Well, George is waiting and he wants you to broadcast YOUR views on the endless bias from the Ministry of Truth
OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Thoughtful April 24, 2024 at 10:53 am on Midweek 24th April 2024We do not have aircraft carriers (plural) because one of them is so badly built it's unseaworthy ! The worst...
- The Mouse April 24, 2024 at 10:41 am on Midweek 24th April 2024I just wanted to add my few words to what has been said about Lord Frank Field. Frank Field "In...
- Rob in Cheshire April 24, 2024 at 10:23 am on Midweek 24th April 2024Fed: Change the record. We now have 617 Squadron and 809 NAS. It has taken too long, I agree, but...
- Rob in Cheshire April 24, 2024 at 10:18 am on Midweek 24th April 2024At the time of St George, the Turks were busy looting and pillaging in Central Asia. They did not invade...
- Rob in Cheshire April 24, 2024 at 10:14 am on Midweek 24th April 2024I must give kudos to Dewbs. Letts just gave the impression of being a complacent tubby little squish. The level...
- Thatcherrevolutionary April 24, 2024 at 10:13 am on Midweek 24th April 2024So cloud seeding resulted in flooding in Dubai. So why not do this in Central Africa and end world hunger?...
- Lunchtime Loather April 24, 2024 at 10:08 am on Midweek 24th April 2024"Print Screen" and pasting it in to Paint also works.
- friend of yogi bear April 24, 2024 at 10:04 am on Midweek 24th April 2024None other than Lady Nugee, aka Emily Thornberry, was on the BBC sounding very concerned about her own branch of...
- Rob in Cheshire April 24, 2024 at 10:03 am on Midweek 24th April 2024Ian: Agreed. For ordinary people, you cannot live in France without papers. For the asylum seekers, however, it's suddenly not...
- Up2snuff April 24, 2024 at 10:02 am on Midweek 24th April 2024I agree, Fed. Frank Field was a devout Anglican and a politician of integrity. We could do with a few...
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
chech tis fella out http://druidsrevenge.blogspot.com/
using blogshere to try and get into the welsh assembly not government. What a wanker
So the drugged up rent boy molesters have been banging on about Lord Young today for his comments.
But look WHO slipped under the radar twice
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/19/eric-joyce-mp-drink-drive-ban
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330008/Middle-class-voters-liars-hypocrites-says-Labour-MP-Eric-Joyce.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Anyone want to take a WILD guess as to why the BBC have ignored him TWICE?
They couldn’t get enough of this guy when he flouted his duty as a serving army officer to political neutrality by continually pontificating on TODAY about how ‘racist, sexist, bla, bla, bla’ the armed forces are, getting egged on by Humphrys, Naughtie et al.
Its largely true what he says mind about so many voters being hypocrits about dishonesty, but as someone who was dismissed by his OC because his men couldn’t trust his integrity for violating his duty to political impartiality, he’s noone to lecture.
“Anyone want to take a WILD guess as to why the BBC have ignored him TWICE?”
His conviction was reported on Radio4 PM and also “ignored” here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11798863
Lord Young and Cameron both made fools of themselves today. Just admit it and move on…
Both made fools of themselves, one got all the attention. It’s a reoccurring theme.
No Dez Lord Young is NOT a leading light, Eric Joyce is an elected politician who was NOT made to resign by Red Ed for his comments first time around, oh and no one ever questioned Red Ed for giving Phil Woolas a seat in the shadow cabinet despite being in deep shit.
Someone actually addressed BBC left-wing bias last night – take a listen to Michael Dobbs on last night’s Front Row – http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vy3kx – Interview from 7:45. Recollecting Michael Thompson’s admission of of ‘appalling level of left-wing bias’ from 13:13.
Yep the second link in my post, the BBC zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Beeb going on most of the week about the £7B needed from us to bail out the Irish. They failed on every occasion to mention, that we now have no option; as Brown in the last weeks of his disastrous regime signed a treaty committing the UK to this particular fund.
Brown, Harman et al were very busy in their last few weeks weren’t they?
Scorched earth policy. Don’t leave anything for the incoming government to help the economy so they will carry the can for our balls ups.
You seem a bit confused. The “European stabilisation mechanism” wasn’t a “treaty” and the uk could pull out any time it liked.
Both Cameron and Osborne have recently pledged their support for the bail out package – that has nothing to do with the last government.
Dez you seem a bit confused ! you seem to be using the fact the some on here support the current governments position, as a bad thing ! as far as i can see no one on here follows a confirmed line on politics!
That is except you and the bbc good/ liebour better! charm.
So if yer nay like it get a refund on the way out oh and i did vote Tory before ye make a point of it !.
