One down. Fifty thousand to go.
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Zephir April 20, 2024 at 11:02 am on Weekend 20th April 2024[img]https://i.postimg.cc/gjnhy8Tm/Capture-2.jpg[/img]
- Zephir April 20, 2024 at 11:02 am on Weekend 20th April 2024RE above, nuff said [img]https://i.postimg.cc/X7tf81Wh/Capture-1.jpg[/img]
- Thoughtful April 20, 2024 at 11:01 am on Weekend 20th April 2024Yes I am aware of the obligations of pension funds to invest in government bonds and gilts. I also remember...
- Fedup2 April 20, 2024 at 10:59 am on Weekend 20th April 2024Lord god Iām not going over that stuff - you are on the way to being a troll . Iām...
- Zephir April 20, 2024 at 10:57 am on Weekend 20th April 2024And do they have a gilty conscience ? unlikely
- Thoughtful April 20, 2024 at 10:53 am on Weekend 20th April 2024"i recall your fondness for identifying bibi as engineering the hamas attack to deflect from his political problems . "...
- Thoughtful April 20, 2024 at 10:42 am on Weekend 20th April 2024The thing which makes my blood boil is the amount people on jobseekers are given, and the implications of cutting...
- Rob in Cheshire April 20, 2024 at 10:36 am on Weekend 20th April 2024Mine too, though the games master used to start races with a Webley .38, which always used to fascinate me....
- Peter Grimes April 20, 2024 at 10:32 am on Weekend 20th April 2024ā Because they are run by accountants, and accountants lack common sense or a view of risk in the future...
- harry142857 April 20, 2024 at 10:24 am on Weekend 20th April 2024Police - Advice for openly Jewish people. You need to click on the link - Andrew Lawrence https://youtu.be/n8umwi_ToX4?si=BQuPcHhgE4mJcugM
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
Interesting selection of beeboid / nulab trolls, posing as members of public and trying to steer the debate in the direction of not saying nasty things about poor beeboids !
Anyone stupid enough to believe that bias at the bbc is just some accidental occasional error, rather than ingrained leftist commitment to the half baked ideals of the labour party, deserves to be paying for them.
What Joel said. The bigotry might have burst through the surface here, but it’s bubbling away all over the site.
backwoodsman:
Interesting selection of beeboid / nulab trolls, posing as members of public and trying to steer the debate in the direction of not saying nasty things about poor beeboids !
Hope you are not referring to me. I have read this site for a year or more and have posted before (under the name The Admiral I’ve just remembered). Take the point on board, don’t shoot the messenger!
I can’t say I’m endeared to the inital thoughts in this thread and I was not going to add to it but the concerted effort by BBC employees posing as members of the public sounding just like the plants they put on (D)HYS is more than grating me now.
Making the same so called point and claiming that you wont now be using the blog.
Good.
Seeing as how you weren’t using it before that will be no loss.
Seeing as how you are BBC employees that will be no loss.
I’m sure a simple look at your addresses will reveal you are all posting from the BBC.
Is this just another BluePeterGate kicking off? It certainly looks like it.
@ cockney
Sure. I’m an economic consultant in oil and gas. I work out where to build refineries and gas-to-liquids plants and how much they should cost. I am of the most important industry on the planet. Without energy, there wouldn’t even be any food. I am relaxed about what I do.
My point remains valid. If one finds a company’s method’s obnoxious, you can boycott it. If one finds a political faction obnoxious, one can vote for its opponents.
You can’t do either to the BBC. It is not truly commercial because it can force you to pay for its products whether you want them or not. And although it is a political faction, it does not stand for election.
Which leaves the employees as the [i]point d’appui[/i].
Anyone who agrees to work for it is at a different place on the same spectrum as someone who worked for the Stasi, or the Securitate, or any other anti-democratic organ of repression. I’m sure the front-of-house-girl at the Securitate’s office in Bucharest never personally waterboarded anyone or clipped electrodes to their testicles, but by working there she helped it to function so that others could do those things. She thereby acquiesced in and facilitated what it did.
If companies like that found it impossible to hire anybody, they’d cease to function. In the case of the BBC, that can only be a good thing.
Being of the BBC is not as bad as being a Communist torturer, but it’s not far off, because the BBC to this day is still an apologist for it.
I don’t think it’s actually possible, because about 33% of the electorate now relies on institutional leftism for a livelihood. This seems to be the level of support that Labour has purchased since 1997 – and it’s up from the 80s when Labour support often slipped to about 28%.
