Sure none of you will have time to fill this one up…too busy applying for the newly vacant position of HR Director, BBC….or you could win the lottery this weekend….either way, you’d be in the money.
Remember this result, INBBC, and report on Syria accordingly-
“David Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action”
No break down on votes yet. will be interesting to see who in labour voted for motion or amendment (that fell to remember)
Could turn out to be big win for Dave – he tried to do something but was stopped by weak politicking Miliband and a few rebels. Will quickly be able to gloss over the fact that his ‘something’ wouldn’t have achieved anything – and would cost us money and damaged our reputation in region.
Right result – but perhaps by fortuitous route
As one commenter put it, “don’t see it as demasculation – see it as being prevented from becoming the next Blair. This won’t be your legacy now.”
and I am wondering how the BBC will play it when the next chemical attack – or even napalm in a school yard happens. Dave wanted to stop it but Milliband wouldn’t let him – just where have all those Lefties gone that were paraded only last week by the BBC saying, ‘Something must be done’?
Mind with two evil sides I think this is a war best kept out of.
Ironically this might just give Ed Miliband enough life to make it to the next election, rather than us having to witness the sight of brother David Miliband riding in like a white knight to save the Labour Party. The Tories might just stand a chance against Ed Miliband, but then if David Cameron is still in charge it’ll be a battle of two pygmies (plus Clegg the village idiot).
Whcihever way the BBC chooses to report this, you bet you won’t hear the words ‘opportunism’ and ‘Labour’ or ‘Miliband’ in the same piece, even though Miliband has chosen to use it as a means of criticising Cameron’s leadership. On the contrary, Nick Robinson on Today reckoned Miliband had ‘grown in stature’ as a result of the position he finally took (after twice changing direction).
This one has got a long way to run as yet. We’ll see how things look in a couple of months’ time.
That Nobel Peace Prize just keeps paying dividends:
Mark Mardell late last (Wednesday) night:
Of course, America does not really need the UK’s military help to carry out the task. But to go ahead without its closest military ally (perhaps apart from Israel) leaves the US without important diplomatic cover.
For a president who has always insisted on the importance of building international coalitions, it would be a bit embarrassing.
Reality, less than 18 hours later:
Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes, Aides Say
President Obama is prepared to move ahead with a limited military strike on Syria, administration officials said on Thursday, even with a rejection of such action by Britain’s Parliament, an increasingly restive Congress, and lacking an endorsement from the United Nations Security Council.
How’s that hopey-changey stuff workin’ out for ya now, BBC?
PS: At least the President is apparently going to present His Obombing plan to Congressional leaders tonight. It’s not the same thing as a vote (could be a prelude to one, though), but it means He gets it on that score anyway, which is an improvement. I wonder if Mardell will sing his usual hymn about intransigent Republicans blocking His every move if they vote against it.
Especially as I saw only 9% of Americans are in favour of action – but I guess he doesn’t get to stand for re-election anyway, and, after all, he has seldom achieved anything that is in the interests of America.
But I thought the relationship between the UK and the USA just isn’t that special any more – that Obama hasn’t liked the UK for years (didn’t he send us the bust of Winston Churchill back?).
And he has sided with Argentina over the Falklands. There is no special relationship between the UK and Barry Obama’s Administration.
The special relationship exists between the people of the UK and USA, the vast majority of which, see no advantage whatsoever in an attack on Assad by the west, on behalf of Al Qaeda.
Deborah – the bust issue isn’t as straightforward as you (or I) thought:
Nevertheless, even if there were 2 sculptures, removing either – especially the one in the Oval Office – sends a pretty strong political message and, in my view, was a measure of Obama’s arrogance and anti-British sentiment.
Newsnight – they all seemed a bit confused. Paxman did not seem to be on top of things. His questioning of Douglas Alexander was very poor and quite disgraceful in asserting that blood would be on Alexander’s hands if there was another chemical attack. A certain lack of logic I’m afraid.
The beeboids really don’t know what line to take. Try reporting the facts for once it might be a little easier and more enlightening for the taxpayer.
And at the end they just could not resist crowing about Cameron’s defeat. Now I am no friend of the PM but this was just distasteful . There are lives and the peace of the ME at stake. Grow up beeboids.
Thought Paxman understandably frustrated with Alexander’s party politicking and hypocrisy ( re: Iraq )
Allegra Stratton was a disgrace, almost frothing at the mouth towards the end ,Dennis Skinner would have been embarrassed by that performance.
‘Try reporting the facts for once it might be a little easier and more enlightening for the taxpayer’
That’s probably a boat long sailed, especially in the ME neck of the woods of BBC ‘reporting’…
‘Mr Solomon did not find this acceptable and wrote back to the BBC to demand that the language used accurately reflect the known facts. The BBC News website’s Middle East desk accepted Mr Solomon’s point, with the result that the wording was eventually amended
Basically, classic BBC CECUTT to the bitter, long moved-on from, end that serves truth and integrity not a jot.
And they talk of trust.
Attacking Assad would only make further and more serious chemical attacks all the more likely. If, as most of the actual evidence suggests, Assad was NOT responsible for the most recent chemical attack, then attacking him for it would only increase his intransigence and risk him actually using them.
I am very disturbed this morning by the number of people who are dismayed that Cameron has increased the democratic legitimacy of the Commons, and who are also dismayed that we will not now be slaughtering innocent Syrians on behalf of Al Qaeda before Assad can kill them.
I for one am glad that Parliament voted to stay out of Syria. They have listened to the people who have said “We don’t want anything to do with Syria”
The thing is while that shows democracy at work, the bBC has used this for political gain I quote:
Ross Hawkins Political correspondent, BBC News
Backbenchers, and the opposition – not the prime minister – set Britain’s foreign policy tonight. Put more kindly, Parliament expressed its will and the PM listened. However you think it through, it will take some explaining, not least to the Americans. People at home and abroad will ask: who is in charge? Many at Westminster will, of course, be obsessed by what this means in a place where weakness is a sin. Others will wonder about the consequences for the people of Syria and the Middle East. And Britain – a country that has agonised about its role in the world since the Suez crisis – will ask whether it might no longer be a nation that intervenes.
The bBC, having wasted all that time and effort it has used in which to knock out 100s of poor Syrian civilian casualties articles at the hands of the nasty evil RAF (here’s loads we prepared earlier) I mean why else is Abu Bowen out there. Have to find another way in which to attack the Uk as is their remit.
The bBC, the mouthpiece of radical Islam and the traitors within our midst
“Not least to the Americans”? Er, no. We don’t want it either. And the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate-in-Chief has already said He’s going to do whatever He likes regardless of what anyone thinks. Of course, that’s not exactly news to anyone who’s been paying attention……
Now we need parliament to listen to the people when they say “we don’t want anything to do with Europe”…
BBC in a turmoil over Syria. Backed the rebels, held back news of their murderous deeds, but people are learning to find news from other sources on the net. Hence the vote in the Commons which reflected public opinion. Time the BBC realised that this is not North Korea – and democratic centralism, so beloved by the Socialist Worker Party, died in the 1920s.
But the BBC had convinced the public that Saddam Hussein had had no weapons of mass destruction and felt it important on the news today to mention this “fact” again . It’s ironic that those he didnot hide he probably gave to Syria !
