no qualifications relevant to the science.
The whole lunacy originates from the United Nations, and most of the loonies reside at the Grantham Institute and the Tyndall Centre.
Most of the causational climate scientists in Britain are individuals who have no free say in any consensus, because of the political control of opinion by the loonies. So the consensus is a political consensus controlled by the loonies, or charlatans, as some other causational climate scientists call them.
The BBC ‘End of Fish & Chips Due To Climate Change’ feature started with these words:
—–Warming seas will push traditional fish favourites off the British menu, a study suggests——.
A Study (or two) also suggests that the BBC is biased.
I can’t find a BBC feature on that.
..
…..and don’t forget ‘the end of snow’ (March 2000).
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
Or is it more snow? (March 2011)
http://phys.org/news/2011-03-global-snowstorms-scientists.html
Global warming – it can be anything you like!
But there are scientists all over the world that form part of this consensus. There isn’t a major scientific body that doesn’t believe that the planet is warming and that man’s actions are a significant factor in this.
It’s not just a couple of institutes and the BBC. The scientific method you mention has been used by thousands of scientists to arrive at the current consensus.
Are they all wrong?
There are many scientists around the world that are not part of the ‘consensus’
There is no ‘97% consensus’ – it has been proven to be false on many occasions
There are numerous competing theories
Outputs from unvalidated models are not ‘evidence’
Empirical evidence that does not follow the ‘consensus’ is ignored
Peer review has been systemically subverted
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence said Carl Sagan
I have seen no extraordinary evidence
‘I tend to believe a scientific consensus, rather than assumptions.’
Yawn, it’s Groundhog Day.
The only ones saying there’s a ‘consensus’ are those who believe, religiously, in man-made warming despite real world evidence totally destroying their hypothesis. Any road up, consensus is for politics, not science, else where would these two guys have got:
Until the two scientists carried out their pioneering research, it was widely believed that nothing could live in the extremely acid environment of the stomach, and that ulcers and gastritis were the result of lifestyle and stress.
Professor Warren said it took a decade for others to accept their findings. “Everybody believed there were no bacteria in the stomach. When I said they were there, no one believed it,” he said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/nobel-for-scientist-who-poisoned-himself-to-prove-his-ulcer-theory-6143409.html
The ‘real world’ evidence, amongst others, is:
It is indisputable that the tropical glaciers have vanished, that the Alpine, Himalayan and American glaciers are retreating rapidly, that the Arctic and Greenland ice sheets are thinning and that the oceans are warming. All of this is measurable and measured.
Plenty of real world evidence to the contrary on Arctic and Antarctic ice coverage
Yo won’t find it on the BBC though
The ‘real world’ evidence…
I have spent my life eating vegetable fat, because the great and the good, as reported by the Beeb, told me very smart people, far smarter than me, scientists, had ‘evidence’ that butter was bad for me. My old mum scoffed because the evidence of her experience was that people who ate butter tended to live a good long life. Nevertheless, she eventually succumbed too. Now, fifty years later, they say ‘Oops – we were wrong, butter is good, margarine is bad.’ Excuse me if I laugh when I hear about ‘evidence’. The most telling point about the butter story is that people could make their own butter but had to pay big business to make margarine for them. Climate change may or may not be a fact, but if you want to understand it, ‘Follow The Money’.
It is indisputable that the tropical glaciers have vanished, that the Alpine, Himalayan and American glaciers are retreating rapidly, that the Arctic and Greenland ice sheets are thinning and that the oceans are warming. All of this is measurable and measured.
There is no proof the oceans are warming as there is no reliable historical data against which to make comparisons. Read up on the justifications for the Argo project. And anyway, we have been told unequivocally for years, based on all those useless models, that ATMOSPHERIC temperature will rise as ATMOSPHERIC CO2 levels rise.
And as for glaciers and ice cover – it has ever been thus, and more recently than you think:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/cache-of-historical-arctic-sea-ice-maps-discovered/
Ok, Mr Omnibus?
PS I gave an example in science where ‘consensus’ meant nothing, and two lone scientists proved the consensus wrong. That is what science is about: someone comes up with a hypothesis, other scientists try to disprove it (and it only takes one!).
You chose not to answer.
Any particular reason?
I trek in the Himalayas, in Nepal – the locals there deny the glaciers are retreating.
You are just parroting myths – lies that the likes of Greenpeace thrive on.
And lies that the likes of Greenpeace, peddled through alarmist, unscientific pamphlets, somehow, miraculosuly get included in IPCC reports. That would be the 30-odd% that hasn’t been peer-reviewed. Then there are the unpublished papers which strangely don’t seem to be subject to the IPCC’s own cut-off dates…..Good job we have the likes of Steve McIntyre and his website to expose these charlatans, even though no-one seems prepared to hold them to account.