There will always be just enough turkeys around to vote down everyone else’s Christmas, but we can still try to make them feel bad about themselves.
Well if you’re going to post this sort of stuff at least get your facts right. There are around 22,000 (and falling) staff working for the BBC.
As for Mr Kershaw, well I never cared for him as a DJ but he’s an amazing war reporter. I’ll try and dig out a link to him talking about the time he ended up walking through a mine field, it’s extraordinary stuff. I wish him well in his recovery from alcoholism and his present problems.
Jack Hughes:
I don’t like the tone of this posting.
Please, guys, think of ordinary people who need a bit of a nudge to spot the biased stuff that pours out of the BBC day-in day-out.
Posts like this make us anti-BBC campaigners look like the tinfoil-hat brigade.
How about some more thoughtful posts – maybe a timeline of the BBC’s infatuation with islam – for example. Together with some of its recent examples, such as the “fly-fishing for muslim women” oddity on Radio4. PLenty more examples – just look for anything by Frances Harrison.
Jack Hughes | 17.01.08 – 7:21 am | #
========================
Thanks, Jack –
I was beginning to wonder whether I was the only one who’d noticed R4’s (and thus, presumably, the BBC’s) seeming obsession / love-affair with Islam.
Apart from that R4 prog on Moslem women learning how to fish (is there some reason why they find it more difficult than, say, other varieties of women, such as Sikh or Jewish?), within the past month or so there have been fairly uncritical progs about Moslems demanding special rights in the workplace, how Sharia law might benefit Britain, and the difficulties faced by converts to Islam. Curiously, on the same day as that last programme, the Telegraph had a feature about the dangers faced by converts FROM Islam (and this in the UK, not merely the Middle East), although the R4 prog said nothing about this.
Oh, and next week R4’s got a feature on that unsung band of heroes, Moslem comedians – sounds unmissable. I bet they can give Woody Allen and Jackie Mason a serious run for their money.
I’m firmly with Mr Hughes on this – lets have more postings on this kind of thing.
Thank you.
I should add that I do not include regular contributors who acknowledge their status like David Gregory (BBC) in this latest BBC fakery as they are attempting on this thread.
There are around 22,000 (and falling) staff working for the BBC.
David Gregory (BBC) | 17.01.08 – 11:40 am |
its not all bad news then š
“There are around 22,000 (and falling) staff working for the BBC”.
Good Lord, Greggers,there are 28,000 BBC employees in jail?
28,000 eh? how long before Al Beeb links to the decline of beeboids with global warming
š
Yes,time to make a BBC Disappearing Planet investigating the mass extinction of beeboids.
The BBC could, at a stroke, cut CO2 emissions by stopping transmitting.The aging staff could continue their programme making rituals,with nothing plugged in.Somewhat like Easter Island.
What a silly post this one is.
As for GBEHB’s:
“Sure. I’m an economic consultant in oil and gas. I work out where to build refineries and gas-to-liquids plants and how much they should cost. I am of the most important industry on the planet. Without energy, there wouldn’t even be any food. ”
I’d put food production above energy production. We farmers were here first, producing food for several thousands years without man-made energy. So there with knobs on.
without wishing to belittle farming, if you relied on energy-free food production today, you could barely produce anything, and what you could produce you couldn’t move. Three-quarters of the world would starve.
Many common fertilisers are made from sulphur extracted from oil. You have to laugh – the greenies insisted acid rain was bad and we had to take the sulphur out of fuel. So we did, and there was crop failure all over the place because plants need sulphur. The crop worst affected was rapeseed which is often used to make low-sulphur diesel. Isn’t that a hoot? Nice one, greenies!
So now sulphur is taken out of the oil, trucked to factories, made into fertiliser and trucked to farms, where it’s sprayed by hand onto crops. Previously it fell on them for nothing out of the sky.
The economic growth of the last 100 years has been brought about by incredibly cheap energy. Petrol is so cheap that, were there no tax on it, it would basically be free (OK, about 16p a litre; a fiver a tank, which is near enough free compared say to mineral water).
World GDP would be around one-fortieth of what it is, i.e. the level of around 1900.
I love oil.
Excellent analysis of how modern farming is energy dependent, GBEHB; I’m just pointing out that agriculture predates oil by a few years.
Cockney wrote: i earn more than the average beeb employee and benefit retailers everywhere by spending it so tough.
