Hi folks! Sorry for the delay in this but time pressures do intrude! Off you go..
OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- tomo April 16, 2024 at 11:20 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024Nostrildamus also has a low appearance fee
- tomo April 16, 2024 at 11:18 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024I saw a claim that Rachel Reeves had her MPs credit card confiscated due to poor management? Oh boy, if...
- Thoughtful April 16, 2024 at 10:57 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024This is an interesting, and perhaps topical historical piece which outlines the policies for nuclear war by Britain. Many of...
- Deborah April 16, 2024 at 10:47 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024Marky, I am still worrying about these 1 in 4 deaths. Accepting that we all have to go sometime, even...
- MarkyMark April 16, 2024 at 10:43 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024They live in a bubble of their own making ... "The former prime minister has been on holiday in the...
- MarkyMark April 16, 2024 at 10:35 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024BBC News Channel 3 December 2023 In a report about COP28 we said that 1 in 4 deaths around the...
- Deborah April 16, 2024 at 10:35 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024Only 20 Up2? Did you give up counting? I must admit I gave up scrolling down but was thinking it...
- Up2snuff April 16, 2024 at 10:02 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024NV, you get a Bronze Medal. Rumour has it that Bronze Medal winners are happier with their medals than those...
- Flotsam April 16, 2024 at 9:59 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024Listening to BBC local radio the other day I found myself listening to self professed Meteorologist, Climate Expert, Jim Dale....
- Thoughtful April 16, 2024 at 9:59 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024Thankfully it wasn't the end of the world quite yet, although there's still time before the weekend.
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
BBC-NUJ shocked: it is not above the law?
BBC-NUJ being treated just like other broadcasters?
“Court orders broadcasters to hand riot footage to Met”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15024354
David Gregory told us they’d do this if the police made the proper requests, so fair enough. I’ll leave it to others to infer whether or not this reads like it was written through gritted teeth.
Apologies if it’s been mentioned elsewhere in Biased-bbc but here’re a few things that the BBC hasn’t told us about the execution of Troy Davis in the USA,
http://bit.ly/rdM9k4
“Now let’s turn to the BBC. In our Centre for Policy Studies pamphlet, Guilty Men, we expose in detail how the BBC betrayed its charter commitment and became a partisan player in a great national debate – all the more insidious because of its pretence at neutrality.
For example, in the nine weeks leading to July 21, 2000, when the argument over the euro was at its height, the Today programme featured 121 speakers on the topic. Some 87 were pro-euro compared with 34 who were anti. BBC broadcasters tended to present the pro-euro position itself as centre ground, thus defining even moderately Eurosceptic voices as extreme.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/8780075/The-great-euro-swindle.html
You beat me to it.
Well worth spending time reading the whole article.
This could be an item on its own.
Seems others than on here have no doubt about the BBC and its impartiality on the Euro.
I notice that the Guardian have now turned against St Julian of Assange. Took them look enough to work out he’s a real twat.
The Guardian have to be careful because they are now implicated into the hacking of US secrets.
Not only that but the Guardian is also responsible for deaths as a result of the cables it helped to leak to the world!
Mailman
BTW people, I see al beeb and its print version (the Guardian) have been reporting on the new times atlas and their massive own goal.
I dont know about you guys but it just seems so terribly convenient doesnt it? The BBC reports their doubts about how Greenland is shown in the Atlas, their print version does the same and some how al beeb will turn around and use this as an example of just how wonderfully impatial their science reporting is.
Seems too convenient doesnt it? Why its almost as if the atlas people and al beeb got together to concoct this entire issue? 🙂
Regards
Mailman
I don’t know if any of you listened to Radio 5 drive today, but I wanted to get out of my car and cry. A Kent Grammar school has been working at CERN and come up with a prototype chip that can be fitted to satellites to detect high levels of cosmic rays that can damage satellites.
Firstly the beeboid (female of course) who was at the school to interview the kids was as thick as two short planks, she also set off the studio chimps who were all proudly admitting that they knew sweet FA about physics (one texter probably like me had gotten fed up and really let them have it, at least the BBC monkeys read it out) and seemed to find it amusing.
What passed the BBC by of course was that the students in question were at a GRAMMAR school (I wonder how many Labour politicians send their kids there actually) and it also passed the BBC by that the students sounded to intelligent and articulate and not like the doped up inbred morons we normally hear from a typical London state school.
I do despair when the BBC try to do science stories, although some dozy female beeboid did mention (again) that Professor Brian Cox was ‘koooool’.
Really?
i think there should be a weekly top ten poll on here regarding BBC employees and call it The Biggest W**kers of The Week
Nikky Campbell and Richard Bacon would win it every week.
And Dhimmilby would be given fellowship of the academy of wankers for his services to onanism
I think there should be a special weekly award for awful posing named after Emily Maitlis.
Perhaps we could have a mass debate about it.
Reports that CERN have recorded particles travelling faster than the speed of light. If true a fundamental review of physics. But my real fear is how the giggling chimps on Radio 5 will report this.
