It’s interesting to consider how the BBC frames a debate and how in doing so it carefully ensures the required conclusion. Iain Duncan Smith suggests (rightly, in my opinion!) that those thugs involved in looting, rioting and rampaging through our streets could lose their benefits if convicted of their crimes. Cue BBC outrage.
So, David Blunkett and Peter Lilley are wheeled on to discuss this. Superficially you might think this is balanced, but of course it never could be. Lilley and Blunkett both made it clear that IDS could not take away benefit. Blunkett was allowed to waffle on about “restorative justice” -that oxymoron of the Left, whilst Lilley pointed out why legally benefits removal as a consequence of conviction was impossible. If the BBC wanted to have a real debate (which it didn’t) could it not have found ONE politician who endorses the stance taken by IDS? Of course it could but it didn’t want to since the agenda in play was to make Duncan Smith look “extreme” and his policy “ill-considered.” I was particularly appalled at the way Blunkett was able to walk away from the chaos created by the Government he was such an integal part of for so many years but then again this is the BBC, the broadcasting arm of British socialism.
Search Biased BBC
Categoriesagw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism 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. Uncategorized USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections