The Open Threads are in overdrive these days…..with Labour mouldering in opposition, the Public resistant to global warming propaganda, immigration undermining Britain and Islamic teachings in the spotlight, the BBC itself is in overdrive to re-educate us, to sweep the bad under the carpet, to paint a glorious picture of Life as it should and could be if only we’d listen to, if only we’d co-operate with, our Betters. They have so much to teach us.
Do you think the homosexual community in Russia have mistaken the meaning of celebrating Ramadan ?
Whose side is BBC-NUJ on, or is it ‘neutral’?:-
“Gibraltar And Falklands Pose New Battle For UK.
“Spain is said to be seeking Argentine support for a ‘united front’ at the UN against Britain over Gibraltar and the Falklands.”
George R writes:
“Whose side is BBC-NUJ on, or is it ‘neutral’?:-
Other than stating the bleeding obvious lets look at what the bbC has to say on it’s own What are the competing claims over Gibraltar?
Are there any other underlying reasons?
Spanish PM Mariano Rajoy has said he hopes talks with the UK will end the current row over Gibraltar but he’s prepared to “take legal measures to defend the interests of Spanish citizens”.Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo has declared “the party’s over”. He threatened to charge motorists 50 euros (£43) for crossing the border, impose flight restrictions and investigate the tax status of 6,000 Gibraltarians who have properties in Spain. On recent occasions new, rigorous border checks have resulted in six-hour queues.There have also been reports that Spain may take the row to the UN.
And here is what the bbC is leaving out of the whole equation
The corruption scandal roiling the Spanish government is spilling over the borders after Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy confronted the U.K over the disputed territory of Gibraltar on Spain’s southern coast.The spat blew up days after Rajoy told the Spanish parliament he made a mistake in supporting his People’s Party’s former treasurer, Luis Barcenas, who has admitted to running a secret slush fund for senior party officials. Barcenas’s allegation that Rajoy accepted illegal cash payments before taking office has created a firestorm in Spain, helping wipe out most of the PP’s opinion-poll lead over its Socialist rival.
“It’s all about timing,” Alejandro Quiroga, a lecturer in Spanish history at Newcastle University in northeast England, said in a telephone interview. “It’s kind of suspicious.”Quiroga said Garcia-Margallo’s protest was likely driven by Rajoy’s political problems. The reef was installed more than a week before the minister reacted.
The confrontation has helped push the Barcenas story down the agenda, even as Spaniards took to social media to denounce that they called a government attempt to steer news coverage away from its internal problems.
forgot to insert the link
Is BBC-NUJ keen to explore abuses of UK mass immigration?:-
“EXCLUSIVE: Government urged to probe bogus migrant brides crying rape just to get UK visas”
Saturday 10th August, 8.00 – 9.00 pm, decided to watch BBCs program on “Predators”. Top predators examined were from four different habitats – great white shark (oceans), peregrine falcon (air), cheetah (land), and crocodile (rivers). The photography was excellent.
The question I posed was, how long would it be before the commentator mentioned “Climate Change”? Minutes ticked by. 30 mts gone, and yet no mention of the dreaded CC. 45 mts gone and no CC yet.
I was getting a bit worried. 50 mts gone and no CC. Seriously worried for the health of the BBC commentator. Then at last, 08.55 pm, with just a few minutes to spare before the credits rolled, I was relieved that no BBC employee was hurt in the making of the program.
Like you DP111 I now cannot watch any BBC ‘nature’ programmes without waiting for the Climate Change warnings to be slipped in. I stop watching what the porgramme is really about and sit there, getting huffier and huffier, thinking ‘I will be quite disappointed if this is the one where they have shown they are changing their ways’. However it is always there – I wish they would make their stupid CC comments in the fist five minutes and then I could concentrate on the programme.
Deborah – spot on post. I feel exactly the same way if ever I venture these days to sample a BBC natural history programme. I just know they are going to ruin it all with the Officially-Sanctioned CGAW meme at some point or other.
How extraordinary that one would spend so much time, not enjoying a programme one’s chosen to watch, but waiting for a mention of something one doesn’t want to hear. Might I suggest another channel? National Geographic is rather good? Or perhaps something more overtly sado-masochistic?
Afternoon Quisling Jack McT,
How extraordinary that one would spend so much time, not understanding that the Quisling Broadcasting Corporation is funded by a compulsory poll-tax. And that it should be impartial and not have any agendas. Might I suggest a stronger argument (though I realise that is a function of intellect) or a more appropriate website? One that is overtly Quisling such as CiF (the one that used to be based in Manchester but then found it a bit too proley)?
Ha, ha. ‘Quisling’, I’m flattered! Agree on the tax – I avoid it, easy to do – but not sure about some of the arguments expressed here which seem to be ‘bias ok as long as we agree with it’. (I’m new to the site so forgive me if I’m wrong.) All the energy here should be channeled into something useful, like protesting against the licence fee. What is the Cif by the way?
“bias ok as long as we agree with it’.”
I think you will find that most commentators on here want media plurality, but I guess you would have to know something about this site to know that.
Jack McT – never heard of 28gate then?!
Understand if you haven’t, in which case it is basically about a secret BBC meeting with ‘climate change’ activists, promising full support of the AGW agenda in all aspects of BBC broadcasting.
Thus the posts you are querying – basically knowing ‘what’s coming’ because BBC inclusion of the AGW narrative is inevitable, and posters like Phil, Deborah and DP111 feeling anger/frustration at this shameless bias going completely unchecked.
No, I hadn’t heard of it actually, thanks for the tip off. Just googled, shocking – and barely covered, which is more shocking. Someone asked me to explain ‘constructive’ earlier. That’s constructive, not mindless slagging off – of me in particular!
Not BBC bias but dishonest reporting from its print partner, The Guardian.
A few days ago the Guardian printed a photograph on its front page of a dead skeletal polar bear with what appeared to be a few “scientists” behind it. They were saying it was proof that “melting ice floes” were preventing the poor polar bears from finding their food source, seals.
The Daily Caller news site yesterday had an article where a scientist accompanying the expedition said that the climate scientists had captured the polar bear in April and waited three months until it died in order to use a photograph of its body to push their “melting Arctic” narrative. It seems that the bear was old, having been captured around ten years ago and radio collared. The whistleblowing scientist said that there was no way the bear had died in the way the climate alarmists had said and a gave more natural reason for its demise (old age or disease). The fact the climate scientists waited three months for the bear to die shows the callous nature of these alarmists.
I’m unable to post a link to the article. I’m hoping someone with more online nous may be able to do, if you are interested.
Your wish is my command .
Hi Jack, you wrote, “Or perhaps something more overtly sado-masochistic?”
The BBC should be forced, just before the program starts, to show a huge green triangle…full screen one, (a-la C4 porno triangles, but much bigger….and greener) just so we know there is gonna be some bullshit contained in the program about climate change.
The BBC are so predictable, its a joke. I’m thinking of laying on a book for BBC nature programs.
CC in first quarter – 3:1
CC in second quarter – 2:1
CC in third quarter – even money
CC in last quarter – odds on 1:3
Watched a program on the seven ages of a star- no chance of CC here.. The commentator delivered information in a breathless manner, as if the research was new and astounding.
Then the time spent in walking to the telescope, introducing the scientists, all of them experts in the field, and then what happens – the information was trite and trivial, and known for decades.
After sitting through 25 mts., decided to use the remote control.
There was a time when the BBC Horizon program was excellent – a very long time ago. Now its just a waste of time.
I notice no odds on ‘no mention of CC’ – but as it never happens you couldn’t offer any.
Very true. Well spotted.
No bookie will ever put himself in such a situation.
from previous ‘open thread’-
“Former BBC director general ‘involved in angry exchange outside home with Channel 4 crew who asked him about Savile scandal'”
I see that the Pope wants mutual respect between Christians and Muslims…..The BBC chip in with the news that @”Our correspondent says he is preparing major reforms of the Vatican bureaucracy as a result of scandals involving Vatican finances and clerical sexual abuse of minors.”….
Funny how their “Correspondent” can be so candid with his assumptions where Christianity is concerned, but “sexual abuse of minors” is off limits when involving the religion of peace in ant way shape or form…
No mention of reforms to the bbc bureacracy as a result of scandals involving bbc finances and bbc presenter sexual abuse of minors.