Also note Martin:
“The readings have so astounded researchers that they are asking others to independently verify the measurements before claiming an actual discovery.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/22/a-disturbance-in-the-force-cern-finds-faster-than-light-particles/
So CERN are practising real science as opposed to the warmists who hide their data and methods so that they cannot be independently verified.
“The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear
there
is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than
send
to anyone.”
http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/phil-jones-offers-myriad-reasons-for-not-sharing-data/
It will prove global warming, of course. Light travels faster in warmer air.
So how many people noted never mind read this article about how the rich world is grabbing land in the third world.
Oxfam warns about effects of ‘land rush’
An increasing number of land deals are displacing farmers and leaving poor communities homeless, campaigning charity Oxfam has warned. It says up to 227m hectares (560m acres) have been sold or leased worldwide since 2001.Half of all deals that have been verified are in Africa, amounting to an area the size of Germany – 35m hectares, Oxfam says. Vulnerable communities in Uganda and South Sudan have been affected. The report also focuses on Honduras, Guatemala and Indonesia
The thing is after you’ve read the article you walk away thinking that only Europe is guilty of grabbing Land. I quote from the article the only state player named as guilty:
“It called on the EU to scrap its target of obtaining 10% transport fuels from renewable sources by 2020 – which has fuelled the planting of crops for biofuels – and asked investors and governments to implement policies to ensure land deals are fair and those affected are properly consulted.”
The thing is, I remembered reading about this in 2009 and was somewhat angered at how the bBC, left out the real guilty parties, such as: China, UAE, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and India. Hey don’t take my world for here is that article from 2 years ago.
I bet this guy speaks English fluently. as well as being telegenic – but he would never be allowed to be interviewed on the BBC, he has obviously been nobbled by the EDL :
http://bigpeace.com/elcid/2011/09/22/swiss-mp-how-islamists-are-subverting-the-west/
I can’t take this too seriously. The Swiss can regularly vote to deny citizenship to applicants from the darker orders.
The point about Switzerland is that the PEOPLE have a more direct say in what goes on, via plebiscites.
Yes it was merely a Swiss MP speaking. I was more focussed on the content of his remarks. They apply to nearly every country in Europe – including the UK.
One for Martin, sort of relevant to his avatar:
Governor Gary Johnson: My Neighbor’s Dogs Have Created More Shovel-Ready Jobs Than Barack Obama
But….but…but the BBC told me that The Obamessiah’s Jobs Plan For Us probably wouldn’t get through Congress because of extremist Tea Party-supported Republican opposition to taxing the evil rich. So what’s this, then?
Obama’s Jobs Bill ‘Pretty Well Jammed’ in the Senate
Hey, the Senate is controlled by the Democrats, led by the far-Left Harry Reid. How could this vital bill be “jammed”? Where’s Mark Mardell on this? Ah, I see: phoning it in, because he’s got nothing else to say.
bbc5live BBC Radio 5 Live Drug dealers seek to rent spare rooms in middle class suburbs to grow #cannabis as police do not suspect such locationsbbc.in/q8EUnn
I knew the BBC does advertising for family members, but had to double take at first on what seemed an in-house ‘sits vac’.
MAJOR EL BEEB BIAS ALERT.
R5 Contrive your call, can a Palestinian state bring peace.
9am…….
well good news, only about 2 to 1 as opposed to 4/5 to 1 on QT.
bias still there, but has to be said, as opposed to horrendous bias
shown on other your calls, it sounds almost ……”fair”
almost fair/bbc……goodness did i say that, i better sit down.
but a tiny drop in the ocean as compared to the corp, & of course
giving equivalence moral or otherwise, where there is none is inherrent bias
😀
It’s a truism of politics. If things go wrong blame your predecessor even if you supported the action at the time. If things go right take credit even if you opposed the action at the time. Not hard to modify this presidentially for Congress/Senate.
Modus operation for Obama.
Nothing to do with BBC bias but, to illustrate your point in the opposite direction (apportioning blame for disaster) in the Telegraph this morning, Lord Winston – a Labour rep – opines that because the original legislation enabling PFIs was passed by the Conservatives, the wholesale trashing of NHS finances (off-balance sheet natch) by the Labour administration is actually the fauilt of the party now in power.
BBC World Service News up to its old Anti-Capitalism tricks again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14972015
Never mind the talking heads, its the “readers” comments that make you weep. “Capitalism would work better if everyone was more willing to share their wealth”, suggests one poster. No doubt he sees him self as a net recipient.
While I’m on – and I’m sure sue will deal with this more comprehensively than me – why do the Israelis persist in using emollient diplomats and official spokesmen to present their case re the Palestinian imbroglio? In respect of the Palestinian quest for statehood, this morning Today interviewed Jeremy Greenstock for an “informed” (ie highly predictable FO version) opinion re the Pally state recognition effort (this after an interview with three Palestinian youth figures earlier in the programme).
