Middle of the week and time for a new one of these for your edification!
OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- atlas_shrugged April 19, 2024 at 10:04 am on Midweek 17th April 2024Muslims are a bit like BMW drivers. As far as they are concerned it is 'their road' and 'their rules'....
- atlas_shrugged April 19, 2024 at 9:43 am on Midweek 17th April 20247. The accuser and accused shall always appear face to face before any officer, that both sides may be heard,...
- moggiemoo April 19, 2024 at 9:36 am on Midweek 17th April 2024Would you go to this priest for confession? No chance I would.
- moggiemoo April 19, 2024 at 9:21 am on Midweek 17th April 2024Islam's already well on its way to that.
- MarkyMark April 19, 2024 at 9:07 am on Midweek 17th April 2024“But we have learnt somethings in the last 10 years. We have learnt that most of the press in free...
- G April 19, 2024 at 8:57 am on Midweek 17th April 2024So what was the theory then? "Devolution in the UK has created a national Parliament in Scotland, a Welsh Parliament...
- tomo April 19, 2024 at 8:32 am on Midweek 17th April 2024Not enough Covid medals have been handed out to officials? toecurling, gutless kerrappp..... ONS are the authoritative, robust statistical a...
- Zephir April 19, 2024 at 8:30 am on Midweek 17th April 2024Whilst at face value this does seem extremely disturbing, the key to this is the conversation that this person had...
- Fedup2 April 19, 2024 at 8:28 am on Midweek 17th April 2024The naughty step in their commons now has around 25 MPs over various defective types sitting on it … a...
- tomo April 19, 2024 at 8:22 am on Midweek 17th April 2024Furries....... https://youtu.be/aLqKuskd9CQ
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
Dame Nicky is in moral panic this morning over the abuse of children. Not to worry, no PC feathers will be ruffled: ‘statistics’ tell us ‘the most dangerous threat to a child comes from its biological father’.
Shhhhsh. Don’t mention the Muslim Loverboys. As Basil Fawlty might say, I mentioned them once, but I think I got away with it.
According to the Mail, one in 6 child sex abuse victims are boys. I’ve yet to check the male/female breakdown of their abusers. I wonder if 5Live raised this issue? The word ‘disproportion’ only comes into play when Israel defends itself from genocidal maniacs, not where identifying the risks to children is concerned.
The BBC (rightly) highlights child abuse as headline news, UNTIL that is, it involves our friends the Muslim groomers. Then the story conveniently slips into obscurity on some regional link and the stats are meddled with in order to obnubilate the true extent of the situation. It has been long known to anyone with half a brain and independence of thought that the left have covered the extent to which child grooming and sex trafficking is linked to immigration and ethnicity so as not to divert attention away from the all-important multicultural utopia. Second on the list as you mentioned is ‘blame the father’. They’ll probably end up blaming white heterosexual Christian males for everything once their propaganda output has succeeded in turning the populace at large into walking X Factor deadheads androids.
I would like to congratulate the anonymous Beeboid(s) who reported this story
France expels radical Islamists after Merah killings
without the usual accompanying hand wringing about human rights. A cynic like me might suggest that this is only because the murders are too recent – Shami, Stafford-Smith or the like may get their say in due course.
It would too much to expect the article to ask why the French (and Italians) can do this, while our efforts to expel people are a farce.
Compare the responses of Italy and France to the likes of these gobshites…to Theresa May sniffing a pot pourri for the cameras as Qatada runs rings round her type…runs drugs, guns and women too no doubt too, should Allah require the entryism tactic.
Beginning to warm to Sarko again…the idea of Royales ex getting into office is a chilling one!
Any chance of extending the remit of this site to include the Guardian and Sky as well? Then again, that might be beyond the scope of any computer’s central processing capacity!
One HAS to pay for the BBC.
I don’t! I refused to pay for the socialist scum years ago.
join the club!!
Since the kids have flown the nest me and the wife choose to have radio and internet as you can choose what you want to watch. I never could handle Eastenders and Crap Factor!
Same here with Eastenders – the worst piece of malignant garbage to be broadcast in the UK – culturally corrosive crap – a cancer on the nation. Shite!
The Guardian doesn’t spread it’s poison in the US or have an edition specifically targeted at us here, or waste too much time promoting the domestic issues of the current President, or much effort to mislead you on US issues.
I know your comment is somewhat tongue in cheek Merlin, but since this point is raised often by those supporting the BBC that ‘it’s not the worst biased’ it’s important to highlight the difference.
Unlike any other major media organisation, the BBC licence fee, whether one pays it or not, gives it a veneer of ‘independent, unbiased and balanced’.
We here know how far from that it truly is, but the façade makes it the most dangerous force in the pursuit of its asinine agenda.
Perhaps it’s debatable what is the most overt evil threat to our society is, but whatever it is, it’s clear the BBC will present it as a ‘friend’.
Spot on Chris h, May is so wet when it comes to the scum of Londistan, good old Sarko, love that to happen here,if it did watch out for the sob story from BBC.
http://order-order.com/2012/04/04/bbc-denies-the-science/
Guido’s nay happy at the beeb!
The BBC were quick yesterday to take a look at last week’s heatwave and compare it to this week’s snows and champion their AGW message.
It’s interesting that they often say that the weather isn’t the climate – but when it suits their agenda?.. # justsaying
I have noticed The Big Programmes at the BBC have been trying to be a little less blatant with their AGW shilling. Rather than inserting the words ‘because of global warming’ every three lines, the more recent approach has been to talk about ‘extreme weather’, perhaps have a clip or two of a tsunami/ baked earth/ crashing glacier/ hurricane/ flood, but then to leave it just hanging there hoping doubtless that the viewer will join the dots.
Of course this is only for The Big Programmes. Down at Conference level, the Country Files and such-like are obviously out of the loop so they carry on shilling, same as ever.
The President has messed up diplomatic and economic relations with both Mexico and Canada. The leaders of the three countries met yesterday to discuss various issues.
Because the President punted, then dithered, then half-assed it on the Keystone pipeline to bring Canadian oil fairly cheaply into the US, Canada has now said that we have to pay retail or they’ll just sell it to the Chinese, who are gagging for it. We’ve had the NAFTA deal for something like 20 years, which gave us a deal on trade with Canada, but they’re now fed up. The BBC tried to tell you it was the Republicans’ fault, and anyway it was “controversial” and harmful to the environment.
