171 Responses to OPEN THREAD

  1. Cassandra King says:

    Here is something interesting from the Leveson inquiry, the BBC will not be airing this will they? If it fingers Murdoch they are in like Flint, if it mentions the guardian then the BBC doesnt want to know. Here we have evidence of the vengeful spiteful Brown in action that may have led him to make false accusations against the Murdoch press. BBC impartial is it?

    4:39PM GMT 09 Jan 2012
    Mr MacKenzie said Mr Murdoch told him that he had received a phone call in which the former Prime Minister “roared” at him “for 20 minutes”.
    The former editor also told the inquiry into press standards that News International, Mr Murdoch’s company, had lied to the Press Complaints Commission and recommended that newspapers be fined for such actions in future.
    He also referred to the phone hacking scandal and said The Guardian had “got away” with falsely reporting that News of the World journalists had deleted Milly Dowler’s voicemails.
    Had such an error been made by The Sun, he said, the newspaper might have been forced to close.
    Mr MacKenzie said he had worked closely with Mr Murdoch for 13 years in which he had spoken to him almost daily.
    He told the inquiry that it was Mr Murdoch who disclosed Mr Brown’s alleged threat, something which the former Labour leader has repeatedly denied. Although Mr MacKenzie was not at the meeting between the two men in late 2009, nor was he the newspaper’s editor, he gave an account of the conversation as reported to him by Mr Murdoch. The evidence, which first came during seminars at an early stage of the inquiry, was read to the hearing by its counsel Robert Jay QC and it refers to a speech by Mr Brown which did not get as much prominence as a story about the paper’s shift of allegiance to the Tories.
    Mr MacKenzie had said: “Of course the endorsement blew away Brown’s speech off the front page.
    “That night a furious Brown called Murdoch and in Rupert’s words “roared at me for 20 minutes”…
    Asked at today’s hearing who the source for the story was, Mr MacKenzie replied: “It was Mr Murdoch.”
    Mr MacKenzie’s submission continued: “At the end, Brown said: “You are trying to destroy me and my party. I will destroy you and your company”.”
    When reports of a conversation between the former Prime Minister and Mr Murdoch first surfaced, Mr Brown claimed to have numerous witnesses who could attest to its not having taken place.
    After Mr MacKenzie’s evidence, a spokeswoman for Mr Brown said: “It has already been pointed out that there was no such phone call nor communication between Mr Brown and Mr Murdoch.”
    News International declined to comment.
    The inquiry heard further details of Mr Murdoch’s behaviour.
    Mr MacKenzie refuted the broadcaster Anne Diamond’s previous claims to the inquiry that she had been singled out for negative treatment by his papers.
    He said he had “never heard Rupert Murdoch say we should ‘go after’ anybody”.
    Mr Murdoch was furious when he found out The Sun was to pay £1 million in damages to Elton John after a story falsely claimed the singer had hired rent boys, the inquiry heard.
    Mr MacKenzie recalled sending the media mogul a fax then receiving a 40-minute phone call of “non-stop abuse”.
    He told the hearing: “Let’s put it this way, he wasn’t pleased.”
    On hacking and the way stories are perceived differently according to the newspaper in which they appear, Mr MacKenzie said: “Take the Milly Dowler deletions of those calls. Had that been The Sun, The Sun would have come very, very close to being shut down had they got that story wrong. The Guardian sticks the story on page 10 and they get away with it.”


  2. Jeff Waters says:

    The other day, I wrote to the BBC about this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16441187

    The BBC demonstrated their commitment to excellent customer service in their reply.


    For the reasons outlined in this article, this opinion piece
    represents misleading and shoddy journalism:



    Thank you for your email. If Toby Young cares to make a complaint we are happy to look into it.


    • My Site (click to edit) says:

      Thank you for your email. If Toby Young cares to make a complaint we are happy to look into it.

      That’s what they wrote?

      I suggest you simply strip away the acknowledged source and re-complain, this time as ‘you’, and point out that now they have to log and deal with it, again, at extra cost, for the sake of a pedantic snark.

      As a licence fee payer, the BBC publishing grossly misleading articles is not something they should be treating lightly.

      Must get on my latest to the moppet trying to convince me they were within their rights misrepresenting Mrs. Thatcher’s role on Liverpool.


      • ap-w says:

        I’m still trying to be patient waiting for them to tell me who the ministers were who apparently according to official papers “believed Liverpool should be abandoned to a fate of managed decline”


        • Jeff Waters says:

          The latest installment:

          Me: I do not like the curt and unhelpful reply.  Are you only willing to consider a person’s arguments if they came up with them themselves?

          Them: It would be courteous if you could present your arguments
          yourself – otherwise it is difficult for us to determine if they
          amount to an accusation of left-wing bias.  [The BBC had previously told me that they were unwilling to consider further complaints of left-wing bias from me].



          • Jeff Waters says:

            Just fired off the following response, which I’ve also sent to the Trust:

            I am disappointed by your reply:

            A.  Rather than apologise for your discourteous behaviour, you accused me of discourtesy (and the notion that it’s discourteous to essentially say ‘I agree with everything this guy wrote about this BBC article’ is ridiculous).

            B.  You still have not addressed the points raised by Toby Young.  If I were to copy and paste his article into a message and submit a new complaint, but plagiarise him and present the thoughts as my own, will you do so?

            C.  You have failed to answer my previous question: Are you only willing to consider a person’s arguments if they came up with them themselves?

            D.  How does me saying I agree with someone else’s arguments, rather than coming up with those arguments myself, make it harder to ascertain whether I am accusing the BBC of left-wing bias?  Rather than psychoanalyse my complaints to try to work out my motivations, why not simply address the points that do not relate specifically to left-wing bias?

            E.  This is not the first time the BBC has been discourteous towards me.  I’ve previously complained about an email in which you or one of your colleagues gave me a one word answer to a question (‘No’), but have received no response to the complaint.  I have also complained about the time when an ascerbic comment was made regarding me reproducing an email from the BBC in a public forum, but I have received no response to that complaint either.  I therefore request that those complaints be escalated, and considered by the BBC Trust, along with the current complaint.

            I provide feedback that is intended to help inform future content.  I don’t expect to be thanked, but I do expect to be treated politely and professionally, and to have the points I raise to be addressed constructively. 


            • RCE says:

              I was going through my computer last night and I have an outstanding complaint from May 2011 that has not yet received a reply.  Can anyone beat that?


            • Millie Tant says:

              They have a heck of a cheek, those Beeboids. They don’t like having a light shone upon their misdeeds. How dare the hoi polloi show them up in a public forum, eh? Perhaps you should have used a public forum they like: twitter, the spiritual home of Beeboid twits.


              • Jeff Waters says:

                Their stance re. confidential emails is hypocritical. 

                If they were to get their hands on a controversial email written by James Murdoch, I somehow doubt they’d think ‘This email is confidential, so we’d better keep it to ourselves’!



                • My Site (click to edit) says:

                  The confidentiality aspect is another ‘unique’ double standard, along with their FoI exemptions, that surely cannot wash with a public entity.

                  Reserving the right to keep things restricted as far as you are concerned, but they are free to laugh about around the edit suite… no… I don’t think so.

                  If I may, as these exchanges can involve long screeds (if being fair to the totality of the story, which I value, even if the BBC seems now to take an opposite view that brevity to the point of inaccuracy is all that matters so long as stuff ‘fits’) might the opportunity for a ‘complaints’ monitor thread/sidebar be investigated?

                  Can’t speak for others, but I find the whole process fascinating, from evident year long limbos to near by return replies… why? Then there is the content, which can range from risible template nonsense with a ‘now you are stalled’ cut off mockery, to highly personal, often snarky responses whish, sadly, rather conform to the ‘I’m right because the BBC is right, and the BBC is right becuase… it just is’ delusion right up to the very top.

                  Wouldn’t stand up anywhere else, because, uniquely, by being for the BBC, by the BBC of the BBC.. it doesn’t have to.


  3. pounce_uk says:

    This morning before i left for work, I was reading up on my morning news and came across this article from the bBC:
    How Punjab governor’s killer became a hero
    It’s an article about how the bodyguard of the governor of Pakistan’s Punjab province, Salman Taseer shot him dead for trying to defend a christian woman.

    What caught my eye is how in an article which will be read in Pakistan (As it will in many Islamic countries) the bBC decided to in true Islamic fashion play the pious card I quote from the article what the bbC has to say about the dead man:
    As a hard-up accountancy trainee in London in the swinging 60s, he was a croupier in the Playboy club and, by all accounts, knew some of the bunny girls pretty well. In fact, by some accounts, he knew all of them quite well.

    Now if you just happaned to be a follower of the relgion of peace and you came across that before you read any further would you presume that Salman got what he deserved.  