Then, in the Today “dead zone” (post-08:30) the Israeli ambassador was interviewed (of which I, admittedly, only heard the first 5 minutes). In response to Naughtie’s nagging (which resolved into asking why doesn’t Israel just give the Pals everything they want), the ambassador gave the usual stock, boring (if largely accurate) and diplomatic answers.
A word of advice to Israel: there’s no point in being Mr Nice Guy in such interviews. Someone supporting the Israeli cause should take the assertive high road and not seek to defend the IMHO indefensible (ie the West Bank settlements) by appeal to the small amount of land actually “settled”. On the contrary, the Israelis should never tire of quoting the Hamas charter, mentioning the Palestinian conduct post the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza (both of which the ambassador did – mildly – bring up), that – if we’re talking “legalities” – the West Bank is no more “Palestinian” than it is Israeli, that the Palestinians seek a state which is judenfrei, that no Palestinian administration (state or otherwise) would survive an agreement with Israel which omitted a “right of return” for all Palestinians and expulsion of Jews from (at minimum) East Jerusalem and, particularly, the Temple Mount etc etc. Today might also be reminded that negotiations are just that – negotiations: a deal means that neither the Pals or the Israelis will get all they want so why are the Israelis always pictured as the intransigent ones, never the Pals?
I could go on but while Israel is patently losing the propaganda war it could at least try to win the odd skirmish on Today.
I can’t find the quote right now, but I’ve seen a statement from the BBC that they feel they have a duty to fight against Israeli propaganda. Yet they accept Hamas and Palestinian propaganda as Gospel truth.
Lock of hair pins down early migration of Aborigines
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15020799
interesting stuff in this article, referring to a scientific article in the top line journal “Science”. But then, true to form, the BBC just can’t help themselves as they extrapolate the results and contextualise them to suit the agenda. They trumpet:
“Australian Aborigines therefore have a longer claim to the land in which they now live than any other population known”
Funny that. There was an article in another top line journal Nature a year or so ago:
“The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people”
It showed that Jews around the world are genetically related to those of the Levant, hence proving the origin of Jewish populations to be , well, the land of Israel. Not a paper to be widely read in Ramallah (more likely burnt copies of the paper there).
Imagine the BBC reporting it as:
“Jews therefore have a longer claim to the land in which they now live than any other population known”
No, I can’t imagine it either.
Oh and look, genuine science raises its head as scientists at CERN report measuring particles exceeding the speed of light. Is there a chorus of outrage from physicists world-wide (or East Anglia Tech) that this is flat-earthism and is contrary to the scientific consensus and, therefore, must not be mentioned except in terms of derision? No. AFAIAA the science world awaits the evidence (+ a paper concerning an explanation for the phenomenon). Thus does the practice of genuine science (as against that of “climate science”) brings us nearer to the truth of the world we live in.
Good ideas above re “Wanker/Poseur” of the Week Awards.
Wonder if we could get a panel of, say Sue,Robin and David P to create a Craig Index re Israel/Green/USA traditional biases we`ve all come to know and recognise…and add a wild card category which -for me -would be Organ Donation and Cohabitation items on the wondrous “Womans Hour” this morning.
The BBC is hideously skewered on all it pontificates on…it is like a caricature on any topic you care to name (death penalty, crime, comprehensives, cuts, Dale Farm). For an agitprop perpetual revolutionary cipher, it is hideously predictable and unthinking on any topic of concern to the people who are made to stump up for it.
It has given up thinking…which makes it a dangerously fascistic tool of the “progressive left”…Gramscis Gerbils, one and all!
Note that they are trying to force students into paying for their licenses in halls etc…let`s see the riots over that unfair and regressive tax on the education of our vulnerable young students!
Time to take their bouncy castles off our lawns now…before they are able to create some kind of carbon-friendly tanks.
INBBC thinks it is not in the political interests of Islam nor of INBBC to report this development in Birmingham, affecting security of British people:
“Police make eighth terror arrest”
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/police-eighth-terror-arrest-182534008.html
George R,
“INBBC thinks it is not in the political interests of Islam nor of INBBC to report this development in Birmingham…”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-15028121
More lies from George.
more shite from scezz
Not coming to a BBC studio near you soon:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040783/Conservative-UK-Most-Britons-oppose-gay-marriage.html
If it was the other way around you wouldn’t hear the end of it on the BBC. .. They’re working on it …
Unfortunately, while the Daily Mail’s shrill hompohobia may appeal to certain people who go out of their way to seek confirmation bias of their own prejudices, the truth is rather different.
The data cited in the ONS report is dated from 2006 – five years old – and results from two questions on the Eurobarometer report compiled for the organisation the Mail usually hates with a passion. However, the ONS report notes that the sample size for these questions were very small per country, so they should only be used for jduging the relative opinions from country to country, and nothing else – which is just what the Mail did. But the explanatory notes about Eurobarometer were a few pages before the graphs, so maybe the Mail reporter was just looking at the pretty pictures and didn’t read the dull, boring text.
http://matthewman.net/2011/09/23/mail-selectively-quotes-order/
Funnily enough, if you look at the actual Eurobarometer reports, 45% may have disapproved, but 46% approved.
http://ruminationsofanenglishman.com/2011/09/23/picking-apart-the-daily-mails-statistics/
The British Social Attitudes survey, cited in the same ONS document, also shows that throughout the 2000s the number of people approving of same-sex relationships has outnumbered those disapproving. Funnily enough, the Daily Mail seems to have skipped that bit.