Mexico brought up Operation Fast & Furious, in which the President, the Attorney General, and their minions schemed to sell automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels – without telling the Mexican Government – allegedly to trace the guns to naughty Mexican gunrunners, but actually in an effort to create a useful body count with which they could convince us that guns were bad and should be outlawed. The President played dumb. The Mexicans aren’t pleased. The BBC has mostly censored all news of it.
The main reason both countries are fed up with us is that both Mexico and Canada have been wanting to get into the Trans-Pacific Free Trade Agreement, which includes countries such as Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Chile, but the President has been blocking them. Why? I have no idea. Most likely it’s wrong-headed economic judgment and plain old incompetence.
The Obamessiah was, we were told, going to transform the US from what Matt Frei used to refer to on air as “the grim days of the Bush Administration”, fix the diplomatic relationships with all those countries the Texas Cowboy supposedly alienated, and restore our standing in the world. Instead, He’s screwed us yet again, this time with our closest neighbors. All of it was avoidable, and the oil deal with Canada and the blood on His hands in Mexico is all due to ideology, not pragmatism, and not Congress, Republican-controlled House or otherwise.
Yet the BBC has reported none of this. All you get aside from Republican primary results is celebrity noise, police activity (yet another shooting to report), and lightweight magazine-style human interest stuff. Except when they’re trying to tell you what to think about ObamaCare, that is.
The BBC US News division is an absolute joke. There are at least 55 Beeboids over hear beavering away on article for the website, following the Republicans around, and precious digital media pieces which are all the rage in media studies programs. Some of it is paid for by BBC Worldwide, the commercial arm, but much of it is paid for by the license fee. Either way, you’re left with precious little of value, much of it biased or simply useless.
Is it time for a rebuttal?
55?!!! Shit, it could be done better with 5.
This is after they won some online news award for it, and increased their investment from BBC Worldwide – on the digital media fluff.
Then there’s the Left-wing bias angle. Last fall, the BBC appointed Dick Meyer as Executive Producer of BBC News in the US. Guess which US Left-leaning radio network he came from.
Hint: it’s infested with Journolistas, and is the same one on which Katty Kay gets paid to guest host regularly, the same show which gave Mark Mardell a feature interview last week. Cozy or what?
You couldn’t make it up. Sadly, you don’t have to.
Is NPR funded from taxes? I presume so. I see Meyers was at CBS before that! LOL! Perfect for the BBC: obviously it’s in his genes.
Only a small percentage of NPR funding comes from the government. It’s mostly funded by various corporate groups, universities, and the usual foundations (e.g. Annenberg) who support the arts and PBS, plus lots of listener donations via the ubiquitous pledge drives. Many shows are produced by local radio stations who are part of the network, who also have their own (similar) sources of funding.
NPR plays the same game as the BBC when it comes to Left-wing bias. They claim they aren’t. NPR actually brought in a far-Left activist to tell you that they’re on the middle ground.
There’s another similarity to the BBC: they think the Tea Party movement is racist, yet they themselves are generally hideously white, with a fan base of white liberals.
Love the way NPR tries to sound what it thinks the BBC sounds like. Someone asked me if I’d like to work for them (NPR). Sorry, but I don’t think I can clench my buttocks tight enough.
“…the BBC researcher who phoned me this morning basically wanted to know if I would be prepared to go on air to angrily denounce the Big Society – while preferably making rude noises about the government.”
http://www.talkcarswell.com/disqus.aspx?id=2318
http://www.talkcarswell.com/disqus.aspx?id=2318
So… when the BBC ‘speaks for the country’ (copyright: Miliband. E), what they mean is they ensure what the country hears is what they think the country needs to. More selectively ‘spoken at’, via a £4Bpa editorial filter a few dozen unelected types control, unaccountably, over decades, funded by compelled fees.
Unique. Not very impartial or democratic… but unique.
That’s unfair, the BBC speaks for many countries: Scotland, Wales, Irish Republic, Cuba, North Korea, all Muslim countries, the EU (which they regard as one country) etc.
They don’t speak for England, Britain (despite their name) or the UK but, with all those countries they do speak for, you can’t have everything.
To the ECU, who seem to act as a means to do nothing but decide all is well after a month, before inviting me to send it to The Trust:
—
xx has kindly invited me to write to you as I fear, again, his department is not quite meeting my expectations.
Let me reply to his email in enhancing my complaint more than it evidently needs to be than before.
Thanks for contacting us regarding ‘Dateline London’ from 11 February.
You are welcome, as always.
Firstly I’d like to apologise for the delay in our reply. We appreciate that our correspondents expect a quick response and we’re sorry that you‘ve had to wait on this occasion.
Actually, so far, it seems to be every occasion. Hence I’d like to say one gets used to it, but really it comes across more as simply a piece of insincere cookie cutter patronising.
I understand you were unhappy with the choice of panellists on this edition of the programme and were also unsatisfied with the original response you received from my colleague.
Yup. That’s why I wrote in to complain.
Firstly I must reiterate that it’s not always possible or practical to reflect all the different opinions on this subject within individual programmes.
One does hear that a lot, for sure.
Editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area.
That too. What they are charged with, and then deliver, going to the heart of the issue.
Which, as far as I can gather, since no more is written, appeared in the minds of some at the BBC to stop there. But wait…
However, we forwarded your concerns to the programme’s Editor who explained in response that the object of the programme is to let the audience hear people’s views. He added that he’s sorry if you objected to Gavin’s throw-away line at the end of the programme and pointed to how it’s a live show.
But not one rather skewed collection, surely? Another question remaining unanswered. Again. That it… no, there’s more…
He also added in closing that they shall return to the Falklands saga as time moves on.
In closing, eh? We’ll see. Rather avoiding the seriousness of what I was taking to task there, too.
If you believe a serious and specific breach of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines has occurred here, and you wish to pursue this complaint further, you can contact the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit, within 20 working days, and they will carry out an independent investigation.
You know, I think I do. And the way the complaint has been addressed has not been too great either. So I will.