    I think that’s the image the bBC wish to present that image I mean they article is all about how the man who committed murder while shouting out “god is great” Really? the news agency which goes out of its way in which to tell me how to pronounce words such as: Hezballah,Nasrallah and even Mumbai goes all Anglo saxon and tells the world that the murderious relgious bigot who shot his boss dead becasue ced tostand up for a christian woman in Pakistan uttered “God is great” while he di so. Gee I wonder whose eyes the BbC is trying to pull wool over with that smoke screen. 

    And then to really make sure that the dead man is vllified the bBC come out with this:
    The blasphemy laws in Pakistan mean that anyone accused of denigrating the Koran or the Prophet is subject to immediate imprisonment.In fact that is often a protection. Many of those accused of blasphemy have been killed by violent mobs.

    Get tthha cording to the bBc  the safetest place for a christian is inside prison, becasue rapaging violent mobs can’t get to them. Really?
    Shaukat Ali, died in prison after been jailed 4 years  under the Blasphemy
    Asia Bibi the christian woman over who salman was murdered has to cook her own food inside prison as the prison fears she will be posioned if she ate food cooked for her by muslims.
    Christian Aslam Masih died inside prison after been jailed for blasphem
    Qamar Davidy murdered inside prison after being jailed for offending Mohhamed by text message.
    Falish Masih was found dead inside his prison cell; despite severe wounds over his body, Pakistani police claimed Falish committed suicide 
    5 minutes brings me 4 christians who have died inside prison while serving time for offending …Allah. and a women who is just waiting her time to be killed as she knows Islam won’t allow her to live.

    Yet the bBC tries to push the view that actually being inside prison is better for christians and that Salman got what he deserved because he tried to help a christian who would be a lot better off locked up.


    • RGH says:


      Agree 100%

      Words failed me when I read the text this morning.

      Pure Barbarism with jokes in the narrative.

      Appalling journalism.


      • Louis Robinson says:

        Another home run, Pouce_uk. May I recommend an excellent book on the subject, published in November last year. “Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide” by Paul Marshall and Nina Shea.


    • RGH says:

      The murdered governor, in addition to supporting ‘blasphemers’ who are condemned to cold graves as kufr and worshippers of a dead God (no wonder Nietzsche admired Islam..the religion of pure power, he enthused), frequented gambling with skimpily clad women, he also cracked a racist joke about Idi Amin.

      That last demonstate his utter unfitness to live in the mind of a self-styled instrument of Allah’s wrath, even with community applause.  How depraved. A racist joke about Idi Amin (a muslim) and cannibalism.


    • David Vance says:


      Could you drop me a mail please? Use the Contact the Editors link at the bottom of LHS.


  4. pounce_uk says:

    The bBC, The British PM and the Scottish vote  
    Cameron denies ‘dictating’ terms of Scottish referendum  
    David Cameron has said he is not trying to “dictate” the terms of a Scottish independence referendum.Government sources have denied reports Westminster would set an 18-month limit on holding the poll, if it transfers powers for a binding vote to Holyrood.  
    Anybody else wonder why 18 months? Here is what the bBC don’t tell you as taken from the leftwing Guardian:  
    Cameron will publish a consultation paper, probably this week, revealing clear legal advice that the independence referendum will be binding under the Scotland Act only if both parliaments agree to its going ahead. He will say the uncertainty created by the prospect of independence is harming the Scottish and UK economies, and a delay until 2014 is not possible….The power of the Scottish parliament to hold a unilateral advisory referendum is disputed by constitutional lawyers. Tories claim Salmond has been talking about holding a referendum to coincide with the 700th anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn in 2014.  


    • pounce_uk says:

      Imagine that, Toad features wants to use the nationalistic card in which to garner more votes. Is that fair,  Would the EU allow the Brits to vote on staying inside Europe on St Georges day? What am i saying, would the bBC?


    • dave s says:

      It is all one big sham and Salmond knows it. The subsidy per head to the Scottish councils from the exchequer is around 800 gbp, In Hampshire it is around 100.
      Scotland is not viable as an independent state at it’s current income level. All the SNP want is more and more money.


    • Geyza says:

      Strange how the BBC does not seem to recognise the lawful obligations of the UK government in relation to the whole Scottish independence issue.  Cameron is not interfering, on the contrary he is giving the Scots what they want whilst actually obeying the law.

      The proven liar, Alex Salmond (of covering up the appalling abuse of Holly Greig case infamy) is playing politics and raising nationalist hatred and promoting prejudice and bigotry to try to win independence.

      As I understand it, the Scots will get a big surprise if they vote for independence.  All of a sudden, not only will they lose the massive UK subsidies, but they will also find that as a new independent country that they would be outside of the EU (lucky bastards) and therefore would not have any of the massive EU subsidies that they were hoping for either, (awwww shame ๐Ÿ˜€ .)


    • RCE says:

      The BBC will go all out against Scottish independence for the simple reason that Labour are finished without Scottish seats.

      All the more reason, I say…


  5. noggin says:

    5live s, V (not super intellectual) Dreary-byshire, was living up to her moniker  
    AGAIN this morning, (same old/same old), revisiting her erm …  visiting ๐Ÿ˜€ of  
    Guantanamo … yawn!  
    lots of oh drear! & poor old islamic extremists etc abound    
    lots of heralding  “i was there” palava.  
    the only thing of any interest, did she fleece us all for another “jet”scapade?.  
    or did she not, & get up the noses of all the el beeb minions who couldn t?


  6. pounce_uk says:

    The bBC goes to a lot of effort in which to play the white racist card Here is a radio interview, have a look at the picture, listen to the people speaking ,listen to the names of the people been talked to and tell me what you find wrong with the image that picture presents  
    Whole family evicted for bad behaviour


    • ian says:

      Wiggers, putting on a fake Jamaican accent…or maybe not


      • Maturecheese says:

        You should know that with the BBC (in fact most of the msm)duplicity is the name of the game when it comes to race.  If a Black family behaves atrociously and is evicted, it must be the racist white mans fault, somehow.   This rubbish has got to end soon.  We should all be judged by the same standards.


  7. Millie Tant says:

    They included it on the Radio 4 news this evening and now on checking the article in the link, I find that they did give the reason there also:

    Miss Bamu said in the run up to Kristy’s death she had heard a commotion in the kitchen, like “plates falling”, and, when she inquired, Magalie Bamu told her that Kristy had wet his pants and had tried to hide them in the kitchen.


  8. Anthony Masters says:

    I apologise if this has been on a previous Open thread.


    This think-piece has been on the front page of the BBC Politics for several days. It is a clearly left-leaning analysis of the latest issues in the Republican Party, with references to “Tea Party rhetoric” and “visceral dislike [of Obama]”. It also features many themes which have long been countered by events, such as ‘Tory splits’ on Europe and how the Conservative Party went ‘mad’ after 1997.
    It has not been labelled a comment piece, and the only clue is that it is in the ‘magazine’ section. However, the link to it appears on the Politics News front page.


    • Louis Robinson says:

      Anthony Masters, the sentence that leapt off the page for me was: “Parties clawing their way back from big general election defeats are often riven by internal divisions and conflict between what the core supporters want – an ideologically pure standard bearer – and what the strategists believe will win them power – a moderate figure with broad appeal”. It is as if the drubbing the Democrats got in 2010 never happened. Admittedly, it was not a “general” election in the Presidential sense but the results showed, I believe, more than simply a Tea Party revival.

      The article by Brian Wheeler is a masterpiece piece of wishful thinking: the Republicans split three ways: Tea Party, Country Club and Ron Paul but he ignores the elephant in the room. Barrack Obama.No one in Europe has yet understood the feeling in the USA towards the President.  According to Rasmussen, he has lost 21% of his support since 2009. The carnage is about to get worse with everyone from dog catcher to the Senate headed in the Republican’s direction. Surveys of Independents find that they have long since jumped from the Obama ship. His job approval among Independents consistently ranks in the low 30s. He cannot expect much relief from that corner.

      Already, Republicans are likely to take over Democratic seats in Virginia, Florida, Nebraska, Missouri, New Mexico, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. They may lose in Massachusetts and will probably hold on to their seats in Arizona and Nevada despite the retirement of their incumbents there. That means a GOP dominated Senate by the margin 56-44.
      OK, let’s go with Wheeler for a moment: let’s suppose that the media weaves its magic and Obama is elected for four more years operating in a hostile Republican environment – he will be stalled. 

      Meanwhile the next wave of Republican candidates, arriving like the US cavalry for the Presidential Election in 2016 are a formidable bunch: Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Nickki Haley, Allen West, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan and a few we haven’t seen yet.