The entry by DEZ is a heap of dung. Thr mechnism is part of the self amending Lisbon Treaty. The UK did sign on the 8th May, the on;y way of pulling out is to leave the EU.
The latest news from the Middle East? Russia ‘frees Israeli mercenary’
Six references to Israel in the story (including the two links). No evidence is provided that the Israeli government sent him, condoned his actions or even knew he was in Columbia. At no point is it made clear that his connection to Columbia was completely independent of his Israeli citizenship. It’s just a reflexive BBC anti Israel smear.
He was released from a Russian gaol (so why isn’t it a European story?) for his alleged involvement with the training of paramilitary squads (so why isn’t it a Latin American story?).
For all I know he is guilty as Columbia charges but his Israeliness is just a tangential part of the story not the focus, unless you are the BBC.
Surely this is the ideal story for the BBC: nasty Israeli (emphasis on Israeli) mecenary who allegedly trained extreme-right Colombian paramilitaries notorious for chainsaw massacres etc.
When asked what he thought of the Israeli government’s handling of his situation, Klein replied: “This is your government, not mine.”
Yair Klein lands in Israel
Given that the European Court of Human Rights ordered Russia not to extradite him to Columbia, the Russians really had no choice but to release him to Israel. BTW, How does the court have jurisdiction over Russia although according to the BBC (last line, naturally) the Russians lost their appeal.
In many ways this is a typical BBC report. Israeli air strikes hit two Gaza towns whose basic message is Israel is being disproportionate. This is emphasised by the photograph misleadingly captioned, Rocket fire from Gaza has dropped sharply since 2008. A much better caption would be file photo: Rocket launched from urban area.
However, deep in the article, so many readers would miss it the BBC screws up the narrative.
Rocket fire from Gaza has dropped sharply since Israel’s devastating 22-day offensive in December 2008. It was effective, wasn’t it?
The United Nations says that in 2010, 55 Palestinians, including 22 civilians, have been killed by Israeli military action in Gaza. Wait for the stealth edit. Israel killed 55 ‘people’ in Gaza.
No mention either that four of the missiles carried phosporous bombs.
Phosphorous fired from Gaza
When Israel legally used white phosphorous in Operation Cast Lead to provide smoke cover for troops on the ground the BBC was all over it.
This is not the first time the Arabs have fired the stuff at civilian targets, which is a War Crime, and the BBC syas nothing.
The BBC (and subsidiary Lonely Planet) may be correct in their choice of The 10 greatest comeback cities. But did they have to give free advertising including websites for specific hotels?
Dollar public relations? =-X
I notice that my mate Sheena was prattling on about Cameron’s release of public spending and one of the companies that came up was Capita, but funnily enough the camp Sheena seemed to have Amnesia and forgot that Capita and Nu Liebour has serious links over donations not so long ago.
Funny that as I’m sure if Capita were donating to the Tories a few years ago Sheena would have managed to ‘work that in to the report’
The bBC, the news it pushes out of Afghanistan and half the story.
Afghan troop map: US and Nato deployments
The bBC airs a threat map of Afghasntan
and looking at it you get the impression that the whole country is a death trap. The thing is I have next to me a copy the of Op Herrick 14 operational guide (Op13 started their 6 month tour last month) and the map they show bares very little resemblance tp the bbC one. Now as its restricted I can’t really put it up for all to see. But here’s the threat assessment taken off the net from last year and its virtually the same as the one in the book. Which begs me to ask the question why is the bBC lying about the threat situation. I mean in during the first few years bBC reporters had no problem wearing body armour (with saggy insert pouches, meaning no ceramic plate fitted) yet now (according to the bBC) the security situation is much worse they report with no protection what so ever. funny that.
Surely, the Beeboids can’t be lying , can they ?
One person was a leading light in the current government (you know, those people who run the country); the other was a bit of a nobody who actually isn’t in charge of anything.
One person received a withering slap down from the Prime Minister (you know, that big guy in charge); the other didn’t.
Spot the difference?
Trying to cite an article in the Daily Mail as an arbiter of truth is really pretty desperate.
But have you just made that video? If so I’m very impressed.
Oops, you seem to have changed your post and withdrawn the video. Shame.
Amusing Guido thread about BBC coverage of Lord Young. The main post:
Ring, ring…
Guido Fawkes : Hello
Beeboid : Hello just wondered if you had seen the Lord Young comments?
GF : Yes, he’s right about interest rates being low, but that indicates economic weakness, not strength.
BBC : So you support his view?
GF : No, I think the previous generation had it better.
BBC : We’re really looking for a right-winger who backs his line.
GF : Sorry.
BBC : OK, thanks anyway.
GF : Bye.