Let’s just add, for the benefit of new readers, the ‘story so far’, as that seems to have been quietly erased in later replies:
Feb 14 – Complaint Summary: Not answering questions. Form response
Full Complaint: –
‘We make no editorial comment’. You make no comment, yet your editorial judgement is absolute in inviting the panellists whose views, or as you call it ‘information’ is all UK viewers are presented to… ‘make up their own minds’.This may include hearing opinions. ‘May include opinions’.. fair enough. Exclusively being served only one set.. not so much. You have, I note, not answered my specific question in this regard. -It is also not always possible or practical to reflect.. I wonder, with the daily sample of editorial choices in invitation made, how many times do your researchers, editors and producers coincidentally reach for their iPhones and accidentally bring on a full set of commenters from more conservative papers (and conservative commenters from them… a Riddell, Chivers or Lean from the Telegraph doesn’t count, and one is unaware of any equivalent ‘balance’ within the ranks of such as the Guardian or, for that matter, the totality of the BBC) Plus a British panel chairman more keen to facilitate than challenge tribal prejudices in at least presenting a small aspect of the counter-argument. Joking about standing up for a few penguins sounded more like a LSE student uni ‘debate’ after the hall bar has closed for the night. A few decades ago Argentina invaded, and many died in removing the occupying force. Their new President is rattling nationalistic sabres to distract from domestic problems. Not a joking matter. And not for the BBC to be assisting.
Feb 14 –
We understand you were unhappy with the selected panel as you felt their views on certain subjects were too similar.
We make no editorial comment or judgement on the views expressed by contributors to our programmes, and our aim is simply to provide enough information for viewers to make up their own minds. This may include hearing opinions which some people may personally disagree with but which individuals may be fully entitled to hold in the context of legitimate debate.
It is also not always possible or practical to reflect all the different opinions on this subject within individual programmes. Editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area.
Nevertheless as we’re guided by the feedback we receive I’ve registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that’s made available to all BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, the production team for ‘Dateline London’ and other senior managers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Feb 12 –
Complaint Summary: Skewed guest panel selection
Full Complaint: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01c9w6c/Dateline_London_11_02_2012/?t=22m20s The BBC, we are told, is here to reflect a variety of views on issues. It is also, we hope, here to ensure the balance of those are in keeping with the majority views of the UK viewers compelled to pay the licence fee. I would therefore be keen for an explanation for the reasoning behind the composition of a panel that seems united in a view, for example, on the Falklands almost totally at odds with the British public, supported by the BBC ‘chair’. What are the political affiliations of Steve Richards, chief political correspondent of the “Independent”, Saul Zadka of Al London, Nabila Ramdani of The Guardian and Michael Goldfarb of Global Post? Rigging discussions in this manner does your reputation for pushing skewed agendas no credit.
The main basis of what I call the ‘Beware of the Leopard ‘defence’ here seems to be that, whatever you hear or see on the BBC at the time, if it is in some way ‘balanced’ at another time, or another place, all is well in the world of information and education.
My personal view is that, while this may be OK for nesting polar bears, on topical, time-critical news debates, that really isn’t on.
As to ‘joking’ about defending a few penguins, if they are all sorry about how they treated the memories of those who died, they have a funny way of showing it. If it’s live, all good taste and respect is off the table… apparently.
I have to say that I admire your stamina in persuit of your BBC complaints. Of course you don’t need me to point out that you are ultimately on a hiding to nothing.
As luck would have it I caught a few minutes of this edition of Dateline London and I may have posted on B-BBC about the bias. The panel were unaminous in the view that that Argentina should be given sovereignty over the Falklands and our Gavin (although he may not have said yes, me too) was pretty relaxed about what his guests had to say. No surprise there. A contrary voice would have been about as lonely as a porkpie at a bar mitzvah.
However, I have a couple of thoughts. Dateline London is pretty niche viewing. Goodness only knows how many 10s of people watch it but one thing is for sure, if the Beeb commissioned strictly according to viewing figures then Gavin Essler would feel the pinch long before Total Wipeout was…totally wiped out.
Dateline London is a debate about current affairs between British-based foreign correspondents. Actually that could be quite interesting viewing – I would, occasionally, be interested to hear what the world has to say about British issues.
I have a vague memory of a What the Papers Say format with a gravelly voiced tabloid hack of the old school who used to run through the foreign newspapers and had the catch phrase ‘Are they Talking About Us?’ (If anyone remembers this show, do shout the name of the programme or the guy’s name).
Ah but here comes the rub! What I recall from that old show was some fairly uncomplementary views about Britain. Listen to too much of foreign comment about about us and you soon realise that most of the world have an attitude somewhere located on the scale between thinking we just need taking down a peg to hating us with a vengence.
Make the British man in the street aware of that and he ain’t going to be quite so keen on a lot of BBC pet issues….the EU, foreign aid, the UN, climate change…etc…
So if you’re like the BBC and think that the worst thing in the world is a little Englander then you are going to be pretty damn selective about which overseas correspondents you give air time to.
So I can guarentee that Gavin’s palymates on Dateline London will be a succession of on-message Guardianista-ish Europeans, left of centre Yanks, reasonable sounding Chinese, civilised Africans and mild-manored Arabs. To be fair to the Beeb on this one particular issue, I doubt they could find a foreigner who didn’t support the Argies. Will the BBC give us a true cross-section of real world views on Dateline London? I think not. The BBC are biased, not stupid!
‘Of course you don’t need me to point out that you are ultimately on a hiding to nothing.’
Yes and no, but I take your points.
I engage in these exchanges because the alternative is… what… just post a diatribe here?
Like the Stasi, the BBC cannot but keep records, and these will build up. There is a slim chance that a person of seniority (within or in a position of influence outside) may look at some of the tripe trotted out in risible ‘defence’ and get an attack of integrity or even see the danger of lies, cover ups and censorship being allowed to continue unchecked.
It’s no waste of time to make these points and get them logged. I share here, fully, to show the paucity of arguments deployed. And just to share, in spite of the demand that these exchanges are kept secret, which would serve them just fine. I also value shared experiences of others, such as Jeff or Lunchtime Loather (who, sadly, has been ground down and now out by the attrition system deployed by the BBC).
It really does not take much or too long. The secret seems to be to stick to areas of fact over opinion, keep screengrabs and maintain meticulous records. They can easily be caught out as so many are involved behind the system left and right hands often drop each other in it.
So sorry, they are stupid, but do have an arrogance borne of knowing they can do what they like with no sensible accountability.
Look at what has been written in the quoted replies.
The interesting part is how many I now have oozing up a greasy pole from ECU to Trust as the struggle to ‘deal’ with them. The truth is hard to suppress.