Typical “hompohobia” – being against “gay” marriage does not imply “homophopia”. Marriage is and always was special between normal couples.
“same-sex relationships” is not marriage.
I suggest you go and comment on the BBCs overwelming pro-EU bias on another thread.Or maybe I should use the word “gay” on every thread I want you to read. You are becoming a real hetrosexualphobic.
I see. Don’t bother commenting on the fact the Daily Mail lied, that the ONS survey demonstrates the exact opposite of what the Mail says – but, if someone utters the word “homophobia”, you get up in arms.
Truth hurts, does it?
I could not care less what the Daily Mail does – I do not buy it. It is you that always bring up the term homophobia. It is a term of abuse leveled at anyone who does not have your point of view. A cowards way out. I could not care less how you act, I just do not like you because of your views – it would be the same no matter who you fancied.
There would be less homophobia if it was not constantly in my face. What you lot do in your bedrooms is no concern of mine, just as what I get up to on a Saturday night after match of the day is my business.
The tradition in the Church is that marriage is for normal people. If you want to have men “marrying” men or sheep or anything other than what has been the tradition since time immemorial then why don’t you have your own cerimonies among yourselves instead of expecting everyone in the church to accept every perversion. By the way I never beleive polls – You can get a poll to deliver any results you like.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitle5kgfz6fn1lso
Who brought the church into this? The majority of marriages in this country, and all civil partnerships, are conducted in register offices. Churches are prohibited by law from conducting civil partnerships, even though some religious organisations want to perform such ceremonies.
If you want to think of two people declaring their love and commitment to each other for the rest of their lifetimes as a “perversion”, then I genuinely, truly am filled with pity for you. It must be lonely being such a misnathrope.
“It must be lonely being such a misnathrope.”
I do not hate human nature or humans. If people like me did not exist there would be no humans.
I have many normal friends and a happy life with my wife and children.
‘Who brought the church into a discussion about marriage?’ asked Scott.
And was never taken seriously again.
Let me repeat: the church has nothing to do with civil partnerships, or with the vast majority of marriages (over two thirds of marriages are conducted in a register office).
JHT brought the church into this discussion, primarily as an excuse to justify his own prejudices, and to describe same-sex couples as a perversion (and, I assume, when he talks about “normal” people, he means straight. Although I suppose “people who are too polite to tell him he’s being a dick to his face” would also work).
I’m sure it would break Scez’s heart if the law compelled the Church to conduct homosexual ‘marriages’ and priests were prosecuted for disobeying it.
I think JHT made an excellent point above, if ‘marriage’ for homosexuals isn’t just a piece of political propaganda to normalise their perversion, why dont they just conduct ceremonies among themselves?
John Horne Tooke,
“I could not care less what the Daily Mail does – I do not buy it. It is you that always bring up the term homophobia.”
If you couldn’t care less what the Daily Mail does why do you care so much if someone calls it homophobic?
“It is a term of abuse leveled at anyone who does not have your point of view.”
Erm, no. It’s a descriptive term for any person or organization which has; “Negative feelings, attitudes, actions, or behaviors against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals.”
“There would be less homophobia if it was not constantly in my face”
Can you expand on that? Just what is it that you think is; “constantly in [your] face”?
Maybe I can help out here Scez? .. The flaunting of homosexual perversion and the intolerance and bigotry of homosexual militants against people who dont accept their perversion as normal. Part of this intolerance and bigotry is attempting to demonise people with honest opinions as ‘homophobes’. The only people with feelings of visceral hatred in this debate are homosexuals and their allies who wish to criminalise political opposition.
Oh, and I was going to speculate on whether the use of the word ‘heterophobe’ might, by your own criteria, be aplicable to you, but let’s leave the childish name calling to you, shall we?
Hippieppoter accuses others of childish name calling? Now there’s a delicious irony to start a Sunday morning…
why is the term “homophobe” applied when you are not afraid of poofs,just totally disagree with state sponsorship of perversion?
I read this many moons ago-true then,and certainly true now-
““You’re Just a Homophobe”
Those opposed to homosexual behavior are often charged with “homophobia”—that they hold the position they do because they are “afraid” of homosexuals. Sometimes the charge is even made that these same people are perhaps homosexuals themselves and are overcompensating to hide this fact, even from themselves, by condemning other homosexuals.
Both of these arguments attempt to stop rational discussion of an issue by shifting the focus to one of the participants. In doing so, they dismiss another person’s arguments based on some real or supposed attribute of the person. In this case, the supposed attribute is a fear of homosexuals.
