It’s Friday and time for a new Open Thread to take us off into the weekend!
OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Zephir April 20, 2024 at 1:42 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024psrty gate party gate party gate week after week after week
- Broadcasting-on-Behalf-of-the-Caliphate April 20, 2024 at 1:38 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024Good advice. Same applies to men being attacked by other men - a good kick to the crown jewels for...
- Zephir April 20, 2024 at 1:37 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024Yes, we saw the post earlier of Labour infesting charities with socialist activists. And, a family with 12 bloody children...
- Zephir April 20, 2024 at 1:34 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024RE above, QED: an attack on a priest in a church during a service by a muslim extremist and yet:...
- Zephir April 20, 2024 at 1:32 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024And there was me thinking it was only the IRA that did kneecapping.
- Thoughtful April 20, 2024 at 1:20 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024I used to know a certain Jewish gentlement fromn Friern Barnet, I take it that's close to you? His main...
- Zephir April 20, 2024 at 1:17 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024Yes, parking were the main incoming complaints at Barnet, a too small town for the volume of traffic, driving through...
- Broadcasting-on-Behalf-of-the-Caliphate April 20, 2024 at 1:17 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024To Thoughful, I am going to address your "For Pesach" post later in the Hamas-Israel thread, which Pesach being a...
- tomo April 20, 2024 at 12:46 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024https://twitter.com/iainpdooley/status/1781584523404132824
- Deborah April 20, 2024 at 12:30 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024Some years ago Barnet Council took the decision to be ‘light touch’ councilling. Those of us who believed in low...
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
Why does Evan Davis keep saying “Um”? Does he really mean “bum”, which in his case, would be more apt…
And I notice in all the BBC news bulletins that the increase in measles is due to us stupid, stupid people doubting the efficacy of the MMR jab – how very dare we?
Natsman,
I have no opinion on Evan’s “um” but , on the other point you are right. How dare we mere plebs have the cheek (no pun intended) to doubt the wisdom of our masters ?
The measels shot is harmless, contrary to a stream of scaremongering about links to autism, all of which have been debunked. The rise in measles is very much due to people refusing to have their children innoculated. We have the exact same problem in the US, for the exact same reason. Same with whooping cough outbreaks in certain areas of upstate New York.
In this case, the BBC is correct about the science. Although they are partially responsible for early scares against it, they corrected their reports when the rumors were debunked.
Did we ever discover if the Blair’s vaccinated their children using MMR or single shots?
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=221934
Do you think Jeremy Bowen might be guest of honour who cuts the ribbon and declares the place open? I look forward to seeing the video reports on the BBC’s Middle East section.
Missed Question Time…Kirsty was trying to put Oldham back together again on the other side..if only Stevie Wonder had been Asian for the singing of the Beeb Company song(Ebony and Ivory).
Sadly no-ones listening to poor Kirsty up north-and maybe that is why the BBC itself is moving next door to Salford…nice neighbours break down barricades together etc…
Hop back to find the Beebs favourite Asian perpetual student… Tariq Ali -and oh is he mad?
So would I be if i was constantly shouted over by Dianne Abbott…”four more years” and “you`l never meet another like Obama” was her message for him-and hence for us all!
So to today-and Kirsty Young ,having sorted crime out earlier this week is now up Debbie Harrys fundament…lots of approval of that wastrel life of CBGBs, but-of course-never actually condoned..only well, you know…bit Tariq really!
My point-that the Beebs choice of good rebels are all exceedingly rich and pampered, and need their Kirstys to want to cream up their old lifestyles…and the Beeboids get a sniff of “real rebellion” as opposed to dissin` a Liberal.
The BBC- a care home providing day care salon chat at public expense for all your old” icons” and “rebels”…and the current crop of sadsacks actually aspire to reach their giddy peaks of sneer and private school provision…but with “cool” and “attitude” of course.
Everyday these days is dress down Friday at the BBC…
CBGB’s was a good club, but I could never stand most of the denizens.
cj,
“CBGB”, hey, cool man ! Careful what you say about our Debs, you may have me and NotaSheep on your back !
I only heard the first half of it , but Kirsty was so PC I guess Debbie had to try not to laugh. (Or maybe she had to laugh ! ).
Strange fruit, indeed !
Deliberately or otherwise Evan Davis revealed Christine Lagarde as the devious shit she is. Replying to Evan’s enquiry as to why she – as a representative of the French interest and a euro fanatic – should be considered a suitable candidate for head of the IMF, she replied inter alia that she knew everyone (which is true) and would, accordingly, be very effective. Later Evan asked if she had known anything about DSK’s extra-mural activities over the years. She denied any knowledge at all (she’s “not a socialist” she said). Now, even I, a resident of North London and as far away from membership of the political class as our charlady, knew a long time ago that DSK was, at the very least, an assiduous womaniser. How come Christine (who knows “everyone”) knew nothing? It not only beggars belief, it confirms that these people (ie the political class) will defend their own come what may – and lie into the bargain. This is not evidence of BBC bias (the reverse if anything) but an interesting aperçu into the mental landscape of the liars who rule us.
Yes, I was going to blog on that interview too. You’re right that she came across uber=elitist and Evan was VERY differential with no interruptipns as she waffled.
DV
Maybe letting Lagarde waffle was quite shrewd. As you say she came across as uber-elitist which in my book is not necessarily a bad thing. She’s obviously intelligent and not afraid to show it. Nor does she stoop to the linguistic gestures of our braindead politicians who think they are “getting down wiv de chavs” (and thereby garnering a few votes) by refusing to pronounce a “T” at the end of a word. With the right motivations (ie not devoting herself to saving the euro and, by extension, the EU at all costs) she could be an asset to the world economy as head of the IMF.
However – perhaps more damning – she came over as a senior patronising member of the European political class with all that entails. She is, after all, a French politician who, generally, in international affairs represent the interests of France (and, after France, the EU) wherever they happen to have influence. It would be interesting to see what might happen if the interests of France and the EU ever diverged. Would members of the French political class opt to support the EU against national interests (like our lot) or would they become uber-nationalist? My suspicion is that they would opt in favour of themselves: France and/or the EU could go down the chute as long as they are materially OK. As always, follow the money.
The Euro-elites are too stupid to realise that the game is up for Europe. They are living in the past.
They are in a big hole and just keep digging.
Unbelievable mistake not to appoint someone from the “Emerging Countries” to this post.
How telling that the discussion on Today was whether the post should go to a European. Substitute “white” for European and the BBC angle would have been “Isn’t the IMF hideously white?”.
But of course by “European” they meant EU, which is good and must be treated with kid gloves. Whereas white is bad and shameful and must continually be apologised for.
And by sending them Brittain, Patten ,Kinnock(who nearly bankrupted them in 1999)-then Mandelson…and now the glorious Cathy Ashton-I like to think that Britain will once again defeat the Euro threat from within…an SOE to rot the whole thing!
The spiwit of Woy Jenkins prevades the fetid corridors of Brussels like sprouts cooked in a sock…Clegg will surely bring it down once he gets the rat run to Strasbourg!
Friday 27 May 2011 <!–.loop-date–>
New Research: BBC and S4C spend millions on private healthcare
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/
“BBC staff get private healthcare”
http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/bbc-staff-get-private-healthcare
<!– /block-inner –>
Does make it a little less than convincing to have the BBC’s finest wheeling in their favorite Pilgrim Muthas to interview at the drop of a cut, Cut, CUT!!!!! to suggest that, after a decade of multi-billion ‘investment’ things are world class, and any old folk dying because staff can’t figure out how to place a glass of water near a dehydrated patient will only be solved by oodles more money and training.
No-didn`t see any synapses connecting at the news of the scandals at London Free(near enough for them to visit surely!) with the efforts of Lansley etc to bring people in who may yet be presuaded NOT to leave old folk dying of malnutrition.
No-still doesn`t register with them does it…and here`s the BMA/RCN/Unison to tell us that we need to reward and protect these monsters if we want them to actually give a fig!
These slippery Shipmans don`t even have his shamelessness about what he only was doing in a more “systermatic” and “efficient” way-and more honestly too!
Their penchant for consensual eugenics shows them for the Communazis that they really are-but haven`t named themselves, for the usual lack of courage.
Tough on the weak and the old…craven in the face of anything else!