The end result is inevitable, but exposure can be effective and these high paid jobsworths can be embarrassed, often making silly mistakes in lashing out. I have a collection now of knee-jerk apologies made following comments to impress their mates that have blown back and bit the authors badly. These will serve very nicely at the court case if and when I am subjected to their ‘expedited complaints procedures’ (ie: banning because they have run out of ways to defend the indefensible and, like sulky bullies, stalk off the pitch we have paid for with what they think is their ball. It isn’t. It is ours. And they are bringing the game into disrepute.
Once again I say, more power to your elbow.
When my impatience with BBC bias first prompted me to do something I did, on one particular occassion, go down the BBC complaints route.
You may be interested in the details.
The issue was a BBC On Line report on the Fort Hood shootings (2009). I complained that the BBC had stated – apparently as fact – that the perpetrator of this act of terrorism had been subject to racism in the US Army. This seemed to point toward his motivation. I querried the basis of the statements about racism using the BBC complaints formula. I have to say that within a reasonably short period of time I got a personal reply from the named BBC journalist who had written the original report. She backed down to some extent and said that the killer’s family and friends were the source of the racism claim and admitted that she ought to have provided this attribution and would therefore amend her report.
Up to a point I felt vindicated. Thinking about it afterwards I reckon whatever her personal outlook the journo had simply served up what she thought was a good BBC template report. Boxes ticked. Agenda abided by. Narrative on message.
I’m convinced that in similiar circumstances the same Beeboid would do the self same thing.
Should a day of reckoning ever come (Levesen-style?) into BBC bias (and I doubt it ever will) well then this would be my contribution.
In the meantime I’m afraid I’m reduced to the odd ‘diatribe here’.
‘… [said] she ought to have provided this attribution and would therefore amend her report.’
That… is a victory, and one for which you should be justly proud. And if she had a glimmer of a notion on professional competence and ethics more so.
What surprises, and depresses, is the continuity of bovine response usually up the chain, based on ‘narrative message’ that cannot be deviated from : ‘The BBC is right because it is right’.
No. And enough of such nonsense.
And in absence of any other public forum to expose such, too frequent examples, this forum will serve. It is read by influencers with more heft than individual licence fee payers.
But start to see how many get the same daft brush-off templates with shameless daft excuses in stead of explanations, and the sum of parts builds to a mightier whole.
United, the BBC gets slammed. And deserves to if serving up inaccuracy and bias, backed by toothless accountability when well and truly nailed.
Thanks GW, I am genuinely touched by your comment above. With that in mind, I have had an idea about how to continue with my blog that should not have such a disruptive impact on my day. Please see http://lunchtimeloather.blogspot.co.uk/ for details.
Seen, noted and entirely dismissable personal advice profferred.
Just know that I truly appreciate the maybe minor but often critical details that you, As I See It and others share, and often these have added intel that has made an already damaging argument to their cosy bubble… a devastating one.
I am under no illusions. From Cameron and Thompson and countless Quango Chief Execs down and sideways, we are currently being run into the ground by ‘leaders’ who confuse representation with rule, and spin with motion. And they are isolated from us by legions of gatekeepers who are no more than TediousUnctuousRisiblePropaganda Polishers, for some reason allowed to tell their superiors what they think they want to hear, whilst telling those who pay their salaries what they believe we are fooled by.
I have a bit of ‘news’ for them all: few are.
If it stinks, no matter how gilded the veneer, the message will be no more palatable beyond their delusional box-ticked fantasy bubbles.
The programme was called: “Do They Mean Us?” presented by Derek Jameson, the former editor of the Daily Express.
Do they mean us? Derek Jameson. Thank you. That’s the one I was trying to remember!
I have a feeling that these days the Beeb would agonise about commissioning that format.
Oddly enough I find that Mark Easton has been thinking along similar lines. Although, as good Beeboid, he is following a rather different agenda and he won’t join all the dots…..
Here are a couple of quotes. Do read his BBC article – it contains some very good reasons why the BBC should be reformed!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/do_they_mean_us.html
‘ I don’t know if you remember a TV show in the mid-’80s presented by Fleet Street veteran Derek Jameson entitled Do They Mean Us? It showed clips from around the world about Britain, about how others see us.’
‘While UK politics has been gripped by debates about civil liberties and immigration, today’s survey suggests we have “extremely high levels” of civil liberties in comparison to other countries, we rank “high in terms of perceived tolerance for immigrants” and there is “very high tolerance for racial and ethnic minorities”.’
‘When it comes to another key measure, governance, the report finds Britain has “a highly effective government”, a “robust democracy” and “low levels of corruption”. But that is not what people think. Britain comes 74th in the world in terms of confidence in our government, again, dragging our overall score down.’
We make no editorial comment or judgement on the views expressed by contributors to our programmes, and our aim is simply to provide enough information for viewers to make up their own minds.
Baloney. They make an editorial judgment when they decide whom to invite on. Otherwise they wouldn’t be able to claim elsewhere that they try to have a balanced panel.
How stupid do they think you are?
And Goldfarb is one of the BBC’s favorite rent-a-Leftoids in the US. Did they mention he’s regular recipient of the BBC shilling, or did they just refer to him as a generic “broadcaster”?
‘Baloney. They make an editorial judgment when they decide whom to invite on’
Precisely. And thank you for noting.
This is the tripe trotted out in the odd belief that belief will make the nasty man stop.
And when it’s thrown back they suddenly go into a loop where they ‘believe’ saying they believe they are right over and over somehow makes it any more true the fancier the BBC title saying it.
Hence why I share here, so people not assimilated into the hive can look at the facts, read the words, and see how thin their cases are.
Yet, somehow, a minute % of complaints about the BBC are upheld… by the BBC… to show how well the BBC is doing… in BBC PR.
Imagine the credibility that would attract if other entities tried that on…
@BBCNewsnight Newsnight understands the body that represents PR industry will tomorrow clear Bell Pottinger of breaking its own voluntary code of conduct
Care to demand an apology from your producers for that hypocrisy, Jeremy?
Your programme is now considered a joke, with good reason.
I salute your tireless efforts, GW. I couldn’t do it. But we should definitely remember the cognitive dissonance between the ubiquitous claim that they try for a balanced panel with this new claim that they make no editorial judgment about the panelists. Still trying to wrap my little brain around that one.
Tx for that David.