      BBC political commentary on the US is misleading at best, piss-poor at worst..


      • Span Ows says:

        Louis, I hope and pray that you are right!


      • Geyza says:

        How likely is Rand Paul to stand in 2016?  Ron will probably be to old to stand again, if the elites allow him to live that long…


        • Louis Robinson says:

          If Ron Paul stands as a third party candidate this year, anger will be so great against him that Rand Paul’s career will be over. Rand Paul for President? Unlikely. Depends on his positions. If he is like his dad – not much chance.


  9. RGH says:

    Please read this from the Telegraph Sept 2008


    “Sheikh Muhammad Munajid claimed the mouse is “one of Satan’s soldiers” and makes everything it touches impure.
    But he warned that depictions of the creature in cartoons such as Tom and Jerry, and Disney’s Mickey Mouse, had taught children that it was in fact loveable.
    The cleric, a former diplomat at the Saudi embassy in Washington DC, said that under Sharia, both household mice and their cartoon counterparts must be killed.
    Mr Munajid was asked to give Islam’s teaching on mice during a religious affairs programme broadcast on al-Majd TV, an Arab television network.
    According to a translation prepared by the Middle East Media Research Institute, an American press monitoring service, he said: “The mouse is one of Satan’s soldiers and is steered by him.
    “If a mouse falls into a pot of food – if the food is solid, you should chuck out the mouse and the food touching it, and if it is liquid – you should chuck out the whole thing, because the mouse is impure.
    “According to Islamic law, the mouse is a repulsive, corrupting creature. How do you think children view mice today – after Tom and Jerry?
    “Even creatures that are repulsive by nature, by logic, and according to Islamic law have become wonderful and are loved by children. Even mice.
    “Mickey Mouse has become an awesome character, even though according to Islamic law, Mickey Mouse should be killed in all cases.”
    Last month Mr Munajid condemned the Beijing Olympics as the “bikini Olympics”, claiming that nothing made Satan happier than seeing females athletes dressed in skimpy outfits.”

    Now for the BBC.


    What one might imagine to be a nutter (high ranking, maybe, but still a nutter) talking out of turn from a idiosincratic interpretation of the essential niceness of the the Religion of Peace. Now its seems that the religion of peace in its Egyptian variety is demonstate institutional rodentism….and taking out an object of envy…a very successful coptic christian businessman.

    The Muslim obsession with purity would give Freud a field day!

    Joking apart.

    Sign of things to come after the adolescent fantasy trip of the Arabellion.


  10. Jeff Waters says:

    Jeremy Clarkson pockets £2.14m from Top Gear – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/top-gear/9002449/Jeremy-Clarkson-pockets-2.14m-from-Top-Gear.html

    Interesting article.

    You can see why the Beeb hasn’t fired Clarkson or even censored the un-PC stuff.  He makes them lots of money…



    • Martin says:

      Interesting article, but Graham Norton gets big bag salary but what profit does he bring in to the BBC?

      Success should be rewarded but paying luvvies big salaries for no good reason is wrong.


      • Geyza says:

        I don’t think that Norton brings in any money, but he does personify the BBC’s ideal entertainer. Gay and obscene in a giggly school-girlish sort of way and if you listen to his advice section on his Saturday radio show, he is utterly selfish, vile and greedy.  But not the banker or businessman sort of greedy, so the BBC accept it.


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          They do make money licensing the Graham Norton Show via BBC Worldwide. Too many people love celebrities swearing and talking dirty, which seems to be his primary function. Remember, at the BBC, ratings = quality broadcasting.


  11. George R says:

    Another reason for BBC Democrat’s Obama supplicants to criticise Rick Santorum:

    Santorum hits Obama’s banning of truth about Islam

    Obama pals up with stealth jihad Muslim Brotherhood:

    Such a ‘Great’ Idea It Can Now Be Proclaimed But Not Criticized: Obama Supports the Muslim Brotherhood

    (by Barry Rubin).


  12. Martin says:

    Has anyone else noticed how ‘sneering’ the BBC is over the Olympic games now? Go back to when Liebore were in power and every day was good news day for the games despite it being an utter waste of money, but hey it was Liebore in charge and there was no such thing as wasteful spending when Gordon was running the economy was there?

    However, now it’s all about the evil Tory cuts.

    The BBC a vile organisation a cesspit of leftists failures.


  13. Merlin says:

    The BBC really pisses me off in their promotion of the SNP debate. They could have had many big hitters on the Unionist debate on Newsnight but oh no, the lefty self-loathing English liberasl (including that upper class goofy channel 4 pratt Jon Snow) are, like in every other sphere, crying the socialist call of ‘Tories interfering in Scottish affairs’ etc etc etc. Scottish independence has implications for all in the UK and the SNP’s disgraceful argument that it is theirs for the holding is an affront to the rest of the UK. If the Scottish want independence fair enough, but shouldn’t the rest of the UK have a voice as well? 


    • John Horne Tooke says:

      But it is not Independence – if the Scots leave the union, it will make no difference. Is the Republic of Ireland independent, or Greece?

      The word “Independence” is a misnomer. Is any country in the EU independent? No.

      If the Scots wanted independence from the UK and the EU they know that the country would go bankrupt within a year. Salmond does not want Independence he just does not want to reamain with us in our Province of Europe, he wants a province of his own, so that he can prostrate himself to Borroso. Hypocracy.


    • Geyza says:

      The reason that the whole of the UK is not given a say in the break up of the UK is because the Westminster elite do not want a break up of the UK. 

      If it was put to a UK national vote, the scottish would vote to remain in the union and the English would vote overwhelmingly to kick them out.

      As for them remaining in the EU? As I understand it, according to a law professor who published his opinion in one of the broadsheets,  the UK is a member of the EU and will remain a member of the EU.  Scotland only is a region of the UK and only benefits from EU membership as being a member of the UK in the same way that Yorkshire does.  Once Scotland becomes wholly independent, they will then have to apply for EU membership to get the massive EU subsidies they crave.  Once the Scots realise that Scotland, as an independent country, would NOT be a member of the EU, then they will vote to stay in the UK.

      The Scots are far too heavily addicted to their subsidies.


      • The Cattle Prod of Destiny says:

        I think you will find that France and Germany would happily woo an independent Scotland because of the damage it would do the UK. They want our money but not our influence. Hence trying to break England up into regions.
        Scotland would be used to whip England at every opportunity too. They won’t be able to resist it. In any argument between Scotland and England (and you can bet they will miraculously appear every time Wee Ecks popularity dips)  France and Germany will take Scotland side – no matter what .
        No.  Scotland will be part of the EU from day one.  They will simply change or ignore the rules to make it so.


  14. Jonathan S says:

    i think the BBC should do a series called the ‘Real Housewives of Westminster’ 


  15. John Horne Tooke says:

    “The French president – almost perpetually impatient – is prepared to go it alone.

    “We won’t wait for others to agree to put it in place, we’ll do it because we believe in it,” he said last week.

    The Germans are more cautious. They would prefer it to be on an EU basis. Only if that proved impossible would they settle for a tax operated by just the 17 eurozone countries. ”

    “The Germans are more cautious” – notice the language here and compare it with this:

    “Twenty-six of the EU’s 27 members have agreed in principle to a new inter-governmental treaty – a “fiscal compact” – to stabilise the euro. The UK refused to sign.”

    Does he not mean the UK were “more cautious”?*

    *Actually its all nonsense. How can the UK “refuse to sign” when there was nothing to sign? The others “agreed in principle”, so they too have not signed anything, just “agreed in principle”. The BBc is completly bereft of any serious journalists. Gavin Hewitt must join the long list of other incompetent lazy “reporters” employed by the most costly propaganda service the world has ever known.


  16. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Oh, dear:

    Poll: Americans, 2-1, Fear Obama’s Reelection

    BBC: ZZZzzzzzzzzz


  17. David Preiser (USA) says:

    A new book about insider action at the White House by NY Times’ Jody Kantor has been getting lots of press because it reveals serious tension between the FIrst Lady and staffers, especially Rahm Emmanuel and Presidential confidant, Valerie Jarrett. Apparently she’s difficult to deal with, demanding, and tries to influence proceedings about the President’s political agenda. It doesn’t make her look good, and the White House even published a rebuttal.

    The BBC was silent about this for a week at least, until they found one minor angle they could report on to make the whole thing seem petty, a tempest in a tea pot.  Check out what the BBC deigns to tell you, ignoring the actual issues in the book:

    White House Alice in Wonderland party under fire

    An apparently lavish Alice in Wonderland party at the White House has been criticised in a new book.

    The 2009 event saw the State Dining Room redecorated by film director Tim Burton, and was attended by Johnny Depp, President Obama and his wife.