But surely the NHS is ” the envy of the world ” ?
Anyone else spot this yet?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391072/It-aint-half-sick-mum-BBC-risks-outrage-comedy-bomb-disposal-experts-Afghanistan.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
One can’t really judge before seeing the thing – but I’m guessing that anyone who believes the show might be ‘pro army’ is living in a similar parallel universe to the one where the whacky BBC producers who thunk it up reside.
The list of accomplishments of the writers and producers tells me all I need to know: Miranda, Mrs. Brown’s Boys, and an edgy puppet show. I’m sure it’ll be sheer genius comedy of the highest order. Not.
Shock horror! Hold the front page; another piece of BBC faux-outrage from the Daily Mail. Just when I was thinking it might be ok to go outside again after “the rapture” was postponed due to bad weather… THIS comes along:
“The BBC is risking the wrath of the armed forces…”
Backed up with quotes from the military website “British Army Rumour Service”…
Quotes such as:
“Another anti-army piece of work from the Beeb luvvies.”
“I suppose it makes a change from them portraying British Soldiers as bullying, demented, psycotic, deranged, unemployable idiots suffering from PTSD”
“Another good reason not to buy a TV Licence – not that I have ever bought one anyway.”
But wait… here’s another quote from “British Army Rumour Service”:
“LOL don’t you just love the Daily Wail, they have taken all three of these quotes by Bolo Beret and portrayed them as if they were said by several different people whist only including one positive quote from the majority of positive or not to bothered views.”
http://www.arrse.co.uk/intelligence-cell/163394-bbc-create-comedy-show-about-afghan-eod-teams.html
It’s almost as if the Daily Mail was making this stuff up :O
That’s right , Dez, in reality the armed services love the fantastic support they get from the BBC.
Grant.
The best bit, but not mentioned, is where the British Army has offered glowing references for both Scott and Dez should they decide to enlist for the other “side”.
VC’s for both of them. (Vicarious Cowards).
People of the West being forced to give their money to Muslims of Middle East/ North Africa.
It’s all part of the ‘multiculturalist’ agenda which West’s political elite (inc INBBC) is enforcing, along with mass Islamic immigration, (e.g. from 80 million Muslim Turks) to turn E.U. into Eurabia, as soon as possible.
“UK calls for G8 financial aid for ‘Arab Spring'”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13565532
‘Guardian’:
“G8 summit to pledge £12bn for Arab spring states”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/27/g8-summit-pledge-arab-spring
“MIGRANT WORKERS FLOODING BRITAIN”
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/249097/Migrant-workers-flooding-Britain
No cuts in Britain’s ‘foreign aid’ to Islamic and other countries, on the contrary:
“UK doles out more aid than any other country: Despite the savage cutbacks at home, we top world league in foreign aid”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391334/Britain-doles-aid-country-despite-savage-cutbacks-home.html#ixzz1NYGybHp2
Untrue:
http://fullfact.org/factchecks/Daily_Mail_Express_Daily_Telegraph_international_aid_UK_most_generous_G8_OECD-2738
Untrue, yes. Interesting FullFact link, thank you. As usual the journalist penchant for simplistic headlines ( fastest rising, warmest ever, tops world league of) makes it a statistically false claim.
All of which still begs the question, as to why amidst “claimed cuts”we are borrowing money to give it to the third world. Especially as it comes down to – as quoted elsewhere – poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in poor countries. That remains true. Camerons brand of “wristband politics” is guaranteed to piss off many, and rightly so.
Lagarde is exactly the smoothie chops international globe trotter so beloved by the BBC…exudes power and international credibilty…and never actually done anything in her life but able to talk in that global esperanto of cultural diversity that gives her gravitas!
The Catholics were hammered by the BBC for not appointing a gay/black/female Pope from the emerging nations as seen by the BBC…yet we`re expected to shoo in some French FIFA/UEFA/Eurovision ex-Washington French lawyer from the ENA to speak for Fairtrade/Greenpeace and the rest of the ticks on the body politic!
These charity quangos will say nothing though in her case-she`s been lining their cage for years with money that Blair dropped the EU before he went to sort the Middle East out for us!
Can`t Platini run the IMF for a while-or give DSK a laptop to phone it in…innocent `til proved guilty etc…even Sharon Shoesmith!
Jenni,Jane and the Womans Hour Zoo are already drooling(not in a nice way either) at the prospect of Annie Lennox` mum taking over the IMF! Does her husband know she`s doing all this I wonder?
She spreads that wealth around. What’s not for a Beeboid to love?
The consequences for Britain of BBC’s EU and Obama worship:
“Obama lauds everything the UK has surrendered to the EU or subsumed to the ECHR ”
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/05/obama-lauds-everything-uk-has.html
At least His Grace noticed just how much the British press and nearly all your politicians humiliated themselves during His visitation. And noticed how everyone ignored the unbelievable gaffes. I wonder if anyone bothered to write to their MP expressing embarrassment over such behavior.
2 reports of Labour’s E.Miliband wedding:
1.) ‘Daily Mail’ (Quentin Letts):
“Your guide to the politically correct wedding of Ed Miliband, Britain’s most reluctant groom”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391401/Your-guide-politically-correct-wedding-Ed-Miliband-Britains-reluctant-groom.html#ixzz1NYLYixQW
2.) BBC-Labour report:
“Ed Miliband to marry long-term partner Justine Thornton”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13572420
Toady up to their usual tricks , trying to promote the anti- nhs reform agenda.
Don’t remember the recent report on nhs failings getting this quantity of air time !
The bbc have finally decided to cover this story, although they buried the link at the bottom of the london news page, then decided to take it down after 10 minutes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13566526
I’m surprised this homicidal, but deeply revelatory, attack got 10 minutes, Lynn. Somebody must be losing their grip, or having a twinge of doubt about the religion of pieces. But I doubt it. Normally, the censorship/omission at the Corporation is as reliable as a Guardianista’s sense of entitlement. Nothing must be permitted to shatter the fable of ‘The Great Enrichment’. Certainly not news of a gang of murderous savages who wish to take us back to their 7th century desert in a Wahabi Tardis. If there is to be a new Sherlock Holmes season, perhaps one episode could be devoted to the singular case of The White City Black Hole – a ghastly place where the truth keeps dying.
It’s a classic BBC trick. Put a story up, link to it for 10 minutes, then remove the link.
So when someone says “You don’t cover these stories” they can point to the report and say “We did, look here”.
“Beaten” ,”attacked” ” inappropriate”…such moderate use of language in the case of a racist assault by the coy Beeb…but don`t see that dog whistle word being used here!
Compare with “crisis”, “tragedy”, “viscious”, “apocalyptic”…words used commonly to global warming tosh, cuts and squabbles between two types of liberal.
The BBC are wonders aren`t they?…it`s as if Orwell never set foot in their building!
The BBC was remarkably coy about why one of the Hussein’s car was bugged. Don’t the Police have to receive special permission to conduct this kind of surveillance?
BTW Whern two defendants have the same surname isn’t it sloppy journalism not to identify who they are writing about by their first name?
“then decided to take it down after 10 minutes”
The link was on the London news page from when they were convicted on 26th May. The day before your post; which is just a tiny bit more than “10 minutes”. “Big Hand – Little Hand”, do you need a refresher course? ;p
A joy to hear Sean Lie on the World at One today!
He fearlessly interrupted ex-Commissar Edward Balls of Tooting and harried him as if he were Andrew Lansley or Danny Alexander…truly the socialist worm is on the turn!
Or so I thought-no, he was not being berated for years of lies and incompetence,nepotism or Nazi regalia, maladministration or buttering Mc Brides crumpets!
No-he was taken to task for victimising a young inner city and hopelessly feminine social worker called Sharon Shoesmith. Doing misssionary work in the peace process for Haringey I think!
That`s the BBC all over-if you think Lord Longfords perverse pleasure in supporting the lousiest of lost causes was bad…then wait around and the BBC will somehow make a victim out of Sharon Shoesmith…and only Ed Balls could possibly make her look good by comparison!