Today’s lead story on BBC news (and their website) is a pure piece of propaganda for the Labour Party.
“UK wages decline among worst in Europe”
And what is the story based on?
An undated House of Commons Library research paper sought out by the Labour Party.
I don’t suppose any government minister noticed it.
If this isn’t bias then I’m a Swedish Somali.
This was also featured – as the headline item, I seem to remember – on the 10 o’ clock news last night. Blatantly engineered by Labour/BBC (figures come from the Commons library at Labour’s request) we were told by our intrepid correspondent this has changed the debate on the economy to ‘what kind of recovery is this?’
The absence of any analysis of why living standards have dropped, or statement of the inconvenient fact that under Labour the country lived the life of a rock star on a window cleaner’s wages so some kind of correction might have been expected, or debate as to whether expectations of continually rising living standards are realistic, made this yet another thinly-disguised piece of agenda-setting for Labour.
The BBC – taking your money to broadcast on behalf of The Labour Party.
Don’t often watch BBC news but when I catch the evening paper review it never ceases to amaze with the review guests. Tonight we have a governor of the LSE (enough said) and an Indian born journalist, expect a similar ‘balance’ most evenings…
Did anybody watch the news today on News/24 and the come across the 1/2 hour program on Yemen. Wow what an eye opener, The bBC actually had Al Q memebers on TV saying that they are scared of UAVs and that the Americans are killing indiscriminately. The bBC then went around the country asking people what they saw and in a large number of air strikes, the mentioned that while a UAV was up above they saw 2 aircraft fly by. The fact remains the US doesn’t operate manned aircraft in the region. UAVs maybe but the only manned aircraft in the region are…Yemeni. In fact if you listened to the people speaking they blame…the Yemeni government and not the US. Of course the one thing that Muslims (And the elft) will always blame for their lot is the US, but the bBC really have gone out of their way in which to expose the ‘well how many’ people who have been killed in Yeman from above which is why the locals are terrorist of US drones. So on that note how many people (In total) have been killed by UAV in Yemen
Drones strikes number
Hardly earth shaking in a country which is bigger than Spain,Iraq and Sweden. But the bBC wants you feel that millions are dying . Here watch for yourself the bias the bbC infuses into the British daily news
The bBC, the fifth column, Terrorist apologists and traitors within our midst
In the year to march 2012 , over 2000 people were killed in Yemen and over 22,000 injured and yet according to the bbC the people there are more scared of drone strikes (184 killed in 2012 or more apt 82 in 2011) than they are of getting shot by accident (or on purpose) by allah’s little helpers. On top of that is the Al Q insurgency which from 2001 to 2012 has claimed 2207 lives. Then there’s the Shia insurgency in the country which since 2004 has claimed 25,000 lives. in fact last year 686 people died (if not more) yet for a country riven with Islam on Islam sponsored killings, the bBC instead try to promote the view that people are terrified of US drones.
The bBC, the propaganda arm of Islamic terrorism
What do you know 5 Yemeni soldiers were killed today by Al Q. Yet according to the bBC it is the US who are doing the killing and not Islamic terrorists. (I mean come on who the hell interviews Al Q terrorists in a safe house and lets them opine they are terrified of getting killed from above,) But hey when Islamic terrorists are doing the killing the bBC will ensure you know they are fighting a just war
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/9/allen-west-white-boys-bus-beating-wheres-jesse-jac/… allen west..the best black president america never had
Top top genuinely straight talkin’ man! Major “cojones” as they say! Could definitely do with him back here in the UK.
Taking on the piety police, Paul Mason and Newsnight…
“The BBC recently carried a story about how women are particularly harassed online. This was mostly justified by an interview with a woman who stated that ‘men are trained to hate women’.”
Quote : “As someone who was raised in the UK, I have a lot of respect for the journalism of the BBC…but so much of that evaporated in an instant when our intrepid reporter, Paul Mason, accepts this explanation that certain women are given a hard time because…”
‘Men are raised to hate women’
Be warned!! There’s an appearance by an individual who has come to be known as ‘Big Red’. Be strong, hold tight…
“We do not hate you, f*ck face”
For those wondering about ‘elevatorgate’…
A video explanation…
Richard Dawkins’ retort that created even more fuss…
Shame that, in example, he cites a lot from ‘The Young Ones’, which the BBC can easily dismiss as from ‘a different time’.
He’s also showing a certain sweet faith in his conclusion that the complaints system is actually there to address matters of accuracy or abuse.
He’s on stronger ground with his examples, which seem pretty clear cut, and of course music teacher come economics come IT reporter Paul Mason’s rather credulous role in serving up whatever his fellow travellers want unchallenged. Be funny if those who support him get knocked offside by him mass blocking them too.
The visiting Professor’s loss to the BBC can only be Channel 4’s gain.
And given the Mehdi Hasan-like downward audience spiral, one can only presume the ever fewer people prepared to pay to listen to him will be met with ever greater appearances on shows hosted by those who have exchanged his contact details across their mutual vast iArray of uniquely-funded toys.
Reed: I came here to post the same video; I’m glad you beat me to it. That Newsnight feature made my blood boil.
Unfortunately, Paul Mason clearly doesn’t like receiving feedback from viewers (or, indeed, any kind of free speech…). A tech blogger who (very politely) asked Mason to comment on the above video received the following response from the sanctimonious twit:
…And, as if to prove a point, the young man was promptly added to the Block Bot “troll” list!
‘Paul Mason clearly doesn’t like receiving feedback from viewers (or, indeed, any kind of free speech’
I shall have to add ‘innovative story telling’ to ‘unique’ as meaning something very different on the planet some in the media inhabit, vs. Earth.
There are also clearly several valid points/questions posed that Mr. Mason and/or the BBC (if he is unwilling) need to answer on a purely professional basis, as claims being made unchallenged amount to facilitating propaganda, on top of evident inability to recognise and promote accuracy.
What an unbelieveably arrogant response from someone who calls himself a ‘journalist’!
“Creepy misogyny is blocked off this timeline”
Wow. I’ll bet he didn’t watch a second of the video, and just assumed that ANY argument at variance with Newsnight’s line just HAD to be sexism from a woman hater.
Deeply pathetic for a journalist – someone who is supposed to have an open and inquiring mind. It’s good that some at least took him to task in your link – not that he was listening.
A journalist with a tin ear AND blinkers! Only at the BBC.
I guess this explains all those vicious Beeboid remarks about Sarah Palin……
I heard that and was amazed that Mason didn’t even attempt to challenge it as a ridiculous simplification and overstatement – clearly he agreed with the speaker.
I seem to remember that it was Stella Creasy who said it but when I replayed the edition of Newsnight I couldn’t find it – surely the BBC doesn’t send stuff down the memory hole?
I heard that and was amazed that Mason didn’t even attempt to challenge it as a ridiculous simplification and overstatement – clearly he agreed with the speaker.
“The Open Threads are in overdrive these days…..with Labour mouldering in opposition, the Public resistant to global warming propaganda, immigration undermining Britain and Islamic teachings in the spotlight, the BBC itself is in overdrive to re-educate us, to sweep the bad under the carpet, to paint a glorious picture of Life as it should and could be if only we’d listen to, if only we’d co-operate with, our Betters. They have so much to teach us.”
Article on Dawkins getting into hot water with his one-eyed Leftist acolytes. A crime far greater even than farting loudly during a communal rendition of ‘Imagine’ at a North Oxford humanist wedding – yes, he’s had a pop at…Islaaaaam.
‘I said that his fall would sooner or later come. I said that the problem would be Islam. He knows, as all sane men must, that it is a unique & pressing problem in the world…They know…that to say such a thing is not only less fun than insulting Christians (& a hell of a lot less safe) but also strictly prohibited, on the grounds that many Muslims are non-Caucasian. I could tell…that he was finding it harder & harder to resist the call to reason…It was like he was willing them to see it his way, to use all the capital he had earned bigging up gay marriage & slagging off George Bush to get them to take a step towards him for once, just this once…
Sorry, mate: they’re idiots.
And I told you that, too.’
The BBC love the Olympics
But might yet another BBC manager be for the high jump?
Show fixed, next news bear shits in woods, pope found to be…yeah you guessed the next bit.
How on earth did this one get through on BBC 5 Live this morning?
Naturally the Beeboids wanted to talk about the Labour Party and British jobs for British workers (TM Gordon Brown)
But their guest suddenly came out with this…..
Spokesman from Ipsos MORI :
‘The British public think there is too much immigration – to be honest they always have’
I had to pinch myself to be sure that I was not still asleep.
Normal service will be resumed
This only tells the BBC that they must work harder to properly educate the public. Unapproved thoughts must be stamped down.
Do you contribute to the licence fee from the USA David? I have many complaints about the BBC but I feel strongly that as it’s us British people that pay for it, it’s us British people that get to criticise. Or is that being racist??!!
Hmm not really a good argument is it when the BBC interfere in U.S politics all day long using our cash ! David has a right to be annoyed !
No just parochial.
Annoyed, fair enough, steering into that American habit of telling the rest of the world what’s best, less so. Personally, if ‘parochial’ means believing that those overseas should pay to watch/listen/read the BBC just as we’re forced to, to them I’m happy to be a parochialist of the first order.
So I’m supposed to sit by quietly while the BBC calls me a racist, pushes lies to the world about major stories, and tries to interfere with local politics? No thank you.
Not at all; I simply think you and your countrymen should pay for the ‘privilege’.
“Shut up,” he explained.
Give Jack McT his due – he has tremendous comedy value.
‘I simply think you and your countrymen should pay for the ‘privilege’.’
As a favour, please run the notion of right of reply on a nationalistic paid meter, especially on matters the BBC imposes globally, by the BBC’s finest and see how they and their merry on-call band of NGOs rate that notion.
There’s a few fearful communities on speed dial I can think of right away who may deem such an access deal as contrary to certain cherished rights.
Please stay longer. You are great value.
Jack – But the BBC claims to be a ‘world broadcaster’, in which case anyone in the ‘world’ receiving their broadcasts, particularly when their own country is on the receiving end of BBC bias, can see fit to criticise – no?
Jack McT, I’m not sure if you are a genuine newcomer, or one of our regular trolls posting under a new name. The content of your posts seem to be less inquisitive and more judgemental of our regular correspondents.
I suspect you could be Colditz or NickedEmus trying a different method to disrupt this blog.
I am a newcomer Andy although you’ll have to take my word for that. (I am intrigued to know what Colditz and Nicked Emus were up to though!) No, I just believe in a more pluralist media and abhor the very idea of the licence fee. I often rail against the Beeb but sometimes find myself entertained or enlightened by it too. Disappointed therefore to find that this site isn’t a bit more constructive. Although, as I say that’s just an initial impression. I’ll reserve judgement. Oh, I can’t promise I won’t change my name to ‘Quisling’ as someone termed me earlier. I quite like it!
I’m bored with people who come here claiming they’re concerned about BBC bias but never contribute to exposing it, and just criticize instead. None of you ever manages to post a comment highlighting BBC bias, to show us how to do it properly. Why not help out instead? If you honestly think there’s a valuable service to be provided, that is. You claimed to often rail against the Beeb, so let’s you see you do it here.
Sorry you’re bored David, I’ll try harder. Interested you didn’t pick up on the overseas payment thing….
Interested that I didn’t get distracted by your smokescreen?”
” a bit more constructive.”
Like having a dig at valuable contributor because the BBC broadcast their out put overseas.
To people who aren’t required to have a license for a Television receiver .
Your energy would be better spent asking why you do have to have one, regardless of what you watch.
I wasn’t ‘having a dig’. I did say that I appreciate it’s not his fault that he doesn’t pay. Some of my best friends are Americans, as the saying goes, but I still don’t think Beeb content should be free overseas! I horrified to see a lot of you think it should be. It’s a;; part of the same problem as far as I can see – lack of true accountability. As for paying here: as I’ve said, I don’t. It’s very easy, and legal, not to – and you can even watch BBC content!
So, Jack, am I right that you don’t pay for the BBC either, yet you feel justified in telling me to shut up because I don’t pay for it?
‘I suspect you could be Colditz or NickedEmus’
I was guessing a mash-up with a dash of PNG.
The irony level bears this out:
‘Disappointed therefore to find that this site isn’t a bit more constructive. ‘
All praying for one here to lose it and then we can have a full ‘hate site’ report threat and pram/toy ejection flounce.
Meanwhile, in BBC Newsnight FaceBook, or Guardian CiF, the sparks are really flying, foully, and nary a name from the flying circus here to be found to raise so much as a house rule. Tsk.
Hmmm, no. If I don’t find it useful, entertaining, constructive, whatever, I shall just go; no flouncing – not my thing. Apologies, I’m probably a bit macho. Not understanding some of these posts though: ‘mash up with a dash of PNG’??? If I’m not banned, I’ll stick around a while longer but I have to tell you, I’m not feeling the love!
‘I’m not feeling the love!
But… you have a ‘like’.
So it’s all around you!
Shame you posted, so much, so very much, without lurking first awhile.
Then you’d know PNG is another poster, so banned he’s always around, chipping in, adding value.
Ironically he chose the name ‘Persona Non Grata’.
Imagine that, you big macho guy, you.
Lurk first, speak later. I’m learning! I’m going to shut up for a while, although it’s curiously addictive…
‘Lurk first, speak later. I’m learning!
See… education and information: free!
‘I’m going to shut up for a while’
Probably for the best.
Before you go, Jack, please explain what you mean by ‘constructive’. An example would be very helpful.
So……..why not take the BBC’s stance on ‘climate change’ as a theme for showing us the way.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like….oh you get the idea!
The BBC broadcasts 24 hours a day in the US, Jack. Not only the World News but with BBC World News America, a news program produced in the US and targeted specifically at a US audience. Then there’s the fact of the BBC website and the BBC’s ever-increasing efforts to attract US eyeballs and the accompanying ad revenue. Not to mention the spreading of poison about US issues to my friends and acquaintances in Britain and elsewhere.
With over 100 BBC employees in the US producing “journalism” and “bespoke” video magazine pieces, I have every right to be concerned. Your own anti-US prejudices are irrelevant.
Yes, but you don’t have to PAY for it David. Not your fault I know but very wrong in my opinion. Not anti-US at all by the way; went to college there and love the place.
I see you’re still unable to address the fakery issue and instead are shooting the messenger.
He’s a troll.
Like I said, ‘not feeling the love’!
Just a simple query, Mr McT…but why do you assume that David Preiser and his fellow countrymen pay nothing to the BBC ? If, like most people in the US, he pays for a satellite or cable package, BBC will be bundled into that, and the BBC will receive a payment from the US service provider. i.e. unless BBC is provided free to all TV users in the US (and my experience of watching TV all over the US is that it emphatically is not), then, by definition, David Preiser IS paying for the BBC, if he has a package containing BBC output.
Now, would that we in the UK could have the option of choosing not to pay for BBC….
That’s not quite the same thing is it? To my knowledge much of what the BBC provides abroad/in the US is offered for free. And now that the licence fee will also pay for the BBC World Service, it will become even less justifiable. I don’t agree with all this content being accessed for free, whether it’s in the US or Afghanistan.
‘To my knowledge much…
Love the smell of a retroactive caveat in the evening.
‘I don’t agree with all this content being accessed for free..
I don’t agree with a large chunk being pants, yet anyone in the UK seeking broadcast material elsewhere being required to fund it no matter what.
Currently that’s the poo that pervades.
“Love the smell of a retroactive caveat in the evening.”
LOL, comment of the day!
“I don’t agree with all this content being accessed for free, whether it’s in the US or Afghanistan. “
I agree. Even if the overseas broadcasts are funded by advertising, the original content within these broadcasts is created using UK licence fee payers money. Without this, there’d be no content to broadcast in the first place.
…but then, I don’t pay for Fox News, and some of their sneering, boorish anti-British* ‘presenters’ piss me right off, so I guess it levels out.
*this mostly seeps out when any Royal event occurs. It appears that the most aggressive, right-wing ‘American exceptionalists’ have quite an inferiority complex when the world focuses on this decaying little backwater.
Jack clearly doesn’t understand reality here. Advertising dollars pay for the BBC website when I view it. That’s how the commercial world works. That’s on top of whatever license fee money pays for upkeep and “journalist” salaries. I no longer pay for cable TV (too expensive for the tiny amount I watch), but the BBC does get a nice chunk of change from those who do pay, as well as a gargantuan amount of advertising dollars for programming on BBC America, and a healthy dose of cash from PBS stations for syndication of BBC World News and BBC World News America. These all may be free to the end user at point of use, but they’re hardly free gifts to us. Radio is a different matter, and I suppose Jack might have a point on that score. But then he’d equally have to object to all non-commercial internet radio on principle.
Even if none of this were true, I should still have a right to complain about the BBC telling the world that I’m a racist or someone who supports killing innocent black children in cold blood or that my ethnic group controls foreign policy.
David it goes to BBC Worldwide Ltd – not to ‘us’. An American, or any national, does not pay at point of use for BBC material – and yes, radio is free. My original point was your ‘right’ to enter the debate about the Today interview this morning which was about UK domestic politics. You weren’t complaining about the BBC calling you ‘a racist’, or accusing you of ‘killing innocent black children’, or your ethnic group (what is your ethnic group??!!) controlling foreign policy (which I agree, you would be entitled to complain about), you were commenting on coverage of domestic UK affairs which to my mind, are none of your business as a non-UK citizen.
Who gave you the authority to issue certificates giving people the right to comment? If I disagree with an editorial by the New York Times am I supposed not to comment because I do not pay for it? What a feeble argument.
Do you understand what an argument is Wild? I am making a comment – a statement; that’s not the same as an argument. I questioned the validity of his contribution, not the contribution itself. By the way, just try posting comments like David’s on an equivalent US site and see the response you get! Americans, like most nations, are a little more patriotic about their own affairs. We Britis seem to have opened ourselves up for sale to the highest bidder.
” I questioned the validity of his contribution, not the contribution itself.”
Expand…if you can.
“I questioned the validity of his contribution, not the contribution itself.”
Try to work out for yourself what is wrong with that statement. If you cannot spot what is wrong with it, why would anybody (and that includes me) waste their time arguing with you?
You won’t bother arguing? Or you can’t? You accuse me of obfuscation and then fold. Honestly, just because I question the validity of what turns out to be your all-American hero I’m not entitled to a view? And I’m British? That’s rich, really it is. By the way, the statement is self-explanatory. Read it carefully, read it again, look up each word in a dictionary, seek out its etymology and then reconsider. It’s not rocket science. Jeez!
Congratulations, in a thread in which
Albaman wonders why anybody would think that the Bible is of any importance in understanding Western culture, you have become a contender for the dimmest contributor of the week. To be assured of winning please ignore anybody who draws your attention to the words, hole, digging, stop.
This is becoming a Monty Python sketch ., “What did Bbc World do for us , is it free or not to free . If David P gets it for free or not ,so what , he is still entitled to comment on on what he is paying for or not , I don`t care , he in the past has found massive amounts of bias/ from the bbc `s lefty journo`s& Twitter feeds ! Go David ,keep up the good work ,& as a non enforced payer of this lefty crap , he can see it from a overseas viewer/listener .
And I haven’t told you to ‘shut up’ David. You however, as a ‘valuable contributor’ have closed a thread to me so I can no longer debate with you. What are you afraid of? That people will agree that British affairs are best handled by British citizens and tax payers? There are too many foreigners meddling in this country already.
David is the American correspondent of Biased BBC, filling in the gaps left out by the politically biased BBC. If he makes a comment about European politics and makes a fool of himself he is exercising his freedom of speech. As the BBC is one of the biggest media organizations in the world, he is just as entitled as you are to make a comment, especially if he views its influence as pernicious. Did you not say that you do not pay the License Fee? According to your logic this excludes you from making a comment about the BBC, in which case why are you here?
Well then David should say he’s the ‘American correspondent’ so his points can be read in context. Still disagree that he is ‘entitled’ as I am – I am a British citizen and taxpayer living in Britain. And it is the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation after all. As for the license fee – it covers content consumed ‘as it is broadcast’. Therefore a consumer accessing non-live content and not paying the fee has just as much validity as one who is — they’re simply not as stupid! The Beeb’s supposed impartiality is as relevant to me as they are to fee payers. Still wondering why David closed the debate though…touched a nerve perhaps?
You’re an idiot – and that’s reason enough!
There we go with that incisive debate again. An ‘idiot’, Teddy Bear, is a person with an IQ under 25 and a mental age below three. Even though you don’t know me, an person of any intelligence could reasonably deduce that my IQ is considerably higher than that. I wonder if yours is though. There are some interesting arguments around here but far too many trite simpletons who bat away a discussion with abuse. I fear the Beeb will remain the unassailable citadel it is for a long time to come…
Well done, Jack – a masterclass in obfuscation. Not a hint of a scintilla of the tiniest contribution to the bias debate which is this site’s raison d’ etre.
Personally I don’t care whether you’re new to the site or a crusty old troll trying yet another wheeze to disrupt. What matters to me when I come on here is to read and sometimes contribute towards examples of BBC bias – if you stick around for long enough or take the time to read through old posts you’ll find they are legion and, in the vast majority of cases, unopposed by the BBC supporters who occasionally grace us with their presence.
So…..’not feeling the love’, eh? Suggest you take your cue from the end of the Abbey Road album – it will teach you all you need to know on that subject, Jim.
You have to applaud Jack McT. Posting here under a new name and already he’s disrupted and diverted the arguments on this latest Open Thread. Best not to give him any more encouragement.
What was my old name?! Sorry, I take your point about the digression, it wasn’t intentional although it has been enlightening – and surreal. But before I even had a chance to post any examples of bias, I’d been hammered from all sides. Goodness knows why! I would have thought bias believers would be welcome!
‘Not feeling the love’.
Was it Jim Dandy or Nicked Emus who last used that?
Coincidence or magic? You decide, readers.
Jack, I have closed no thread to stifle debate. Please retract your defamatory remark.
The (USA) after my name should have given you a clue. It’s there in response to angry protest when I first started posting comments here that I was doing so without informing people where I’m from. The BBC, even thought it’s officially your State Broadcaster, broadcasts and produces a not insignificant amount of news and video magazine content in the US, targeted at a US audience. You simply have no basis to dismiss my right to complain. If you want to shut me up, tell the BBC to get the hell out of my country and stop the dishonest, partisan journalism.
You’re still avoiding all debate of BBC bias by attempting to discredit the messenger. It won’t work on me.
I’m listening to the Underpants Bryant interview on Today. Despite Bruant’s “fellow traveller” Evan Davies best shot to defend him Bryant is ordering his own firing squad to open fire.
The most pathetic interview I have heard in years.
A vey odd interview indeed with huge tracts (‘from the outset’) where Underpants was allowed to ramble on un-interrupted. Very un-Davies-like, but of course, I forgot! Underpants isn’t aTory.
And I see that Davies, in one of his helpfully crafted summaries, echoed Underpant’s bleat that the ‘Telegraph’ was to blame for conflating his proposed speech.
With labour and the BBC, it’s always someone else’s fault.
I heard that. When Underpants claimed that “he didn’t understand” how some incorrect facts got into the quotes used in the newspapers, Evan seemed curiously uninterested in pursuing who was responsible for these errors.
The bBBC ‘News’ website shows a gratuitous image of the ‘illegal immigrants go home’ poster to illustrate Bryant’s crass (and wrong) remarks about companies importing legal workers.
Bias, it’s in their DNA.
The full interview has kindly been uploaded so any who missed it can make their own minds up:
Including whether the author’s headline summary is fair.
As to that van poster, after a few days and several exchanges, C4 still seems to be struggling to find anyone in editorial to substantiate some of the claims (ironic given the theme of accuracy) made in this piece by reporter Fatima Manji, which have been questioned:
Perhaps, given the possible ‘implosion’ (as some critics have put it) of a poorly coordinated counter by Labour, Graun, BBC & C4, they are meeting now to figure how best to extricate themselves from another hole of their own making?
If rather spotlighting just who they work together with, and in support of what.
Impartial is a stretch.
Then of course, there’s the relative values of BBC Newsnight and C4 news…
‘For Katz it will have been a bitter blow, although the decision is not a reflection on Newsnight’s new regime but due to concerns the BBC’s strict rules might inhibit Mason’s future ambitions in writing and innovative story telling.
Such innovative story telling rather aptly describing what he and the BBC called ‘news’, and possibly not helped in future by any except sycophants who agree with him?
He’d have not let this go if it had been, say, IDS
IDS isn’t a fellow gayer though. Gays stick up each other.
Sorry, meant stick up for each other.
Davis was not only uninterested in asking who was responsible for Bryant’s errors, but pre-emptively disqualified Tesco’s and Next’s claims that there were errors by pointing out in a telling tone of voice that they wouldn’t come on and explain themselves. So doubt about claims of errors is already sown before we get to Bryant. “Let’s not get stuck down” on the Kent error, Davis said later on.
Davis did interrupt as usual, but it was to help Bryant, not to step on his points. Too bad Bryant was too thick to get it. Curiously, there were none of Davis’ patented “In other words…” mischaracterizations of his guest’s statement. If anything, he had to sit there and listen to Bryant do a Yogi Berra routine: “I never said the things that I said.”
Davis was clearly unhappy that Bryant had somehow released messed-up, “half-baked” quotes from his full speech, which have caused all this confusion. Waste of everyone’s time, apparently. Fortunately, Davis was quick enough on his feet to change gears and discuss how Labour isn’t getting their message out there enough. So a train wreck caused by Bryant’s own idiocy was happily swept aside and turned into a general Labour platform. Job done.
That’s pretty much my take on it too, but put eloquently. To read it the way some posters here have is just not possible, and it isn’t a case of differing opinions, ‘Albert’ Evans was positively bending over backwards, oo er missus, to assist Pants. Unfortunately Pants had really got his knickers in a twist over his assertions. He was wrong and lying about it and doesn’t have the benefit of the doubt which Al JaBeeBa always gave to ZaNuLaB when they were in office.
You’re quite right it was one of the most embarrassing interviews I have heard for yonks. Spineless Bryant went into reverse gear before the interview had even started. If anyone listening was tempted to vote Labour they surely changed their mind.
Thank God he was only being quizzed by Evan Davis. Imagine what Humphreys would have done to him…
One thing the BBC will never report is the demographic transformation going on.
Sure we hear about the booming birthrate, but not about the 40%+ of educated women (along with their men) who opt for “childfree” lives.
This is just about the biggest issue facing Britain and the BBC ignores it apart from the odd cheerleading of childfree icons.
There’s a great take on that in the Ruthless Truth blog in, “43%” at:
Evan ‘Albert’ Davis currently doing his best on the Toady programme to assist his ‘pal’ Chris ‘Gaydar Underpants ‘ Bryant in explaining the latter’s ill-researched and consequently much-criticised speech on cheap immigrant labour. It was all the fault of the Torygraph, apparently, conflating two different parts of Pants’ otherwise erudite speech.
In my opinion, the Labour Broadcasting Company was only accidentally a vehicle for y-front man’s ineptitude.
Interview was a car crash but only by accident because Bryant is a twit. Evan Davis was trying to be nice.
A comparison of what Underpants Bryant actually said and what he briefed the Sunday Telegraph he was going to say here:
From this it is clear that he changed what he was going to say and that he rebuttaled on the radio what he had pre-released to the Telegraph he was going to say because he had discovered that he got the facts wrong.
Dan Hodges puts the boot in here:
He says it’s rank hypocrisy because Millipede said he wasn’t going to say ‘British jobs for British workers’; instead he got Bryant to say ‘British workers for British jobs’, only he ballsed it up on the radio because he is a complete tool.
Well, well! I could hardly believe my ears this morning about 08:15 on the Today programme. Evan Davis’ slaughtered Chris Bryant in respect of his pre-released speech on the employment on foreign workers. The interviewing was devastating, giving Bryant no place to go. So, for once I will praise Davis unreservedly for doing a proper job on a Labour minister (such a rarity on the today programme). We will overlook the point that Davies called the minister “Chris” at one point – and just relish the moment.
That’s possibly ‘shadow’ minister?
From the sound of it an interesting interview worth listening to, if only to ascertain to what extent he was put on the spot, or simply blundered there of his own volition.
He was most certainly put on the spot, and was reduced to incoherent babbling at several points. It was a delight! However, I very much doubt if the interview will be made available by the lefty apparatchiks of the BBC in ‘Listen Again’ (or whatever medium it is), but I hope I’m proved wrong.
I thought Bryant was given a very easy ride. Davis didn’t challenge any part of Bryant’s criticism of the government or of Labour plans.
On bryant’s leaked speech Davis just seemed disappointed that the planned kicking of Tescos had to be put on hold because Bryant could not advance an argument. Davis also being disappointed that Labour were not being more active in producing Tory kicking material
MartinW either heard a different interview and/or he is shilling for ZaNuLiebor.
Or he has a different opinion to you.
My take is that it only looked like Davis put Bryant on the spot because Bryant is a complete cretin who couldn’t even take advantage of Davis going easy on him.
Fool me once shame on me………
Al JaBeeBa is starting to smell the coffee and realise that acquiescing to too much ZaNuLab propaganda from the likes of Pants Bryant is likely to blow their cover of ‘impartial public service broadcaster’. TWATO is currently putting out both sides of the story, just for a change, balancing yesterday’s Pants cock-up with his (politically) corrected version today.
MartinW writes too well to work for the BBC, and is too intellectually coherent to be a Labour Party shill.
More likely is that Martin, like many of us, has got used to the lowered bar.
My rule is usually to post a single comment on a particular topic, and eschew any temptation to respond to subsequent comment. Thus, I give an honest opinion briefly, free of any ‘red herrings’, and leave it at that. However, in view of the speculation, I should say I have always been a Conservative in the Tebbit mould, and on the Right (though during the present Cameron terror, a UKIP waverer). And no, I have not gotten used to a lowered bar, but constantly rail against the egregious BBC.
But in view of others’ comments, I shall listen again to Evan Davis’s interview (if it is available) and see if my first impressions were wrong. Maybe Davis didn’t give Bryant such a hard time, but he did at least make Bryant look a fool, which was a delight in itself.
Might point Martin ,was that we have become so enured to their blatant party political bias that any lessening of it, however marginal, is received with ,well, delight
No offence was meant.
Ah but Martin, you have clearly committed the cardinal sin of praising, albeit indirectly, a BBC interviewer. So do go and ‘listen again’ so you can reform yourself. I too constantly rail against the BBC, hence stumbling upon this site, but much of it seems simply to be an incoherent reverse rant. No wonder we’re still forced to fund it!
Bryant made himself look like an idiot. Davis was trying to help him set the record straight, not make it worse. Bryant couldn’t even do that properly, so Davis gently scolded him and changed the subject to general Labour Party talking points, instead of the usual “thank you very much” and ending it sooner.
“Martin, you have clearly committed the cardinal sin of praising, albeit indirectly, a BBC interviewer.”
For somebody who claims to have just stumbled upon this site he seems to have very made up ideas about how it operates.
Not claiming Wild, fact. All I had to do was read the thread from top to bottom. And now some one of the discussions I’ve taken part in with David Preiser is closed to me so I can no longer comment. I want to see change at the BBC but not an alternate form of censorship thanks.
In which case you made a sweeping statement about this site based on a handful of posts.
From your post above: ‘An ‘idiot’, Teddy Bear, is a person with an IQ under 25 and a mental age below three. Even though you don’t know me, an person of any intelligence could reasonably deduce that my IQ is considerably higher than that.
Er, not from what you’ve posted so far, mate.
Not so. Bryant was never pressed a second time on anything. When Evan Davis asked a strong question it was so long Bryant was well teed up for an answer, which was normally obfuscating i.e. I haven’t made the speech yet.
He was never pressed on the Tesco details which were presumably supplied by a trade union and was allowed to dominate and turn every question (admittedly after silences and umming and erring) by switching to gangmaster issues and the van poster/profiling – without any interruption.
He was even allowed to make a lengthy opening statement before Evan asked the first question.
Bryant is a prime twister with a good technique in speaking that few Tories have.
It helps if it is a chum interview of course.
I’m beginning to suspect that MartinW’s throwaway ‘lefty apparatchiks’ was meant to be a red herring.
So, Mr. Cameron now likes fracking! And belatedly has suddenly come to the conclusion that it can save the country, create zillions of jobs, and make everyone’s energy much cheaper. Also, there won’t be any significant blots on the rural landscape (like with the windfarms, but oddly, they didn’t even get a mention). Why the change of heart, Dave? Could it be UKIP influence, and/or the knowledge that there is an election in the offing and the natives ain’t happy?
And whilst we’re at it – flotilla on the way to the Med, calling at Gibraltar and all major stations? Bit of a coincidence, isn’t it? And what about the Spanish getting friendly with the Argies, then? Interesting times.
“BBC ‘is twice as likely to cover Left-wing news stories than Right-wing ones’ claims study.
By LUCY OSBORNE.
“Centre for Policy Studies found ‘left of centre bias’ on BBC website.
“Study compared corporation’s coverage to Daily Telegraph and Guardian.”
Opening excerpt, to above report:-
“Long-running accusations that the BBC is biased have been backed by a study that found it was twice as likely to cover Left-wing policy proposals as Right-wing ones.
“It said the BBC website tended to describe Left-wing think-tank reports as ‘independent’, while Right-wing research was given a ‘health warning’ to say it had an ideological position, the Centre for Policy Studies found.
“Oliver Latham, who wrote the Bias At The Beeb report, said: ‘Our results suggest the BBC exhibits a left-of-centre bias in both the amount of coverage it gives to different opinions and the way these voices are represented.’ “
What would you expect from the right wing Centre for Policy Studies – we can easily discredit that one …
Even though it’s provably factual?
I think Rtd Colonel was being a bit sarcastic 😉
I was indeed – oh to have a Tell Mama equivalent funded to catalogue the bbc output in a purely factual way as the study released by the CFPS to facilitate a legal case against the senior mgt and indeed the trust for breaching the charter terms …. please let me win Euromillions (Not all EU initiatives bad… ?) Lord Ashcroft if you read this site think about it – probably more value than your super polling with maceroon as leader if you can get the bbc to be less blatant than they feel they can be currently
I see what they are trying to point out, but given BBC balance assessments and ‘new maths’ (where 100 to 1 is still, semantically, just a split opinion), they’re going to struggle.
The malign influence of the BBC is to me equally dangerous when it goes beyond the sources used (though rampant selectivity can and does play a major role as the source can define the message already) but on to woeful levels of integrity and accuracy in then reporting them.
This is the stronger issue:
‘the BBC website tended to describe Left-wing think-tank reports as ‘independent’, while Right-wing research was given a ‘health warning’ to say it had an ideological position’
That’s less a matter of colour, and more subtle, but clearly shows how the most trusted media monopoly’s editorial slant is skewed to shape perceptions (albeit to suit a desired political view pro or con).
Definitions of wingism are awfully loose and vague at best, and pitching the Graun and Telegraph as red and blue extremes of a total spectrum hard to credit. Nothing but Riddell, Lean or Chivers would not make you think you are in traditional conservative territory.
I just want true balance, objectively shared.
Not some weird mixture that ticks balance boxes. Red and blue, with green & orange lobbed in too, usually means mud.
“Think tank study claims to prove that the BBC has left-wing bias”
Interview on Today with the charming chappie behind the pressure group ‘Operation Black Vote’ whose objective is to get more black and Asian voters to register and vote, particularly it seemed in many marginal seats where the ‘black vote’ is bigger than the incumbent MP’s majority. Hmmmm….
So then we hear only 16% of the ‘black vote’ goes to the Conservatives, whereas 65% goes to Labour. Hmmmmmm.. So what should the Conservatives be doing for the ‘black vote’ to appeal to them? Well, a more balanced approach to stop and search was suggested, along with stuff like equality n’ opportunity n’ education n’ equal pay n’ stuff.
No challenge from Our Evan, least of all using words such as ‘divisive’, ‘separatist’, ‘racist’, ‘entitlement’, ‘victimhood’ – you know, the sort of stuff that would be covered if a few questions were asked from a right-wing point of view for a change.
The BBC, helping keep your country divided.
Operation Black Vote should also have raised the issue of prisoner voting rights. If/when (?) it goes through there should be a significant increase in registered black voters. Or maybe Quisling Evan will mention it next time.
-Expect to hear more advocacy from political class (inc BBC-NUJ) for evemn more’positive discrimination’ for non-white, and Islamic interests as we get nearer to the General Election.
Slyly slipped into John Andrew’s preview of Cameron’s upcoming speech on fracking: ‘…Balcombe, where villagers tried to stop test drilling….’
Funny, I thought it was the professional protesters, the moronic anti-capitalist eco-fascists who put up the blockades and chained their knobs and nipples to the drilling rig (if only).
The BBC – when the lights start to go out, you’ll know who to blame.
I also thought it was oil they were drilling for so the Fracking is a complete red herring
If tying up your knob and nipples is the game, Evan ‘Albert’ Davis your man.
“I think there’s definitely a need to shout louder, and speak in a way that captures how people are thinking and feeling. There’s definitely a need to put our cards on the table. Voters have decided the coalition is a disaster, but what they aren’t yet convinced is that we have the answers”.
Could anyone shout louder than Andy ‘7 inches’ Burnham?
He has seemed almost apopletic recently in defence of his catastrophic failures whilst (nominally) presiding over the NHS.
I guess he is using the time- honoured leftist method of shouting down the opposition, a la ‘raaacist’ or ‘bigot’ or ‘little Englander’.
I heard a new euphemism on Radio 5, ” young people’ are going abroad for arranged marriages.
So it’s ‘Men’ for muslims,’yoofs’ for blacks and now ‘young people’, I think the BBC is just taking the piss.
Last week was the second anniversary of the 2011 London Race Riots. The one and only amusement of living in a Multicultural dystopian nightmare is the truly wondrous and bizarre statements they come out with to excuse black rioting, ” it was tory cuts, they closed down all our ‘yoof’ centres, Britain went off the gold standard, etc etc”
On Nick ‘the ego has landed’ Campbell, they had a black community leader ( ever heard of a white community leader ? ) and labour mp David Lammie who boasted that he wrote a 300 page book on the subject !!!
Lammie is the guy who thought that the white smoke coming out of the Vatican chimney meant they elected a white Pope, black smoke meant black Pope, he thought ‘dat’ was ‘waaycist’ !!! This is the kind of people your dealing with, thick.
What is most interesting about the Riots is not that they took place, but where they didn’t take place, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Cornwall, Devon, Cumbria, places where there is no substantial black populations.
And also the shops that they looted, sports shops for Nike trainers, Television stores and mobile phone shops. Antique and book shops were left untouched.
This always make me laugh, Harridan Kay Burley said to the bystander ‘ I hear what you’re saying” then tried to change his view and finally misquoting him, and they criticise North Korea for censorship.
Burley really is pathetic. She’d fit right in at BBC HQ.
Never seen that before, utterly appalling from Burley and good for the guy for sticking to the truth.
Wouldn’t surprise me if he became the PM at some point, he ticks all the boxes. God help this country.
As “Framer” above notes the BBC could hardly contain itself and rushed to announce the “news” (among others by Nick Owen – who couldn’t contain his glee – at 10:00pm on BBC1 last night) concerning the apparent fall in real wages since 2010. Not until we were, what, 2 minutes into this party political broadcast, were we informed that this was a House of Commons library response to a Labour question and, moreover, that the question was “loaded” (ie it specifically targeted post 2010 and ignored anything earlier). Moreover, there was no indication whether the “pay” referred to pre-tax or post-tax earnings or whether benefit top-ups were included in or excluded from the “earnings” or the variation over different pay levels. On its own terms the BBC reportage was uninformative rubbish since so much of the information to make valid comparisons was missing from the BBC’s pronouncements. In other words this was a contentious, ill-informed, slanted piece of political theatre transmitted by the BBC as unapologetic anti-government propaganda.
News24: Just had Bryants speech, they then cut to an interview with ‘Migrants support group’, then end of story. Where was the other balanced interview with say ‘migrant watch’, nope nun nada — balance: what balance!!!
I’ve noticed the subtle change of the wording, instead of ‘immigrants’, it’s now ‘migrants’.
” Immigrant specifies, generally that the travel took place from one country to another.
Migrant describes travel / movement in general, not necessarily crossing a nation’s borders. Migrant workers, for example, may well never leave their country of birth.”
Watch out for the BBC about to go absolutey doolally for this movie….
In 2009, Neill Blomkamp was hailed as a hero of “sci-fi socialism”, when his film District 9 used a script about aliens to convey a strong message about human xenophobia and racial segregation.
Now the South African-born director has delivered his follow-up, Elysium, which “deals with the growing discrepancy between rich and poor in the world”.
Elyisum is released in the UK on 16 August.
Oh really? I’ll make a point of missing it.
Fancy a good laugh?
BBC says ‘give Gibralta back to the Moors’
The very first statement in the BBC’s exploration of the issue….
‘The disputed territory’
‘Who’s had it longer?’
‘From AD711 to 1462 Gibraltar was under Moorish rule, like most of Spain’
You see BBC history don’t start with Rome or Carthage, oh no no, it starts with Mo.
“‘From AD711 to 1462 Gibraltar was under Moorish rule, like most of Spain”
Shouldn’t that be Islamic occupation ?
Islam never occupies…
It enriches…report to the BBC for some re-education, young scamp!
Hey BBC lets look at the numbers shall we:
Carthage 237 BC – 206 BC = 31 years
Roman 206 BC – 409 AD = 615 years
Vandals/Alans 409 AD – 534AD = 125 years
Byzantine Rome then Fall of Rome then Visigoths up to 711AD = 177 years
Umayyad Caliphate 711-750 = 39 years
Emirate Of Corduba 750 – 929 = 179 years
Caliphate of Corduba 929 – 1031 = 102 years
Islamic Spain breaks up into ‘Taifas’ and starts losing ground to Christians 1031-1146ish = 115 years
Almohad Caliphate – from mid 1146 ish to 1238 = 90 years
Christian Reconquista in earnest
Nasrid Dynasty holds on in Emirate of Granada 1238 – 1492 = 254 years
Catholic Christian Spanish Gibraltar 1492 – 1713 = 221 years
British Gibraltar 1713 – present = 300 years
British come in second only to the Romans and the Romans are all dead. Hooray!
Expect to see this on the Beeb exactly never.
BBC says ‘give Constantinople back to the Greeks’.
Or Jerusalem back to the Jews?
Or London back to the English?
Ha! Nice one.
Never ones to go looking for a story – well not if doesn’t fit their agenda – the BBC happily run with the annual ONS baby names statistics.
‘Harry and Amelia were the most popular first names for babies in England and Wales in 2012 – taking the top spots for the second year running.’
Well done Harry, you win with a score of 7168
But if only Muhammad (3161) Mohammed (2853) and Mohammad (1125) had got their act together they could have almost pipped Harry with 7139
Come on lads, there’s no ‘I’ in team – try to get yourselves singing from the same hymn sheet in 2013
well at least they’ve stopped naming their inbred offspring Osama.
If you combine the three spellings of the BBC’s favorite Prophet, though, I think it ends up being one slot down from the previous year, no? And surely people here must be rejoicing that, at the very least, the highest M slot remained at #19. Maybe all that conquest by immigration and Anjem Choudary’s threat of conquest by breeding haven’t come to fruition just yet.
As the BBC is claimed to err on reporting more from the Graun, at risk of a modding for too many URLs, one has to wonder how many from my morning email media summary from them will make it from print to broadcast…
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/aug/09/clare-balding-show-bt-sport? (OK, OT, but market rates mean…? And I hope ‘dondi’s’ reply to another stays up)
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/aug/09/james-harding-bbc-director-news? (note a few Paul Mason-style modding demands)
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2013/aug/09/that-puppet-game-show-muppets-successor? (comments not kind – I don’t see any BBBC regulars on defence duty there… yet)
Fightback Britain BBC1 tonight – 1/4. New series. Julia Bradbury and Adrian Simpson reveal some of the ways in which the public are helping the police in the fight against crime.
I assume the programme will not be looking to encourage any action like that taken by Tony Martin
Or how the police can prioritise based on methodology the BBC can only approve of…
Long, but a fascinating tale, including how our 4th estate is also pretty 4th rate on substance if salacious is in the mix. Or how public sector crimes (like perjury) seem to be met with a nice sideline & pay-off.
Great link – Guest Who:
What an amazing story of gross and costly abuse of power. Link I am referring to is here:
An excellent piece from trendingcentral – could almost have come from on here!
Western media sources have been almost completely silent over the latest crackdown by Gaza’s terrorist outfit Hamas on opposition political activists.
While The Telegraph’s Robert Tait reported on ‘fears’ of a crackdown, and The Guardian effectively copy-and-pasted an Amnesty International press release, other outlets in the Western world have abdicated their responsibility to report a further deterioration in the terrorist enclave which has operated under a totalitarian dictatorship since Hamas came to power and refused any future electoral process.
Ma’an News Agency reports:
“Hamas security forces have launched an arrest campaign against Fatah leaders and affiliates in the Gaza Strip, Fatah said in a statement on Sunday. Hamas security forces raided the home of Fatah official Abed al-Aziz al- Maqadma on Thursday, confiscating his computer and mobile phone.”
Violence against opposition members is worsening too, with Amnesty reporting that two men have recently been tortured and forced to confess to crimes they perhaps did not commit. The pair, due to be executed this week, are among 40 prisoners on death row in Gaza. If this happened in the United States, the world’s media would rightly be outraged.
But for Hamas, and indeed for other regimes around the world, the media is happy to keep the cap on the lens. This is not only bigotry, as it presupposes that Arabs either don’t know any better, or that we should not expect more from them, but it is also a gross abdication of the journalistic mantra to seek out and report the story, no matter who, where or what the case may be.
Particularly noteworthy is the absence of interrogation into the matters from the world’s largest broadcaster, the BBC.
The publicly funded broadcasting outfit claims it goes the extra mile for the story, and claims to be impartial in its reporting. But the BBC has not only been shown to be biased in a domestic sense, but also in its international coverage.
When some buildings are built, the BBC is there, high-definition cameras at the ready, to capture what it frames as great injustices.
But when terrorists are holding an entire body of people hostage, imprisoning and executing opposition activists, the organisation falls silent.
In two, three, five years, or a decade, when the Palestinians in Gaza finally attempt to or succeed in overthrowing their oppressive rulers, the questions will be asked, like the questions are now of Mohammed Morsi, “Why did this happen? Why didn’t we see it coming? Who knew?”
But the answer is that many of us did know. We just don’t work at the BBC.
BBC radio 4 next Friday, the 6.30 “comedy” slot: What is Britishness?
What’s the betting this is a thinly disguised excuse to promote mass immigration?
Expect the program to come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as Britishness, therefore what does not exist cannot be destroyed, therefore mass Third World immigration cannot possibly have any impact on the character of Britain – because it has no character.
I wonder how that will compare with Paul Sinha’s Citizenship test which is, for the BBC, remarkably positive about Britain and Britishness. A second-generation Subcontinent immigrant who is actually quite proud of this country, its history and its traditions. Guess which part of the Subcontinent his parents are not from . .
You & Yours had item on fracking this afternoon. It was opened by Julian Worricker (from 29′ http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0383k8f) asking “How much of what the Government tells you is true?”. No doubts introduced there then. Then the reporter, Samantha Sachs (?) in an impartial interview with Charles Hendry and after his take on the advantages of fracking she stated “So, it’s an absolute farce then what the Government says about security of supply”. This was in response to Hendry’s view that the gas would be sold, possibly off-shore, to the highest bidder. She obviously did not understand that the gas would be ours, the country would have ultimate control over it and therefore we would have security of supply. What is difficult to understand? – and I have listened twice to the interviews and there is absolutely nothing which could be stated as either lies or a farce. So they have slipped in a Green and a Leftie anti-government stance; apparently the item couldn’t also cover GW due to lack of time.
A few years ago, when Worricker was in his natural home at 5Live he interviewed George Galloway. Galloway’s insanity should make him an easy target for interviewers and to his credit Worricker tried to ask the guy about several issues. Galloway destroyed him, every question deflected and a pile of bile followed.
In the entire interview I don’t recall Galloway actually answering a single question put to him.
If you cant get the better of a loon like Galloway and his many, many bizarre and hateful comments then you shouldn’t be in journalism.
Shortly afterwards Worricker was promoted to Radio 4
My first thought when I saw this was ‘And what is meant by ‘performing best’?’
Then I read on to find my chums at The ‘Accuracy won’t fit’ BBC are in pride of place.
Lucky for them what they write is not about revenue; more about ideology.
That may not serve the cause of professional, impartial, trusted, respected journalism, but then this has not been a dealbreaker for a while.
Anti-Shale gas/oil development activist HARRABIN now takes up space on BBC-NUJ ‘Politics’ pages to spread his propaganda.
He is Director General HALL’s approved high-cost greenie activist AND politician.
Paul Mason should be sacked.
Too late: Mason is leaving the BBC on his own.
Bugger. And just after I’d written a lengthy complaint to the BBC demanding that he either resign, apologise, or be fired. Granted I didn’t expect the BBC to act on it but it still feels like a waste of time now.
Guess I’ll just have to complain to Channel 4 in time for his arrival, not that I expect them to do anything either.
I’m guessing Paul ‘Just For Men Autostop’ was sacked.
BBC pay top dollar so Mason wasn’t going to move somewhere smaller for less money of his own volition.
All 268 Tube ticket offices could be closed under “secret” London Underground plans, the TSSA transport union and Labour Party have warned.
Both the Union and Labour are quoted about how evil Boris is for this and yet no counter comment from either Boris or the Government.
Impartial my codlings!
Central government wouldn’t comment because LU comes under the Mayor of London. There are comments from LU (pars 3&4, 14&15) and City Hall (16)
No but yeah but no but yeah, but no.
There is much evidence to show that the BBC sees the Church as a competitor, giving those in its flock a different view of life and reality than the BBC would have them believe.
I characterise this as
The BBC replaces the Holy Bible with the Wholly (or Holey) Beeble
It could never be more true than is highlighted by this topic.
One of the items that anybody appearing on Desert Island Discs automatically have included in their possessions is a bible. But the BBC are now looking to remove that particular item with some spurious excuse, although it hasn’t happened yet.
Whether one is believer in the bible or not, its relevance to our society makes it one of the most important books to understand where we are and how we got here.
But if course this only applies to intelligent beings.
So any excuse to downplay or eradicate the main book relevant to Christian theology will be used.
Alex Massie gives his view if the BBC were to remove it from the show.
We can’t cast away Our Bible
“There is much evidence to show that the BBC sees the Church as a competitor……………………..”
Interestingly you do not cite any such evidence.
“Whether one is believer in the bible or not, its relevance to our society makes it one of the most important books to understand where we are and how we got here.”
Really? In what ways does it do so?
First off – Google The Holey Beeble replacing the holy bible – Anti-Religion (Except Islam)
Secondly, I did qualify my statement by saying it only applies to intelligent beings, so no surprise that you don’t see yourself why.
No doubt you’ll now want to claim that I am abusing you, but really you walked right into it.
Toby Young in the Telegraph gives his view of the recent study proving BBC’s left wing bias, and mentions a few other instances that already confirmed it.
BBC news director James Harding needs to address broadcaster’s Left-wing bias
The new Muppets? Don’t make me laugh: The BBC’s latest weapon in the weekend ratings war would have Miss Piggy weeping in despair, says JAN MOIR
Haven’t watched this particular programme, nor am I likely to. Reading the format as explained in the article it’s about par for the highly paid creative-less BBC executives.
While reading the article it’s worth imagining just how the ‘brain-storm’ session must have gone among these producers to arrive at this outcome. It’ll give you more of a smile than this show ever will.
Anybody else think that the puppet in the Tracksuit look like…Jimmy Saville: Maybe its a subtle joke from the bbC.
And why has he got a minor puppet in his clutches.
PMSL @ Pounce!
I didn’t really look too much at the picture at 1st…but now you mention it…
Wonder if there was a bit of a last minute wig change for it, as not to be too obvious!
yesterday bbc radio2 was falling over it self to tell the story of how Oprah Winfrey was not shown a hand bag becouse the sales assistant thought she could not aford it, and of course this is racism,
to day the Sale assistant gave her side of the story
where are the bbc NO WHERE….
TELL THE FULL STORY BBC
Used to listen to Radio 2 most of the day, can’t stand it now,
From lefty champagne socialist Chris Evans (£100k doanted to Ken Livingstones mayoral campaign) to biased Jeremy Whine’s two hour lunchtime lefty feminist gay fest.
Thankfully that young ‘Slovakian’ girl Erica has been found in Bradford. Now the media (and police) have been very quiet about what bunch of people she has been keeping company with. Lets see she was picked up in Sheffield and was found in Bradford. A third man has been arrested, pointing in the direction that this is a gang of men and not somebody she met off the net. I wonder if she was treated as a sex toy for a certain relgious event which kicked off last Thursday.
Regards the men who have been arrested over the missing schoolgirl, here is what her father had to say on the matter:
Relieved: Erika Kacicova’s father Stefan said his ‘beautiful’ daughter had got to know a man of Pakistani origin on Facebook before disappearing a week ago
It appears that the bBC are carrying out their customary smokescreen for the followers of the religion of peace who respect women.
Clearly the mighty ‘al-beeb discrimination flow chart’, demands that they play down any ‘unfortunate details’.
You may be interested to know that the area where Erika lives, Darnall in Sheffield, is mostly populated with those of Pakistani/Muslim descent. It’s almost a Pakistani ghetto.
Pleased to see BBC3 is still bringing quality broadcasting aimed at teenage girls
– Snog, Marry, Avoid.
Looking forward to BBC Asian Network’s –
– Sharia, Forced Marriage, Honour Killing
“Harry and Amelia were the most popular first names for babies in England and Wales in 2012” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23663337) except for Muhammad. Glossing over with a PC attitude and treading carefully not to wake up the unwashed, the Beeb (and for this purpose, the ONS) doesn’t reveal that while Harry had 6,893 hits, if you count Muhammad, Mohammed (Mo!) and Mohammad (also Mo), you get 7,032! just look at the Excel sheet (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-318071)
Slumber, slumber don’t wake up.
Good find Asher 🙂
Back in 2007 following the census outcome report the BBC didn’t seem to have a problem informing the public that
Muhammad second most popular name
Muhammad is the second most popular name for baby boys in Britain, new research has found.
According to The Times, the name is now second only to Jack and is likely to rise to number one by next year.
The newspaper says the name – if all 14 different spellings are included – was shared by 5,991 new-born boys during last year.
The name’s increased popularity is thought to be partly because more young Muslims are having families.
The official register of names puts Mohammed at number 23, but an analysis of the top 3,000 names puts Muhammad in second place once the different spellings are taken into account.
Third on the list was Thomas, followed by Joshua and Oliver.
They even print in the article a little chart to show all the variations of spelling of the name
DIFFERENT MUHAMMAD SPELLINGS
Mohammed – 2,833 occurrences
Muhammad – 1,422
Mohammad – 920
Muhammed – 358
Mohamed – 354
Mohamad – 29
Mahammed – 18
Mohammod – 13
Mahamed – 12
Muhammod – 9
Muhamad – 7
Mohmmed – 6
Mohamud – 5
Mohammud – 5
So 3 years later in 2010 the name Mohammed or variation had indeed risen to the number one spot, and knowing that the BBC is well aware of the variations, one had to wonder why the BBC not only made a point to conceal it but included another article by Mark Easton omitting this fact.
I see in the current article with the 2012 figures they do cover themselves right at the very bottom with
The ONS counts similar names with different spellings separately.
Do you think Muslims will be complaining to the BBC about the bias they show not putting them at number one? 😆
I’ve had a lovely couple of days away camping, hence, no BBC. I liked being away from the BBC and the Internet and might give it a try more often. What was it the CIA allegedly told their staff? Whatever you do, do not make a habit of watching TV. I’d agree. The media bubble is full to the brim of self-important, middle-class egos who slect the news according to the current trends in London and other capitals around the world. Give me a tent, a stove, baked beans and a case of Ringwood Brewary real ales and I’m fine.
Ringwood huh? Went to their website as I had never heard of them, damnit they want proof I’m over 18!
I know, I know, where’s the bbc bias in that!
NIGERIA: Britain’s foreign aid and Islamic jihad.
Britain’s political class (inc BBC-NUJ) wants to continue sending British taxpayers’ money to Nigeria, despite 1.) and 2.):-
“It is ‘sensible’ for Britain to send £1billion in aid to Nigeria which wants to join the space race, ministers insists”
“44 gunned down in Nigeria mosque.
Shooters believed to belong to Boko Haram militant group that seeks to impose Islamic law across the country.”
Please don’t tell us you’re transmogrifying into a raging Leftie, Alex! If you vanish to the darkside, the the battle is surely lost!