“One person was a leading light in the current government”
You forgot to add, which only works one way. Tories get the flack, Labour gets an easy ride. Always.
“Trying to cite an article in the Daily Mail as an arbiter of truth is really pretty desperate.”
Read both articles the Daily Mail one and Labour Uncut. I know you haven’t bothered to do so. Basically the most heavily subsidised Eric Joyce was trying to excuse lying, thieving politicians for being lying, thieving politicians.
Actually I did read the “Labour Uncut” article (I like to check things) and I don’t agree with your summary of it (but a matter of opinion perhaps). However, the Daily Mail report was a classlic bit of Daily Mail Spin:
“A Labour frontbencher has launched an astonishing attack on middle-class voters, branding them liars, racists, drunkards and even paedophiles.”
YEAH middle class voters are all paedophiles. YEAH that’s exactly what he said! Duh.
I mentioned in the open thread above that while the Hon Mr Joyce MP does hava point about voter hypocrisy over dishonesty:
1) As someone who claimed the highest level of expenses in the HoC
2) As someone dismissed from his post by his army OC because his men couldn’t trust his integrity due to him breaching his military duty to political impartiality ..
He is clearly not the best person to lecture.
However, he does appear to have some redeeming qualities, apparantly averring from the moral cesspit that is modern Labour:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211457/Plot-smear-daughter-new-army-chief-Defence-Secretary-s-aide-horrified-talk-exposing-job-Cameron.html
Oh, and Dez, Labour were in power during the link above – anything on the story on the BBC?
Lord Young was a ‘leading light’ in the Coalition government? Really, are you sure?
Nice to see equal treatment (NOT!). Lord Young, unpaid advisor gets hounded out. Eric Joyce MP and shadow minister resigns because of second driving ban in 2 years. This time for failing to give a driving breath test and being drunk while driving.
Millipede comes out and says Young is repugnant, Driving while you could kill the public, nothing said.
The BBC’s gradual erosion of its own online commenting facility continues apace.
Having in writing, and based on ‘cost cutting constraints’ reserved the right to ‘pull the plug’ on just about any basis when even one person strays from ‘the rules’, thus denying the rest of the licence fee-paying public a voice, I was interested to note that the usually quite sprightly Andrew Neil blog had re-appeared, and then closed after just 18 comments.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/11/like_a_reluctant_bride.html#comments
The topic, off or not, of the final post being purely coincidental to this, one is sure.
18. At 2:49pm on 18 Nov 2010, xTunbridge wrote:
It is not easy to make your voice heard. When I heard the BBC pension fund was involved in the climate change area, a complete scam to my mind, I checked if my fund was also and found it to be so….
This entry is now closed for comments
With Mr. Robinson’s also locked out until his next brief outing, it seems the means for effective commentary to the BBC and its ‘reporters’ on what they say and how they say it… is being brought to a close.
The era of broadcast-only seems to be back upon us.
Not sure I am that keen on past and recent evidence.
The highlight undoubtedly Yvettes open mike on Today.
On the absurd pretext that part of Harmans identity victims charter had been disabled Mrs Balls was allowed to broadcast almost completely unchallenged tendentious labour anti-cuts propaganda with its crazy statistics and poor law rhetoric. During this long performance Naughtie seemed to be trying to find the end of his first question of the morning (it finally ended during Desert Island Discs) and was unusually silent; conspicuously she was asked not a single question about Foreign Affairs which I thought was her actual job.
In contrast Tory ministers, like Theresa May are routinely interrogated like peasants at the bloody asizes; and deserve all they get because they dont fight back and thus legitimise the increasingly naked bias.
Next Webb (a man so stupid he cant maintain intellectual cohesion whilst spinning out his Naughtiesque questions and is often reduced to arguing with guests when they ellicit slap-down answers “No Im making a more interesting point than that”) for his excruciatingly grovelling interview with Gary Doonsbury (in which it was simply assumed that all Republicans are comically evil and they agreed that Obama was not lampooned because he is just too moderate and good and had no distinguishing features for a cartoonist); the sycophantic tone that comes naturally to him with his leftist confreres nearly as embarassing as his repeated reminders of what a hep cat he is because he listened to The Smiths when he was at boarding school.
Not to mention the “Is there anything you’d like to say Prime Minister?” pseudo-interview with “Sir” Michael Lyons (who revealed his deep love and respect for that other distinguished public servant Mark Thompson) used as a pretext for another 3 minute hate about the anti-christ Murdoch; a theme later taken up in a discussion about tits with the otherwise totally discredited Bea Campbell MBE, another bizarre ex-trot from the Institue of Ideas (described as if it was Platos academy) and much giggling from Evan.