Martha Kearney no doubt already sharing a Chardonnay with this sista of mercy-stretch limo booked, so do keep an eye out for them!
cjh
As a council tax payer in Haringey (and even if I weren’t) it doesn’t surprise me that 1. this cow was employed in the first place; 2. the Court of Appeal found in her favour apparently on technical grounds that she wasn’t given compensation for being sacked for being responsible for the death of baby P (not to mention the rest of the shambles at Haringey’s social “work” department of which she was head); and 3. the BBC view is that it is an atrocity to sack anyone in the public sector, even (especially?) those who, by their incompetence, arrogance and lack of management skills, effectively connive at the abuse of children.
As you imply – and I agree – Sharon will join other BBC faves like Begg on the Today editor’s speed-dial whenever the wickedness of the non-cuts or efforts to protect ordinary citizens from Islamic or social worker terrorism come up for a bashing.
Expect her on QT any time soon.
They’ve already started Umbongo. She was given BBC webspace back in January to opine that the ‘cuts’ “will lead to vulnerable children dying.”
As for CJ’s point about the BBC’s Lord Longford-like tendencies, this article by BBC London’s political editor Tim Donovan could be considered Exhibit A.
He really does treat Ms Shoesmith as a victim of circumstances. People “praised” her record and called her “competent and sincere”. What did she do wrong? Nothing, so far as this article says. She got an unfair press. She was the victim of “political manoeuvring” with Ed Balls behaving badly – though in mitigation Balls was “under pressure” from the press and from that ultimate source of political evil, one “David Cameron”, whose “surprise attack” on Gordon Brown started the ball rolling. (Does that make Balls a victim too?)
The article concludes with the BBC journalist coming down as firmly as humanly possible on Ms Shoesmith’s side:
Ed Balls is now paying the price for an unlawful and unfair decision taken two and a half years ago in the haste to close down the controversy over Baby Peter.
Reading articles on various online newspapers, and their comments, suggests that the public isn’t liking this legal decision one bit and thinks her sacking was anything but “unfair”. The BBC seems to be out of step again with the public mood – not that it will care.
Well, the repulsive Shoesmith is certainly an expert on “children dying”.
It sticks in my throat but, for once in his life, Balls did the right thing.
Why is it that the “social services” seem to remove perfectly healthy children from “middle class” families, but leave children of “working class families” to be abused ? Is it my imagination or is it class hatred ?
PS The idea of Balls being somehow bullied into the decision is farcical.
Mr. Balls may have had, for once, relatively sensible intentions, but if this woman gets away with the consequences of her actions via his handling, I fear I can’t see his as being ‘right’.
There seems to be an attempt to pitch these two as choices in validity.
More appropriate would be billing them as two sides of a very tarnished coin.
Ms. Shoesmith embodies the talentless, overpaid, bullet-proof, unaccountable public sector senior classes, and Mr. Balls the inept, overpromoted competence void in theory ‘managing’ them.
That the BBC could or will find merit or excuse for either will be unsurprising if unpalatable.
I am simply dreading what they may concoct between our Sharon and Jacquie Smith. Whatever it is, it won’t be pretty.
Another comparable legal disaster, what happened to Rose Gibb, fired Chief Executive of Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust (patients left in excrement on Medical wards, deathrates etc). Trust gives her £250k pay off in exchange for her going quietly, minister demands she gets no compensation, Gibb loses £250k, goes to appeal, appeal judges find she was depived of her right to appeal her dismissal and that as a result she suffered damage to her reputation (what reputation?) and awards her £250k compensation.
Anyone see a pattern here?
I should perhaps give the BBC two cheers. On Today this morning John Humphrys – in non-rant mode – made total mincemeat of Sharon. He showed her up for the money-grubbing, unapologetic piece of excreta that we have grown to know and love since her role in the Baby P saga was exposed. We should also take some comfort from the Appeal Court decision re unfair dismissal on the Larry Flynt basis that if this worm’s rights to a legal process of dismissal are upheld by a court of law then the rest of us are (marginally) safer from summary (and illegal) action by the state.
Terrible cliche, this concept of “with great respect”-but in social work parlance I do “take issue” with you over this!
You`re right about that the State does this as a reflex and no-one is safe if Balls and Co can getaway with it…but Humphrys chose to stay ignorant of the one lifeline she can cling to.
The OFSTED reports WERE glowing in the main-and only when the media storm came did they rush to rewrite, cut and paste, smear,backtrack and apply 20-20 hindsight to their lazy tick box snowjob…then claim that they had “highlighted” Haringeys weaknesses.
She was a head teacher-OFSTED were only fit for bullying state schools and not for SSSI/Social Service Inspections…but between them, they contrived the “glowing/3 star” reports only months-even weeks?…before!
My thinking is simply that Mrs Tony McNulty(one Christine Gilbert) heads up the shambles that is mission creepy OFSTED-so the political need to cover DCSF took over all sense or tactical nous to bin the barnacle that remains Shoesmith!
Humph could have destroyed her if he`d only done a bit of background…but as our friend says-they`re “bulletproof” when it`s a matter of a kid dying in the reception area…if only she`d said something racist, we`d be better off now!
cjh
Points taken but I did only give the BBC 2 cheers. Your revelation (to me) that OFSTED went into panic mode after the press outed the scandal explains a lot – and is indicative of a lot. Even with Humphrys’ (and/or BBC researchers’) lack of enthusiasm in exposing the real deal here, Humphrys still made Sharon, despite the “makeover” seen on TV, look like shite – actually not difficult – although failng, as you say, to destroy her totally. Again, as you say, had she murmured at any point in her career at Haringey (or anywhere else) something deemed racist, her feet wouldn’t have touched the ground on the way out and the Appeal Court would have slung her case out sharpish.
INBBC propagandising for Islam in OLDHAM.
Last night on ‘Newsnight’ (courtesy of INBBC ‘Asian Network’, plus a rigged panel in studio), INBBC pushed for further advancement of Islamic population in Oldham with deceitful propaganda; the INBBC propaganda is for some undefined, goal , unwanted by indigenous ‘whites’, of ‘diversity’ (apparently this means more mass immigration to Britain with formerly ‘white’ area going over to Muslims, but no Muslim areas going over to ‘whites’).
In the following INBBC article on Oldham, INBBC mentions Roman Catholics and mentions the Church of England, but doesn’t mention ISLAM once in the whole piece!!!
“Oldham schools divided by race, study finds”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13540719
“What a catalyst you turn out to be”…
The BBC seem to have developed this habit of egging on rebellion just to the point where they can hide behind the judges robes…from where they berate a politician for not second guessing the verdict of their new found friend.
Hemming and the super-injunction…how very dare he use his theoretical right to “privilege”?
Balls doing what the media got him to do in sacking Shoesmith-and now ,years later, the BBC seem to think that they`d have done it better!
So there we are…the BBC are either at your feet(if you`re an unelected judge) or at your throat( if you`re a Tory or someone who takes on public sector heroines like Sharon Shoesmith)
Don`t recall the BBC being so supportive of the judiciary when it considered Gores DVD to be propaganda and not educational!
There you go though…another day in Beebland!
Haha! The BBC at last is forced to tell the truth about The Obamessiah’s protocol gaffe toasting the Queen. After two separate reports covering for Him and trying to direct the reader into thinking it was the band’s fault, reality has once again forced the BBC to stop the spin and report the truth. Yet still they try to protect Him even while admitting His error. One senses blame beginning to shift even from the headline:
Why are there rules for meeting the Queen?
President Barack Obama raised eyebrows when he continued speaking during the national anthem with commentators suggesting protocol had been breached. But what is royal protocol and is it necessary?
The stage is set to play down the gaffe.
Barack Obama was probably not aware that he was doing anything unusual when making a toast “to the Queen” and then continuing with a short speech. According to protocol, however, he should have stopped after the toast.
Probably not aware? He was surely aware that the band was playing while he was talking, no? He was surely aware that the band didn’t play over the Queen’s words. He was surely aware that all present suddenly looked horrified. More importantly, He was surely told by His handlers beforehand what the procedure is. They do this stuff all the time.
So the BBC creates an entire article to tell you that it’s simply not a big deal. The protocol is old-fashioned, elitist, forced on the poor innocent President. Why, one almost gets the feeling that the whole thing was really more of an insult to Him by these snobs making Him act deferential to some old white rich person whom nobody really respects any more.
But it stems from a time when monarchs were accorded an almost divine status and had to be treated accordingly.