Will INBBC report this Friday?
A snippet from ‘The Times’ (£):-
“Receptionist gave grooming victim’s records to accused”
By Andrew Norfolk,
Chief Investigative Reporter.
“A social services worker illegally accessed private records about a sex-grooming victim as part of an attempt to sabotage the prosecution of the suspected perpetrators, it can be revealed today.
“The woman, a receptionist for Lancashire social services, was one of several friends and relatives of the alleged abusers who tried to wreck the prosecution.
“They threatened witnesses, gave gifts and money to the girl at the centre of the case and persuaded her to write and sign a false statement retracting her abuse allegations.
When the six accused men finally appeared at Burnley Crown Court last year, accused of…”
Also, for INBBC to keep up with:-
‘The Times’ (£) –
“Police face inquiries on grooming case failures”
[relating to Rotherham, Yorkshire].
“BBC’s HR Boss Quits Following Payoff Row.
“Lucy Adams’ decision to leave comes after a bruising encounter with MPs over excessive payments to a series of managers.”
The BBC has a detailed section on analysis of the Syrian situation, but I’m surprised [alright, not really] that there is no analysis what a successful Sunni-led rebellion would mean for the minority Shia and Christian populations in the country.
I guess its not their fault, who can possibly guess what happens in a country where groups like the muslim brotherhood takeover, and what the consequences are for the minorities (particularly non-muslim ones). Its not like theres any recent examples after all…
As a hypothetical, I bet if the rebels do take over and start murdering christians, we’ll have the BBC provide lots of coverage about the atrocities and the human suffering angle, perhaps with tearful young children telling us about their missing families (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23806491 )
Instead we have a circus of buffoons pontificating on what the commons vote means for Cameron’s leadership, and how the UK will be perceived around the world when it becomes clear that our leaders can’t just ride roughshod over the democratic process in the country that invented the modern parliamentary system. You couldn’t make it up.
Any anti-Christian atrocities will be played down or blamed on the Christians. And, no doubt, the Jooooz next door.
It is such a pity that years ago, when New Labour decided to actively promote the immigration of millions of aliens into our country, that the commons didn’t at least debate it.
On something of far greater importance to the UK than another civil war in the ME, there has been a deafening silence from our political representatives and the BBC. Worse, whenever some one tries to the job of the MPs and raise the question the BBC has them hung drawn and quartered for even mentioning some doubts about the sense of mass immigration.
Democracy dies years ago in Britain when we weren’t even consulted about a change that will change our country fro ever, and the BBC was complicit in its murder.
It’s very very serious for Cameron
Loss of authority
Comparisons with Suez crisis
Some of Jon Pienaar’s thoughts on 5 Live last night.
Yesterday, on Today, there was a piece on the persecution of Muslims in Burma by Buddhists – and rightly so.
But when have we heard equivalent reports on the persecution, murder and ethnic cleansing of Christians that has been happening on a much wider scale for far longer – across the Middle East, Africa, the Indian Sub-continent etc., enough, in fact, to fill a whole series of Panorama specials and Ed Stourton ‘Sundays’?
This is why we detest the BBC – no balance or impartiality and an agenda that favours some ‘groups’ to such an extent that they are somehow seen to be beyond criticism, or at least their actions played down to the point where they are deemed almost unnewsworthy.
There was also a half hour TV programme on News24 last night entitled “Myanmar’s Extremist Monk”, it goes without saying that this adopted the Muslims as victims narrative.
“Censure for reporter over Gaza tweet sparks BBC rethink over social media.
“Governing body calls for rethink over use of Twitter but journalists worry about losing credibility.”
By IAN BURRELL.
This BBC defense statement stuck out:
“To uphold the complaint would suggest that for all tweeting, from both individuals and ‘branded’ accounts (ie @BBCBreaking etc), we must continuously be deleting tweets sent in good faith at the time and clarifying them with new tweets, potentially long after the event, as new information emerges on any given news story,” he said.
In good faith? How revealing. Consider in whom the Beeboids place their faith on these occasions. Maybe they should think twice when tweeting blatantly emotive photos in situations when they know the problems all too well.
And check out the foaming-at-the-mouth comments. They all believe that Israel is engaging in genocide, just like many Beeboids do. This is the kind of delusional stuff the BBC claims is proof that they’re balanced and get it about right because they get complaints from both sides.
‘journalists worry about losing credibility’
They’re probably safe on that score, and have been for a long while.
I’m noting the semantics on ‘BBC branding’ creeping in as a degree of separation.
Their new man in ME has a bio bedecked with his role at the BBC and BBC URLS scattered across the header bio.
Yet cheerfully, disgracefully flaunts the ‘all views nothing to do with anyone…’ disclaimer they all do.
I call utter BS on the whole charade.
It’s a licence to post opinion as fact and gossip without support.
No organisation other than one as unique as the BBC would go near such a thing. Especially if seeking to be trusted.
Davis demands some slack
“In his response to the complaint, Davies – who tweeted 24 times that day on the developing situation in Gaza – noted that the number of casualties in the conflict had risen quickly and that “the ‘fog of war’ is also something that armchair critics at home rarely experience – we were not covering the State opening of Parliament but a brutal and confusing conflict”.
Not something that journalists are often prepared to allow the actual combatants e.g. the glee at reporting Chelsea Manning’s video clip
The BBC and their staff never know when to stop digging. Anybody with an ounce of intelligence will see this for what it is – a lame excuse. As a professional reporter he should wait until he can be sure of his facts rather than speculate. But then, when you have an agenda to push, I guess your impatience to post yet another propagandist report gets the better of you…..
The BBC is unhappy with the confederate flag, which they consider a symbol of racism and hate:
The war for southern independence was never really about slavery of course, despite how history has been rewritten in modern times. Rather, it was a war that could have been avoided had the northern states honoured the constitution and allowed secession (or better still, by not overtaxing the southern states, and thereby not forcing them into the war in the first place).
For our intrepid BBC journalists however, it was all about slavery, and the flag represents both that conflict and later, the emergence of the KKK and their war against blacks.
They drag out a historian, David Goldfield, to give them a couple of quotes, but don’t seem to have done their research, as his opinions are somewhat more nuanced than the BBC article mentions (e.g. http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2012/062012/06242012/707305/index_html?page=1 ).
Of course no BBC article on this would be complete without at least one source saying how the flag is in some ways like the swastika as a symbol; ironically the author of the article goes on to say that this isn’t entirely true because the flag means different things to different people. The irony comes in of course because the swastika itself is a deeply holy symbol for hindus and jains in India that was co-opted by the 3rd reich, but which is still to this day used in everyday life in India. Still, who am I to knock the alleged quality of BBC journalism.
By the end of the article, one is left somewhat puzzled; was this merely a turgid way for the BBC hack concerned to fulfil his weekly quota of crap for the broadcaster – as the article apparently has no point whatsoever – or was it a cheap way for the BBC to remind us once more how racist those redneck american southern white people really are.
Gunn becomes an early winner of the Fuckwit of the Day award for this utter gem:
The war for southern independence was never really about slavery of course,
Of course not. And the South freed its slaves willingly. Beyond crass!
Arise Sir Fuckwit
Suggest you watch Spielberg’s Lincoln when the South wanted a deal which kept slavery…
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.”
August 1862 letter written by Abraham Lincoln to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley.
Back to the library, TQN. There you will find, once again, that you are the true deserving recipient of your own idiotic award.
I suppose this is what we have to expect from a generation schooled by uneducated Trots?
If people get upset at the sight of the Confederate flag, the swastika and (more recently) the English flag – why isn’t their stomach turned at the sight of the hammer and sickle?
“…why isn’t their stomach turned at the sight of the hammer and sickle?”
I’m continuing my fascinating research into the history of WWII and I must say I have to agree with you. The Hammer and sickle was every bit (and good bit besides) as representative of a thoroughly genocidal regime. I still can’t understand why history lets Stalin off so lightly – the Soviet butcher was more than a match for Adolf Hitler’s killing machine.
Because as Orwell said (while working at the BBC)
‘The man who controls the past controls the future and the man who controls the present controls the past’
And right now the past is controlled by the bourgeois liberal inquisition through the offices of the BBC
That’s why the BBC’s popular history department has become the modern day equivalent of the Ahnenerbe.
Oh dear, you really need to do a bit more reading before joining in grown conversation.
“Suggest you watch Spielberg’s Lincoln …”
Can’t type for laughing
Never mind Lincoln, worrabout that E.T. fella? Why did we let him go home?
The Queen’s Nose (formerly known as The Queen and then The King, he’s so clever) doesn’t quite understand the concept of States’ Rights or the concept of culture. While the Confederate Flag does represent slavery to most people, it represents plain old cultural heritage, nothing to do with slavery, to many others. It’s not a pretty picture, of course, and slavery was the States’ Right in question, which pretty much prevents anyone on that side of the argument from going anywhere near the moral high ground. The South picked the wrong Right to stand up for. Nobody denies that. But anyone who believes that the idea of secession was something that happened only because of slavery or that secession on the pure ground of States’ Rights was a novel concept in Lincoln’s time has a very poor understanding of history.
But we’re dealing with someone whose opinions, based on previously hurled insults, are based on emotion rather than reason. I do congratulate him on at last adding a bit of substance to the sneering crassness, but don’t expect The Queen’s Whatever to understand that it’s a bit more complicated than what happened in a Hollywood movie loosely based on an historian’s work. The Civil War was indirectly not specifically or only about slavery, as prominent as the issue was.
He probably also thinks that many in the US are just itching to get back to the era of Jim Crow and blacks at the back of the bus (the President quietly hinted at a similar notion in His speech about MLK’s Dream the other day, class act that He is) if John McCain had been elected in 2008, the Republicans would have brought slavery back.
Enlighten me – Were not the ‘Jim Crow’ laws supported be the Democrats and MLK a registered Republican?
If so why has no one pointed that out to the St. Obama?
Doesn’t help the Narrative. And some racist Democrats (Dixiecrats) changed sides after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, which really muddies the waters there.
But Bull Connor and George Wallace were Democrats.
“Suggest you watch Spielberg’s Lincoln when the South wanted a deal which kept slavery…”
Yeah, trust a movie rather than, say, contemporary sources and subsequent learned analysis. Do you have any idea how history is done?
You get your history from Spielberg movies?
Anyone who thinks that films are reliable historical sources is a child.
Documentaries on the BBC are also a very unreliable source of history
Exciting times for the feminists at the BBC! Modern men are less thrill seeking than their counterparts from the 70s
The BBC form the view that this must mean that sex differences had narrowed due to cultural changes, in line with good feminist thinking.
More likely in my opinion is that as testosterone levels decline in men, risk taking also decreases (various reasons have been put forward for lower testosterone, my own view is that its likely linked to the amount of estrogen thats been added to the water supply via the pill along with various dietary changes including the prevalence of soy).
The quality of science correspondence on the BBC is shockingly low, that such obvious questions on studies like this are completely ignored in favour of the relevant liberal belief de-jour (such as in this case, the belief in the blank slate nature of male and female behaviour).
Anyone who wants to know that the study discovered men remain risk takers and women are risk averse, as previously thought, just read the actual report and not the (heavily coloured) BBC take on it:
If you do not want to read the study here are a few points:
It actually said women are not becoming more attracted to risk: “However, our analyses show that the pattern of results is not due to an increase in female TAS scores across time, but rather a decline in male scores.”
The ladies who compiled the report do not share the bbc ladies’ view: “from our analyses, however, we cannot determine whether the declining sex difference in TAS scores is more likely to result from out-dated questions or from changes in socialisation patterns.”
The report underlined what has always been shown in such reports and observed behaviour ie guys act like guys and girls act like girls: “The stable sex differences in self-reported Dis and BS are consistent with the hypothesis that males exhibit stronger predispositions to engage in uninhibited social interactions and avoid repetitive activities than females, and that such differences are not attributable solely to male and female gender roles.”
just to knock the BBC report into the waste paper basket, their summary concluded: “on average, men score higher than women on measures of venturesomeness27, while women score higher than men on harm-avoidance28”
Even though the ladies who made the report ‘instinctively’ run with the notion of gender roles being informed by society pressures, they actually and fairly report: “For example, social role theorists have acknowledged a role for genetically influenced traits, with cultural processes either amplifying or countering evolved predispositions”
So what could have been an interesting and informative report was rendered useless by Minitruth’s distortion in support of their ideological/theological orthodoxy
This is a problem with all the BBC’s popular science programs .It is most obvious in regard of matters dealing with AGW but all science now seems to be corrupted the in service of their received truth
women’s hour and any debate on gender is based on the inaccurate assumption of the environment acting upon the blank slate. It is as if the last 3 decades of research on the brain have been hidden behind a mind set labelled ‘wishful thinking’. Shame.
In the Beeb’s world of psychological science the only truths worth reporting on are that all the races are equal, and that women are superior to men.
Oh and white men tend to be lazy, wife-beating, warmongering bigots.
The BBC is in crisis over Syria and the parliamentary vote. They have been campaigning ‘that something must be done’, with all sorts of partial and hysterical reporting. And now the people and parliament have said ‘no’. They have always ignored public opinion when it suited them, but they can’t ignore this. What are they to do now, they have been arrogantly taking the view that they were on the right side, on this and many other things and anyone who opposed them was some kind of right-wing reactionary. But they are not. This will expose them. Either they will have to come out directly against the prevailing view and thus become even more blatantly political and left-wing, or they will need to tone themselves down and change their policies completely. We know they have ‘policies’, we all know they are a campaigning organisation. Morally and financially corrupt.
The BBC must be broken up, made void and scattered to the four winds.
The BBC are all over the Syria vote that Cameron is badly damaged and absolute hero worship of Ed Milliband. Anyone would take the impression from the BBC coverage that Milliband politically engineered the outcome with great skill and cunning. Of course Milliband is the happy winner from simple political circumstance.
All morning I’ve been hearing Labour this or Ed Milliband that, and how bad a situation it is for Cameron, a man who is apparently not in control of his own foreign policy.
Absolutely Thoughtful – massive hatchet job on call me Dave this morning all over Five Live and reportage that Milliband is in a position of strength – almost being painted as one of moral fortitude.
Let’s get one thing straight, Milliband’s decision was driven by populism alone and nothing to do with morals.
He was all for backing the Government but then, once the mood of the public was revealed via certain polls, his tune changed.
He was/is playing politics and nothing more – to set him up as some sort of hero is disingenuous.
The only leader (and party) who was utterly against mlitary action from the outset was Nigel Farage.
Any mention of UKIP on the Beeb at all?
Nope, course not.
The BBC lunchtime news eventually ran out of negative adjectives to describe Cameron and his leadership.
BBC North West quickly followed under the pretence of telling us which NW MPs ‘rebelled’, only for the narrative to be continued – anchorman to reporter: ‘And what do you think this has done to David Cameron’s reputation?’ Yes folks, that’s a topic on BBC local news.
The self-delusion of the BBC – they actually think they’re being clever.
The “beauty” of this is that the BBC will struggle and their bias will hamstring them.
The reality is that there is no win to be had here. Attacking has horrible consequences and a humanitarian disaster. Not attacking has the potential for the same consequences. “Ugly” will be the only result here.
On a site about BBC bias, the risk for the BBC is they are jumping on a short term result and telling the story the way they want it told. They’ve been crowing about intervention and now crowing that intervention plans have failed. Eventually something will happen in this conflict and there will be no running away from it.
That’s why I call it the Devil’s Symphony.
From what I have seen the BBC have clearly decided that it is best for the Labour Party to stick with Ed Miliband, and so from now until the next election the BBC will do anything they can to view him (and his Party) in a positive light.
Would it be possible for Milliband’s harkening to public opinion to lead him to go into the election with an anti-EU, anti-immigration stance? Whither the BBC then?
I don’t think so, very few people honestly believe Miliband is being genuine. He would have buckled under America’s pressure if he’d been Prime Minister, and Cameron would have been fighting to keep us out. It’s only because Miliband’s in opposition and knows Obama will almost be out the door if or when he ever gets elected that he did this, in order to look like a man of the people. It was populist pandering, nothing more.
It looks like Dan Hodges disagrees with Millipede.
Emotional manipulation at its finest, there.
Who the BBC ‘supports’, with a £4Bpa war chest, going to the heart of the media plurality review.
With lions of the UK lead by such donkeys (Cameron really got the whupping deserved), or aspiring jackals (Milibandwagon may have got some limelight for the result he was but a bit player in delivering, but his means make him so soiled it would take real tribal loyalty to be in the same room as him), the machinations of a vast PR machine with zero accountability is a real concern.
Ed clearly did what he needed to for Ed.
The BBC clearly will do what it needs to do for the BBC.
They would, in this at least, appear to be soulmates.
The country really doesn’t matter to either of them.
With luck, if the BBC and Miliband see each other as the team for the future, they may have missed that it was the people, and people actually looking at the facts presented and the integrity of those presenting them, that delivered the result.
They may prove each other’s anchor yet.
Feeling a little world weary… a little down in the mouth?
That’ll be the BBC ramming wimmins cricket down your throat.
As one interviewee perceptively commented : ‘There’s a huge agenda around wimmins sport at the moment’.
Don’t we know it.
Odd isn’t it, when they defend their soap opera and dumbed-down celeb based trash the BBC always say ‘give the people what they want’ – but when it comes to sport the BBC suddenly knows better than we do what is good for us.
Tuned into 5Live Extra last night to find a woman commentating on last nights mens England v Australia T20 match.
Also the result of last nights womens game was given before the result of the mens game on this mornings Breakfast News, again by a women sports presenter (as ever)
It’s not exactly been subtle, has it? Ever since the Olympics, women’s versions of popular sports have been bigged up on the news bulletins, almost as if anyone gives a toss.
And the number of women who front the sports bulletins on the news is, well, interesting, given the number of women compared to men who take any interest in sport.
Absolutely, there was also a whole BBC program devoted to a 30 something Scottish wannabe woman F1 driver.
Her career best so far was 7th in Touring Cars, and that was years ago!
Not to mention the Beeb’s fascination with Susie Wolff, a woman they claim is fighting against the tide of male racing drivers in F1 when in fact she simply isn’t good enough to compete. The only reason she even has a test drive is because she married the owner of the company she works for. There’s plenty of excellent female racing drivers out there, but Wolff isn’t one of them.
Then again the BBC also gave completely undue amounts of publicity to the Society for Black Lawyers not too long ago, until they decided they weren’t worth the constant agro on the message boards telling them to stop humouring a racist segregationist institution of professional victims.
I noticed on the 10pm news last night no views of the spectators – were there any?
Men’s England vs Aus T20 given the briefest of mentions on Today sports news this morning, quickly followed by a 3-minute segment on the women’s cricket including reports and interviews.
A clear feminist agenda from the BBC.
Or just a good news story the women won, regaining the womens’ ashes in the process rather than our wonderful, if incontinent, mens’ team getting humiliated.
The crowd boosted by the, in my opinion, laudable device of, holding the Mens’ event straight after is not unlike the RFU holding the womens’ match after the men played – great value for spectators and superb experience for those players. Agree with the observation that there is an agenda to go for predominantly female sports presentation – but even that is better than the excreble Mike Bushell – who clearly was bullied at school and would always have been the last pick when choosing teams. Interesting though that I have yet to see a female presenter humiliting themselves by participating in a ‘quirky sport’ on camera unlike the hapless Mike.
England under 19’s women football exposure on national news though perhaps exposed the agend – don’t recall any male team below the U21s being given that treatment!!!
The situations are slightly different – the women’s victory yesterday meant we regained the Women’s Ashes, whereas the men’s game yesterday was only the first in a series of one-dayers. I think our girls’ achievement merits a fair amount of coverage.
Sky Sports broadcast the women’s T20 yesterday too, are you going to criticise them for having a feminist agenda too? And yes, I know the argument that we don’t have to pay for Sky, but I doubt many of Sky’s subscribers chose to pay for it on the basis of them having women’s cricket – they could argue Sky is wasting their money on something nobody cares about. Plus, Sky will have paid a lot more for TV broadcasting rights than the BBC paid for Radio broadcasting rights.
And Geoff – what’s the problem with a woman commentating on a men’s match? I assume it was Alison Mitchell (I didn’t listen), who’s been around for a while and is a good broadcaster. When women’s football matches are broadcast the commentator is usually male.
Your first paragraph says it all. What proportion of the cricket-loving population do you think had even heard of the women’s ‘Ashes’ before the BBC set off on this latest crusade? How can this merit seniority in coverage terms on a sports bulletin to ANY international between the England and Australian men’s teams?
Sorry, Chris, either you don’t have much of a handle on sport or if you do your sympathy for the BBC’s equality agenda is trumping it to some fine tune.
The Times has a huge picture of England’s women celebrating their victory on the front page today. You ignore my point about Sky broadcasting it – it’s not just a BBC ‘crusade’.
I think the fact that our women have regained the Ashes (why put it in quotation marks? That’s what it’s called) merits attention, IMO more than 1 men’s match in this case, given that winning the Ashes back is such a special achievement for the women. I reckon the cricket-loving population (to which I belong) knew about the Women’s Ashes anyway, and are delighted that we have won. Right now, the BBC Cricket page has the men’s result as its lead story.
Rtd Colone’s point is a good one too – if the BBC had paid more attention to the men’s defeat, some on here might have accused it of evidence of the BBC being anti-British – instead they made little mention of a British defeat and bigged up a British victory.
Sky Sports has a lorralorra airtime to fill – this was 5 minutes of sports news 3 minutes of which was given over to wimmin’s cricket. For gawd’s sake, Womans Hour could have covered it and no-one would have been any the poorer.
‘Right now, the BBC Cricket page has the men’s result as its lead story.’ Er, what has the BBC website got to do with the Today sports news?
So, you being such a big cricket fan an’ all (and the band played ‘Believe Me If You like’), do you think the two – men’s and women’s cricket – should be given equal coverage? If not, roughly what should the split be?
Meanwhile Friday night down the pub beckons shortly. Will try and bone up on the women’s ‘Ashes’ as, if you are correct – and who am I to doubt you being such a big cricket fan an’ all – it’s bound to be the hot topic of sports conversation around the bar.
I pointed out the BBC Cricket page because it is one part of the BBC’s output giving precedence to the men’s game, as a counter to your highlighting of the Today programme – one part of the BBC’s output does not necessarily mean the whole of the BBC’s output is going to be the same.
I don’t think men’s and women’s cricket should be given equal coverage, because the men’s game is much more popular. I think the BBC’s coverage of the 2 has it about right (that phrase again), as it devotes far more airtime and web coverage to men’s cricket. But right now I think there is every justification for giving reporting precedence to the women as they have just won the Ashes back – like for the men, it is the biggest achievement in the women’s game. Most of the time, it is right that most of the coverage should be of the men’s game. Maybe a rough split of 85-15, though it’s difficult to measure. I get the impression from a few people here that the BBC shouldn’t report women’s cricket (or football for that matter) at all, which I think would be wrong.
I don’t think it shouldn’t be reported either. It is deserving of some coverage, it is simply the prominence the BBC has been giving it recently along with women’s football – the most laughable being the Donny Rovers Belles vs Arsenal result straight after a round-up of the Premiership and Champions League scores.
It’s all about balance, Chris, and the evidence to me at the moment points to this being part of the BBC equality agenda, but we’ll see if it pans out that way longer term.
I don’t think the evidence points towards an equality agenda in this regard – the BBC shouldn’t try to present women’s sports as the equal of men’s, and in my opinion they don’t, based on the amount of coverage they give to men’s and women’s sports.
It’s a question of interpretation though, I guess.
I’m afraid your assertion that you ‘don’t think the evidence points towards an equality agenda’ is laughable. The public popularity of wimmins cricket and football are no part of the BBC’s motives here – or at least only in so far as the BBC hopes to popularise these sports. Chris, have you recently joined Twitter? Your beliefs seem to be tending in that direction.
All right, can you provide evidence that the BBC is trying to present women’s sports as equal to men’s, particularly football and cricket? The mountain of coverage the BBC gives men’s football and cricket compared with the women’s game is against you.
The BBC covers a small amount of women’s cricket and football, and I think that is about right.
“And Geoff – what’s the problem with a woman commentating on a men’s match? ”
Pure tokenism, no doubt better informed and experienced commentators were available but overlooked because of their sex….
“no doubt better informed and experienced commentators were available but overlooked because of their sex…”
Any evidence for that?
Is it not possible that Alison Mitchell deserves to commentate because she is a good commentator?
No dog (or its female alternative) in this fight, but the progress has been interesting.
‘Any evidence for that?’
Always a fair call, though in areas of subjectivity by definition tricky to provide and hence demand.
And that gets us back to the precedent of the BBC not always being held to such a standard when taking a punt on the analysis front.
I also don’t recall you taking any from the the currently absent flying squad to task on such a basis when they have ventured into the realms of opinion.
As questions are all the vogue, is there a reason why?
“Is it not possible that Alison Mitchell deserves to commentate because she is a good commentator?”
That’s just your opinion and purely subjective, to coin a phrase any evidence?
What qualifications does she have to commentate on men’s first class international cricket?
Read her Wikipedia page, or her official site, if you want to know her qualifications .I agree that saying she is a good commentator is subjective, and you are welcome to disagree, but it seems to me that you are dismissing her purely because she is a woman. How is that fair?
And until you can provide evidence that she got the job purely as a result of tokenism then you have no basis to make that assertion.
I think it’s got to the stage, Chris, where if we see a male presenter of the football round-up on BBC News – typically on a Saturday night before Match of the Day – we’ll begin to suspect tokenism towards males.
And your argument about percentage coverage of women’s football and cricket wasn’t ever my point – it was about prominence, the most glaring of which was the Donny Rovers Belles vs Arsenal result directly after the Premiership and Champions League round-up (which you chose not to comment on). This consistent prominent coverage is a new departure for the BBC on the 7.25 Today sports slot and naturally suspicions are aroused that the BBC has found a new outlet for one of its favoutite agendas. As I said above, we’ll see if the suspicions are justified by how the BBC play it in the long term.
An item on my local BBC (Points West) last night on illegal immigrants/asylum seekers in Bristol, the overriding feeling of the report was one of empathy, yet no mention was made of the countries they could have stopped off at on their way here.
The were said to be destitute and hungry, not able to get benefits, yet the Iranian shown was well fed and clothed.
The bleeding heart Liberal woman representing the charity looking after them is the type that makes me spit feathers.
Have a look the first five minutes.
People can’t be deported because their country of origin has to agree”!”!” Bloody ludicrous.
Nothing wrong with using some of the foreign aid money to bribe some third world dictator to take them in, regardless of their origins.
I don’t suppose there’s a ‘uman right to lavish benefits in such countries, mind…
Evan Davis meets a Latvian guy at a barbecue and feels sorry at the prospect of him having to return home unless he can find a job.
Davis then tweets his 125k followers asking them to find him a job, btw the guy is a bloody actor, just what we need here.
If nothing else this shows exactly where Davis’ loyalties lie, now doubt plenty of sausages were being downed at said BBQ…
Foreign bodies in the sausages in more ways than one, then
[That’s enough smutty sub-Freudian sausage references – Editor]
But foreign sausages are so much tastier and spicier than boring fatty British bangers.
Change your butcher.
Have the cries of homophobia started yet? As one of the comments points out (and we’ve heard this story before, haven’t we? Liam Fox, was it?), if Davis had been a hetero Beeboid tweeting about some lovely lass he met at a party, tongues would indeed be wagging. But there would be no homophobe! shield to hide behind.
All complaints must be homophobic, right? Nobody is concerned that this is the typical BBC mindset promoting jobs for immigrants over locals, of course. And Davis can remain above criticism because the general concern about homophobia trumps all other arguments about why what he did may have been inappropriate. Being homosexual shouldn’t excuse anyone from having to maintain some sense of propriety.
The BBC’s standard line of defense is dishonest, as most people here will know. The official guidelines suggest he should have been more careful:
“You shouldn’t state your political preferences or say anything that compromises your impartiality. Don’t sound off about things in an openly partisan way. Don’t be seduced by the informality of social media into bringing the BBC into disrepute.”
“Partisan” can be defined strictly as being about politics, I’m sure, but what it’s really about is warning Beeboids away from openly advocating for some cause or other. If anybody doubts that the BBC accepts that, read the sorry tale of a BBC News producer’s jihad against a taxi company, and the BBC’s response to a complaint . That’s pretty much what Davis was doing, even if his dear little heart was in the right place. He was intentionally using his position of influence as a high-profile BBC personality to advocate for something, period.
Came out yesterday so I posted it on the Tuesday thread, I’ll post it again now.
Almost no thought is even given to the possibility (actually proven fact) that men may be the victims of domestic violence against women. In fact it’s believed to be around a third of all domestic violence cases, but tell that to the sexist feministas in this article. One even has the nerve to say “we won’t stop domestic violence until we stop sexism” while talking about domestic violence as if it’s only male-on-female – the very definition of a sexist belief system, backed up by the fact her organisation has the unnecessary use of the word ‘woman’ in the title.
The comments absolutely tear these misandrist pigs to shreds, thankfully.
I think Erin Pizzey said half of all domestic violence cases are against men. Feminazis don’t like her much.
Mardell will agree with that, though. He’s adamantly opposed to military intervention by the US or Britain.
“Stephen Fry joke on QI about choirboy ‘at the margins of acceptability'”
Fry must be excused, as like Tony Benn (according to Harold Wilson) “‘he immatures with age’
Fry becomes more despicable by the day. He really is an oaf.
Morrisons Supermarket supporting Jihad
Has INBBC reported this Morrisons pro-Islam financing, largely by unwitting non-Muslim customers?
Is this the Islamising process in Britain of which INBBC is a political advocacy?
Of course, Morrisons’ HQ is in Bradford.
New to this forum and a bit thick what does the INBBC stand for?
My view is:
Islam, not the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Other versions are available at all good retailers.
Islam Not BBC.
Makes sense, cheers chaps!
Presumably Condell refuses to buy any food marked kosher as well? The Jews force the same “tax” on you by getting all those companies to put a hechsher on all their food packages, including dairy, vegetable products, and even plastic ziploc bags, which aren’t even food and have zero connection to dietary laws. Where’s the outrage?
And, the larger valid point of pandering and forcing halal on everyone aside, isn’t he a vegetarian, making this all a bit of a phony excuse to vent his anger at Mohammedans?
So, there is a larger valid point within the video then David.
Despite any of your criticisms, and whether he is, or is not, a vegetarian, the point is still a valid one.
Halal is foisted upon a mostly unaware consumer. While few of the consumers would be happy viewing the humane slaughter process I’m sure, they would surely draw a comparison to halal or kosher as being barbaric.
Many folk would not buy halal if it was labelled as such, but of course we are denied that snippet of information.
Cue trolls asking what has this to do with the bbc?
I’m sorry, Dysgwr, but your statement that many people wouldn’t buy halal if it was labeled rings hollow. Consider what you’ve said. Lots of products are marked Kosher, yet you all buy them without a second thought. There is no fundamental difference between kosher meat and halal meat other than what kind of circumcised beardy-weirdy said a prayer over it and got paid for approving it. Both costs are passed on to the consumer. And I’m pretty sure there are way more products that aren’t meat or even food at all that bear the kosher mark but not halal, so the Jews most likely force a higher “tax” on you than Mohammedans do. Yet neither Condell nor most opponents of halal meat here bat an eyelash as far as I can tell. Kosher products are apparently foisted on all you unaware consumers as well. How does that make you feel?
If I describe all the various kosher marks you might find on products – a “Jew tax” if we take Condell’s approach – will you equally refuse to buy them? Or is Condell’s – and other people’s – objection to halal just a big facade to disguise a basic anti-Mohammedan stance?
The school system forcing it on everyone to cater to a minority is an entirely different story, of course. The Kosher issue doesn’t enter into it, and I certainly see there’s a real issue of the State forcing a belief system on everyone. I’d object to that on principle, regardless.
Getting back to the consumer market, though, if people want to take a “Boycott Mohammedan products” stance, fine. It’s everyone’s right (for now, anyway). Just be honest about it or expect people to notice.
But Kosher isn’t just a beardy weirdy saying a prayer on the quiet, it is the whole process and the K has become as valid as Organic and other quality marks and proudly put on packaging by producers.
The rest of whole process is irrelevant if one objects to the method of killing. Either one objects to the method, or one doesn’t, regardless of the rest of it.
True, I was just highlighting the great difference there is between Kosher, a now recognised ‘quality assurance’ scheme and halal.
The acid test would be to label it clearly, then let the customer decide.
Neither you nor I know what the result would be, it just appears to me it’s being hidden from us.
As to the facade of disliking mohammedans, I’ll feel free ( for now legally) to object to the ideology of the islamic faith if I so wish.
That is not an objection to the people who follow it, but the ideology itself.
I’ll say it once more, label halal products and let the consumer decide.
I know you’re speaking hypothetically, but how would a real test be possible? How do you put two products side by side and get a true test unless they’re the exact same thing but with a different mark?
I respect your right to object to any and all ideologies, of course. I’m just wondering why this argument about objecting to halal for animal rights reasons isn’t equally outspoken about kosher.
It may be different in the US, but in the UK there is a lot of ‘hidden’ halal meat in the foodchain.
I recall seeing stories how some nationwide fast food chains (I forget the exact details) were switching all their meat to be halal (where applicable) without telling customers. The reasoning for this was apparently that by not doing so, muslims had grounds for complaint, but if they had put up big signs saying ‘halal’ meat, its possible that some of their non-muslim customers would have been put off.
The basic dispute boils down to: is it justifiable for all meat to be halal without being labelled as such in order not to offend muslims?
Quite frankly, I think the humane arguments are a bit of a diversion, intended to create noise around the issue. If I had the choice in a restaurant to be given halal meat vs. non-halal meat (all else being equal), I personally would never choose to eat halal meat. In all honesty, I don’t think I’d have a problem with kosher meat. I see this as being fully consistent, but it would not be if my main argument was around the humaneness of the slaughter. Luckily its not: I simply don’t like the islamic ideology, and don’t want to support it either via charitable donations or by enabling its practices. In a free society, this would be my right to choose, an analogue to the right to free association.
The problem though is that in our present society, its becoming increasingly difficult to simply say ‘no’ to halal without furnishing some other ‘more legitimate’ reason. This simply shouldn’t be necessary, but unfortunately one is labelled an islamaphobe if one does so.
In my opinion, no. The forcing of it on children in school is also a very serious issue.
I wonder what would happen if some BBC mandarin told all their popular TV chefs that they could no longer feature pork in their shows, and that they could use only halal meat. Or would that be another case of laws being for the little people, and they wouldn’t have to have it forced on them like ordinary people?
As you suggest, though, the animal rights argument is a non-starter, unless one also wants to ban kosher food.
“Islamic ‘charities’ that are ‘misinterpreting Islam’ giving Taliban $200 million a year”
“How Zakat Funds Jihad”
deceit, misappropriation, deliberately misleading, willingness to fund indiscriminate mass murder …
George ahem … could it be Islam by any chance?
Morrison’s has a high % of Muslims in its workforce which is a good reason to shop elsewhere if you can. As far as I know we are still legally allowed to choose where we shop regardless of our reasons. But I suppose the liberal left will soon be urging us to attend only those stores which have the highest % of aliens on the books so that no stores remain hideously white!
“As far as I know we are still legally allowed to choose where we shop regardless of our reasons”
For the time being only, there are some who post on here that would, I suspect, make illegal now if they could.
I’ll choose my shops on the basis of service, quality, price, etc… and.. if the above is borne out, corporate policies such as with meat preparation that may or may not suit my ethical standards.
Staff composition by race or theology has no bearing.
As an aside there are some ‘shops’ that do of course force you to pay for their simply existing, whether you ever engage with them in any way or not.
A bit like Tesco charging you £145.50 each year even though you only go to Lidl.
Some are finding their way around this, but yes, ways to make even these illegal are being pursued by those who think choice is what all should offer bar them, uniquely.
I suspect part of this may be that they were originally Northern based (before buying Safeway) so many of their bigger stores would be in towns and cities with a relatively high grooming Muslim population.
From now on, I wont even park in f^*#+g morrisons!
Re: Miliband’s u-turns on supporting military intervention in Syria: he’s had a bad summer so is it surprising that over the last few days his decisions have been about: “what’s best for Ed” rather than “what’s best for Syria and Britain”?
Re: the vote itself. Parliament probably did reflect the opinions of the British people. But the opinions of the British people are moulded by influential media such as the BBC. I believe the Iraq war will have long term positive consequences. To the BBC it was pure evil and no good will come out of it, ever.
Obviously the BBC is enjoying today’s double helping: their work on the British people has come to fruition. Also, Cameron was defeated – helped by Tory divisions.
My view is that the MPs got the vote right for the wrong reasons. Most of them seem to think that the British people don’t want another Iraq because we were we still annoyed at being mislead by Blair. Well we are still annoyed about that, but the reason we don’t to join in any attack on Syria is that we have seen far too many of our soldiers killed and maimed and spent enormous amounts of money supposedly helping the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, only to demonised by Muslims all over the world. So the British people think well it that’s all the thanks we get, you can all bugger off and we will leave you to it, you ungrateful sods.
That’s what we think. Politicians, the BBC and the liberal left please note.
“That’s what we think. Politicians, the BBC and the liberal Globalist self righteous left please note.”
can’t wait for the fabricated obit for heaney – a nasty, irish nationalist gobshite, whom the bbc chose to view as an `impartial observer`
It’s up now. A fawning piece.
Heaney is probably the best English language poet of the last 40 years and well deserves to be fawned over. Did you really expect a catholic born into the protestant tyranny of northern Ireland of the 1930s/1940s not to be a nationalist. If the bbc choose to view him as impartial then that is not fault.
“Heaney is probably the best English language poet of the last 40 years”
Like Emin and Hurst are great artists-why? Because the BBC say so
Not so ? Then name a Right wing or even conservative poet of the last 40 years
He is very good because he is very good. Have you read any of his poems. I have. A Nobel prize in literature is international recognition of this and it is not to be compared to the Nobel peace prize which is political.
But then you probably think that Nobel prizes in literature only go to lefties. Like Winston Churchill.
The timing of this BBC Panorama special is a bit strange. One commentator on the Today programme this morning,professor somebosy, regretted it was just a bit too late and that if the MPs in the Commons had known about this or seen this latest example of Assads evil regime dropping napalm on a school playground, it could have changed the natiure of the vote.
We have seen lots of Pallywood, but am I alone in watching these fresh “victims arriving like the walking dead” and astonished at the theatricality of it all, “Don’t you see this! Don’t you see this!” What a strange lucid comment to make in front of people allegedly suffering. Rather hammy was especially the British Dr Rory
Ian Pannell: The victims “arrived like the walking dead”.
I’m wondering if Pannell’s piece was originally intended by the BBC editors to enhance the “drums for war” following a ‘Yes’ outcome of last nights vote?
I watched it on last night’s News at Ten and felt slighly guilty for wondering all the way through whether the bit I was seeing was staged. One man did lurch around like an extra from The Living Dead and I was torn between being appalled at what had happened to him or appalled at the hammy acting. That is what Pallywood has achieved.
Interesting current* top comment:
Why does the BBC insist on reporting this as a loss for Cameron? He had the balls to ask parliament to vote on whether we should / or not commit UK funds and troops (read soldiers lives) in Syria. They responded. He respected their decision. How can such a rare display of true democracy in action be viewed as a loss? Can we have neutral reporting please as I assume the BBC does not fund Labour!
Love the piece by Bowen on the two or three minds the weapons inspectors seem to be in. Clearly one mind to match the number of standards the BBC deploys.
*Be interesting if that doesn’t suffer a bit as all those who do not read here pop to the intranet to whip up a bit of corrective voting.
Why does the BBC insist on reporting this as a loss for Cameron?
David Cameron will sleep well tonight
Humiliated? As a prime minister and party leader, yes. But there are compensations.
To President Obama he can say, “Sorry guv, tried to help, but the boys just wouldn’t let me. We are going to remain neutral”. And then sotto voce he can add, “Neutral like you are ‘in terms of the Maldives or the Falklands, whatever your preferred term is’”
To Parliament, and through Parliament to the voters, he can say, with great ceremony “I respect your decision” and get all sorts of strange new respect from anti-war people while not losing the respect of those who thought British support for US military action against Assad was necessary, because, after all, he did try.
To Syria he can say all the right things without having to do anything. Given that it is damned difficult to know what to do, or even what is happening over there, that is a silver lining for him. In that link, Jim Miller says, “we need an explanation for the attack — whoever is responsible — that includes a motive.” Assad was winning. Why jeopardize that? A member of my family suggested that Assad might have said to his henchmen something equivalent to Henry II’s “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” “Destroy those rebels in Ghouta, and I don’t care how you do it.” Bashar Assad is an evil man, which does not make his enemies good.
Was this vote a good thing or a bad thing to happen? I do not know.
It is a generator of ironies, and not just for Cameron.
Watch Ian Pannell’s piece at 3.11. The man in the white shirt at the back – lying there in agony until he suddenly stands up and stands against the wall while the noise of the other people’s pain seems to start suddenly and the wounded turn to face the camera. What do I hope? That these people really are not in agony and are just playing to the camera – or that they are being honest and therefore in pain? Pallywood has a lot to answer for. I now rarely believe film coming from the Middle East.
“I’m wondering if Pannell’s piece was originally intended by the BBC editors to enhance the “drums for war” following a ‘Yes’ outcome of last nights vote?”
You are surely right.
Lest it slip by, this story about a BBC favoured commentator is interesting…
Given that being lied to is the order of the day by many MPs and under that roof, I really think there’s a time when serial abusers of veracity get shown the door.
Especially when many media seem selective on what they say or do at the best of times.
The British public are being totally misdirected by our political and media classes, often in concert.
It needs to stop.
Galloway, like Benn is just an agitator who bring no value to any debate. Neither would know the truth if it hit them – but they would say they recognised it if you paid them 😉 .
In years gone by both would have been hung as traitors.
Didn’t Douglas Carswell recently say the BBC ought to have Galloway presenting a programme about government corruption or something? The BBC reports about two MPs having to apologize for missing a vote on Syria, but nothing about Galloway yet. Will he get a pass again?
He’s a favoured cuntributor to the Jeremy Vine Show, where he always gets a matey reception.
Yet another reason for hating the BBC.
Sorry ‘contributor’. How Naughtiesque.
INBBC: a shift in political line on Muslim Brotherhood(MB)?:-
Does the following article represent an INBBC shift away from the MB?-
“Egypt: What poll results reveal about Brotherhood’s popularity”
By Nicholas Wade
BBC Middle East analyst.