As to efforts, all are doing their bit, and tirelessly. Without you, I would not have a full appreciation of the US situation thanks to the BBC, and the rest of the UK MSM’s skewed views. Or things military thanks to Pounce, vs. what seems a gaggle of BBC ‘Defence’ numpties who once may have read Jane’s Fighting Ships. Or Sue on the ME… etc… All chipping in, and chipping away at the very rusty edifice that is the BBC’s delusional claim to professional accuracy, personal integrity and national spoken for trust.
I just don’t like bullies, I don’t like liars, I don’t value jobsworths and I really don’t like hypocrites.
So every left hand/right hand mis-step our polite challenges expose are small victories that will eventually win a very needed war conclusion. Free speech and democracy, though flawed ideals to champion in practice, demand that a monolith such as the BBC does not get to rig the information and education deck in the UK to the extent they have, are, and (with blog closings, moves to mobile, twitter, FaceBook, etc, but also retreats to broadcast only) seem to be seeking to further impose.
Newsnight really is a joke these days isn`t it?
Saw last nights on iPlayer…and Galloways hypocritical squirmings were not taken on at all by Paxo.
Paxo chose to chuck harmless personal slurry at Galloway, and so that Marxist/Islam fault line was allowed to go untested.
And to have the likes of Will Self and Dianne Abbott there to muddy the waters…only the BBC think that being Fascisms pantomine horse is a laughing matter.
Qatada would draw lots of laughs and encouragement at what the level of BBC analysis has now turned into…just a clown try out for Paxman and Davis etc.
Thank heavens for Sky!
“Qatada would draw lots of laughs and encouragement”
He certainly does…posted this before, but it’s worth another look…
Qatada, the happiest man in England:
‘He told me he is very unhappy with what has been written about him in the Daily Mail. He is far more pleased with the BBC which has been much more favourable about him in its coverage. That’s what he likes to see.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120236/Abu-Qatadas-delight-handed-expensive-taxpayer-funder-home.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2120551/Abu-Qatada-A-demonstration-rewards-long-career-terrorism.html
The BBC – The terrorist’s favourite broadcaster.
So proud. Thank heavens for Sky News indeed!
NHS reforms: GPs losing faith, BBC poll suggests
So the BBC are going big on the survey of GPs, 12% of whom say that “GP-led groups in charge of the budget would mean patients saw a “noticeable” improvement.”
These stats are being stated as fact on the 6pm news. They do say on the website that the survey was conducted of 814 GPs.
OK, so let’s look, the total number of GPs in the UK is 41,349 (according to the BMA). So this survey represents the opinion of 1.97% of them.
Even if we generously assume they only surveyed ENGLISH GPs, there are 34,101, so this survey still only represents 2.39% of the entire country.
Setting aside the issue/opinion that surveys are there to drive opinion rather than to reflect it, the way this is being reported, you’d think they consulted every GP in the land.
Surely they need bigger sample sizes in surveys like this?
Test
I think the sample size is dependent on the narrative they require. Too big a sample might put the desired result in jeopardy.
Doctors enthusiam for the reforms seemed to fall sharply at about the time that they got into dispute with the Government over their pensions. Stuff their mouths with gold. Most efficacious.
No, that is a perfectly good and statistically valid poll size for the questions asked.
Although how they selected those polled might be an issue of course. Not clear from this.
There, a comment I can like.
The BBC don’t do irony, do they? BBC3 Free Speech 10pm. I see ‘rent a prick’ is on again. Owen Jones, that is.
Is it worth the thirteen year old trotskyite turd going home between his BBC appearances? The Beeb might as well give him a bunk bed.
I think he and Laurie Penny are being groomed for hosting a new Children’s Programming change: Red Peter.
Red Peter. This might work. Humbert Humbert Paul Mason could play Biddy Baxter. A nice little red oasis for teaching kids to build socialism out of sticky-backed plastic? Problem is that one of the baby elephants in the room would shit on it.
Two words for young Shoutie, (I know he reads this blog).
‘Andrew’ and ‘Neil’.
Two more:
‘Car-crash’ and ‘teevee’
And two final ones,
‘Humili’, and ‘ated’.
Sill makes me laugh, what a dick!
This is not BBC related, but is scandalous none the less, and might be of interest to some here – The mad lady with the graphs, perhaps 🙂
Thank You, British Taxpayers
The Guardian newspaper has released a list some 25 pages long of climate change projects in other countries that were funded by you, the British taxpayer. Since 2009 you ladies and you gentlemen have sent us, here in Canada, £165,937. This translates to roughly $260,000 in Canadian funds. A cool quarter-million.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/04/03/thank-you-british-taxpayers/
Hat-tip – http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/
The age of austerity hasn’t impacted these international leeches yet – it should do, and quickly.
Wow, that’s cheap. Thought we’d be throwing at least 10 mill at Canada to get them back on message and away from fracking, new oil pipelines etc.
The BBC are furious about these abortion clinic raids aren’t they?n How dare the government seek to expose routine criminality in the abortion industry! How dare they spend a million quid, no doubt what the BBC spends on taxis in a month, on revealing that 20% of clinics are breaching the 67 act. Doctors have been suspended BBC – doesn’t that suggest money well spent?
Interesting, isn’t it, how the BBC knew just what to look for with its FOI request, and how the documents were given up instantly. Interesting too that they’re happy to investigate the government, but wouldnt’ *dream* of doing their hidden camera stunts in abortion clinics themselves.
Lansley acted fast, because a press report indicated that clinics might be breaking the law, he pushed it through without a public word because…. he wanted unannounced checks.
Shameful behaviour from the CQC, and cringingly immoral partisan obfuscation from the vermin at the BBC..
BTW, Biased BBC, you really ought to a get a meta redirect, or better, a DNS redirect, on your old biased bbc co uk domain, to bring people straight here – I’m sure your tech people can do it in a jiffy. If you’re leaving the old site up as an archive, I’m sure it’s possible to write a wscript to, instead, import articles and comments into the wordpress/mysql structure.
Good scoop I thought. Stephen Dorrell spoke cogently about the main issues at stake (the independence of the regulator).
A veritable avalanche of bias this morning on Today of which two examples are:
1. As Frank Fisher notes, Today was exercised by Lansley’s request to the CQC to which the “independent” CQC acceded. Sanchia Berg mentioned (at the very end of her report) that Lansley could have ordered the CQC to act but decided to request the action. In other words, despite the 8:30 news item lying that Lansley had “ordered” the CQC to act and Dorrell moaning about clarity concerning the CQC’s independence, the CQC could have given Lansley the finger, saved £1 million and avoided penalising those effecting the BBC’s approved policies on abortion. Was all this worth 12 minutes of “analysis” from 8:10 onwards?