Finally, Edie Mair. Am I the only person who thinks that the tone of Barry Normans 1970’s film review show is inappropriate on a news programme? But then of course it permits him to be incredibly rude, controversial and sneering with the labour partys political opponents.
And I almost forgot the worst, simply because it really upset me. Rupert Wingfield-Hays who seems to have some of the values of the Edwardian Cavalry officer his name conjours.
Need I say more about the work of this patronising nasty git: this week an unspeakably biased report about racist fanatical settlers and their heroic plucky peace-loving victims complete with lovable children. It seems one side believes God gave them the others ancestral lands – you try and guess which…..
Edwardian cavary (and other) officers paid most of their expenses from their own pockets. That’s a virtue no Beebody is likely to emulate.
🙁
I have just been listening to Excess Baggage (Radio 4) whilst cooking and with my hands covered in four, eggs, etc couldn’t easily have switched over to Classic – so had to put up with what seemed hours of endless drivel about what a wonderful country Yemen is, how most of the citizens are peaceful (only a few areas where it isn’t safe to be a white man) it is safer than London, etc etc – oh and isn’t it marvelous that when a man visits a friend’s house he has to call out ‘Allah’ (well that is what it sounded like) so that all the women could make themselves scarce. It was one long advert for the religion of peace.
Yes, it was absolute drivel. And how much did all the drivel cost us to “research” ? The idea of Yemen as a tourist destination is absolutley ludicrous for most people.
At the time, I wasn’t cooking. I was checking out £6 fares to Fuerteventura for a bit of winter sun, civilised surroundings – and the odd bar to go to in the evening. Something RELEVANT.
After the excellent LBC 3-hour political programme on Sunday mornings, there is a 2-hour travel programme, presented by an expert journalist, full of info directly relevant to most travellers, lots of phone-in queries ably and instantly dealt with, all in good humour, thoroughly entertaining.
By contrast, Excess Baggage is usually just one long drone, another example of the irrelevancy of much of the BBC output.
You have to remember the programme isn’t really for people who actually travel but is instead for a certain kind of bore who is usually a Guardian reader and who inhabits school staff rooms and senior common rooms. These people to tell you that while you are a tourist they are a traveler etc etc. When you dig a little deeper you usually find they haven’t left the country since their gap year which Daddy paid for.
No surprises here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/lebanon/8144429/BBC-pulls-series-as-Hizbollah-protests.html
The BBC are worried that their journalists might be kidnapped and have their heads sawn off. So self censor a programme.
or slotted like Frank the plank and his sidekick.
Well, they could argue that they can be impartial if the right sort of folk demand it.
My Question to Mr Dimbleby on any answers. Why the hell am I asking YOU a question if you cant speak for anybody?
This time last week the bBC went into meltdown into how the poor fellows at Portsmouth mosque were in the limelight. In the end they knocked up 5 iterations of how people felt the need to protest outside this sacrosanct place of worship. Well here’s a story from the very same mosque which for some reason the bbC isn’t airing:
A MUSLIM religious leader has been jailed after he was found guilty of sexually assaulting a young girl.Members of Portsmouth’s Muslim community have spoken of their shock after Hafiz Rahman, a former Imam of the Southsea mosque, was convicted at Portsmouth Crown Court.Rahman, 67, molested the teenager in Portsmouth while he was supposed to be teaching her about the Qur’an. A jury of eight men and six women took less than two hours to find him guilty sexual activity with a child.
While I’m here here’s another story about how a pouis Islamic woman who walks around in the niqab (That so called holy garb the bBC promotes as a sign of Islamic modesty) was in court in London after getting arrested for throwing racist abuse at a policeman (A year after she got let off for the same crime) while drunk and then while getting processed at Kentish town nick she hitches up her religious dress,squats on the floor and pisses all over it. Yup another story from the bBC. which for some reason they haven’t bothered to report.
‘Mail’
“Our Armed Forces through the BBC’s red-tinted glasses”
[Extract]:
“So who exactly wanted a prime-time play set in Afghanistan and portraying the British Army as a seething pit of bullying and mutiny? And why was its script entrusted to Jimmy McGovern, a crudely Left-wing former teacher who could be relied on to view the Armed Forces through red-tinted spectacles?
Plainly it was the BBC, institutionally Left-wing, which desired it. The rest of us were expected to put up with it. ”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1331675/Our-Armed-Forces-BBCs-red-tinted-glasses.html#ixzz15uMzYnhG
And yet a play praising Margaret Thatcher’s role in retaking the Falklands was put on ice for 20 years because the BBC wouldn’t broadcast it.
and the Thatcher play was essentially factual. When it was finally allowed on our screens, I could not see what all the fuss had been about.