    It was described by New York Times correspondent Jodi Kantor in her book, The Obamas.

    “Apparently lavish”. Even here the BBC reflexively defends the President. The White House tried to keep it secret as well, because they knew this is just another example of Versailles-style behavior. Of course, the BBC censored news of Michelle Obama’s lavish vacation in Spain, and played down the President’s Martha’s Vineyard holidays among the wealthy elite.

    The Beeboid who wrote this brazenly quotes Politico for the White House’s defense, while censoring the real substance of the book. Which, as I’ve linked, was spelled out in another Politico article. So we know this Beeboid and his/her editor knows all about it. But they chose to cherry-pick a tiny tidbit, and made sure to include the White House defense.

    What about the real story the book reveals, BBC? They don’t want you to know.


    • My Site (click to edit) says:

      “Apparently lavish”

      Maybe.. in future… ‘lavish-leaning’.. in the West Wing?

      This new BBC-speek for when cornered on pure facts and having to say something.. but in an on-narrative way, is proving a rich seam.


  18. George R says:

    Why does INBBC relegate: ‘secret convert to Islam’ from this U.S. story?  
    Two reports of same story:  
    1.) ‘Washington Post’:  
    2.) Islam Not BBC (INBBC):  


    • George R says:

      ‘Jihadwatch’ comment:

      “Baxam converted to Islam while in the Army and ended up trying to join a jihad terror group. Here again, the mainstream media would ignore this. Yet if even a half, or a third, or a tenth as many converts to Christianity ended up trying to join violent terror groups in accordance with what they believed to be the dictates of their faith, the New York Times and NBC News and Christiane Amanpour would be running banner-headline, prime time, breathless investigations of what it was about Christianity that caused converts to go mad. But for this? Nothing.”

      Former U.S. Army soldier and Misunderstander of Islam charged with trying to join jihad terror group


  19. cjhartnett says:

    So Todays “New Years Interviews” with the three party leaders ended today then?
    They clearly gave Miliband an extra weeks prep in the BBC boatshed, so they could get their boy “fit for relaunch”.
    They also gave him extra time to get over his Blackbusters/Dianne Abbott stuff, so conditions were set fair for little Ed.
    Humphrys gums were set to “gentle joshing ” mode for  the Little Prince of the Editing suite…the darling and great hope of the Gay Granola Tendency.
    Now…after all that prep for relaunch and with a supine Axminster rug of an interviewer….might you not have thought that the Little Prince might have actaully KNOWN something, or have something NEW to say as opposed to the reflex “one day you`ll thank us” meme as pre-digested for him by Balls and Mandelson.
    Yet like the runt of the cat littler, poor clueless Ed could ony show us his motions and appeal to us all to praise his efforts. Of course Humph and Robinson would check assorted nappies for nuggets, but we all know what`s really there.
    Still-doesn`t stop the BBC telling us all in the next news bulletin what Ed was meaning to say to us…but unfortunately got waylaid.
    Luckily it will be the Press release of the coming speech that will be “discussed” and “mulled over”-as opposed to what he actually said-which was incoherent and clueless(no…honestly!).
    Another self-inflicted knock out…he really MUST stay on as Labour Leader now…and I for one will not countenance any talk of replacing him. 
    Let him stand forever as what results with Marxist privileges underwritten by Benn, Brown and Cinnock…the BBC we now have.
    Did Toynbee wetnurse him as well?…for his meme pool suggests way too much political incest…and the spindly ever-doe-eyed dope is the crowning achievement of Dead and Moribund Socialism.

    WAs that what I was meant to learn today, Lord Patten?


    • My Site (click to edit) says:

      ‘Humphrys gums were set to “gentle joshing ” mode’

      Odd. Our Jon not usually so ‘balanced’.
      Nothing to do with the old guard seeing a lead balloon about to drag the ship to the bottom and paving the way for a deckchair clearing (mixing a few metaphors there, sorry)?
      If the Graun weighs in against Mr. Miliband, the troika forces of weevil will be joined as one and the plot, plus less than subtle desperate shared agenda to shape the country on the people’s behalf, confirmed.


  20. As I See It says:

    Nicky Campbell – give it a rest, mate.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – he comes over like a virgin fresher hoping to get laid at a right-on university.

    This morning, according to Dame Nicky, the discussion on high speed train lines ‘has too much testosterone’.

    His first female caller will win a prize ‘from his own heart’.

    Generally I would like to see the present Government clip the wings of an out of control BBC. On the other hand the more the Beeboids pander to a lefty fan base (sorry, the more the BBC reaches out to a diverse community) then inevitably the more they will alienate the average licence payer/voter.


  21. noggin says:

    5live s, V (not super intellectual) Dreary-byshire,  living up to her moniker    
    AGAIN this morning, (same old/same old).  
    goodness ๐Ÿ˜€  just like yday – deja vu., (see page 1).

    so today, shes talking about, erm … yesterdays news ๐Ÿ˜€  

    On immigration vs employment, re those same reports?
    that were on r4 and 5live yesterday? … and she loads the upcoming segment, straight off the bat, by introducing the report that says surprise surprise, you guessed it, little or no effect.

    well what we all want to know, has she “jetted” today, or has she not ?
    has her extravagance cost us again this morning?

    hmmm does makes you wonder?, with all this ydays news palava
    goodness …
    I  bet their loading up the phone lines with desperate bangladeshi restaurant owners, (courtesy of K. vaseline .Vaz), at this very moment ๐Ÿ˜€ .


    • noggin says:

      PS. more ydays news

      We are also treated to yet another drone from Deerrr-wayne Brooks
      on Stephen Lawrence
       “he, who shouted and swore at the cops who arrived and interfered when they tried to administer first aid, lied in court, said he delayed calling 999 because he ‘hated the cops”  

      Will that be the focus of that interview?,  not some coat-tail riders abuse of his 5seconds of (in) fame, from what has become a grotesque media driven political circus? … well folks, i won t hold my breath ๐Ÿ˜€

      Their are many many victims in that particular area deserving help and justice … they won t get that, or “teams” of solicitors to enable it.


      • As I See It says:

        Completely predictable uninformative BBC interview with Dwayne. But would we expect our national broadcaster to ask any interesting questions? Or do we expect some agenda enhancing?

        I’m sorry, but I’m cynical (I still think the Wilmslow Boy was guilty).


      • grangebank says:

        Duwayne Brooks had a go at the police ? Obviously he didn`t fear them , as he had ( naturally ) run away from a gang of killers .


  22. George R says:

    British people pay for INBBC Arabic Service, sidekicks of Muslim Arab League, in Syria.  
    Why not go the whole hog and save the British people money, by leaving such Islamic ‘reporting’ to Islamic Al Jazeera, and closing down  the valuable site of INBBC Arabic Service at the East Wing of Broadcasting House, London?  

    Thank you and goodnight, Mohammad Ballout, of INBBC Arabic Service.


  23. My Site (click to edit) says:

    You learn a lot on twitter…

    @BBCRBlack via Twitter
    Galapagos tortoise believed extinct probably still existshttp://t.co/32CA7CXx

    Often, about the processes of folk who have forged careers on what they evitendly have been told exclusively, on twitter. Believed… probably?’


  24. My Site (click to edit) says:

    <grabs popcorn>

    Dear Mr. MS(cte)

    Case Reference – xxxxx

    We would love to know what you thought of your recent experience contacting the BBC. 

    Would you be interested in taking part in a short customer survey?

    Audiences are at the heart of everything we do and we are always looking to improve the service we offer to our viewers and listeners. We would welcome your feedback. Our short survey is conducted by an independent agency and will take around 10 minutes to complete. If you would be interested in taking part, please access the questionnaire using our instructions below.

    Please click (once only – do not “double-click”) on this hyperlink or paste it into your browser:

    (URL case specific, sorry)

    How to paste it into your browser: 

    If you have any difficulties with the survey please email [email protected].

    Thank you for taking the time to contact us.

    Kind regards

    Sam Smith


    Head of BBC Audience Services




    • My Site (click to edit) says:


      Now, what might the outome of my time investment be?


      a) ‘They’ get it about right

      b) ‘I’ am wrong, and powerless

      c) Both


      But… thanks for wasting your time and more licence money.


      Off to so do now.


      ps: Would love to know what formatting in the above made the post >5000 characters, hence needing splitting.


      • My Site (click to edit) says:

        Just completed. 44 pages. Totally rigged to give a sematically skewed result based on ‘meeting expectations’.

        Best summarised by my reply on of the few ‘freeform’ answer boxes provided:

        When you offer the option ‘met expectations’, do not take this as a compliment. I expected little and it was duly provided.
        Also, what the heck does my sexual orientation have to do with anything here? I note opt out, but of all background info?’