2. So Amazon is not paying corporation tax on its profits from exporting goods to the UK. To comment on this the BBC brings on Richard Murphy – a very undistinguished accountant, militantly stupid campaigner for tax “justice” and advocate for handing over all income to the tax authorities for them to decide who gets what. Murphy is debunked daily by Tim Worstall and yet the BBC can’t get enough of him. Of course, Murphy wasn’t asked how much US tax equivalent to our corporation tax is paid by UK exporters to the US. Hint: I export all over the world from the UK and don’t pay a penny in taxes on my profits in the importing countries.
The BBC: bringing ignorance and bias to the nation.
I should add that I pay corporation tax in the UK on my profits earned from exporting.
Seconded, Umbongo. I used to work in an import/export capacity, from the UK and Europe to the US and back, although that was a number of years ago.
But I wonder if there will ultimately be an ideological conflict at the BBC with a darling tax justice guy actually criticizing the beloved EU control. Maybe they haven’t noticed yet.
Just a thought: I wonder how much federal tax the BBC pays in respect of its export of books (eg Paxman’s diatribe on the British Empire) to the US. As an aside, I wonder if and how the US taxes royalties paid to Paxman in respect of his income from sales of his books by the BBC there.
I don’t know the answers but I suspect that if the books themselves are imported (rather than printed there), the profit on those books (as against any import duty and state sales taxes) is taxed here (or wherever the BBC has chosen to position its publishing HQ for tax purposes).
Yes, and the same for most BBC products. Back when I dealt with them, the Doctor Who videos and CDs were imported.
Oh I’ve just seen Jim Dandy’s comment. It’s clear the CQC is legally (if not practically) independent. Even Berg commented that Lansley “requested” the CQC to act. Dorrell (a Conservative politician FFS) was steering the item into safer waters away from both the CQC’s craven response and Lansley’s chosen absence of instruction. The importance of this event is not the CQC’s “independence” it’s why it was ignoring the travesties of legality in abortion practice and why it acceded to a non-mandatory request.
‘It’s clear the CQC is legally (if not practically) independent.’
Whatever it’s meant to be, in a triumph of claim over reality still being attempted, the CQC was a mess, is a mess and doesn’t look like getting any better, despite the always quaint notion that throwing more money at unaccountable jobsworths will make them any more competent.
It is inextricably bound into an NHS/care system that is old-boy network controlled and mutually supporting. So independence… my [Jim Dandy refers].
I have an ongoing complaint on elder care that is now in its 2nd year, which started with the CQC but now encompasses their handling of it too.
Like BBC complaints, all concerned in the oozing chain above, NHS, PCT, LGO, PHSO… claimed that nothing could be going wrong as ‘lessons had been learned’ and they had had meetings that closed files. And a closed file means all is resolved. And in any case, as part of their ‘investigation’ the CQC had checked themselves and found they hadn’t heard from me. No one thought to ask if that was true. Trouble was, for them, and CQC complaints managers, a munchkin hit the wrong cc vs bcc button, Mac Mail has effective archive search functions, I keep all files, and Safari does a neat page capture.
So lying scum at Director level, or Minister if needs be, cannot claim black is white without a bunch of explaining to do one day, before taking early retirement with golden parachutes and full index-linked pensions.
They may go to their graves rich on the back of cheated taxpayers and abused charges they were meant to protect, but not vindicated.
And they will know it.
OOOO! 5Lives “drought special” is on
I wonder where this will be going………………..
There was a weird piece on the World Service today about ‘Dutch Loverboys’ in Holland. Men who stand outside school gates and seduce under age school girls, who then are turned into prostitutes. This is not like ordinary grooming the narrator tells us these women choose to become prostitutes (errr a 12 yr old is not a woman). Who are these ‘Dutch Loverboys’, sellers of Edam cheese, makers of clogs, windmill technicians? Half way through the piece the narrator tells us that these ‘Dutch Loverboys’ are of Moroccan and Tunisian background.
So basically it is the same Muslim Paedo Gang phenomenon that we have over here. So will the BBC re-brand this phenomenon ‘English Loverboys’?
I don’t think a re-branding would involve “English Loverboys” but possibly “British Loverboys” or, more likely, “Loverboy Britons”.
What is this malaise that seems to lie at the very heart of British and Dutch society?
The problems can’t lie in the area of sex education and availabilty of contraception because the BBC tell me again and again that the more liberal Dutch do far better than us in statistics for young pregnacies and sexually transmitted diseases.
So what can it be?
Perhaps it could be linked to our similar sea-going free enterprise colonial past history?
I see that the BBC candidate for mayor of London is being given the usual soft ride. While every other news organisation vaguely interested in the London mayoral election is reporting Livingstone’s hypocrisy over his tax arrangements, all the BBC can feature is his row with Boris in a lift and his denials concerning his tax avoidance arrangements. According to the BBC take, the “news” is Ken’s response or Ken’s denial or Ken’s row; the “news” according to the BBC is not the details of his tax arrangements and, more to the point, why these arrangements might be deemed hypocritical in the light of Ken’s promises to soak the (not so) rich.
BTW search of the BBC site seems not to have found any mention of Ken’s promise to make London a beacon of Islam. Odd that!
Speed Dial malfunction –
BBC News channel (15:45) invited frequent commenter Christine Ross of SG Hambros to back up Balls’ agenda for the day that millions of poor people would be worse off from tomorrow due to changes in tax credits.
Our Christine resolutely refused to come up with the goods, with the exasperated beeboid interviewer (who herself lacked the detailed knowledge to pose forensic questions) unable to get blood from the stone during persistent questioning. Christine just kept referring to changes in child benefit for higher rate taxpayers. Not the constituency that the BBC wanted to hear about al all.
Cock up you think? Or perhaps another explanation. Either way, good to hear of balance in the coverage
From the Telegraph
Terrorism suspect says he’s innocent, shock horror. So tell us, BBC: just how much of our money did you spend securing this exclusive?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100149529/terrorism-suspect-says-hes-innocent-shock-horror-so-tell-us-bbc-just-how-much-of-our-money-did-you-spend-securing-this-exclusive/
The BBC – the terrorists’ favourite broadcaster.