“What is more entertaining is that the deniers find themselves increasingly lonely voices.”
Please confirm what a “denier” is in your terms of reference.
I do not deny that there has been variation in global temperatures over time (currently on a slight downward trend). That is reasonably measurable.
I do not deny there has been climate change since the formation of the earth, as that is what caused such as coal measures to be formed so is a natural phenomenon.
What I am extremely sceptical about is the level of any link between man made CO2 and the effects that are supposed to be related.
We had a short period recently where the graph line of man made CO2 emissions correlated with an increase in global temperatures, but in the scientific world correlation and causation are not the same thing.
Go back 15 years and check out the 95% certainty levels from the “modelling” where we should be now. Unfortunately global warming has stalled while man made CO2 emissions continue upwards. In view of that are you 100% sure, or 67% sure, or how sure that your “concensus” is correct?
Why didn’t the “concensus” models of 15 years ago pick that up? Because no one wants to rock the research grant boat?
BBC News Channel in the last 30 minutes. Numerous mentions of Mr Miliband and his commitment not to promise things he hasn’t fully sourced the funds for in his manifesto. Comment (i.e. in no way an analysis of any description) from the BBC, basically making Miliband out to be some sort of financial guru (no mention of his cloase association with Mr Brown’s financial success ????? in the last Labour government). Follow-up by Rachel Reeves ONLY. No comment allowed by any other party.
I wonder if the BBC will be so reticent in allowing a free run at the country to the Conservatives later in the week when they release their manifesto…. not a chance in hell.
BBD Radio 4 ‘PM’ has piece on Hillary Clinton and who do they get to comment but Guardianista and Liebour luvvie Joan Smith. She went on to tell everyone about her loathing of Margaret Thatcher, presumably because she enabled social mobility and we don’t want the plebs getting above themselves do we now?
The other was a US national was said Clinton was mired in numerous scandals and was the antithesis to Obama – opaque, not transparent, and a Washington insider.
Eddy Mair didn’t like that and went on the attack! It’s clear that the BBC have whole heartedly thrown their weight behind a Clinton presidency – unless of course someone of a different ism which trumps women comes along.
Presidential hopeful Ayesha Mohammed ?
Yup – an all-day verbal halo awarded by the BBC to ‘La Clinton’, very much leaning on her time at the White House as being part of her ‘credibility’. No mention of her husband’s legislating (without doubt, with her support) that banks lend to people who hadn’t a hope in hell of paying back their loans – hence the duff derivative bonds, hence the global crisis, ably assisted in this country by Mr Brown’s ‘Spend, Spend, Spend’ splurge (to purloin just one of the headlines the BBC has inflicted on us today).
The only speck on the horizon which may impede Ms Clinton’s acclamation and anointment as the obvious Presidential Candidate (meme of the day today – ‘well, of all the US presidents , only one has been black, and surely it’s time for a woman now’), are these ‘nasty Republicans’, who for some reason, can’t see past her lying, scheming and discredited record whilst in positions of power. Not that the BBC would have dared mention the latter, far less have dwelt on it for more than a nano-second – and oh so easily omitted as the day went on, anyway. So, you can clearly see that there is no other choice as the next President of the US – otherwise – horror of horrors – one single party might hold all three branches of the Executive in the US and that just can’t be good(errrrr, just as Obama did when first elected ?).
Jeez – the BBC buys into all this left-wing crap, with absolutely no shame, or even the tiniest bit of real analysis, whatsoever – and not just in the UK either.
Let’s hope there’s a ‘Clark County’ outcome here (i.e. where the voters in a US constituency basically told the BBC to F*** Off when they tried to interfere).
In a three-day period starting Friday, 5,629 migrants were rescued, the [Italian] Coast Guard said.
“Even as we speak there are 14 rescue operations ongoing,” the Coast Guard official said.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article18376154.html
I wonder where they’re headed? Interesting that this story is news in Miami, but hardly mentioned here…
Well done! Prominently displayed under BBC/News/World/Europe. How could I have missed it? Haven’t seen it on the box, though. Maybe a ‘busy news day’. Probably got more important stories like a UKIP candidate offering sausage rolls in a meeting.
Are you new here, Windy? Your ‘style’ is strangely familiar.
Boringly familiar, in fact.
Same old trolls. Same old tripe. Same old BBC salaries.
Oops! Sorry – no points for you this time, Windy. That’s an old story from a week ago. Different set of ‘thousands’. It’s going on all the time – you really should try to keep up!
I liked the BBC route maps.
Can Windy run through the political situations in the individual African nations indicated to make me believe they are seeking asylum. Or is it economic migration?
Nee is the 6 O’clock news…Labour have launched their manifesto, and that’s about it.
North West Tonight. opens with the “Labour party has launched their manifesto in Manchester. But does have some other stories.