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        Most likely formatting code you copied from the website along with the visible text. Pasting into a basic text editor first gets rid of that.


    • Roland Deschain says:

      Well at least you’ve had some response.  On Thursday it will be one month since my complaint regarding Mark Mardell’s hatchet job on Newt Gingrich.  So far, not a dicky bird.


      • My Site (click to edit) says:

        On behalf of you, and Jeff, and others, I will be asking them, as I appear to have been afforded a portal (for now), on why the mechanisms of complaint, and response, are so ‘varied’ between licence fee compellees.

        There is no excuse that I get an in person, and now a survey, in days, when you are booted into the wilds. 

        I know your complaint will have been of value and substantiated, so what makes you ‘different’, and me ‘unique’?

        Especiallly when we are both equally unhappy, noisy, prepared to tackle and not cowed by daft distractions.

        Such ‘variation’ epitomises all that is wrong with the BBC’s entire composition.

        They are either venal, or hopeless.

        I suspect both.


  25. fred bloggs says:

    Effects of immigration, how can 600,000 jobs taken out of the jobs market, not effect the employment of our own people.  The proposition defies acceptance; is this a smokescreen to get rid of the ‘immigration’ label from labour? Who is behind the report Jonathan Portes; his is linked to ‘Occupy London’, nuff said!


  26. Martin says:

    Vikki Pollard making a tit of herself again. Interviewing the lefty who produced one of the jobs v immigration reports, she interrupted him when he was talking about youth unemployment rising and Vikki states “oh yes that’s risen the most over the last two years”, even a lefty had to correct her that it was in fact the period of the recession when it rose the most, i.e. when Liebore were in power.

    Poor Vikki she even believes her own crap.


  27. Martin says:

    You guys seen this? Must be wishful thinking by the BBC idiots. LOL!



    • My Site (click to edit) says:

      Meanwhile… ‘for balance’..

      wallaceme Mark Wallace BBC reports Ed Mili not wearing a coat despite the cold to appear “strong”. Much like Charles I before his execution…

      How’s the PR going oitherwise, guys?


    • Alfie Pacino says:

      Yawn. He’s currently spending the money after the deficit is paid down and squeezing more money out of vested interests.He is deluded and it is that approach got the treasury into such trouble in the first place…
      More communism – more desperation. Relaunch? Re-hash!


  28. Millie Tant says:

    On the Beeboid web site news page I clicked on a headline under Most Popular

     Migrants ‘do not affect jobless’  
    This took me to an article with this headline:

    Immigration from outside the EU is linked to UK jobless

    Hm…very rum. Which is it, Beeboids? Make up your mind.

    The article starts with this:
    The government’s official advisers on migration say there is a link between immigration from outside the European Union and job losses among UK workers.
    The Migration Advisory Committee said there were 23 fewer jobs for UK worker for 100 migrants from outside the EU.
    But a separate report from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) says immigration from the EU has had little impact.
    It follows Migrationwatch UK saying there was probably a link.

    It said 600,000 migrants had come in while 450,000 youths were unemployed.
    Migrationwatch UK said it would be a “remarkable coincidence” if those two figures were not linked

    So the headline they have chosen to highlight in the showcase Most Popular column doesn’t reflect the content as a whole but singles out one element (NIESR) of the article and of the recent pronouncements on the subject by three different bodies.

     That would be the one that the Beeboid agenda would favour. Why not be honest and just do an article about the report they favour? Do they think if they stick in a bit about the other two reports, that will be balance? Or do they think we won’t notice the contradiction between their favoured headline and the actual article? At any rate, the got in their bit of propaganda prominently on the front page. Weasels.


  29. ltwf1964 says:

    this one probably slipped past most of your bias radars,but on Brekfast this morning,a clealry liberal professor was wheeled on to talk about AWT’s shoplifting ventures at TESCO

    She went on to refer to all types of shoplifting motivations,and I thought my ears deceived me when she referred to…….I kid you not…….”extreme shopping”

    what did she mean?She meant the summer rioters……not so much as a bemused look from the market rate talent ringmasters.Unbelievable….extreme shopping!!!!!

    on another note,I see that after the travesty that was the adaptation(slaughter) of Great Expectations,the leftoids have been given te Mystery of Edwin Drood to inject some on-message PC crap into

    the landless twins are from Sri Lanka,giving the producers ” a chance to take a pot shot at prejudice”

    here’s an idea you could maybe take on board



    • tiger says:

      Thanks for the summary itwf. Its so awful I cannot be bothered watching anymore in case I catch something awful.


  30. joseph sanderson says:

    After listening to Milliband on the ‘Today’ programme it seems that even with some gentle questioning he still cannot win any political points, this latest relaunch looks like being yet another epic failure.

    I heard Miliband attempting to blame the economic mess facing the country on the last Conservative government which I think was in 1997, Mr Milliband is one of lives perpetual sixth form debaters who cannot understand why those around him have grown up and left his form of debating behind them when they went out into the big wide world!


  31. joseph sanderson says:

    Actually on reflection I wonder if Milibands revisionist nonsense are being written for him by a new scriptwriter.

    I wondered if this could be true as I note that Johan Hari is back in the country and haas 4 weeks to waste before taking up his old job at the Independent.

    Looking forward either way to the BBC trying to spin this latest failure of a relaunch into something positive.


  32. My Site (click to edit) says:

    ‘Context’ has been much in the news of late. Appropriately.

    But it’s a fine line.

    If a reporter says ‘they think’ and then waffle they can appear at best pointless and the story irrelevant as, basically, it’s a personal guess.

    If they are honest enough to say much is in the realms of ‘might’ or ‘could’, they can again with justification be accused of going off half-cocked, seeking at best a scoop over accuracy.

    Yes, you need stuff around story or it’s just PR or 24/7 space void-filling fluff. But facts must rule. Not opinion.

    I can recall almost no BBC report, or ‘comment’ on near any topic, that lives by this basic journalistic precept.

    The Independent is imploding on credibility today as one watches each tweet from those who may be deemed their core group slam home.

    The Graun is doing the same with every bonkers double-standard from a Monbiot or rigged photo before pulling the latest panned CiF outing.

    And those in these two ‘trusted’, ‘quality’ news media’s incestuous twitter pool are proving sadder in defensive denial than they did when offesive in mob baying.

    Are the likes of the DM, Sun or Telegraph much, or any better? No, I doubt it.

    But this hegemony over the nation’s airwaves from clearly equally discreditted print sources is now a bad joke and must stop.


  33. RGH says:

    Spot the omission:


    “Thousands of people took to the street of Manila to worship a Jesus Christ statue known as the Black Nazarene.
    Earlier, the government had warned about a terrorist plot to disrupt the annual festival, but there were no incidents.
    The centuries old statue is thought to have healing powers and has its distinctive colour because it survived the fire that sunk the ship that was taking it to the Philippines.”


    “A human sea of Catholic pilgrims flooded the Philippine capital on Monday in a show of religious frenzy, despite warnings that Islamic militants may be planning to bomb the spectacular annual event.
    Police estimated up to eight million people crammed into the historic quarters of Manila seeking to touch the “Black Nazarene”, a centuries-old and life-size icon of Jesus Christ that is believed to hold miraculous powers.”


    • Millie Tant says:

      I spotted the T word in the Beeboid extract. Safe to use it there because  no mention of Muslims or Islam.


  34. George R says:

    Islamic jihad, 5th column.

    Censored by INBBC?:

    ‘Jihadwatch’ –

    Afghan soldier starts firing at American soldiers playing volleyball, killing one


    “As I have said many times in the context of many similar incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no reliable way to distinguish a peaceful Muslim from a jihadist. This is yet more fruit of the unwillingness to make even a cursory attempt to take that fact into account.”


  35. RGH says:

    Latvia is having a hard time. A very hard time. So is Hungary.

    And for very similar reasons.

    As accession countries post Copenhagen criteria, there is a commitment to the EMU.

    Neither Latvia (nor Hungary) have joined the euro, however, the management of the economies are subject to enormous EU influence and pressure.

    Greece, within the Euro, is in the headlines.

    Of course, cutting free from the EMS straight.jacket and devaluation would offer a way out. for Latvia.  Not pleasant, but a light at the end of the tunnel.

    The BBC has visited Latvia. Full on reporting on the dire circumstances etc.


    But nowhere, just nowhere is the main source of the problem identified. The problem is the EU’s EMS and the pressure it puts on the economies. In Latvia case (a minnow in economic terms) even the IMF recommended a devaluation and a haircut for the European banks.