Like similar attempts to avoid rational discussion of an issue, the homophobia argument completely misses the point. Even if a person were afraid of homosexuals, that would not diminish his arguments against their behavior. The fact that a person is afraid of handguns would not nullify arguments against handguns, nor would the fact that a person might be afraid of handgun control diminish arguments against handgun control.
Furthermore, the homophobia charge rings false. The vast majority of those who oppose homosexual behavior are in no way “afraid” of homosexuals. A disagreement is not the same as a fear. One can disagree with something without fearing it, and the attempt to shut down rational discussion by crying “homophobe!” falls flat. It is an attempt to divert attention from the arguments against one’s position by focusing attention on the one who made the arguments, while trying to claim the moral high ground against him. “
And who was it who tried to ignore valid points by wittering on about homophobia? John Horne Tooke. Did he discuss the statistics? No. He went off on one about “perversions” and “normal people”.
But hey, I’m sure it’s the fault of all the horrible gays that he can’t cope with reasonable discussion without acquiring a victim complex.
ltwf1964,
“Those opposed to homosexual behavior are often charged with ‘homophobia’—that they hold the position they do because they are ‘afraid’ of homosexuals.”
homophobia definition:
unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.
So the central pillar of your quoted argument; that it just means being “afraid of homosexuals” is completely false. And without that false premise the rest of your argument crumbles into dust.
Scez, you’re quoting from the homobigot dictionary there, so your definition of ‘homophobia’ doesn’t really count, does it?
Let’s try being objective, shall we?
The literal meaning of the word ‘phobia’ is a fear, or irrational or abnormal fear of something, such as agoraphobia – fear of going outdoors; aracnaphobia – fear of spiders (very rational!); or agraphobia – abnormal or extreme fear of sexual abuse (not an applicable term if one is a pretty boy adopted by a homosexual couple or in the care of a correctnick Council that threatens staff with the sack for homophobia if they raise concerns about a staff members’ relationship with pretty boys in their care – see the Islington report).
Now clearly correctnick homosexuals and their neo-Marxist allies do not use the word ‘homophobe’ to mean irrational fear (well, on occasion they do use it to impute some form of mental illness for not accepting homosexuality as normal, but let’s leave its secondary totalitarian application to one side for the moment .. ), what they mean is ‘bigot’; someone who hates someone for being a homosexual, someone who actively bears ill will against someone for being homosexual, who actively tries to incite and promote hatred against them.
I would estimate that there is about a 50-50 breakdown here of ‘b-beeboids’ (if I might use that term) who think homosexuality is normal and those who dont. Of the former, there aren’t many who would accuse the latter of being ‘bigots’ simply for disagreeing with their point of view. Some, inspite of themselves, are unfortunately brainwashed by correctnick propaganda.
I use the term ‘homobigot’ to describe a homosexual who instantly accuses someone of ‘homophobia’ – of being a bigot – merely because they dont accept homosexuality as normal. Homobigots do actively dislike people and actively promote hatred and persecution of them if they disagree with their opinions.
I would guess about 20 odd years ago I did have a strong prejudice against homosexuals that would interfere with the way I treated them as individuals. I found homosexuality so abhorrent that I would be cold and disapproving towards someone who was obviously a homosexual. I wouldn’t call it bigotry, because at the same time I would be the first to urge maximum punishment of anyone who sought to exploit a homosexual’s minority vulnerability to inflict thuggery on them.
However, as tolerance of homosexuality grew and more came out of the closet and I got to know some in the course of things, I found that a good number were ordinary, decent people and rejected my former attitude as inappropriate, while without in anyway deviating from my natural and commonly held repugnance of homosexuality itself.
Then there are homosexuals like you Scez who are utter vermin, just as much as neo-Nazis like Nick Griffin are. You call people ‘homophobe’ because you are a bigot of the worst possible kind who would turn England into a concentration camp if you had your way.
I think the rule of thumb is the more a homosexual shouts ‘homophobe’ the more insecure they feel about their perversion.
Yet somehow, this Government report issued yesterday isn’t getting an airing on the BBC …
Probably because when you look at the statistics, it’s not actually news.
Well Scez, if, as you say, this recently released Government report does in fact show how gaily the majority of the British public accept homosexual marriage, adoption etc, this is something that they normally do parade with fanfare.
Are you sure the Daily Mail have got this wrong?
[Assuming you mean me, because ‘Scez’ is a product of the imagination that harbours in the place in your head where other people have intelligence…]
Yes, I’m sure. Because I’ve used my eyes and my brain, and have read the actual report.
Well, in that case Scez, I’m suprised, as the redoutable supporter of BBC bias that you are, that you’re not ‘going through channels’ to complain to the BBC for not trumpeting a recently released Government report as showing how accepting the British public is of homosexuals marrying and adopting children.
Either the BBC isn’t maintaining it’s usual high standards of bias that you usually admire them for, or there’s a very good reason why the Mail has touched this recently released Government report and the BBC are ignoring it?