@BBCwaste – After making a fuss about Boris fuming at Ken bending the truth I hope #newsnight reveal Ken pays 14.5% tax tonight
I dunno, what are the odds?
It’s the kind of question I’d pose on their daily blog thread…. but for some unknown reason they closed it.
@BBCNewsnight Would you like to apologise for calling Ken a liar yesterday, Jeremy asks Boris on #newsnight
Would Jeremy, on behalf of Newsnight, like to apologise to the UK public for operating one of the most bent ‘news’ shows there is, from topic choice to ‘guest’ selection to ‘special correspondents’ like Laurie Penny & Jonnie Marbles?
Turned away from Newsnights appalling hustings for London Mayor last night.
How does Livingstone get away scot-free in what he comes up with?
How does Jenny Jones get on when the BNP/UKIP have as much right to be there as she does?
How does Paddick get away with not being shown for the economic illiterate he is?
Dreadful telly-if Boris doesn`t clean up, he can`t blame the BBC…he has his chance to skewer Paxman last night, but chooses not get personal…which is all that the BBC understand these days.
Boris should look at how Lord Bell did it on the previous night…it`s so easy!
The bBC, its coverage of Islamic
terroristvictim Babar Ahmed and half the story.So the bBC continues to promote Islamic terrorists and its supporters as victims of Non-Muslims with the airing of an interview with one of Allah’s helpers. The bBC webpage promotes a very onesided view that this is all soooo wrong. And as usual the bBC talks out of its arse in which to reinvent Ahmed as a victim.
A British terrorism suspect, held for a record seven years without trial, has appealed to be prosecuted in the UK. In an exclusive interview with the BBC, Babar Ahmad accused the police and prosecutors of mishandling his case… “I have been in prison now for nearly eight years without trial,” Mr Ahmad said.
So want to know why Ahmad the terrorist has been in prison for 7 years? Because his defence team have in usual leftwing parlance dragged out the proceedings , Ahmad could have gone to American, got a slapped wrist ,done his time and be home now giving interviews to the bBC. (Silly me he already is)
“I am facing extradition to the US to spend the rest of my life in solitary confinement. I have never been questioned about the allegations against me.
Oh please, how many people have spent the rest of their lives in solitary. OH hang on, that would be the victims of Islamic thugs such as,Babar ahmed.
But he added: “I absolutely reject any allegation that I supported terrorism in any way, in any place, whether in Afghanistan, Chechnya or any other part of the world. I believe terrorism to be wrong and I believe the targeting and killing of innocent people to be wrong.”
And here is how the Guardian
report that very same bBC interview quote:
Ahmad, speaking on BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme following a high court challenge by the broadcaster to secure the interview, admitted he had previously fought “battles” in Bosnia but said he believed terrorism to be wrong.
I wonder why the bBC left out that very salient snippet , could its inclusion have somehow substantiated the reason why Paki bastard Admad (hey I’m of Indian stock , the same colour as the Pakistani bastards who rape,pillage and murder in the name of Allah and then play the bloody victim card in court) was picked up by the police.
Days later, he was released without charge – accusing the arrest team of assault. The Metropolitan Police later admitted he had been injured and paid him £60,000 compensation. The officers involved were prosecuted and acquitted.
The above is shown next to a picture, yet what the bBC doesn’t tell you, is yes the Police paid up, just like the government paid out to all those so called innocent men who went to Afghanistan simply as it is cheaper to pay up than have these Muslims drag their cases through the courts. (think Hamza and the like) and the reason why the policemen were acquitted, because unknown to everybody MI5 had planted listening devices in Ahmeds home and no evidence could be found on their recordings of Ahmed getting a good kicking. Here’s the Guardians
version of events.
But hey that doesn’t stop the Islamic cock suckers at the bBC from screaming out ‘Allah ackba’ in which to push the view that there is only one god and his name is Allah.
The bBC , the traitors in our Midst.
You are right, Pounce.
Islam Not BBC (INBBC), including its Islamic apologist, and NUJ opponent of the English Defence league, Mr Casciani, is doing a re-run of INBBC’s role as defence council for Al Qaeda trainee, Binyam Mohammed.
INBBC’s Mr Casciani is acting like an Islamic defence council again, in this case for Babar AHMAD.
This Babar Ahmad:
‘The SUN’ –
“BBC’s £½m chat with ‘terrorist’.
Public’s jail
interview bill .”
[Excerpt]:-
“A BBC interview with a terror suspect is costing the public almost £500,000.
“Babar Ahmad, 38, was whisked away from his top-security prison cell to spend SEVEN HOURS filming a controversial chat with journalists.
“The interview is expected to last just a few minutes when broadcast on BBC2’s Newsnight tonight.
“Prison staff and civil servants had to be taken off normal duties so that Ahmad could be interviewed at Long Lartin prison in Worcestershire last week. A source said: ‘The whole job was a massive headache and took up most of the day. Ahmad was delighted to be the centre of attention.'”
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4239440/BBC-chat-with-terror-suspect-Babar-Ahmad-is-costing-public-almost-m.html
INBBC’s Casciani’s apologetics for Al Qaeda suspect, Ahmad:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17614935
And INBBC censored most of this on Binyam Mohamed it its recent Islamic campaign:
£Binyam Mohamed: The false martyr”
By Thomas Joscelyn
(February 20, 2009).
Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/02/binyam_mohamed_the_f.php#ixzz1rBiMyeqX
Islam Not BBC (INBBC) is a political echo of that other Islamic broadcaster, AL JAZEERA. No doubt Galloway and Livingstone approve of licencepayers’ money being continually used by INBBC for this Islamic propaganda by the likes of INBBC’s Mr Casciani.
“Terrorism suspect says he’s innocent, shock horror.
” So tell us, BBC: just how much of our money did you spend securing this exclusive? ”
(by Damian Thompson)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100149529/terrorism-suspect-says-hes-innocent-shock-horror-so-tell-us-bbc-just-how-much-of-our-money-did-you-spend-securing-this-exclusive/
stout chap, damian, more than happy to stick it to the (pretrendy) leftie boretariat.
As if to prove the final sentence in my last postPerhaps it’s debatable what is the most overt evil threat to our society is, but whatever it is, it’s clear the BBC will present it as a ‘friend’.
Well now we know the answer to Damian Thompson’s question, it cost £100,000 of taxpayers money
The BBC claim….