Your ‘service’ contributes to the cost of doing business, does it not? Does the Broken Window Fallacy apply to what you do?
The government breaks the windows, and you show people how to minimize the damage. I fail to see how that benefits anybody but you.
“Your ‘service’ contributes to the cost of doing business, does it not? Does the Broken Window Fallacy apply to what you do?”
I always thought Cockney was a burglar.
22,000 employees? What a disgrace. That’s more than most councils and they provide essential services like education, rubbish colection and much else. Why on earth are we paying 22,000 people to bring us mostly trashy progammes like Eastenders and Top Gear, the scraps of sports coverage that Sky doesn’t want and dodgy news?
“Why on earth are we paying 22,000 people to bring us mostly trashy progammes like Eastenders and Top Gear, the scraps of sports coverage that Sky doesn’t want and dodgy news?”
Because the BBC was granted the income from we serfs,as did kings grant land to feudal barons entitling them to tithe the labour of all who dwelt thereon.
Not terribly up to date BBC funding.
And 1700 of them are coming to Salford soon. We are told the Salford and Manchester are booming, so why are the local councils so desperate for 1700 public sector jobs to be relocated at Salford Quays? Regions that depend on such jobs are usually the least prosperous.
Instead of Salford, pack these people off to India. They’ll be very cheap to keep on our public payroll if we did that.
Zebulon
Re: BBC fetish about islam.
There really seems to be a “product placement” strategy for islam.
The most bizarre example of all time has got to be the episode of the children’s programme Balamory, where the children left their scottish island and travelled hundreds of miles to …. a mosque. They never seemed to visit any other place of religion.
They must have driven past dozens of churches, chapels, possibly a synagogue. They would have also passed more plausible destinations – like castles, theme parks, maybe a zoo …
The whole BBC policy is weird and is backfiring. Its like having someone say every few minutes “its OK to be a muslim”. Then a few minutes later “its OK to be a muslim”. You kind of wonder what is going on ?
“The government breaks the windows, and you show people how to minimize the damage. I fail to see how that benefits anybody but you.”
Haha, just oiling the wheels of capitalism. As I said, my job is possibly more morally dubious than a Beeboid’s. Having said that, given the Sqaure Mile has generated literally most of the growth in the UK in the last few years it would be nice to have a bit of gratitude rather than endless sniping from a) the BBC and b) workshy provincials everywhere.
Ah, you work in the square mile Cockney,you must be a pickpocket.
But you shouldn’t mock provincials,they are only so because greedy bastards have priced them out of London.
I agree with the earlier comments that the “1 down, 50,000 to go” statement is bad. I am interested in lessening the bias in the BBC, not attacking the people who work there.
Jack Hughes | 18.01.08 – 6:31 am |
The whole BBC policy is weird and is backfiring. Its like having someone say every few minutes “its OK to be a muslim”. Then a few minutes later “its OK to be a muslim”. You kind of wonder what is going on ?
I think John Reith has given us enough information to infer what’s going on. And it is beginning to backfire.
The BBC are convinced that the majority of the British Public do not like muslims, mistrust them, assume they’re mostly jihadis, fear them, think Islam is the most degenerate of religions, etc. (Cf. JR’s “headbangers”). Because of this mindset, they are equally convinced that the most significant factor in the failure of the muslims to assimilate into British society is because the native white population has prevented them, discriminated against them, made them feel like unwelcome outsiders. With this belief system conveniently downplaying any other factors that might be the fault of actual muslims, the next obvious step is the position that only because of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel are so many mosques and muslim community centers filled with jihadi imams, books, and dvds. I would wager that this mindset is the source of nearly all the BBC’s programming and reporting guidelines about Islam, Muslims in Britain, and the various muslim countries.
Now there is no denying that there is a kernel of truth in what they think. But in their yearning for “social cohesion”, they have seriously overlooked the other side of the coin. That’s where their plans backfire.
I have commented previously that the BBC ought to make some small effort in the other direction. Instead of making yet another “Muslims Rule OK” tv show, make something that reaches out to the Muslim community and tells them not to fear the other. I’d hate to think that the average Muslim – immigrant or native, living in the average insular community – gets his idea about their white neighbors from watching Little Britain, The Royles, or Eastenders, never mind some of the dreadful late night fare.