Or have the BBC become ‘homophobes’ Scez, that they refuse to trumpet opinion poll findings so in favour of normalising homosexuality and leave the Daily Mail to get it totally wrong?
Do share.
Jeez. Are you really as dense as you’re pretending to be?
It’s a section of a regularly published report. As I’ve said before, if you read it properly, there’s not really anything particularly newsworthy about it.
Yes, there’s a very good reason why the Mail touched this report while others didn’t: it contained data which, if you ignored the explicit warnings about doing so and if you ignored the original data which was summarised within, a small amount of information could be twisted.
But you carry on reading it. As a paper that thrives on not very intelligent people swallowing its misrepresentations without thinking, they’ll love you.
“Are you really as dense as you’re pretending to be?”
Hmm, that’s not a question that makes very much sense if you think about, is it Scez?
You are however, as evasive as ever.
At least you’re honest enough to accept your description as a supporter of BBC bias though. Progress.
I confess to an interest – not the pink sausage, the survey.
The sample sizes here are around 1,000 per country, if I understand it right. A representative sample of 1,000 adults has an accuracy of plus minus around 4 to 5 % at the 95% confidence interval.
In plain English, that means if you repeated the survey twenty times, in nineteen of those times the answer would fall within a range of plus or minus 5% of what the survey found.
What that means is that a survey result of 45%vs46% on a sample-size of 1,000 is entirely inconclusive for either side. In ten of twenty surveys the answer would like be the reverse.
I don’t have any axe to grind other than those quoting surveys have an obligation to mention the margin of error resulting from the sample size and design, and the conclusions you can draw. Not that journalists ever do.
The whole question is intellectually and morally sinister. I don’t approve of golf, but its none of my damn business if you want to play it, go ahead. A number of my friends and aquaintances are gay, and has nothing to do with “approving” of what they do in bed or in church. It never comes up in conversation, any more than whether they approve of different-sex marriage.
Those statistics were quite interesting. They showed that 5.5 percent of marriages have ended in divorce while only to 2.5 percent of civil partnerships ended in dissolution. So straight couples are twice as likely to split than gay couples.
Curious that the Daily Mail didn’t mention that.
I note that anomaly, Goeff. I actually think that it’s more likely to be one of the statistical blips that result from so many same sex couples having CPs after years, sometimes decades, of living together but unable to legally recognise their relationship. Those relationships which didn’t last more than a few years would have gone by the by before the CP Act came into force, so the couples going for a partnership in the early days are more likely to be the highly stable ones.
If straight people had to wait for such long periods of time before marrying, I think the divorce rate may well be lower too.
As time goes on and the age profile of those going into civil partnerships comes down, it wouldn’t surprise me to see that gap between dissolution and divorce figures narrow. Sadly, I think it’s more likely that the former will go up rather than the latter come down, but that’s real life for you.
I think you are almost certainly correct in that interpretation, but it was curious (or rather it wasn’t) that in its reporting the Mail didn’t even mention it. It is almost as if the Mail were using its news pages to editorialse, not that it would ever do such a thing.
Agree completely. If the Mail’s intention *wasn’t* to deliberately ignore every single bit of statistical evidence in the ONS report that demonstrated how civil partnerships worked, and how public opinion was largely accepting of gay people, then it was one hell of a coincidence…
bit of a lefty echo chamber going on here 😀
Delighted to see supporters of BBC bias here feel free to use the B-BBC Open Thread as an internal BBC Twitter. We’re all for freedom of expression here!
Is there any information in the report on separations?
Also, is there any statistical breakdown provided on the % of child sex abuse convictions amongst married couples and homosexual civil partnerships?
there should be a survey on how many gay couples stay faithful compared to straight couples, mahogany is a dirty word in the gay world/bubble
I can think of an application for the word ‘mahogany’ in the homosexual ambit too but I think you meant monogomy!
I think there has been extensive research that shows that monogamy is very much the exception not the norm amongst homosexuals. Not many of them will enter into civil partnerships and of those who do not many will legally separate as a prime reason for ‘civil partnerships’ is a political one to normalise their perversion.
INBBC reports on Pakistan’s Haqqani jihadists’ (INBBC’s ‘militants’) joint action with Pakistani ISI against U.S. in Kabul:
-politically filtered by INBBC Pakistani Muslims.
INBBC’s M.* (*for Mohamed?) Ilyas Khan is based in Islamabad, and his role, apparently, is to oppose the United States, and to write (at our expense) unsubstantiated, vague sentences like this:
“But there is still room for severe criticism of US unilateralism and there is an attempt to portray Pakistan’s military as being capable of defending its borders.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15030928
An alternative analysis, unknown at INBBC Pakistan:
‘Jihadwatch’:
Pakistani Foreign Minister threatens U.S.: Don’t humiliate Pakistan, or else
“She warned the U.S. that it risked losing Pakistan as an ally and could not afford to alienate the Pakistani government or its people.” Go along with our covert pro-jihad activities and our duplicity and complete unreliability as an ally, and don’t complain, or else. More on this story. “Don’t humiliate Pak, it will be at your own cost: Hina Rabbani to US,”
Now even top Democrat Congressmen are saying that Solyndra execs should be subpoenaed. A couple of the Solyndra bosses took the Fifth several times today in their first round of testimony before a Congressional committee. This is big, it’s not going away, it is directly connected to the President.