    “By August 2009, Latvia’s GDP had fallen by 20% year on year, with S&P predicting a further 16% contraction to come. The International Monetary Fund suggested a devaluation of Latvia’s currency, but the European Union objected to this, on the grounds that the majority of Latvia’s debt was denominated in foreign currencies.[

    The debt is with…you’ve guessed it….French, German, Austrian banks.

    So Latvia is being subjected by the EU to the mother of all austerity.

    Hungary, with that nasty Mr. Orban, is fighting back. The EU doesn’t like this one bit.

    Neither does the BBC.

    “After the election in 2010 of the new Fidesz-party government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Hungarian banks were forced to allow the conversion of foreign-currency mortgages to the forint.

    Who does that annoy?—-the EU banks that lent recklessly into Hungary.

    Who does it benefit?

    The Hungarian economy.

    What does the BBC report:

    “Hungary passes controversial central bank law”


    Nowhere is the reason given.

    Mr Orban is not a BBC approved person.

    PS. If Orban changes the Central Bank, he is making it like the Bank of England. No more no less. Hungary can then devalue by 20% (like we did) as the Central Bank is no longer tied to the EU EMS requirement which, at present is charging an interest rate of 8%.

    Mr Orban wants an interest rate like Britain.

    For the same reasons.

    BBC doesn’t see it like that.

    Mr Orban is ‘non grata’.


  36. George R says:

    For: mass immigration without limit BBC-NUJ –

    “Migration IS killing off jobs: 160,000 Britons have missed out on employment because work was taken by foreigners”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084667/UK-unemployment-23-fewer-Britons-jobs-100-migrants.html#ixzz1j4GjlUzC


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      They’ve talked about this on the News Channel today. But it’s not read with the enthusiasm heard when Beeboids report approved stories. Even Beeboids are having to admit that this strengthens the Government’s position on reducing immigration from outside the EU. Anything that helps this Government is clearly not welcome among BBC News producers and on-air talent.


  37. George R says:

    “Left-wing actress Dame Vanessa Redgrave declares on Radio 4’s Today show that ‘most politicians are either scoundrels or stupid’.

    “Interviewer Sarah Montague was too polite to mention Ms Redgrave agreeing that Libyan dictator Colonel Gaddafi should bankroll the Workers Revolutionary Party when she and her late brother, Corin Redgrave, were high-profile members.

    “Or her turning up in Tripoli in 1979 to accept a cheque from Gaddafi for the WRP’s ‘youth education programme’. Vanessa always gets a free ride at the BBC.”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2084396/William-Shawcross-Queen-Mothers-biographer-leftie-too.html#ixzz1j4IedmhV


  38. Big Harry says:

    5 muslim men in Derby go on trial for distributing homophobic literature, some even threatening death.  The silence of the BBC is deafening


  39. My Site (click to edit) says:

    Try again on my latest exchange of the Thatcher/Liverpool complaint.. apols for BBC-format created breaks:

    Dear Ms. x,
    Thank you for an, as ever, prompt reply.
    I’d like to apologise for this response being so long in coming, as I do try to do so in good order, but the sheer volume of things that need raising when it comes to accuracy or integrity with our print and broadcast media have imposed an extra load on my resources recently. Especially the ongoing output from your employers, I regret to say.
    However, as my time is free and this is your paid employment, I am sure you will forgive the delay.
    Anyway, to your latest..


    • My Site (click to edit) says:

      On 5 Jan 2012, at 14:30, xxxx wrote: We work in a content production system which is common to all of BBC News and serves a variety of platforms ย– web, ceefax and mobile. The character limit is to ensure a suitable display of headline text on all platforms. It is not uncommon for multi-platform systems to feature this kind of restriction.
      The realities of so much in life throws up restrictions, inevitably. The secret to success is to work on solutions that address these, most especially without introducing others. Doing a poor job knowing it is being done due to compromise is worse than via incompetence.
       It can create situations in  which headlines are tricky to write but this is a constraint within which we have to work.  Quotation marks are usually, though not always, used to show that something comes from a piece of direct speech.
      The BBC’s use of quotation marks is out of control, and has been for ages. We can argue, or at least trade interpretations and semantics ’til the cows come home, but for sure in use across the BBC media estate they are applied as a means of tonality as well, indicating a line of inferred statement or opinion on whether what is written about is in, or out of favour. I know it… you know it. I’ll agree on ‘tricky’, but not as an excuse but as an explanation in this context.
      Take this:
      Abbott tweet ‘not a resigning issue’ 36
      That was a BBC headline. It too easily comes across, in solation, especially within constraints of much online or in social media, as a BBC statement of view. Without any hint as to who thinks the Abbott tweet was not a resigning issue over, the default is… who? And then, with what possible justification?
      Labour: no Abbott action over tweet 35
      There, I have swung it one closer to your ideal 32 count, whilst being more informative and accurate without dissembling.


      • My Site (click to edit) says:

        It is my experience that with stories over which there is a degree of controversy there will often be debates over the exact words we use.
        Your experience is noted, if hardly relevant. The ‘experience’ and how it is deployed, of BBC employees overseeing BBC transgressions, goes to the heart of the problem we are discussing.
        I am satisfied that the way we expressed the story in its various iterations was not misleading in any way.
        Again, your satisfaction, however often repeated, really does not constitute, or move along the discussion.
        However I am always happy to hear points of view from our readers and to engage in debate, as I have with you.
        Whilst always pleased to make others happy, the usual dynamic is the customer service makes the customer happy and first, not the other way around. 
        If we are in a debate I had not really noticed, because so far you have mostly been telling me what you think, or others believe, etc., and whilst possibly happy to listen, are evidently unable to actually do much. At least of tangible value. This, I regret to advise, has yet to make me… happy.
         Our policy regarding the length of time threads remain open changed recently when we launched the news website in new livery and reviewed our moderation processes.
        A change of policy is an interesting thing. It can impact different people in different ways. The organisation.. the customers.. those on the wrong, or improved end. Again, while the organisation might be ‘happy’, and has done all this to make itself ‘happier’, this does not necessarily mean this extends to all those affected, especially if essentially imposed.


        • My Site (click to edit) says:

          This means that we generally keep threads open for much more limited periods of time.
          ‘Generally’.. how? A major part of my complaint here, and with others, is what is opted in, or out, on a very variable basis. This is a licence to do what is wished, when it is wished, for any reason. Hence open to abuse. 
          It is my observation that threads that do not follow a BBC narrative, especially those of thread authors, and if critical, get closed very quickly when the trend does not suit.
          Equally, as has been the case with too many Nick Robinson threads for instance, the thread has opened after 9am and closed before 5pm, basically denying the majority of the UK public any chance to engage. This… is unacceptable (which is why I continue not to accept it). A week is a long time in politics may well be in the lexicon, but anything less than that to engage on political issues suggests control of the pitch and game by those who only have access to the floodlights, but do not pay for the stadium and lighting.
          However, as I outlined in my previous mail this is working well in terms of ย‘periods of intense interestย’ in stories.
          And as I have outlined, from your goodself to such as Helen Boaden (in whichever relative direction you see this as best being taken), a BBC employee saying something about the BBC ‘working well’ may not be considered totally impartial.
          The number of comments is not especially relevant. I was quoting the 387 simply to illustrate that we had amassed, in a short time, a large number of comments from across the spectrum of opinion.
          But you did raise it. Again, numbers at the BBC seem to be important, or not… to taste. There are stories that slow burn… and then endure. There are 25 million licence fee payers and 60+ million UK public. By what measure, and right does some person ‘decide’ that of all these, 387 is enough to have a say on something that they feel worthy of commenting upon? 


          • My Site (click to edit) says:

            Especially when, as in the instance that originated this… the BBC pulled the thread when folk were getting unsettled on the attempted misrepresentation, and then the subsequent unacknowledged stealth editing after the event in cover up. The internet, sadly for this hope, does not work like that.
            You appear to be advocating the unaccountable licence to propagandise and/or then censor at will, using spurious character limits and internal policies to suit as excuses. I might also point out that a blog without interactivity is, essentially a broadcast-only message. Fine if the author and editor can be trusted professionally and in terms of partisanship. Less so if not.
            Itย’s worth pointing out perhaps that we do not activate comments on all stories.
            I do believe that I have answered your questions and I do not accept that there was anything either stealthy or underhand in our treatment of the story.
            I can only accept your belief, if not accepting what you cannot accept. Sorry.
            However, Should you wish to take this complaint further I can refer it to my Controller, Mr. Y. Please let me know if you would like me to do this.
            I think I would, Thank you.
            By way of offering further avenues of enquiry, as some friends are aware of my exchanges with actual humans who at least respond, I have been asked why I am blessed with replies in short order whilst, in their cases, they hear nothing for over a month.