“From medieval times, monarchs were divinely appointed to rule by God, so they were kind of seen as gods, so they demanded to be treated as gods,” says Dr Kate Williams, a historian at London’s Royal Holloway university.
“They are treated as people set apart from the rest of us, so primarily what it is creating is distance and grandeur.”
In short, says Dr Williams, “you don’t kiss them, you don’t touch them, you bow – over and over again.”
And anyway, we’re reminded, none of this matters anymore ever since Michelle Obama put her arm around the Queen during the last visit. Sure, we get a couple of quotes from experts explaining that the protocol and pomp are merely out of respect for what the Queen stands for, as well as a way to keep these sorts of occasions running smoothly, so nobody gets embarrassed. Well, why worry about that when the BBC is there to cover for Him?
And if that’s not enough to convince you that it wasn’t really His mistake, there’s this:
But there is evidence that things are becoming more relaxed.
Jennie Bond spent 14 years negotiating royal protocol as a part of her job as royal correspondent for the BBC.
“I don’t think that they are as hot on etiquette as most people think they are,” she says.
See? It’s no big deal at all. The Queen didn’t care, so why should you? Still worried about respect for the Queen and for the occasion? More the fool, you:
But Mr Hanson believes etiquette still has a role to play, beyond royal circles as much as within them.
“These things matter, especially when you’re doing business with eastern countries such as China, where they take it even more seriously than Britain,” he says.
“The Japanese, the Chinese, the Middle Eastern countries, are more concerned with protocol day-to-day.”
That’s code for “they’re more fascist or just plain old more backwards than we are”. At least the BBC at last stopped covering for Him and admitted it was a mistake. A small triumph. But had this been George Bush, the white gloves would have been off and the cudgel brought out.
David P,
Am I right in thinking that , in the US, a toast would come at the end of a speech not vice versa ? As is the case in the UK, Queen or no Queen.
If so, presumebly Obama knew that, so was was he playing at ?
Sorry, Grant, I have no idea. Either way, the handlers always give everyone instructions for these occasions, and the President knew something was odd when the band started playing. And the BBC tried to lie about it twice.
David,
Yes, and as I said before you just need to look at the Queen’s reaction to see.
By the way, ” Have I got News for You ” tonight was still peddling the lie that it was the band’s fault.
How pathetic. The writers and even Hislop didn’t know, even with so many other media reporting the truth? I’ll try to catch the extended version tomorrow.
Did Obama bow to the Queen? I’m only asking because he did bow to the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emperor of Japan.
deegee,
I don’t know but how could you expect Obama to bow to the Queen of a country which was responsible for the most evil Empire in history, not forgetting fighting the Americans in the War of Independence ?
The Emperor of Japan is completely different. The USA has a special relationship with Japan.
I would not bow to a citizen of Europe.
http://nominedeus.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/queen-what-queen/
http://captainranty.blogspot.com/2011/03/elizabeth-windsor-citizen.html
He shouldn’t be bowing to anyone, period. They’re both heads of state. They are equals.
Canada stands up to the US President to defend Israel:
The Canadians forced the group to soften a statement by removing a specific mention of 1967 border plan in the Group of Eight leaders’ joint statement.
BBC: ZZZzzzzzzz
The Beeboids will absolutely hate this, so for the moment their G8 reporting is silent on this and all about Ghaddafi and throwing billions of dollars at the same Arabs at whom we’ve always been throwing money, only the label on the brown wrapper has changed. I’m sure Jeremy Bowen is gearing up for a diatribe…er…report.
Obviously it matters what opinion in Britain is about the Israel/Palestine question, and the endless bias by the BBC against the Israeli narrative must affect opinion in this country greatly.
But what really matters is how America treats Israel. Here are two perceptive pieces by US writers about Obama’s prejudices against Israel :
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/268159/pro-palestinian-chief-stanley-kurtz
(Kurtz describes how Obama has been steeped for decades in supporting the Palestinian narrative and objectives)
and
http://bigpeace.com/dfriedman/2011/05/26/obama-explained-by-andy-mccarthy/
McCarthy traces the roots too – and warns us that even though Obama had to beat a hasty retreat from his statement about reverting to the pre-1967 borders, that does not mean he will let go. He has floated the radical change – and he will continue to push for it by hook or by crook.
It is surely indicative that the US were trying to get a reference to the pre-1967 borders into the G8 communique. Only Canada blocked this. So – Obama pretends to his US audience that he has retreated – but then promotes the idea at G8. As on so many issues, he speaks with a forked tongue.
Bill Whittle’s description of Obama as a “turncoat” seems entirely fitting :
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/27/have-we-become-a-turncoat-nation-under-obamas-foreign-policy/
Whittle gives a video summary of Victor Davis Hansen’s listing of all the “turncoat” actions by the Obama administration – backing the Palestinians against Israel, backing socialist dictators in South America against democracies, selling out the Poles and Czecks to the Russians ….. and right-royally screwing Britain, the most effective ally that the US has had for over a century.
There are legitimate – or at least stongly arguable grounds – for seeing Obama as a real threat to the fragile peace of the world, not just in the Middle East but more generally. There have been a dozen US Presidencies during my adult life – and Obama appears to me to be by far the most dangerous.
But NONE of this appears anywhere in BBC coverage/adulation of Obama.
…………………………
(this is cross-posted on the “Alert” thread that deals more specifically with Israel/Palestine)
John,
I totally agree. Obama is a very dangerous man and the enemies of the West will be taking great comfort from his adolescent posturing.
And the BBC is STILL censoring news of Canada standing up to The Obamessiah and the anti-Israel pressure about removing the 1967 borders language from that G8 statement.
I note that Jody Mr McIntyre claims that he was the victim of an unprovoked attack by the police, complaining that an officer tipped him out of his wheelchair onto the ground, then dragged him across the road onto the pavement. And then went on to claim that his treatment amounted to discrimination on the basis of his disability, has lost both of his cases.
The statement from the independent inquiry was:
“The investigation did not find evidence to substantiate any of the complaints and, given how damaging these allegations were to the reputation of the MPS and relationship with both protesters and London’s disabled community, it is only right that we report back and therefore publicly account on what occurred.”
Now if we remember the wall to wall coverage given to this activist, wiith many interviews across the BBC news outlets (and of course its bastard offspring the Guardian), I wonder how they will now go about spinning this rather huge own goal of Mr McIntyre?
The Police should have done society a favour and wheeled the Commie twat in to the Thames.
The BBC have decided to post an article on Mr McIntyres failure to get himself lots of taxpayers money (although he will be able to fallback on his columns in the Guardian & Independent), what was striking in the article was Mr McIntyres claim that “Why are the police investigating themselves?”Does that make sense to you, that the police attacked a man in a wheelchair and then they investigate themselves?”.
When in reality The Met’s probe was supervised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, who are a Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB), funded by the Home Office, but by law entirely independent of the police, interest groups and political parties and whose decisions on cases are free from government involvement.
Shame that this rather important bit of information is not mentioned when allowing Mr McIntyre to spout his bullshit.
Typical BBC spin.
That article is so biased in favour of McIntyre that it’s a joke!
His opinions get the lion’s share of the article, his words are used below the picture, he gets quoted again on the right-hand side of the article and his “Doesn’t make sense” is used as the sub-headline.
The Mail Online article quoted in Joseph S’s first comment gives more from the Met statement and some additional background on their investigation.
Comparing the two articles shows how far apart these two news sources are. The Mail takes the police’s side and the BBC takes the protestor’s side. The former, however, is privately funded while the latter is uniquely funded by taxpayers.
Heard this bloke on Channel 4 News under the caring,sharing gaze of little Krishnan…presumably a life size model of a mantelpiece god!
McIntyres language was that of the grievance seeking victim and you could almost smell the C4 hope that he might take a case out before their very eyes!
Unfortunately the Disability Gravy Train hit the buffers when he mentioned two cases of near-on state sanctioned murder by the Met…one about a disabled(presumably) bloke killed in a cell-the other was Smiley Culture!
Let`s hope Channel 4 aren`t scrubbing those tapes already-there are laws about this kind of thing I`m guessing!
THe bloke is obviously creating a career as a grief thief, and only Livingston could have taught him to ooze hurt and entitlement in balanced proportin like that surely!
Our Paralympic gold in taking the public for a ride around Greenwich Park is assured!