The backlash is that the native British citizen feels not only ignored, but dismissed. You must subjugate all your concerns in favor of Muslim sensibilities. When you complain about it, to the BBC it sounds like you’re not listening to them. They hear that you want more criticism of Islam, not necessarily the caveman culture from which the current problems arise. All they see is people proving them right.
The people in charge are not stupid (mostly), but they have lost the plot when it comes to social cohesion. Endless pieces on Muslims, their religion, and their personal stories is the wrong way to go. Combine that with the current crop of public sector bows to Islamic sensibilities (foot baths, legally sanctioned prayer times, turning everyone in the hospital towards Mecca), and it’s now wonder the average citizen is looking over his shoulder.
The BBC thinks their current line of programming and editorial stance is the way to get the public to accept Muslims in their midst. They just overdo it, and actually make things worse.
The trouble is, they just can’t see how to reach out to the Muslim community and tell them they’re wrong to shun British society, jihad isn’t necessary. Tell them nobody wants to eliminate Islam from the face of the Earth. Reach across the aisle, BBC, and tell them not be afraid, for a change.
David Preiser,
The BBC recruits mainly from the insufferably bossy,prodnose middle classes.Yes they do have a few token chav gobshites,it makes then feel terribly bold.
The middle classes absolutely love interfering in the affairs of the great unwashed proletariate,one has only to see the banning of this and that,for their own good.
The middle classes go to university,some kind of degree in politics and economics ,crannio- autoproctology and the like.They have read the books,they believe the books,they are quite messianic about different fashionable dogmas.
These they gaily thrust down the throats of the proletariate,until they next big idea runs through their minds.
At the moment it is racism,global warming,sexual discrimination which the middle classes believe they should exorcise from the proles,whom they have been put on earth to lead to the promised land.
The chosen classes are always looking for this and that way of keeping the hated proles in line.Just as the school wimp looks for a protector,so the middle classes of the beeboid mould look to Muslims to use as a weapon against the proles.
Superb posting, David – excellent analysis.
If the BBC is biased in favour of Islam because you think it discusses Islam a lot, then the same must be true of this site.
It a favourite topic of posters here.
What’s most interesting about this thread is the amount of BBC lurkers that have floated to the surface to express their outrage at “One down. Fifty thousand to go.”
They must feel very threatened by unemployment, if they are so touchy by what was clearly intended as a joke.
(Note: “The clearly intended as a joke” defense is often used by the BBC when they have offended many and apologise to none. Hold that feeling BBC employees. Hold it!)
David Gregory:
“I’ll try and dig out a link to him talking about the time he ended up walking through a mine field”
Shouldn’t that be “staggering” through a mine field.
David Gregory:
There are around 22,000 (and falling) staff working for the BBC.
A typo? Surely you meant “failing”.
Okay. That’s enough. I’m bored now.
Joel:
“If the BBC is biased in favour of Islam because you think it discusses Islam a lot, then the same must be true of this site.”
Joel, you come off like a 13 year old boy who’s mummy and daddy work at the BBC, and you feel threatened by those who oppose them lest you lose your public school privilidges and ski-ing trips abroad.
On the other hand, the fact that you can’t comprehend a concept as simple as bias makes me wonder if you’re not some middle-aged middle-manager in some over-staffed top floor office of Beeboid house.
Adolf Hitler used to talk about the Jews a lot, but I don’t think anyone ever accused him of being biased toward the jews.
Here’s the definition of bias for you:
“A person is generally said to be biased if the person’s output is influenced by inner biases, to the extent that one’s views is not subjectively considered neutral or objective.”
Lots of big words there to sit and mull through. Get an adult to help.
Joel | Homepage | 19.01.08 – 3:01 pm |
isn’t this the very thinking that last year caused the bbc tosay that a report found them biased in favour of israel compared to palestinians, simply because they spent more time talking about it?
so, joel, if i spend more time talking about you, however negatively, compared to whomever, you believe that will mean i’m actually biased in your favour? really?
well, at least you won’t be alone in such (mis)thinking
David Preiser (USA) | 18.01.08 – 5:08 pm |
i concur
which means they can’t possibly be impartial, because you cannot campaign for a group and yet impartially report on them, and all their warts
and even if you could, is that really the domain of an organization supposedly principally a newsgathering and reporting agency, without fear or favour? shouldn’t that be up to social agencies?
oh, i forgot…the bbc, a force for good (which is…?)
amimissingsomething | 20.01.08 – 12:44 am |
oh, dear
i rather suspect judea’s comment was much more complete and incisive than my repetition
apologies