What are the skill sets claimed for Andrew Marr again?
I just accidentally switched on his ‘Labour mouthpiece’ show to hear Ed Balls reading out a list of clams, with our fearless interrogator merely intoning ”Right, right…’ to each one.
Unique.
“claims’ 🙂
Ed Balls ‘Ed Balls reading out a list of clams’ might be more illuminating!
It’s all a bit fishy.
What do you expect from Andrew Marr? He’s a Labour lover from head to toe and has the family connections that would disbar a presenter who had them with Conservative politicians .
Notasheep
What are these connections and why isn’t there a section on this site that lists Beboids and their connections to political parties?
Is it a legal thing, are the site owners wary of being sued?
Seems such an obvious and damning thing to do …
“Seems such an obvious and damning thing to do …”
======
Well, then…
😉
Sunday morning Radio 5 Ratings-Disaster has BH – stands for barely humorous – and is ‘chaired’ by someone called Paddy Barely-Humorist. The one interesting bit is a what the papers say – if you can get round the usual bias towards speed-dial guests. (We all know why they are on speed-dial).
Tis sction is very short, so much so that it is actually insulting to ask people to give up their time to appear on it. One guest even piped up a disappointing ‘is that it?’ as Barely Humorist moved onto the next three minute segment.
Today – amazingly – they had a Tory on, and being the 20th anniversary of the Sainted One’s exit from Downing St, he said
‘…what she did – lowering taxes, commanding the trade unions, privatisation, ending the Cold War, a few modest little achievements.’
True to form and in the interests of balance of course Barely-Humorous had to jump in with…
‘And of course a large volume of critics on the other side’.
The Droids just can’t help themselves, can they.
Paddy O’Connell certainly can’t help himself!!
Here are a few more classic Paddy moments:
9/5/10 – When Anthony Howard brought up the ‘heated’ telephone exchange after the election between Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg, Paddy interrupted to say “Although that was strongly denied in the briefings that were given”.
2/5/10 – After Mrs Duffy and Bigotgate, he held a sly discussion about whether “ill-informed voters have a right to be heard.” During his questioning he talked (without naming names) of “pensioners”, and people who “bleat without actually backing up what they’re going on about”. He never mentioned Gordon Brown.
21/3/10 – When Alain de Botton brought up the story of various Labour MPs who were caught out by Dispatches for boosting about having their influence bought by lobbyists (during another paper review), Paddy cut him off to read out their denials and said “so let’s just leave that if you don’t mind, just for the sake of time at this point.” The paper review then went on for another 4 minutes, discussing fashion in the 1970’s…until Zandra Rhodes brought up another headline about Gordon Brown being influenced by Unite’s cash, and which he interrupted again to say “right, well we certainlh haven’t got time to go there!”
7/3/10 – When rugby legend Brian Moore, on another paper review, was invited to talk about Lord Ashcroft, he broadened the issue to talk about money and political influence in general. Paddy crashed in to get him back onto Lord Ashcroft: “But what about the papers Brian? What do the papers say specifically?”
21/2/10 – When Andrew Rawnsley’s book on Brown came out (which we now know to have been spot on), Paddy interviewed Lance Price and kept interrupting him, saying “I should say that, as I’ve read it this morning, the book says he’s also got a softer side, being incredibly solicitous at times of family emergency and bereavement” and then tried to play it down, saying “I wonder if the fair-minded listener thinks ‘here’s a book, here’s a new look newspaper, here are the chattering classes chattering.” He later read an e-mail – the only e-mail! – which said “this is a media obsession”.
2/2/10 – When three Labour MPs and a Tory peer were first prosecuted for fraud, Paddy introduced the story in typical BBC fashion – by dropping the word ‘Labour’!: “Three MPs and one Tory peer must decide if they’ll use parliamentary privelege as part of their defence against allegations which they deny.”
6/12/09 – When Brown made his ‘Eton’ attack on Cameron, Broadcasting House sent a reporter to ask Labour backbenchers what they thought of it. They all approved. They all added some more attacks of their own. Another BBC reporter told Paddy that Brown had “landed a killer blow on David Cameron”.
29/11/09 – During a gentle interview with a Labour health minister, Paddy interrupted the minister’s praise of the NHS with some of his own: “Absolutely. And let me go further than you have. Millions of treatments are carried out with great skill, professionalism, and people are happy. And our listener will want us to say that.”
22/11/09 – When Dan Hannan expressed his love for Flemish art, Paddy was lost for words. “I’m a bit surprised. I..I..thought..I..maybe I thought..er..er..you wouldn’t tell me that”. Why not? Does he think Eurosceptics are all knuckle-dragging xenophobes?