I’m trying to find out how much the BBC spends with the Guardian each year? Anyone?
The BBC certainly spends a huge amount at the Guardian – just check the ad pages
You might find some info here :
http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/bbc-the-broadcast-arm-of-the-guardian/
Regardless of the amount spent, the excuse is always that it’s the only national paper with a Media Jobs section, Sky and the Sun do the same thing, etc.
The better question is which paper gets most favorable treatment by the BBC, and with which one to they share an agenda.
The BBC is shamelessly protecting the revenue of the Guardian. It could put jobs online in the way the NHS have had to. That decimated the Health Services Journal advertising revenue, where the job pages were many managers main reason for buying it.
Placing BBC jobs ads in a lefty newspaper is win win. Applicants politics will fit nicely with the groupthink at White City, and helps keep the lefties daily Guardian afloat. You may not think you buy the Guardian, but in effect you do, through your license fee.
“It could put jobs online…”
How noble of you to suggest such a thing. It’s almost as if they don’t already do that, and limit their print advertising accordingly.
Still, I suppose if all Biased BBC contributors had to stick to the truth, you wouldn’t get nearly as many comments…
The bBC it’s so called defence expert and the Apache AH Mk 1
How UK’s Apache helicopters could aid Libya mission
The plan now is to use the UK’s Apaches in Libya – following approval of their deployment by David Cameron – where they can offer similar deterrence or reassurance, depending whose side the ground forces are on… The Apache is prized by its crews and the troops it supports because it can operate day or night, in bad weather and in climates ranging from the chill of the Arctic to the heat of the desert, with dust and sand kept out of the engine by special filters… This helps avoid the problems faced by other helicopters in Afghanistan, many of which had to be adapted to work in ‘hot and high’ conditions.
The bBCs so called defence expert explains how special filters on the British Apache (AH Mk1 as opposed to AH64D) allows it to operate in the hot and high conditions which other helicopters have problems with. So what other helicopters could Caroline Wyatt be on about. Could she be referring to the Apache gunships (AH64D) as operated by the US Army and until a few months ago the Dutch in Afghanistan. Which constrained by the heat and the altitude can only operate without their radars fitted. (That dome above the main rotors) Yet the British Apaches operate in Afghanistan with their radars fitted. According to the bBCs so called defence expert its all down to a few filters. Wrong!
The reason the British Apache can operate with very few problems is the British when they built theirs decided to fit Rolls Royce engines which deliver 2,100 Shaft Horse Power as opposed to the General electric ones used by everybody else which deliver 1,890 SHP. That and only that is the reason why the British Apaches can fly with their Radars fitted in Afghanistan. (Strangely enough the latest American Block III upgrade for their Apaches only upgrades their engines to 2000 SHP)
Yet according to the bBCs so called defence expert it all down to a few bloody filters.
Two interesting recent reports from Just Journalism:
MediaGuardian alleges pro-Israel bias at BBC Actually it is former Beeboid and Middle East editor Tim Llewellyn doing the alleging. Apparently the BBC is shilling for Israel BBC is ‘confusing cause and effect’ in its Israeli coverage
VIEWPOINT: BBC Middle East editor blames Israel for conflict Jeremy Bowen believes that No peace process worth talking about exists to be revived. But he (Netanyahu) had a choice of making matters worse or better, and he chose to make them worse. It really sticks in Bowen’s craw that the US Congress (both parties) appears to overwhelmingly support Netanyahu 29 standing ovations. How dare they?
As always BBC captions to file photographs are a little odd. The top photograph is captioned Mr Netanyahu’s speech on Capitol Hill received rounds of applause. That’s Joe Biden clapping in the background. Surely when he clapped and when he didn’t is a story in itself?
The second photograph is captioned Mr Netanyahu called for a continued Israeli military presence near Jordan’s border and shows soldiers on patrol. I would be willing to make a bet that judging by the vegetation and the mountain background this photograph was taken in the north of Israel near the Syrian or Lebanese border and nowhere near the Jordanian border. The area Israel wishes to keep troops is a wide river valley.
Curiously, the BBC hasn’t found time or space to report on the latest protests in Tahrir Square.
Anti-Military Protest Fills Cairo Square
Thousands of protesters returned to downtown Cairo’s Tahrir Square Friday for what they called a “second revolution,” calling for Egypt’s military rulers to speed up the pace of democratic reforms in a country that is still charting its political future.
Protesters carried banners reading the “Egyptian revolution is not over” and chanted the slogan.
Seems worth reporting, no
Christians and Muslims took turns praying in Tahrir Square, as they did in the protests that forced the ouster of former President Hosni Mubarak in February. Sectarian clashes have turned deadly since the revolution.
Still seems important enough to warrant at least a news brief on the website. The military apparently decided to stay out of the way – a wise move – and much of the complaining seemed to be about demands for Mubarak to go on trial already, as well as speeding up the process of elections. But there’s also this:
The Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s best organized political force, opposed the protest and called it an attempt to drive a wedge between the military and the people. The Brotherhood’s absence will test the ability of liberal and secular groups to launch their own sustained opposition movement.
Ah, no wonder Christians were allowed to pray. That won’t last if the MB takes over the country. How is the BBC going to report this? Or this?
The protest movement wants to oust the ruling Armed Forces Council and replace it with a civilian council. Protesters accuse the army of using excessive force in cracking down on peaceful protesters since Mubarak’s ouster, sending thousands to military tribunals and detaining young protesters.
Funny how I haven’t heard any of this from the BBC. The gadflies have moved on, I guess. And we don’t want to damage the “Muslim Brotherhood is Moderate” Narrative. They’re in league with the military – guess who’s going to pocket that new $1 billion The Obamessiah promised, as well as any of your cash the G8 mandarins decide to redistribute? And the MB will continue to use the military to crack down on the people as badly as Mubarak, all while the BBC continues to tell you they’re a force for moderation and tolerance.
EU Human Rights “law” usurping your own and letting criminals out on the street.
Jailed burglar Wayne Bishop freed to care for children
A burglar from Nottingham has been freed from jail on appeal so he can care for his five children.
Wayne Bishop, 33, was jailed for eight months for breaking into a rugby club and crashing into a police car.
He argued the judgement breached his human rights and the Court of Appeal agreed not enough attention was paid to the effect on his children.
The BBC gets out the tiny violins, full-on sob story. The BBC News Online sub-editor generously grants space for a policeman to complain about the decision, but this is immediately followed by an increase in the tear-jerking. We learn that the freed criminal has a sister, who is also a single parent on benefits with 7 kids to look after and – pass the tissues, please – lives several miles away from their schools.
Why is this relevant? Why did they set him free?
Pointing to Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention, Mr Wise said: “We submit that the judge erred in law in failing to have proper or any regard to the children that he was the sole carer for.
“The interests of the children should be central to the decision making process where children are affected by a decision.”
Mr Justice Sweeney had questioned whether it was in the children’s best interests for their father to be out committing burglary and asked who had been looking after them at that time.
But the judges together concluded that not enough attention had been paid to the effect on Bishop’s children.
And the BBC is right there with them. Any space given to an anti-EU voice, seeing as how this is exactly the kind of thing that causes people to worry about losing soverignty? Of course not. Shhhhhhh.
Very revealing this!
Love the idea of a judge asking the pertinent question of who was looking after the kids as he set about his “work”…only for “the judges together” to ignore the question!
Does the USA have these tragicomedy cases-or is it all down to Europe once our coffin dodgers have been sent to the Strasbourg care home for re-education?
I’m sure it’s happened here and there, as we have dopey judges just like anyone else. But not because of a law imposed from outside the US.
For anyone who remembers this:
“BBC gives ‘wooden’ Henman £200k – for two weeks’ work as Wimbledon commentator”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387215/BBC-gives-wooden-Tim-Henman-200k-2-weeks-Wimbledon-commentator.html
Here’s another lovely quote from the Daily Mai (for some strange reason buried within the U.S. section – almost as if they don’t want anyone to see it):
“In fact we have been informed that his fee will be substantially less than that. We apologise for the mistake and are happy to set the record straight.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/article-1389649/Tim-Henman.html
Dezzie, So it’s only £150k. Still not bad for two weeks work. And it was only £8m for three years “work” for Jonathan Ross. And remind me again, why exactly should we pay these extortionate salaries?