Meanwhile http://order-order.com/2015/04/13/icm-gives-tories-6-lead/#_@/gvPDKuDnpinzrA
Some German baby factory is being ‘celebrated’ by the BBC as she’s now pregnant yet again with quadruplets. In a hurried remark they said she was a ‘single mother’. I take it from that remark that the Germans have found their own benefits scrounger who they have been forced to finance, and she sounded just about as entitled as every muppet we have here who think they have a right to pop out as many sprogs as they possibly can so long as someone else is being made to pay for it all !
Radio 4 ‘comedy’ for lefties, Dilemma, hosted by leftie Sue Perkins has as a guest Labour supporting Guardian contributor Jack Monroe! She’s supposed to be a food writer FFS ! why have the BBC paid her to turn up in a comedy slot?
This really is sickening bias:
letting your children play with the offspring of racists
going on the minimum wage in exchange for other people’s living standards being raised
and how to react to discovering infidelity just before you get married
Might as well be the sixth form communist debating society !
Miliband says he is ‘ready’ to lead country. The BBC gives unsurprisingly sympathetic coverage:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32279977
And its open for comments. I’ve read some. I don’t think the public agree with Ed.
yep! … sure looks like conservative central office are busy
And Labour on the downticks. Highest rated tend to also be lowest rated. Enlightening how Tories and Labour are organised ‘all across social media’.
It is the most orchestrated, the most deceitful, the most person vindictive underhand election campaign.
Debates are now a part, but the government won t.
Explain policy under scrutiny, but the government can t.
The TRUE directives should the Tory return, the government refuse to say.
Lying about its record, doctoring its figures, selling out/
selling off our nation, and targeting the poorest/most vulnerable members of our society.
What`s this I hear ,even “the Kipper in Chief ” has come to his senses, he is encouraging kippers ,wait for it “Vote Conservative” in seats ,that ukip have no chance in. That`s Brilliant , I am soo glad , he see`s the reality of the situation. I am not sure what Mr Angry , Foggy, & Noggin the Nog are going to say . I am awaiting for a torrent of abuse .
I can’t recall abusing you Mr Essex.
My response?
Vote UKIP. Its a conviction. 🙂
Which begs the question – which UKIP group do the Conservatives want to vote for them; the lunatics, the fruitcakes or the closet racists, or is it all three.
Logic dictates tactical voting, but the Conservative “modernisers” have spent five years insulting and alienating UKIP supporters (and traditional Tories), so for many emotions are running high – as illustrated by the Kippers who post here. I mention traditional Tories as the insult “turnip taliban” was aimed at Tories not Kippers.
Cameron may say “come home all is forgiven”, but the forgiveness will need to come from the other side, and the BBC will be working hard to maintain the enmities.
Farage has offered an olive branch, but is Cameron big enough to offer something in exchange? Does he have the balls to risk the wrath of the BBC?
I’m quite surprised that there hasn’t been more defections from the Tories to UKIP. I would have thought that UKIP would be the spiritual home for Peter Bone, Chope, Wiggin, Paterson, Holabone etc.
Do they think that UKIP will not deliver the seats next month? Or are they afraid that the electorate will not stomach a coalition that lurches towards the right?
Either way, with the evident enmity between the two parties the outcome appears to be a progressive coalition between the centre left parties.
Which is nice.
‘Either way, with the evident enmity between the two parties the outcome appears to be a progressive coalition between the centre left parties.’
I think you mean ‘hard’ left.
And by ‘progressive’ you mean descent into economic and social chaos.
Which will be nice for anarchists, until they realise their benefits have dried up….
PS As a Leftist, what is that attracts you to defending the BBC?
Here we go again!
No abuse from me, but you need to let up blaming those of us who are following our convictions and voting UKIP, because if Miliband does win, the blame must go completely to Cameron who has been losing this election for the last 5 years.
Do you have a problem with using real sentences that we can understand? It’s a bit like the left don’t understand why sane voters have no idea why anyone with an IQ of more than 10 would let the Ed and Ed near our economy again!
I suppose you can be an anarchist and still have an IQ > 10.
Just giving him the benefit of the doubt, like.
It still is – I think the BBC are hoping that someone somehow will post something good so that they can close the comments and leave the good ones on display.
Has anyone spotted that the labour party manifesto promises to make the BBC stronger and its competitors weaker?
It pledges to act against the “concentration of media power” in the UK “So that no media outlet can get too big”.
But this doesn’t appear to refer to the pro-labour, left-liberal BBC and seems aimed at Murdoch ‘s News International.
The manifesto praises the BBC which is “one of britain’s great strenghts” and which makes a “vital contribution to the richness of our cultural life” which the party will ensure continues.
Scary when you consider the one media organisation which is grotesquely over-sized is the public funded, Labour friendly BBC.
An inevitable marriage of stupidity. The liberal left , which for now thinks itself in permanent control of this country, needs the BBC.