            Or wondering how can people escalate complaints to Stage 2 if they can’t reply to the responses to their original complaints.  
            http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/  I concede I am lucky for the ability have an avenue of such discussion, but it seems, at best, restricted, in a variety of ways. Even to outcomes.

            Rgds, MS(cte)


          • David Preiser (USA) says:

            387 comments “from across the spectrum of opinion”? Okay, but how do they balance out? How many from each side?  Are complaints invalid because some people approve? That doesn’t really work.

            Sounds like another version of the boilerplate defense: “we get complaints from both sides, so we’re doing it right.”


            • My Site (click to edit) says:

              Okay, but how do they balance out? How many from each side? ‘

              I am still in a very intense exchange over this with senior BBC management, with the latest salvo in last night. 

              She has reiterated how senior she is, but now passing up higher as I fail to accept that her saying how right she is counts as anything being more so.

              For some reason my complaint is being taken seriously, which is a worry in one way as it is not the most egregious I have raised, though still tellingly critical to their editorial handling of ‘news’ as a means to reshape as ‘views’. I sense a possible ‘this is all too trivial’, moving on … bale out soon.


              eg: one of more higher rated: 

              380. sandy winder 
              31ST DECEMBER 2011 – 6:57

              The BBC headline ‘Thatcher told abandon Liverpool’ shows how out of control the BBC has become.

              On the thread in question, playing the ‘views are split’ BBC semantic dodge, it kicked off quite even. But then some folk started chipping in that the headline and direction was actually not correct. It then, at some point, started to evolve, either between front page and holding page and article headline, and then what the copy clarified. 

              Then folk starting asking about the stealth edits, and it promptly cloased.

              That… is what I have yet to get an answer on, as well as justfication for the notion that 32 characters ±1, which they break… a lot.. when it suits… is more importnat than the headline being a fair and accurate reflection of the actual facts.

              The process is proving… ‘interesting’, not least by the (over)sensitivity evident at the other end, and determination to ‘close this case’.

              One thing I have learned with public sector officialdom is that, once a file is opened, it is very hard for them to close it if the member of public sticks to their guns and does not accept waffle.


  40. Martin says:

    Good news!!!! 350 jobs at the TV licencing scum Crapita are to go.

    Today is a good day.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Tory Cuts, hitting the poorest and most vulnerable!


    • Teddy Bear says:

      More interesting is where these jobs are going to – Capita said it was proposing to move 350 jobs from its office in the city to Darwen in Lancashire and India.
      I wonder how many will end up in India, and whether this will bother the BBC when it comes to decide whether to renew its contract with Crapita.

      Judging by previous and ongoing BBC hypocrisy, i’d say NOT AT ALL.


  41. pounce_uk says:

    How the bBC rewrites history to support its anti-American bent.
    Is a US-Iran maritime clash inevitable?
    In 1988, US warships clashed with Iranian forces in the Gulf. As a war of words now escalates, is there a danger that history will repeat itself? Operation Praying Mantis is today little more than a footnote in US naval history.
    The above is an article by the bBC where they retell the story of Operation Praying Mantis in which to substantiate the left view that the US are gun totting nutters who love to start wars. So how do the bBC go about doing that, why by re-writing history:
    The bBC writes:
    “Back in the late 1980s, Iran and Iraq were at war. The conflict spilled over into the Gulf with the Iranians targeting shipping from countries that they believed were supporting Iraq. In March 1987, President Ronald Reagan agreed to the re-flagging of a number of Kuwaiti tankers. Operating under US colours they would be able to be protected by US warships.”
    True, however the bBC leaves out a few salient bits of information, like why the US agreed to reflag Kuwaiti ships, well that may have had something to do with US law which forbid them from protecting foreign ships not in a defence pact with them. Like how naughty Ronald Regan was beaten to the punch of reflagging Kuwaiti ships by the Russians. But instead of explaining all that the bBC instead just point out Ronald Regan who the left hate just as much as they hate Maggie.
     The bBC writes:
    “A few weeks later, one of the reflagged tankers hit an Iranian mine. A series of sporadic skirmishes ensued, culminating in April 1988 when a US warship – the USS Samuel B Roberts – was also struck by an Iranian mine and was badly damaged.”
    On the 24 July 1987, the Kuwaiti oil tanker al-Rekkah, re-flagged as the U.S. tanker Bridgeton hit a mine. The Americans did nothing. In September 1987 a barge “The Iran Ajr”was spotted laying mines in international waters she was attacked boarded and scuttled, from the ships logbook the US learnt that Iran used armed civilian assets to lay mines during the cover of night and during the day they hid amongst oil derricks. They hit those Oil Derricks and sank 3 other mine laying barges.
    In reply in Oct the Iranians fired a silkworm (Huge antiship missile) and hit the reflagged U.S. tanker Sea Isle City while it lay in anchor off Kuwait city. (Over 250KM) in reply the US hit the Oil derrick it was launched from along with 2 others nearby.
    There the staus quo remained until April 1988 the USS Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine in international waters and was very badly damaged.. Navy divers find other mines in the area which bare the same batch number as mines found on the Iranian Ajr. In reply the order was given to destroy the Sassan oil platform used by the Iranian republican guard as a command-and-control center for attacks on Gulf shipping. While this action was taking place Iran sent in ships and jets to hit American forces. When these failed they launched attacks on any ships in the gulf which is why the Panamanian jack-up barge the Scan Bay is attacked of the coast of the  UAE. Then and only then is the order given by the US president to defend a non American civilian ship.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      This is all so stupid since an actual blockade of Hormuz would hurt the Iranian regime more than anything else.  Even the expert they quote in the article says so. But by all means let’s write up a sexy story about possible war, filled with speculation and little else.

      But the BBC always hated that the US took sides in the Iran-Iraq conflict. Maybe it’s just my over-eager interpretation, but I sense that Jonathan Marcus wants us to get the impression that flagging the Kuwaiti ships was a deliberate attempt to create a reason to attack Iran.

      A sentence in between the bit about flagging the Kuwaiti ships and one hitting the mine and starting conflict might have allayed that suspicion. The USS Samuel B Roberts hitting another mine wasn’t directly cuased by that first Kuwait ship hitting one, yet that’s the impression given by the way Marcus strings the incidents together.


    • pounce_uk says:

      The bBC writes:

      “It was this incident that prompted Operation Praying Mantis. This involved US special forces, aircraft and warships. The aim was to teach the Iranians a lesson.

      So a so called mature bBC reporter comes up with that infantile statement based on how after each and every Iranian asymmetric attack. The US targeted only the platform where that attack was launched from. That is until the last attack where while taking out a republic command and control platform , the Iranians tried their hand at striking the Yanks with Ships(big and small) , Jets and missile attack, they came a very poor second everytime. as for teaching the Iranians a lesson, if that was so, then the Yanks wouldn’t have allowed the third IRN ship Iranian frigate Sabalan to live after it decided to join in the bun fight, after been taken out, on fire and taking on water. Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci gave the order to spare it so as to prevent further escalation.


      • pounce_uk says:

        The bBC wrote:

        The conclusion was clear – Iran’s conventional naval forces were no match for US sea power in a straight fight.

        Which can be explained much better by informing the reader that the biggest war ship in the Iranian fleet is no bigger that a frigate.

        The bBC writes:

        Iran – and especially the naval elements of its Revolutionary Guard Corps – has sought to build a new style of naval force based largely upon swarms of fast, small patrol boats and speed boats, backed up by a variety of craft capable of laying mines. These are supported by shore-based anti-shipping missiles, rockets and artillery.

        New? That is how the Iranians fought in 1987, all they have done is build more boats, more missiles and more platforms. They haven’t learnt a thing, Unlike the small gulf states across the water who have invested not in simply buying lots of weapons but rather in buying command and control structures in which to allow them to use their brains rather than their brawn if and when Iran decides to kick off for good.
        You know like how the 80 block 60 F16s the UAE have all have AESA radars. You know that radar which is solid state and currently the only nation which uses AESA radar other than the UAE is..the USA. Which in a nutshell allows each and every UAE aircraft to become a mini AWACs, now digitally link them all together (Which the UAE can do down to its tanks) and you have a net-centric war-machine which can see everything that is happening in real time and proactively respond with the best assets .
        Metaphorically speaking a lightweight boxer having a match with a heavyweight who is deaf and blind. And made to wear a dustbin over his head. Which funny enough is what the US armed forces have been working on these past 20 years. Why do you think all their aircraft have glass cockpits.(digital)  But hey any defence expert worth his pay packet would know that.


  42. Martin says:

    Look how the BBC get the word ‘Christian’ into the first paragraph of the fgirst two articles, but the one that involves the 5 Muslim men, we have to ‘guess’ their religion.

    Charges have been dropped against a Christian preacher who told a police officer homosexuality was “a sin”.