15/11/09 – When John Hutton gently criticised Obama for his delay over deciding whether to send more troops to Afghanistan (some would have called it ‘dithering’), Psddy interrupted to defend the president.
11/10/09 – When Gordon Broiwn was asked to pay back some more expenses money, Paddy interrupted the BBC reporter to remind listeners “And of course David Cameron also had to pay back money as well” – though that was earlier, and that wasn’t the story of the day.
4/10/09 – When Glenys Kinnock made an attack on William Hague during an interview with Paddy, Paddy commented “that’s a fair question to ask”. That interview was followed by a piece on Old Etonians in the Tory Party, followed in turn by a chat with someone from the ‘Observer’ and a non-Tory professor.
No wonder his show used to be called (by me) Gordcasting House.
Excellent and empirical as ever Craig. I usually avoid BS (nearly as crap and pointless as Fi Glovers ghastly exercise in tweeness) but yesterday I heard part of it in which Sally Magnusson comitted the ultimate sacrilege and praised Lady Thatcher even suggesting apologetically that she had acheived much as PM. She was almost instantly cut off by a horrified Paddy reminding the punters that this was a “controversial” opinion.
Whats the betting she wont be on again.
Following on from Bupendra’s post, today’s Broadcasting House with Paddy O’Connell returned to the subject of those Old Etonians…
In response to the royal wedding announcement, Sir Peregrine Worsthorne and Sir Michael Winner were invited on to discuss class. Sir Peregrine argued that we’ve become a meritocracy, whereas Sir Michael argued that we’re as class-ridden as ever and that nothing has really changed.
Paddy O’Connell questioned both of them from the Left:
To Sir Peregrine: “You say Prince William is marrying into the new ruling class. Here’s the Observer this morning: ‘Only in Britain could the engagement of an hereditary prince to the former hockey captain of a £30,000 boarding school who lives in a one million pound flat be seized upon as evidence of a significant advance in the classless society.'”
To Sir Michael: “Are you satisfied that that with an Etonian running..er..Whitehall..er or Downing Street, an Etonian running London and a lot of talk about the peers and monarchy this week that we are living in this classless meritocracy?”
Brilliant compilation Craig. It’s easy enough for us to complain about this sort of thing in general terms, but your examples have real substance.
Thanks Sue. I regret not tracking Paddy since the election. I don’t doubt he’s been just as biased as ever.
Here’s the link for today’s Broadcasting House, should you want to listen to it (and why would you?)
There was also an intriguing interview on BH (or BS, as it should perhaps be called) with a doctor who survived the London terrorist attacks of July 2005, which Paddy O’Connell called “the London attacks of 2007”, and who stayed to comfort the dying and the injured in one of the tube carriages. I think it’s clear why Broadcasting House choice her in particular to be its guest, and it wasn’t just her heroism.
She believes the Islamic terrorist who killed the people in that carriage (or “bomber”, as P o’C put it) is “a victim, because he died in that attack. I don’t know what he’s a victim of but I think something must have happened for him to be that desparate, that terrified to do this. I don’t condone what he did…but I do feel he’s the victim of something and I feel very sorry for him.”
I really hope she meant a victim of Islamist propaganda. But I’m not too sure.
You have it exactly right, I’m afraid.
The first item on Broadcasting House though concerned the Pope’s conditional change of heart over condoms, discussed with Thought For the Day‘s Sister Lavinia Byrne, known for her opposition to her church over contraception (and women priests).
I’m not a Catholic and I think the old Catholic line on contraception is dead wrong, absurd even. However, I like to hear all sides of a moral argument and I want the BBC to provides both sides of an argument (when there are only two sides). I didn’t get that here.
Paddy heard Sister Lavinia (in her first answer) call the Pope’s remarks “a chink of light” and then make the case she is known for supporting – for the use of condoms in the fight againsts AIDS.
Instead of then adopting a devil’s advocate position and asking her a question from a position supportive of the old papal line or asking her something neutral along the lines of “How do you think those Catholics who regard contraception as morally wrong in all circumstances will react to this?”, he asked: “And has inaction in the past contributed to the death toll?” So a pro-contraception Catholic being asked questions from a pro-contraception stance, reinforcing the points that interviewee had just been making.
Can Paddy O’Connell be impartial? Can he use his imagination to ask an imaginative question from a position he himself doesn’t hold?
I know inverted snobbery is snobbery just the same, but it was funny when Peregrine told Michael W. off for attacking him because of his name, which I guess was rather a cheap shot.
It is undeniable, however, that only someone from a certain background would be called ‘Peregrine.’ But of course he wasn’t exactly attacking him in the way some people attack Etonians for being Etonians. Michael W. was being good-humoured in a way that some people certainly are not when all they have to contribute is to shout: “Tory Toff!”.