It does not regard the BBC as anything other than a broadcasting expression of it’s underlying philosophy.
Which is one reason why this election is so dull. The stupid citizenry are concerned about immigration and the EU and it’s blatent disregard of our democratic traditions. Not the main parties and their tame media chief amongst which is the BBC.
It will be the same in the US election. Clinton who abandoned the men in Benghazi is the preferred candidate.
The BBC/liberal media is so sure of itself. The past is full of people and cliques who had the same feeling and ended up destroyed.
But if the ‘stupid citizenry’ are so concerned about immigration and the EU why aren’t UKIP doing better?
They have clear and unequivocal policies on both subjects and we’re told repeatedly that these are the main bones of contention for the electorate, yet their poll ratings are steadily declining. Their policies are supported by papers such as the Express and Mail, so they certainly have a voice in the media, and their leader is one of the most recognisable politicians in the country today, with a high media profile.
So why are they not up to 40%?
”But if the ‘stupid citizenry’ are so concerned about immigration and the EU why aren’t UKIP doing better?”
50 years of pro immigration propaganda and brainwashing, it’ll take the same amount of time to unbrainwash the citizenry.
Yes, I understand that you perceive there to be a campaign of brainwashing and pro-immigration propaganda but a YouGov poll at the end of Feb had 35% wanting to leave the EU.
Another YouGov poll in March found that 49% wanted to see less immigration.
So there are a significant number of people who haven’t been ‘brainwashed’, which makes it particularly curious that UKIP are polling around 15%.
They are the party with the clearest policies on those two subjects and they tell us that these are the subjects that matter most to people, so why the disconnect?
I think you’re missing the point which can be seen in the way UKIP are portrayed by all of our MSM (more obviously the bBC), that is as a thing of shame, with constant taunts of racist, disdain and evil, all for the crime of speaking the truth.
Such taunts of racist planted on those who do admit to supporting them, our establishment has seen to it that such a label is to be paralleled with being accused of being a pedophile …
Few will admit to voting UKIP for this very reason, for the genuine fear of losing one’s employment, especially if working in the public sector.
The polls were wrong last year preceding the Euro’s and I suspect are wrong again, time will tell.
There was a political ‘comedy’ discussion show on BBC 2 tonight hosted by Jack Dee, Jeremy Hardy said ” Nigel Farage was a vampire.”
Drip, drip, drip….
I understand what you say, but polls, like elections, are anonymous therefore there isn’t any kind of stigma attached to expressing such views.
Indeed, discussions around immigration – and certainly the EU – are now very much mainstream. All parties, to lesser or greater extents, have intimated that they will examine immigration. In my small town there are UKIP posters in windows.
I’m not convinced that you give your fellow citizens enough credit for their opinions. Most will have firm views and are happy to express them. A victim mentality will not help UKIP supporters – especially as much of the print media support and espouse such views. There are regular headlines decrying the effects of immigration, criticising Muslims and lambasting the EU.
Which makes it strange that the UKIP vote has been steadily declining since achieving almost 20% last year.
Polls are not anonymous.
I agree with you inasmuch as a polling company would have to have your telephone number / email address to conduct the poll, but surely the results are anonymised?
The results don’t say ‘Geoff intends to vote for y’ and ‘Chris intends to vote for x’.
Therefore, the results – which are the critical bit, are anonymous.
The actual election poll isn’t secret. Your voting slip is numbered and can be matched to the electoral roll. Happy to vote UKIP and have your neighbours know? Just takes a couple of leaks of the data by a lefty in the council.
4.00 Yuri Bezmenov ex KGB agent on subversion ” Japan has not been subverted because if an immigrant turned up in the country, the Japanese would say ‘get lost,’ so Japanese culture, traditions have been preserved. ”
Just to see what the ships bought in and heading to Calais for that short welcome to England trip on the back of a lorry… It’s all EU Health and Safety guidance from the ‘state-of-the-bias’ BBC SAT-NAV). Plenty of room at Manchester, the Salford Quay car park awaits.
http://www.th-eu-nit.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44186:migration-commissioner-urges-eu-to-deal-with-unprecedented-refugee-influx-&catid=62:immigrationemmigration
I need to make it clear that “stupid citizenry ” is my take on how the liberal elite sees us. It is not my view.
I hold to the old view that the English people are always to be trusted and that our leaders rarely.
Liberals doing badly in Cornwall. The Liberal stronghold is falling off a cliff…!
http://www.th-eu-nit.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44127:lib-dems-face-wipeout-in-the-westcountry-on-the-day-clegg-launches-manifesto-poll-suggests-he-will-lose-every-seat-in-the-south-west-to-the-tories-&catid=61:uk-parliament
Deport him:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3037099/Pakistani-born-father-five-faces-years-jail-convicted-grooming-girls-young-12.html