“Blah blah blah… Jonathan Ross.”
First Rule of Biased-BBC:
“If found out that your peddling the bullshit bicycle; change the subject” ;p
So how much are we paying Henman ? It is our money, why won’t the BBC tell us ?
Who’s peddling the Mirror? I don’t even read it Dezzie so am in no position to peddle it or defend it.
You obviously read the Guardian and support the BBC – so why don’t you defend the BBC’s disgraceful attitude against Israel? You have been asked to do this many times, but as always remain silent on the important issues.
Nobody’s been found out, except you! 😀
Dez,
All newspapers bury apologies, including the Mirror and the Guardian.
Dez
You are missing the central point. Henman is useless as a commentator. Bloody useless. He should not be hired in the first place.
OK, so he may not be paid £200K but he is still being paid a substantial sum. Let’s say £100K. Or even £50K. The BBC always says it has to pay the market rate for “talent”. In what universe would any other network pay him such sums ? No other UK network covers Wimbledon anyway – and no overseas network gives a toss about Henman.
The POINT is that the BBC is as usual throwing our money around wastefully. Henman ought to be paying the BBC to appear.
John,
Henman is almost as boring as Andy Murray !
Do keep up at the back. I posted the Daily Mail’s correction and apology here ages ago.
I believe I also mentioned my view that whatever they are paying Henman is too much, since he is hopeless as a commentator.
why do you all give that idiot dez the dignity of a reasoned reply?
he’s clearly a feckin numbnut just out to try to cause trouble in a drink/drug addled haze 😎
Itwf,
For me it is a kind of sport and a laugh. I should get out more, I know !
Following on from Mehdi Hasan of the New Statesman last Sunday (and “FT Chris” the previous day), the BBC Breakfast paper reviewer this morning was another regular, Labour activist Simon Fanshawe, who used the opportunity to attack David Cameron. He also used his appearance to sympathise with gay WikiHacker Bradley Manning. (Simon Fanshawe, coincidentally, is gay himself). Who’s up tomorrow? Pro-Labour tweeter and former Indie media editor Vincent Graff? Kevin Maguire of the Mirror?
With enemies like Balls and Humphrys, Sharon Shoesmith will have no need for friends-just as well!
Humphrys interview of that vulnerable champion of childrens rights was not an abortion( that would be a good thing to the BBC anyway)…just another example of Humphrys phoning in his ignorance.
Have they given up cleaning the poor sods ear trumpet…highlighter pen not bright enough?…for one reason or other he presumes to speak for the nation as he screws up every open goal opportunity he gets given!
He is a pompous disaster of an interviewer…I pine now for Alan Partridge and a sports casual Saturday instead of this Judge Humph parody.
Shoesmith is entirely the creature of Radio 4, the Guardian and the much-lamented NuLabor arm of the British people. That witch no 2 refused to take one for the team on their blasted heath only shows them for the evil sewer surfers they are. Shoesmith is THEIR creation-and proves it every time she opens that mouth of hers!
Balls and Humprys-this spectre of all things liberal is so lucky to have these useless idiots as her enemies!
Like Fred the Shred-she`d have been ennobled had they all kept it between themselves a few months longer! That she forced OFSTED to rewrite their glowing reports without spellcheck is her real crime in their eyes!
P.S Gil Scott Heron deserved a lot better than a friend of his having to instruct Humph in the difference between poetry and rap, and not paying tribute to the great man as he surely was intending to do.
Don`t see why we`re paying Humph to be so obtuse-he must have enough scribblers in at 5.45 a.m to brief him mustn`t he?
“The revolution will not be televised”…but if Humphrys doesn`t sling his hook and soon: it may come by analogue radio.
CJ I came downstairs at approximately 8am and as per my usual Saturday routine I turned the telly on in which to slowly awaken to the events that have transpired around the world courtesy of bBC 1.
Well for the first time ever , I turned the telly off livid and am now sitting in another room in silence with a cup of coffee. So what could have moved me to ‘turn off my TV and do something less boring instead’.
Well the first news article was Sharon Shoesmith and how during this mornings Radio 4 interview she very angrily stated she doesn’t do blame. What a self centred bitch. I really wanted to at the time to find out where she lives, break her fucking back, 7 ribs and then explain to her how I don’t do blame as i click my fingers in which to get her cower like a dog just like Baby P did. Why am I affected so?
I was a battered child and thankfully for me I was taken into care, because my white social worker realised that I was at a very high risk of getting killed by a father who had been caught out by social services and knew he was been watched. Now that part was good, the bad part (for me) was when social services realised that I was Asian and came from an Islamic background, so they swapped my White social worker for a coloured Islamic one. Who spent each and every visit to me, explaining that my father loved me, that I had brought shame on the community and that I should return back to the fold. The people in the Childrens home just couldn’t understand why I became very anti towards my Islamic social worker and her visits were curtailed as they tried to work out why I refused to speak to her. Years later I offended my foster mother, when while on home on leave I walked in and out of the room when I found that Islamic bitch had been invited to our house in which to meet me. Mother called me rude and not to embarrass her like that again. I wonder how she would have reacted if I had planted that Islamic bitch one. Thankfully she taught me never to raise my hand to woman.
This was followed by an interview with Bianca Jagger (What an ugly bovine) who was brought on in which to celebrate 50 years of Amnesty International. She waxed lyrical about saving people from deaths row (from GW Bush actually) then she was asked the question how does she feel about the stain on Amnestys record, Thinking they were referring to how AI has gone all AL Q in supporting A certain Mozzam Begg, she replied it was terrible how Amnesty failed to recognise …Nelson Mandela.
By the time the bBC started parroting about the great news in how Egypt had opened its border with Gaza, for my own sanity and the welfare of Miss Shoesmith I turned the telly off.
Yup nothing like political indoctrination on a Very Wet Saturday morning .
“sewer surfers”. Indeed !
I thought that the following information onthe trial of Gert Wilders might be interesting, especially as the BBC predicted that Mr Wilders would be found guilty…
The public prosecution department on Wednesday called for PVV leader Gert Wilders to be found not guilty of inciting hatred, as it tied up its case against the MP.
Prosecutors say Wilders’ remarks are critical of Islam which is not the same as inciting hatred against muslims themselves.
Earlier in the day the prosecutors said Wilders’ should be found not guilty of insulting a group because he has not stated any conclusions about muslims. Instead he has merely criticised their religion, the prosecutors said.
Reluctance
The decision to call on judges to find Wilders not guilty follows on from fact the department did not want to take the PVV leader to court in the first place.
However, it was forced to do so by the appeal court following protests from a number of ethnic minority groups.
The final charge against Wilders, incitement to discrimination, will be discussed later today.
The law under which Wilders is being tried is so broad and vague that anyone can claim hate speech if he is offended by anything anyone says. In fact, as a Dutchman, I take offense to many things said in Europe about the Netherlands, UK and America. Can I assert, as some Muslims have done with Wilders, that I am the victim of hate speech? Moreover, since Islamic law (shariah), divides people according to religion and sex, anyone who promotes it should be guilty of hate speech. Shariah is a racist equivalent ideology. Will the Netherlands prosecute those who advocate shariah?
This is a victory for free speech, now I wonder how the BBC will report this outstanding victory for democracy?
P.s Gert Wilders is in my opinion a complete idiot, however, when it comes to his thoughts on the failure of multiculturalism and Islam, I must admit that he does have a point. As for his left-wing politics the man is deluded ( I bet the BBC never class him as left-wing).
Gert has the guts to face off Islamic takeover, he has my vote. Thats more courage than anyone UK shows. French ban burqua, Conservative minister claims “Banning things is unBritish” Really? Says who?
Yes LC, I agree, i have great respect for these politicians who dare to venture to the right of the postage-stamp-sized centre ground that 99% of European governmets inhabit (obviously you can venture as far left as you wish and face no criticism. It’s not like Communism is the most evil ideology ever known to man or anything!)
Gert Wilders has to be under 24 hour guard because he has dared to speak about something that concerns many many Europeans.
I do think that he has missed the point a little though. Islamism, as well as all forms of mass-immigration is just a symptom of weak, failing, liberal governance. Which brings me to this excellent post by Norman Tebbitt:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100089921/these-immigration-figures-should-give-david-cameron-sleepless-nights/
If we could ban the Blackshirts we can ban the Burqa.