    A Christian preacher who told police homosexuality was “a sin” is planning to sue for wrongful arrest.



    A group of men handed out a leaflet calling for homosexuals to be given the death sentence, a court has heard.

    The five men from Derby are said to have distributed notices titled The Death Penalty? outside a mosque and put them through people’s letterboxes.



    • pounce_uk says:

      I have to admit I have to admire the bBC for coming out (no pun intended) with this:
      Miss Cheema said: “These five defendants were part of a small group of men who distributed horrible, threatening literature, with quotations from religious sources and with pictures on them, which were designed to stir up hatred and hostility against homosexual people.”

      Anybody else wonder which sources, the Bible?, The torahs? or the ‘Holy Koran?’


    • Span Ows says:

      Fucking classic…and note they actaully do mention the M word once (an improvement) but not in connection with the men AND you have to scroll down to read that M word. 


    • George R says:

      “‘Gay people should get the death penalty’: Five Muslim men on trial for stirring up hatred after ‘handing out homophobic leaflets near mosque'”

      Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084684/Gay-people-death-penalty–Five-Muslim-men-trial-stirring-hatred-allegations-handed-homophobic-leaflets-near-mosque.html#ixzz1j4xZltRi


      • RGH says:

        In January 2010, two others from the same mosque were arrested for the same action.

        As a side detail, in very good English, from a Derby-based website, commenting on the Derby Pride event.

        “Derby Pride, which celebrates the culture of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender population, began with a procession through the city centre but was met on St Peter’s Street by a group of Muslims protesters representing the Islamic community waved placards bearing anti-homosexual messages.
        The kuffar taking part in the parade blew whistles and shouted “out and proud”.
        <img src=”http://theislamicstandard.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/gay-police.jpg?w=240&h=300″ title=”gay police”/>There were no arrests but police officers moved the crowds away from the demonstrators and the Police and Fire service both sent delegalations to take part in this perverts parade and the Islamic Standard is still trying to varify details of Muslims being harassed by Police after the parade had finished.

        One Kafirah Lucy Brolin, 39, from Littleover, said: “This is a free country. Why should gay people be subjected to abuse?”

        The reason is that Allah has commanded us to forbid the evil in society, so many times in the Quran Allah tells us to fulfil this command….”

        The BBC might have difficulties with the ‘M’ word, but in Derby, they don’t.


  43. George R says:

    A reprise: a report on Muslim sex gang in Derby (Jan 2011):

    “I was kept prisoner by the Asian sex gang predator: Victim tells harrowing story of ‘boyfriend’ who dubbed his car the ‘Rape Rover.'”

    By Sue Reid

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347335/Asian-sex-gang-Toni-Marie-Redferns-boyfriend-dubbed-car-Rape-Rover.html#ixzz1j4rcuxPx


  44. ltwf1964 says:

    another heads up for a likely al beeb muslim fan series starting on 18th January

    the crusades-yes you guessed it-finding the truth behind the myths

    any odds on what side “the truth” will come down on the side of,and who ut will villify in the strongest possible terms?

    let me think……..


    • noggin says:

      the TRUTH  hmmm …. will that be arab muslim truth, or the actual factual truth? …

      just think of all, the destruction/erasing of any thing non islam still!, even today in every crapistan islamic backwater, denied objective education,
      that vaccum filled, with a “house of cards” history.

      G Orwells prophetic words,

      The past๏ปฟ was erased, … that erasure was forgotten, as the lie itself…… became truth


  45. Span Ows says:

    I know I said this before and I am sure others have posted it but today I had the misfortune to hear (again) the BBC ad/trailer for their series covering each year/decade or whatever it is: called “the moments of the decade or wahtever) it lasts about 30 seconds and has 3 “political” bits: Maggie resigning (said in an extremely loud, serious voice) the poll tax riots and Michael portillo being beaten..nice balance? Cnuts (not the Danish kings)


  46. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Another two-against-one debate on the News Channel right now, this time about high-speed rail. We were told at the start that this was a discussion between two people with “very different views” on the subject. But when the rail journalist (critic of high-speed rail boondoggles) said gently derided this as little more than a French grand projet, Huw Edwards stepped on his point, saying, “Ah, but it works in France.”

    So two against one, with the Beeboid taking sides, as usual.


    • cjhartnett says:

      Eddia Meir on PM seems happy enough with this new rail thing.
      Indeed he and his rail historian seem to think that opposition to this progressive, public sector funded rail “investment” is akin to Victorian Miaden aunts worrying about their heads falling off at 35mph etc.
      Such backwoody types eh?…it`s as if the science was of a silly and hysterical kind, and these poor nervous nellies needed a bit of reason!
      Now over to Roger Black and Private Fraser to tell us all about climate change….


    • Natsman says:

      Ah, but here in France, they tend to do things properly from the outset (and the distances are greater – who on earth wants to end up in Birmingham earlier?).  What I fall about over (or rather grind my teeth over) is the implausible idea that a train will reduce “carbon emissions”.  Carbon emissions? What the hell are they talking about?  Ignorant bastards.


  47. Albert II says:

    I see the passing of the NDAA by the Noble Prize winning and the Beebs favourite socialist is going down well too:
    All hail Obama!!!!!


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Still waiting for the BBC hand-wringing over this stuff. The silence on the President’s poor human rights track record is astounding.


  48. Richard Pinder says:

    Is it true that there been a sudden sharp increase in the number of people refusing to pay their licence fee lately. I do not buy the Guardian, so do not agree in the compulsory payment to the ideologically extreme leftist organisation, that is the BBC. People are using the changeover to digital as the excuse to stop paying the licence fee.


    • ltwf1964 says:

      I sure hope so

      this plus Crapita the tv tax collector laying off jobs

      all in all a good news day


  49. Martin says:

    James Landale just ‘glowing’ about Red Ed’s speech on the news.

    Not a mention of it starting 30 minutes late and being rather poor (as picked up by non BBC commentators)

    So we get a sound bite from middle class women at a play group who of course want more freebie handouts.


  50. David Preiser (USA) says:

    A second White House Chief of Staff is leaving the sinking ship at a critical juncture. The President’s first Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, quit before the 2010 mid-terms and went back to Chicago so he could become mayor of a city where the Democrat machine runs things. The BBC put it as Daley being “brought in”, without mentioning why Emmanuel left at all. Now his successor is also going back to Chicago.  
    Daley was supposedly brought in to fix up the White House’s broken relationship with the business community. Daley failed and is now leaving, even though he said last October that he’d be around until November 2012. The BBC reports that, while Daley supposedly got credit for getting that god-awful budget-ceiling agreement which nobody liked, he didn’t work well with Congress or the White House “inner circle”. Which means Jarrett, Axelrod, Michelle, and Him. I’m not sure anyone can work effectively in that scenario. But it’s not His fault, of course.  
    The President’s constant class war and anti-business rhetoric (all while reaping record amounts of cash from Wall Street) pretty much made Daley’s job impossible, and the President had already curtailed his duties. Not that the BBC would put it that way, of course. Daley probably realized the place is a disaster, and got out while he could.  
    Now he’s out, supposedly resigning on his own, and Jack Lew, the White House budget director is taking over. I don’t know how anyone can say “White House budget director” with a straight face, seeing as how the President hasn’t gotten a budget passed the entire time He’s been in office, which is madness in these troubled economic times.  
    Really, the whole BBC article reads like a White House press release. We get to hear how the new man is experienced, and they play up his fiscal bona fides. All is well, do not be alarmed. The President is merely moving from strength to strength.

    And in case there’s any doubt about the message the BBC wanted to get across, whom do you suppose they turned to for the following quote:

    One analyst suggested that the timing of the announcement benefited Mr Obama.

    “This is a good time for a shake-up.”

    Julian Zelizer, history professor at Princeton, who was…wait for it…a member of the JournoList. You couldn’t make it up.


    • Louis Robinson says:

      It is clear, all is (and was) not well in Paradise. The fly in the ointment may well be Michelle.

      Mrs Obama deplores “white, Irish, Catholics”

      and leading on from this, a Libertarian chum sent me this. I usually take his contributions with a pinch of salt but its worth watching this YOUTUBE clip (expecially from 2’15”)


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        Gotta take this with a big grain of salt, but the stuff about Reagan and Bush matches what’s been said elsewhere, in several places. Reagan stayed at the White House over the Christmas break so that his Secret Service agents could be near their families on the holiday.

        As for that Chicago Sun Times piece you link to, it’s more evidence that the big news about that new Kantor book involves unpleasantness from Michelle, which the BBC censored from their one news brief about it in which all they talked about was that “apparently lavish” party. And in which the BBC dutifully reprinted the lies from the White House about press coverage.