A spokeswoman from the BBC said: “A request for an interview inside the prison was initially rejected by the MoJ. We went to judicial review because the case raises matters of significant public interest including the extradition of British citizens to be tried in other countries and the length of detention without charge or trial.
“A TV interview is important as it gives audiences the context to make up their own minds on what they have seen and heard. The judges agreed with our position, ordering the MoJ to pay costs.”
Sounds good doesn’t it? Except where the BBC is concerned it usually means making sure the message that they want to be conveyed is seen and heard. Any doubts about what line the BBC will pursue on his behalf can be deduced from the articles they have produced on the subject already.
BBC wins right to broadcast prisoner interview. along with Babar Ahmad appeals for trial to be held in UK “I absolutely reject any allegation that I supported terrorism in any way, in any place, whether in Afghanistan, Chechnya or any other part of the world.”
Typical BBC = Betraying British Citizens
Andy ‘Wake Up To Manny’ Verity is what passes for a financial broadcaster on Radio 5 Rusting iron Lung. In case you’re wondering just what kind of an arse he is he follows on Twitter inter alia, Balls, Miliband E, Toynbee, Umunna, Tom Watson, Rageh Omaar, Alan Rusbridger, Newscorpwatch, NoTWhacking etc etc. Views are his own of course.
Anyhoo, he sees it as his role whenever he interviews a representative of a public company to play the leftie student activist. (He’s in his 40s FFS).
He was literally shouting at a Thames Water (I think) director today.
‘Why are you paying out millions in dividends when you could be spending the money repairing leaks?’
Ok, Andy, how bout ever company in the BBC Pension Fund stops paying a dividend. What would that do to the value of the pension fund? Do you think it would be able to afford to pay your Final Salary pension when you get there?
Oh, wait, forget that, the BBC would just harvest the magic money tree – ie the mug licence payer – to refund the pension scheme.
Not only is Verity as thick as pig-shite, he’s bloody rude too. Company execs should just boycott the station and stop wasting their time appearing on it.
…usual apology to pigs
So this Babar Ahmed is innocent eh?
Aren`t they all…especially by the time the media trainers, `uman rites briefs and the local Muslim “cheridee” have done with them.
On the World At One, his amblings around Chechnya, Bosnia and the like would suggest he had plenty weddings to set up the PA for.
Funny too that not all are called to be shaheed for the cause…the BBC would rather whites got sent to the USA than this young chap who was only touring European Unis in order to get that course of his.
Why do these fearsome souljas of Allah prefer to hide up the dress of a Belgian ECHR judge and plead for trial under the kaffir and not face real justice?
For people who despise the West and its decadent jurisprudence, they seem awful keen to suck up to Mansfield, Robertson and their BBC pals when it suits them…wonder why?
BBC Ten o’ Clock News.
People don’t like the hosepipe ban…. ‘I won’t be able to fill up Jacob’s paddling pool (whine, whinge).’
FFS
Ex-Grauniad ‘journalist’, now Newsnight ‘journalist’, Allegra Stratton, slanders Boris Johnson: claims vested (and only) interest in calling for scrapping of ’50p’ tax rate.
Sorry I don’t have a link.
Newsnight, 5th April, 2012.
Yes, though Kirsty Wark is almost as guilty:
Allegra S: So this morning Boris has published what he earns, which is over £400,000, which is a lot of money. But he’s also published what he pays in tax, over £200,000, which is also a huge amount of money. We’ve also heard from Brian…
Kirsty W (interrupting): and of course he did campaign to reduce the 50p tax rate.
Allegra S: Indeed, indeed, we now know, we now know fully why.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01fkbvw/Newsnight_05_04_2012
(beginning 39 minutes in)
Boris’s campaign team should demand a ‘clarification’ of that remark, at the very least.
‘Craig says:
April 6, 2012 at 7:10 am
Boris’s campaign team should demand a ‘clarification’ of that remark, at the very least.
Maybe the answer will be that they can’t comment on ‘jokes’ made ‘live’ by professional, objective, news journalists, as gleaned from my tasking of editorial process, which also confuses David P as to continuity in defence of impartiality:
‘remember the cognitive dissonance between the ubiquitous claim that they try for a balanced panel with this new claim that they make no editorial judgment about the panelists. ‘
So… a biased Beebette (floodlit Spanish-villa tennis court-owning Labour supporter) asks an irrepressible Beebette ‘Political Editor’ (sourced from a lesser ‘speaking for the nation’s politics’ paper than many others) loaded questions on a loaded topic and gets a loaded, cryptic answer designed to damage by smear as their man is gasping in hypocrisy and needs the spotlight moved away from pronto.
Unique.
I may ask BBC complaints to explain, more fully why, too. Especially as Newsnight has shut down its blog thread, where such questions were posed (never answered) in the past.
Should be fun.
I did note that they moved on to Ken’s ‘muddle’ which, given the hole he has dug already could not be ignored.
Stupid of Boris to procrastinate and use semantics, which Ken leapt on, to ‘ah-ha’s’ all round, but in a next day review, it was odd that while Ken was quick, and supported in highlighting a weasel attempt, his own subsequent shenanigans were played down as ‘entirely OK’, especially by one of the BBC classes screaming for openness on high pay whist being a bit less clear on where theirs comes from and goes to.
Note also the Toady bias this am – an uncritical comment by Evan Davies on Ken’s Taxes. Repeated the lie that he had paid 34.5% tax wheras anyone who takes the slightest interest will be aware that this is, at best, extremely misleading or, at worst, a complete falsehood (although the disparity was mentioned in passing by another reporter). The true figure is much nearer to 14.5%. He also sniped that Boris’s income was much greater than Ken’s.
Later on, the stridently anti-bloodsports programme broadcasted a nauseating puff peace about fishing (notably the favoured occupation of working class Labourites).
The BBC – “Bias is in our genes.)
Anti- bloodsports, but pro fishing? And fishing the preserve of the working classes? Shome mishtake….
Add it the body of evidence.
10 years ago today (Thursday, April 4), the BBC was actually reporting on violence against Jews. Guess who’s to blame:
French Jews call protest after attacks
Sunday’s demonstration, called by the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions, is also due to express support for Israel, whose most recent actions in the Palestinian territories have prompted international dismay.
The killing of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army is widely believed to have stoked hostility towards Jews among France’s four million-strong Muslim population.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même Narrative.