Joseph,
Hats off to the Dutch for actually debating these matters in public and in court too.
Thumbs down to the Leftie-liberal British Establishment, of which the odious BBC is a major part, for trying not only to sweep the whole problem under the carpet, but for pretending it doesn’t exist.
Liked all but the last paragraph Joseph. I think he goes to far in his antidotes to Islam, but he is a truly great, courageous man who certainly doesn’t deserve to be labelled a ‘complete idiot’. Especially from someone whose benefitted from the good he’s done for Holland.
Made the mistake of watching HIGNFY last night, almost the entire first ten minutes spent taking the pee out of the royal family with a few more digs throughout the show.
Also has a sneering ‘comedian’ called Jack Whitehall, another ‘right-on’ ex-public school, coke-snorting, son of money, edgy comedian right off the conveyor belt that brought us Marcus Brigstocke… filled with contempt and loathing for their background, their country and just about everything else. Sickening.
Chris
I haven’t seen you round these parts before,so maybe a welcome from me is in order
nice to see another new face added to the ever growing list of bBC realists
A long time reader and fan… I even link to this site from the ‘Editor’s Choice’ links section of my own site.
http://www.pitpass.com
Chris,
Yes I watched it and you are right. This guy Jack was a new one on me. Where do the BBC find them, they seem to breed like rabbits ?
From Channel 4, where else?
That’s also where they got the unspeakable Moneybags Mark Thompson from.
Know very little about the bloke, but I did see him fail convincingly and repeatedly round the Channle4 netherworld late on Friday nights…probably bounced round BBC3 pilots, but here he is…more White Hill than Whitehall eh?(canned laughs and £50,000 please Marky boy!)
The “kids get Russell Howard foisted on them-but only if Whitehall is the BOGOF in the deal I`d say.
Think he models his “wit” on the martyred Russell Brand, so there you go-BBC “yoof humour” and no doubt, he`ll be fetching Ross` pizzas until he gets a berth!
Compare and contrast these two reports of English Defence League demo in Blackpool today for justice to the ‘disappeared’ local girl, Charlene Downes:
1.) ‘Blackpool Gazette’
“2,000 EDL protesters gather on Blackpool Promenade”
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/local/2_000_edl_protesters_gather_on_blackpool_promenade_1_3428595
2.) Islam Not BBC (INBBC) report -which deviously even avoids mentioning what the EDL demo was for!:
“Blackpool EDL and anti-fascist demos ‘pass peacefully'”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-13583525
What on earth is the point of BBC “local” news if they don’t report it properly.
Plus – the BBC crowds out other local media.
The Blackpool Gazette report is far more through – AND it has a full video clip.
Who needs the BBC when you can turn to RELIABLE local news sources ?
So the UAF were effectively campaigning in favour of the rape, murder and turning-into-Kebab-meat of a young girl. They really are sick fuckers.
I wonder how many BBC staff are involved with UAF. I know Jeremy Hardy is a keen supporter but I think we can be sure that there are many others.
Yes, they really are.
The fate of young English women does not appear on their list of favoured causes. Nor is it promoted by their favourite political party (parties if we include the Liddems, Greens and SWP), broadcaster or newspaper. So what is a rentagob to do?
Now if it had been a young black man…
The contrast in the Gazette and BBC Online reporting shows what an obscene propaganda organisation the BBC has become.
I do nothing to hide my abject contempt for the fascist front EDL, but nevertheless, the mother of murdered Charlene Downes spoke at the rally, and not to mention the purpose of the rally is murderous callousness.
I think we can safely say that white, English working class life is cheap to the scum at BBC Online.
“The violence began after protesting refugees demanding resettlement blocked a road, angering locals.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13575486
The news of a complete breakdown at the Tunisian border camp was already reported elsewhere some 36 hours before the BBC chose to include a description of the events.
What they omitted to mention is the form of resettlement the ‘refugees’ were demanding.
They had been offered assistance to return to their countries of origin.
The Chinese News Agency had no BBC type inhibitions in reporting the demands and the violence.
The ‘resettlement’ that was demanded was to EUROPE.
Pretty crucial that.
Will BBC-NUJ feature the following in its propaganda against cuts?:
“Councils spend £100m on taxpayer-funded credit cards”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/council-spending/
Not waste George!
This is a common misapprehension of the lower orders-dare I include you in that…with the “greatest of respect” of course?
Here in the upper echelons of the media and the political elite-we call it “targetted investment”
Read my lips and lets try it together now “targetted investment”…
Well done George…well done all of us!
Now back to your lives civilians-nothing more to add, nothing more to see round here!…got it?
Okay, the HIGNFY photo gag making it look like Michelle Obama had a giant frizzy afro was not cool. I guess casual racism is okay if it’s done by people who otherwise think all the approved thoughts. Not cool.
On the other hand, contrary to what I heard, they were most definitely laughing at Him, not at the Queen or the band for the toast faux pas. It’s only the second Obamessiah joke I’ve ever heard or heard about anywhere on the BBC, and both now from this one little show.
Same old story. The BBC are touting a report from a think tank saying that unemployment is now the highest it’s been “since 1997”.
On Breakfast this morning they kept calling it “the independent think tank”.
Almost inevitably that “independent think tank” is the IPPR.
The IPPR is a left-leaning, progressive think tank with strong links to the Labour Party. To describe it as “independent” is misleading.
The BBC’s online take on the story merely calls it a “political think tank.” It quotes from the head of the IPPR Nick Pearce, but fails to inform its readers that Mr Pearce was the head of the Downing Street Policy Unit under Gordon Brown.
Never trust the BBC when it presents some organisation as independent.
The fifth most important story in the world, according to BBCC Online’s homepage, is Lecturers warn over cost of cuts. This is the latest pronouncement from the UCU union leader Sally Hunt, whose every burp seems to get covered by the BBC.
This is the second day in a row that the UCU has been prominently featured on the BBC homepage. Yesterday it was Lecturers back ballot on exams action in pensions row.
Yes, it’s their annual conference, but why such prominence given to it by the BBC?
There’s no mention, however, of another UCU-related news story – an open letter concerning the unions’s attitude towards anti-semitism sent this week to Sally Hunt by Vivian Wineman, President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and three senior figures from the Jewish Leadership Council.
We all know how Marr always interviews Labour ministers with politeness and plenty of relaxed umms and ahs, in contrast to the usual interruption strewn interviews with Conservative ministers, but have you also noticed how when a Labour minister finishes answering a question (uauslly with some tractor stats) Marr always has a silent pause before starting the next question? He never does that with Conservative ministers – then his next question is almost always asked over the top of the previous question’s answer!
You are never left with any doubt over Marr’s personal political stance, his love of Labour is always seen in his interviews. What an utter disgrace that man is to impartiality.
There’s also the way Marr introduces Conservative ministers with either a list of problems or some bad news story for the government but introduces Labour spokesmen (like John Healey today) with a list of problems for/bad news stories about…the government, then says something like ‘So what would Labour do about it?’
And then Marr went on with his first question to ask Labour’s John Healey for his assessment of how the debate over NHS reform within the government is going, as if Mr Healey were ever going to give a disinterested reponse. Healey is in the Balls mould so the inevitable happened – he attacked the government, uninterrupted!
Well, not quite uninterrupted, because when he said that the disagreements between Clegg, Cameron and Lansley were resulting in confusion and uncertainty for the NHS, Andrew Marr couldn’t stop himself from giving one of his trademark “hmm”s.
The next softball question resulted in another uninterrupted attack, this time specifically against David Cameron, and another “hmm”, this time in seeming approval for John Healey’s point that the PM’s real difficulty doesn’t like with Nick Clegg but with the opposition of doctors, nurses, health experts (etc). Shouldn’t Andrew Marr have challenged this and pointed out that some of these people actually support the government’s reforms? Of course, he did no such thing.
On and on went John Healey’s attacks and yet there were no ‘Let’s stick to your policies Mr Healey’s from Andrew Marr.
Typical Marr.
INBBC propaganda for Islam goes the distance, no expense spared:
“BBC looks for Turkish family to be in series on parenting”
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-245452-bbc-looks-for-turkish-family-to-be-in-series-on-parenting.html
As well as Obama’s man in London, Louis Susman, Andrew Marr had Colleen Graffy on the programme to review the papers with left-wing ex-beeboid John Sergeant.