And the BBC is ignoring/censoring all of it in favor of celebrity news, drivel about some murderess nobody cares about, and making partisan reports about the death penalty.
Just look at the Solyndra executives hiding behind the 5th Amendment.
I wouldn’t buy a used car from either of them
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/23/solyndra_executives_plead_the_5th.html
President Clinton getting a very well deserved standing ovation from the relatives of Flight 93:-
http://www.breitbart.tv/bill-clintons-masterful-speech-at-flight-93-tribute/
Here’s another Obamism the BBC won’t be telling you about, even though they rushed to laugh and inform you about Sarah Palin’s “refudiate” and many Bush slips of the tongue.
Obama hails America’s historic building of ‘the Intercontinental Railroad’
“We’re the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad,” Barack Obama.
That’s what the president of the United States flat-out said Thursday during what was supposed to be a photo op to sell his jobs plan next to an allegedly deteriorating highway bridge.
I guess this is just another nuance of His finely tuned brain.
DP: that would be the Eurotunnel branchline, directly linking Disneyland Paris with that in Florida – the world’s longest Ghost Train ride. You mean you didn’t pick up on this part of Obama’s stimulus plan?
Apparently He’s made the same mistake before. And so have Biden, Axelrod, and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, none of whom will ever be ridiculed by the BBC. Imagine if Palin had said this. Katty Kay would have tweeted and retweeted, Mardell would have posted about it, and there would be a news brief on the website devoted to it.
The smartest man in the room just keeps looking less so.
Well listen here mate! At least Obama got his swearing in right unlike Bush! .. Oh, hold on, did I get that the right way round? Let me just check on the BBC .. see if I can find something out about it.
The reason conservatives do not go on forever and a day about such an unfortunate public gaffe is conservatives have confidence in what they believe in and feel no need to be petty, spiteful and pathetic. .. If they did however emulate the puerility of their left wing oponents, the BBC would never tire of telling us how unseemly conservatives are in the way they conduct politics. And they’d be right. As it is, as you say DP, the BBC is part and parcel of this pathetic, bankrupt way the left does politics.
Not for Islamophilic INBBC:
“Mecca for the rich: Islam’s holiest site ‘turning into Vegas'”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/38071
You realize this is just going to make the Beeboid want to visit even more, right? 🙂
Report on Islamising Britain for INBBC to censor:
“The truth about polygamy: A special investigation into how Muslim men can exploit the benefits system”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2041244/Polygamy-Investigation-Muslim-men-exploit-UK-benefits-system.html#ixzz1YszHAO2Q
Yes, let’s have more immigration into UK of Pakistanis who can inflict more of this on British society:
“London mosque accused of links to ‘terror’ in Pakistan”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15021073
INBBC could add the following:
“Bradford Muslims attack Catholic school’s buses”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/38070
After reading that, I kind of thought we weren’t hearing the whole story, and it did give the impression that there was a two-way fight going on between the “Asians” of an undetermined religion and the White Catholics, plenty of blame to go around sort of thing. So I thought, if the white Catholics were, in fact, partially responsible for this racial strife, surely the BBC would have seen a way to use it as an example of how racist British people make Muslims uncomfortable, prevent them from integrating, cause them to turn to jihad, etc. I mean, it’s a low-performing school, so there’s a nice angle waiting for an astute Beeboid to show how poor social conditions and under-funded schools cause bad behavior and lead to social unrest or whatever.
And then I realized I was being an idiot, and wasn’t missing another element to the story.
I think I posted a piece Peter Hitchens wrote recently complaining about the Beeboid’s habit of referring to everything in metric terms, (including even Euros instead of pounds) and also now dropping the terms BC and AD in favour of BCE. Now this latter practice by the Beeboid Religious department (Who runs it, by the way?) has made it to the front page of The Mail. What caught my eye was the excuse offered by the Beeboid Corporation for this piece of anti-Christian cringe:
It states: ‘As the BBC is committed to impartiality it is appropriate that we use terms that do not offend or alienate non-Christians.
Yes, folks, it’s that well known Beeboid “impartiality” don’t you know?
Of course, the possibility of offending Christians by doing this, doesn’t appear to figure in their calculation.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2041265/BBC-turns-year-Our-Lord-2-000-years-Christianity-jettisoned-politically-correct-Common-Era.html#ixzz1YuqDpMO0
A note for the BBC:
“It is not lawful to use signs that show distances in metres or kilometres. This applies to both road traffic signs and pavement signs for pedestrians (although not to signs on private land).
It is a legal requirement that signs giving restrictions on traffic width, length and height (eg on approaches to bridges) have imperial units.