Hmm. A weakness in the Pope’s logic is that if the Catholic Church thinks abstention from sex is the answer to family planning, why shouldn’t abstention from sex be the answer to avoiding STDs?
Not that this is addressing your point, but if I were Paddy I might have asked Lavinia something like that.
Surely the BBC should be pleased that their most-hated religious leader in the world is looking out first and foremost for their rent boys.
Before BH we were privileged to hear the “Point of View” of the recently ennobled Labour party member Joan Bakewell. Among other trendy spoutings – chanelled through her devotion to books and libraries (which are threatened by the “cuts” of the evil coalition and are already on their last legs thanks to the government she supported – she didn’t mention that) Joan could not resist bigging up the thugs who “demonstrated” their disgust at the non-existent cuts by trashing CCHQ. She compared them to her heroes in CND who, although she admitted failed in their objectives, might have had real influence in persuading our recalcitrant leaders to agree with the peace-loving USSR the test-ban treaties of the 60s. She failed to say that perhaps CND, by virtue of its one-way demands (ie unilateral nuclear disarmament by the UK nothing from Russia), might have been a stumbling block to the treaties by holding out to the Soviets the possibility that they might get everything they wanted by doing nothing because they perceived – through crap intelligence which took CND at its own valuation – that the rotting Western democracies were taking CND’s nostrums seriously.
Anyway, when can we expect a right of centre commentator (not a CINO – say, a member of UKIP) to be given 15 minutes every Sunday morning on the BBC’s main radio channel to spout non-progressive propaganda? To ask the question is to know the answer – never!
Clive James had a few sessions on Points of View, I was amazed he was allowed to put his crusty views so directly. Since then – the usual leftward slant
JA
Indeed he was on but his off-message stuff – on AGW – was his swansong on PoW although (surprisingly) he has been on QT since. However, I would hardly call Clive James the voice of the radical (or any other) right. IMHO he is firmly in the bosom of the Islington chatterati and his occasional scepticism on matters social and political is probably considered “amusing” and just “Clive being Clive”.
It was have a go at George Osborne on 5 Live’s ‘7 Day Sunday’ today.
Early on, we had Addison saying that he thought that the appointment of ‘little Gideon Osborne’ as Chancellor of the Exchequer one of the least successful of Jim’ll Fix Its. Later, discussing David Cameron’s proposal for a ‘happiness’ survey, there was this exchange:
Andy Zaltzman: What are they going to do if it turns out that the nation’s happiness is in direct correlation with seeing George Osborne being punched in the face every morning on breakfast TV?
Chris Addison: I’ll take it!
Andy Zaltzman:What are they going to do?
Chris Addison: I don’t know. I assume they’ll avoid asking that question…..
Lucky for us, then, we have a brave, genetically impartial national broadcaster to raise such questions. And before you ask – no, disgraced Millband-promoted Labour frontbencher, Eric Joyce, did not get a mention on the programme. Now if only he was a Tory…
The Beeboid Corporation has a habit of constructing the world in its image to suit its own prejudices and promotions. One of the ways it does this is by referring to notional entities such as “the environmental community”. You might think that you and I are members of this and ask me what is wrong with that? Are we not living in an environment, interested in it, having opinions about it and a stake in it? Ergo, we are part of it. But you would be wrong. In the Beeboid invention, you are only a member if you belong to the approved fold. This abuse of language is the means by which to determine and define who is in and who is outside of the fold.
We had another example of this method on the BBC One Sunday Morning Live programme today.
For today’s big dramatic finale, they had on a professor of thermodynamics who is a Christian and believes that science supports a belief in design by a mind rather than a process of evolution. (at 50mins).
Once he had finished, they went to link to another scientist and asked him “What is your response?” but the link broke and they had to come back to him at 55mins. This time however, the question to him was
” What is the scientific community’s response?”
This individual then proceeded to give his view which of course contradicted the earlier scientist’s view.
Both individuals and scientists but one is given the status of belonging to the Beeboid-invented fold and one is placed firmly outside it, purely on the arbitrary Beeboid say so.
Once the second scientist had finished giving his view, the topic was closed abruptly as we were informed that there was no further time. Of course: he got the last word. How convenient. The Beeboids had engineered a polarised set-up which led to no discussion of these views but gave them what they wanted: a manufactured dramatic finale, ending on the approved note and with a suitable confirmation that all is right in Beeboid World.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00w8dq9/Sunday_Morning_Live_Episode_18/
Was it yestrday – I think it was – that the Radio 4 News at 8:00 am – and subsequent broadcasts – led with the news that the Labour Party would not oppose Theresa May’s rumoured decision to relax, among other Labour policies, the partial abolition of habeas corpus to “only” 15 days detention without trial from Labour’s 28 days. The “news” was the gracious Labour accceptance, not the coalition proposal ie Labour gets the kudos.
Just spotted on the BBC College of Journalism website:
“Can Murdoch be stopped? Britain examines its stable door
’nuff said …..
Mark Mardell once again approaches an issue from the perspective of the White House.
Republican moves test co-operation
Notice it’s not that the President’s attempts to ram unpopular legislation through during the lame duck session isn’t what might “test co-operation”, but the actions of the nasty old Republicans.
The real threat, though, is the intention to undermine the president’s ability to do deals with other world leaders. There is a real possibility he won’t be able to get through Congress the treaty with Russia reducing the number of nuclear missiles.
This is written from the perspective of an advocate of the President’s policies, not from an objective viewpoint. “Threat” is not the best word choice here.
It is furiously pushing the line that this is a matter of national security, that the improved relationship with Russia has helped across the foreign policy piste, from Iran to Afghanistan. It is ready to paint Republican opponents as putting America’s interests in jeopardy for the sake of narrow political opposition.
For “It”, read: “The BBC”.
Mardell doesn’t bother to wonder if there’s a vaild reason the Republicans might oppose his beloved Obamessiah, because he simply can’t imagine anything other an sheer, ideological obstructionism. Or racism, obviously.
The BBC North America editor is biased, and should be removed from his position immediately.
“In the Footsteps of Giants” on R4 this afternoon was supposed to be about Albert Hofmann but was a 15 minute advert for LSD. No suggestion that it might not be entirely good for you, the illegality only mentioned as a subject for regret, and the only controversy was what the best age to start taking it was. Age 21 was the BBC’s conclusion. Balance went out the window, as have a few unfortunate people who have taken it in the past
Who will be watching Panorama to night.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/22/bbc-panorama-islamic-schools-antisemitism
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331789/Sharia-lessons-pupils-aged-BBC-uncovers-weekend-schools.html
Is the BBC waking up, or is it an attack on the concept of free schools.
LOL, Look how the BBC website covers the Story
Saudi school lessons in UK concern government
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11799713
Compared with the Telegraph
Muslim pupils learn to cut off hands of thieves
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8150247/Muslim-pupils-learn-to-cut-off-hands-of-thieves.html
Very PC, suppose the show will be cancelled.
The BBC can report that this stuff might be going on, but the real question is, how will they excuse it?
Presumably the refrain will be something along the lines of how this doesn’t represent “mainstream Islam”, we mustn’t let these extremist outliers taint how we view the vast majority of well-meaning Mohammedans, etc.
“Sharia lessons for pupils aged six: BBC uncovers ‘weekend schools’ that teach pupils how to hack off thieves’ hands”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331789/Sharia-lessons-pupils-aged-BBC-uncovers-weekend-schools.html
The BBC throw us a bone. The fact is that the BBC’s massive political influence, over our government and our people has lead this country to where we are now. Every now and then throw us a bone to show their ‘impartiality’ everything else, the bias by omission, being soft on Islam, propagandising for Islam… every day is soon forgotten by those educated by the BBC.
As I am currently shuttling about in my car a lot, I get treated to the BBC ‘top of the hour’ ‘news’ on radio, and have noticed a trend that seems to have become near policy.
Whatever the Government does or announces, the BBC takes an adversarial stance. So after as few minutes ‘setting the scene’, we oddly then get a brief narrative-enhanced ‘summary’ of what the government of the day minster ‘has said’ as interpreted by the genetically impartial editorial team, followed by an epic open-mic live session to the Labour opposition to weigh in in conclusion and say whatever the feel like, unchallenged.
Today’s was something about housing, with Aunty and her latest female best buddy from the Labour cabinet wailing that folk who have been given a leg up to get going should basically stay attached to the state teat for life, funded by the rest of us a bit keener on standing on our own two feet.
Unique.
A friend in need?
Ireland £7 billion and EU contribution, all extra
bBC £3.3 billion and no cut
Defence no planes for aircraft carriers, troop cuts, plane cuts, tank cuts, ship cuts
Prisons Close 4, cut places, short sentences or none at all
Police Cut thousands of officers
Courts Lots of closures
Defence and justice law and order have to be provided by the state and are the first duty of any government.
All the rest could be provided privately (though whether it is politically wished to do so is open to debate), so even the likes of health and education are second in priority to those, and way way way ahead of the EU or the bBC.
Yet the bBC doesn’t even raise a murmur, its been paid off, its a tool of government, the state broadcaster has to go.