It was interesting that, unlike Jed McAllister of Democrats Abroad not being described as being ‘a Democrat’ when introduced on the News Channel to talk about Obama (as per David P.) and unlike all those Democrats who write political analyses for BBC Online without being described as ‘Democrats’, Andrew Marr was assiduous in labelling her politically.
In the introduction, he laid emphasis on the word ‘Bush’ in describing her as a “former state department official in the Bush administration”. Quite right too, of course. But when she was talking about the Obama visit he interrupted her to say “You’re a Republican, so..so..”.
And guess what he interrupted her review of the papers to ask? About Sarah Palin!!!
Andrew Marr mentioned the worries of some that Barack Obama is anti-British, probably due to our alleged mistreatment of his Kenyan grandfather. Marr (in his interview with Ambassador Susman) said such concerns were “chippy”.
Really? And should an impartial BBC presenter be saying so?
The ambassador had to give the president a bed, due to his early arrival in the UK. “It was a pleasure”, said Mr Susman. “I’m sure it was!” gushed Andrew Marr.
Incidentally, on Kenya, Islamic jihad and the West:
“Secret Until Now: Osama Raid Avenged CIA Deaths”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/secret-until-now-osama-raid-avenged-cia-deaths/
I too spotted the “chippy” quip. So to question President Obamas relationship with the UK qualifies you as “chippy” according to the independent impartial Andrew Marr…..
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/obama-thanks-queen-for-imperialist%2c-ceremonial-bullshit-201105253861/
🙂
Funny to hear Susman say that the desire for regime change in Libya is “unanimous”, and that he’s heard nobody say that Ghaddafi should stay. I guess he doesn’t listen to Mark Mardell’s reports, because the BBC North America editor has been openly against regime change in Libya.
To his credit, though, Mardell seems to be the lone Beeboid sticking to his principles about Libya. The rest of the BBC was also against it when Cowboy Dave called for war, but once The Obamessiah got on board to lead from behind, they accepted it without complaint. Of course, Mardell blames ugly United Statesians who like justice “at the point of a gun” who have forced the President to do this, so he doesn’t have to admit what’s really happened.
There’s one thing we can be certain of, Marr will never have to take out an injunction to stop reporting of him being unfaithful to Labour.
Of course this woman is part of the old-guard Republican establishment. The only candidates she thinks are useful are Jon Huntsman and Pawlenty. Lame. Pawlenty is the early choice of the establishment, because he’s the closest thing to the Bush-style Big Government Republicans out there. Hunstman might be a dark horse, considering the new strength of the Utah Tea Party, but I don’t know. Still going to have to wait to hear about Herman Cain or Ron Paul on the BBC.
Twitter : Sloganized, shoot from the hip, emotive, celebrity obsessed trivia. And the Beeboids just can’t get enough of it.
Seems not.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/05/sofa-lising_with_newsnight.html
And more.
Though he’s not a political reporter for them any more, John Sergeant’s language in describing UK politicians today is typical of the BBC and sums up the last 14 or so years of BBC political coverage:
“I did wonder ‘What’s Clegg saying to Cameron? What’s Gordon Brown saying to Tony Blair’?”
The respect of a full name for the Labour pair, the disrespect of just a surname for the non-Labour pair.
Incidentally, did you know that one of the BBC’s current crop of political correspondent, Mike Sergeant, is John’s son? More nepotism at the BBC!
A great British oak sees the last of its leaves falling.
This storyline – Nato kills civilians – for BBC reporters is the ultimate pay dirt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13587968
The story talks of ‘deepening anger’ and we know what this phrase means because we hear it all the time in domestic ‘Tory Cuts’ stories. It means the BBC don’t approve of something and attribute ‘anger’ to some other largely unspecified source.
Links are titled ‘Preparing Nato’s exit’ and ‘Can the insurgents be defeated?’
So what do we think the BBC want us to conclude about this situation? But do they own up that they are trying to shape our opinion?
Bloody radio four!
Driving to my Sunday morning footie I tuned in to the car radio to listen to radio four…big mistake. Some useless tart from ‘the lady’ as token right winger, some bloke who ‘inspired amnesty’ and that beauty from the national airwaves Annie ‘terrahawks’ Nightingale.
Firstly they reviewed the papers.
Old bloke from amnesty reviewed , you’ve guest it the indo and the obtuser. Gave them a bit of an easy run but mentioned some crackpot who’d written a book about happy days being anti Vietnam war.Huge leap not unlike ‘dave’s tedious link’ where apparentlybecause the book was published by one of Murdochs publishers that therefore the book was verbatim murdochs view.
Next the fragrant ms Nightingale mentioned Sam Cam dancing in Pacha in Ibiza. She insinuated that only the mega rich went there as it is 60€ entrance and that Sam Cam was some sought of elitist.
Well Ms nightingale quite a few of the young lasses in my office have been to Pacha and trust me they aren’t exactly the elite. Most are on just above minimum wage and save up all year for he fortnight clubbing.
Funny really, tickets for Glasto are over £120 and yet I can’t see auntie calling Glasto elite (even with about 50% of the Glasto crowd being privately educated)
They just couldn’t resist a chance to smear….bastards.
Anyway good on Sam Cam, at least she has a life. Imagine millipedes new Mrs in a nightclub. .. On second thoughts I can. She’d be taking coats.
Oh btw where’s the bloody heatwave we were supposed to be having. supposed to be like 76. Bollocks
I’m freezing my nuts off up here. Bloody met office agw wankers. They never get it right
It is still off-season in Ibiza – I bet the entry price to Pacha was NOT €60 this week. July and August maybe – but not end-May, the place is empty.
Paddy,
Glasto is not elite for Beeboids, they get in free.
Funny this as a couple of the younger music loving members of the 1327 extended family have been prattling on about Ibiza for months having booked Easyjet tickets and accomodation they head out there shortly. No one seems to have mentioned Glastonbury. Then during a lunch time car journey Mrs 1327 turns on Radio 1 (don’t ask me why) during which “Glasto” was mentioned every 5 bloody minutes. We were asked if we had our “Glasto” tickets (not at £195 bloody quid I haven’t) and wasn’t I looking forward to it etc etc.
It appears our 40 something Tory Prime Minister and his missus actually appear to have a better understanding of youth popular culture than Radio 1 DJs !!! I have a wonderful picture in my head of no one turning up at Glastonbury except 500 beebiods on freebies 🙂
Perhaps the head of Radio 1 needs to consider if employing horsed of privately educated right on lefty late 30 something year olds is actually the best way of knowing what the “kids” are into.
The main event at a music festival this weekend in Ibiza Old Town – big crowd – cost €22 entry.
John,
I always follow your posts here with interest, but am somewhat surprised that you seem to have such detailed knowledge of Ibiza music events. Seems somewhat out of character !
I know Ibiza and other Med islands as walking places rather than for the music. But in Ibiza a couple of years ago in late September – also off-season – for fun I went to Pacha and Space one night, it really was surprisingly cheap. The €22 price at the main event this weekend in Ibiza Old Town’s festival – I happened to see this when scanning the newspapers this afternoon at the supermarket. Their coverage seemed to be – Mrs Cameron is still a bit of a free spirit, and was enjoying herself. Versus the curmudgeonly class-jealousy line you’d expect the juveniles at the BBC to take.
John,
Yes, it is a good point. If it had been Cherie Blair or Sarah Brown it would have been reported so differently, showing just how “in touch” with youth and “with it ” they are.
Just checked. Glastonbury tickets for this year are £195 + £5 booking fee.
So you get 4 entries into Pacha for one Glasto. Which ones elitist then?
Pacha, mostly working class kids on the piss. Glasto ( a great festival btw) mostly Tarquin and Cressida in hunter wellies practicing Reike healing and spending daddies trust fund
I reckon you could get into Pacha right now for less than £30, it is off season. So 1 Glasto ticket for Cressida = 6 or more tickets for Mrs C.
300 beeboids in a field, in the country and not enough shotgun cartridges to hand. Missed opportunity if you ask me. How long do you hang a brace of beeboids for after you’ve shot them? Two weeks, some Spanish strawberry stuffing and a nice bottle of chianti?