Dual-marked imperial-metric signs are legal for vehicle height and width restriction signs but not for length restriction signs.
For length restriction signs, metric may be used alongside imperial but only on separate, additional signs (in practice, this rarely happens due to the cost of extra signs).”
http://www.bwmaonline.com/Transport%20-%20Roads.htm
So when reporting distances in Britain using kilometers is confusing. But being “Good Europeans” they will insist on using metric.
It is pointless using BCE instead of BC. Because they both mean the same thing
“CE” and “AD” measure the number of years since the approximate birthday of Jesus. Both these notations have the same value, that is, 1 CE = AD 1, and 2011 CE = AD 2011.
So the BBC are still “offending” non-Christians by using Christs birth as a marker. They are not using the approximate age of the earth as the beginning. The BBC are not doing it to spare the feelings of non-Christians, they are doing it to offend Christians.
Maybe they should stop using roman numerals on the end of the credits on programmes as this could be seen as condoning Pontius Pilate.
I expect most at the BBC would rather use 1432 A.H for AD 2011.
Now here’s a surprise – the Mail report and the facts of the matter are several steps apart. Whouldathunkit?
http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2011/09/bc-and-ad-not-jettisoned-by-bbc.html
Hmm, I can see how one might think the Mail headline could be regarded as overstated, but the facts used to assert your contention are contained in the body of the Mail story itself.
It’s definitely an anti-Christian correctnick practice of the BBC that does not reflect in any degree the wishes of the public it is supposed to serve.
Now if we’re talking about ‘several steps apart from the facts’ – nay, chasms -, the way that the word ‘homophobe’ is bandied about at the BBC and its print arm the Guardian is a case to point.
According to The Express, we have a new scandal affecting a Beeboid programme in which the public vote for a winner:
Judge Alesha Dixon has revealed how a producer on the BBC1 show scooped £8,000 by backing her to win despite the Corporation forbidding gambling.
Police are to investigate if illegal betting took place – which could land anyone responsible in jail for two years.
Alesha, 32, the 2007 series winner, is reported today as saying: “I was 25/1 when it started and at the end of the series one of the producers came up to me and thanked me for just winning him £8,000.”
Alesha was not aware of the illegality but her revelation casts serious doubts upon the integrity of the show that pulls in more than 10 million viewers each week.
Critics fear the production member could have swayed the result, duping millions who paid up to 70p per call to vote.
It also opens the possibility that tens of thousands of pounds are being wagered by insiders who could influence the result.
TV watchdog Mediawatch has called for a full inquiry. Director Vivienne Pattison said: “Viewers don’t want to feel like they are being hard done by or taken advantage of.
“I would hope the BBC launches a full investigation into this as it has a duty to us the licence-payer. The BBC has to make sure it is whiter than white.”
Section 42 of the 2005 Gambling Act, which came into force just months before the start of the 2007 series, outlaws anyone cheating to make money from betting.
A person commits an offence if they “actually or attempt deception or interference”.
“The BBC has to make sure it is whiter than white.” I don’t think this phrase will go down well at the BBC.
…especially as it’s already ‘hideously white’. =-O
Yesterday the 24/7 running news was alive at this time with the story of a fire in Neasden that tragically claimed the lives of many children as well as an adult.
I was struck by how close-lipped witnesses were, with peroxide sink moppets struggling to add much to anything and shoving mics under noses to prompt with such gems as ‘was it a really big fire?’ .
I just wonder where it all went after just 24hrs.
There does seem to be a a trend of small semi-D’s with large numbers of inhabitants in certain areas going up in smoke.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15045798
Just seems very quick to decide nothing to see here and move on, considering the excitement yesterday.
On BBC World News the lead article is Milliband and Labours pledge to reduce tuition fees, apart from this being a clear political stunt how on earth is this the most important thing happening in the world at the moment?
As far as I can gather, Labour is going to drip feed a ‘fully costed’ ‘initiative’ every day, seemingly funded by bank taxes (with each new initiative using the same funding over and over), and such as Ms. Flanders will find her ex-beau’s calculations flawless and Paul Mason will ‘analyse’ in ways that are truly objective.
Censored propaganda at only a compelled £145.50pa. Unique.
Yet another New Labour lie about immigration, the biggest deception played at the expense and without the consent of the UK public by a bunch of self-loathing, traitorous bastards.
Labour’s embarrassing immigration secrets revealed
Reports kept under wraps by Labour showing that immigrants who came to Britain from Romania and Bulgaria had low education levels and were more likely to claim out-of-work benefits are to be released for the first time by ministers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8786632/Labours-embarrassing-immigration-secrets-revealed.html
The face of gay extremist vitriol :
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/23/raw_bristol_palin_faces_off_with_foul-mouthed_heckler.html
A very small sign of far, far worse to come. I get the impression from the homobigotry routinely spewed out on the BBC and by Scez in support of it here that this is not untypical of homosexuals, although I’m sure that there’s a number just as repelled as any other civilised human being by this hate.