Will this article be read and digested at BBC Arabic TV service, Broadcasting House, London, and at INBBC Cairo Bureau?
Will we hear more now about MB repression/persecution of Christians in Egypt?
Whoops! Looks like an editorial oversight – let’s see how long it stays there. Never heard anything like this on Radio 4 – questioning the popularity and democratic mandate of the MB? Still, it is only the BBC website and the article will be read by a few thousand rather than heard by 6 million had it been featured on Today.
Never heard this sentiment expressed on the BBC before either: ‘Assessing the popularity of Arab presidents, their political parties, and ideologies had long been impossible, given the absence of free speech and assembly under the Middle East’s authoritarian governments.’
I’d guess Nicholas Wade might find himself getting acquainted with ‘O’ Brien’ and Room 101 sooner rather than later.
Hilarious 5dead report, on the deceitful cesspit of the Pak, about homosexuals, meeting up in religious shrines, parties, massage parlours etc – reason according to the Pak, a western disease?
literally an open secret, so as is usual with Pakistan and Islam, better to deny and lie about it, and (of course) blame someone else.
Note – In that perverse society, being a lesbian is of course a totally different story.
wonderful example of multi kulti utopia- all bbc boxes ticked
I’ve been complaining for years that the BBC has been mostly censoring all news of the significant amount of homosexual activity in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s good that at last some at the BBC are being brave enough to report things which go against traditional Islamic teachings. You know they’re going to get complaints about reporting that there’s an abundance of homosexual activity in Mohammedan lands, so let’s see how they deal with it.
BBC reports post haste on the disappointed erm … free? Syrian army view on three blind monkeys Clegg Scameron Vague and co, being saved from themselves.
you have badly let down “our” people? .. oooer!
“our” people meaning islamists, militia, and jihadis obviously.
Meanwhile as Mr Obama is awaiting further instructions from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the BBC reports on the possible next set of deliberations to come from the Congress????
for crying out loud … I ll make it easy … its before next Wednesday!
sheamus heeeny dud – imagine the grief fest they must be concocting for the nasty, irish catholic, nationalist, shitbag
Have you read any of his poems? He was very good,
As for nasty shitbags, it Takes one to know one. The hate is strong with you.
And the faith with you
Anyone heard the Richard Bacon trails for Radio 5’s forthcoming Energy Day?
He talks about watts per hour and obviously has not a clue about energy, its units or how to measure its consumption.
Can’t blame Richard himself of course – he’ll be reading a script.
Such scientific ignorance from the BBC casts some light on why it is so gullible about every single apocalyptic climate change scare.
Priceless piece on this from Damien Thompson in today’s Telegraph:
‘If you’re a fan of BBC Radio 5 Live, you should steer clear of it on September 5. Unless you’re a raging eco-bore, in which case you’re in for a treat. To mark Energy Day, whatever that is, “Richard Bacon will be powered by the pedal as exercise bikes are set up for guests and Richard himself to ‘hop-on’.” Ed Davey and Caroline Flint will debate global warming (no sceptics allowed!). A “human hamster wheel” will generate kinetic energy. Plus loads of other fatuous green stunts. The Beeb is inviting the public to turn up and watch. No thanks: it would make me feel like an 18th-century visitor to Bedlam, whiling away a Sunday afternoon by gawping at the loonies.’
Is MIRANDA still a BBC-NUJ hero?
“High Court told Miranda was carrying ‘58,000 highly classified UK intelligence documents'”
“David Miranda row: Seized files ‘endanger agents'”
Well done George – as usual, you find the best links!
With the password and other access instructions written on a slip of paper in his pocket. Brilliant. What happened to this being about mere whistleblowing about the NSA spying on innocent US citizens?
I think it’s time to admit that the BBC’s coverage of the Passion of St. Edward has been flawed from start to finish, and at times dishonest (like V Derbyshire’s dishonest Newsnight intro). Any lurking journalists who want to correct me had better come up with something better than how I just don’t understand the arcane arts of the newsroom.
Mardell writes: “Mr Obama has always made a point of seeking the widest possible international support. TO BE ABANDONED (my caps) by such a close ally leaves him looking particularly exposed.”
“Shame on Britain for not standing by Obama The Great” is the translation – but wait! What about the US’s poodle stuff of the Bush and Reagan years? I knew the Beeb and the left would get its knickers in a twist when this whole thing started…will Jeremy Bowen report in graphic detail the result of any stray bomb in Syria the way Kate Adie did in Libya years ago? Will Obama be portrayed as a righteous hero ‘punishing’ (whatever that means) the evil Assad (or is he evil? Ask Hillary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOngyJf9U3E)
The real world is a terrible place and needs more than Mickey Mouse narrative given us by the BBC and the MSM.
Just had this pop up on my FaceBook page:
“We learnt the lessons of Iraq” – Ed Miliband.
“Backbenchers and the opposition – not the PM – set Britain’s foreign policy tonight” – BBC’s Ross Hawkins.
David Cameron has been forced to rule out any British military action in Syria after suffering a surprise defeat in Parliament: http://bbc.in/15l37IZ
Now I am sure that link (to a HYS closed already…quelle surprise) clarifies a few aspects, but the summary above tells me all I need to know about how the BBC sees this playing out, and it’s hard to think they could be more politically opportunistic, skewed or tribal if they tried with what they have opted to ‘call out’.
INBBC censorship on KASHMIR ‘militants’:-
INBBC refuses to mention Islamic jihadists here –
“Kashmir clash: ‘Five militants’ killed”
What else can we British funders of INBBC URDU expect?
Of course, INBBC Urdu knows about the Islamic jihadists in the area and there is an article on them which could have been cross- referenced into the piece. But no, for INBBC Urdu: censorship is the order of the day.
is this true..shame on you bbc….
Very true. And not an isolated incident, either. But there’s always the “fog of war” excuse.
Yes an labour referred to said picture, in house of commons debate as factual (see last nights news night) Which is why the BBC’s credibility ,or lack of it, is important.
Those ‘men’ are in the news again being charged with child prostitution:
More to follow we’re told, but happily we can refer back to the BBC’s previous article on this news item:
The second article linked tells us that it was a sikh girl who was the victim, but the BBC seems oddly reticent to tell us likewise about the ‘men’.
I suppose we have to make our own educated guesses based on the artist’s rendition of them in the courtroom (second article), and their names.
Funny how the police are always eager to say it was ‘an isolated incident’. But you can be sure they’ll never be deported back to ‘Menistan’.
More on the Evan Davis ‘lovely boy’ story, as Lithuania objects to his depiction of their country.
Now I remember the fuss made over Clarkson and the top gear team over the Mexican food remarks. It seems that some presenters are more equal than others.
Like any Beeboid suffering from LLDD (Lefty Logic Deficit Disorder) it won’t have occurred to him that this little episode might, just might, have diminished his authority when challenging coaltion ministers about finding jobs for our own unemployed – especially the 18-24 year-olds feted by the BBC.
Its all a terrible mistake ,he missed out the word ‘blow’ from his tweet.
(I know I’ve let myself down but couldn’t help it)
can’t Davis employ him as his houseboy
Ha! He’s probably got several already.
Can’t he pass him onto Mandelson?
How the bBC bends over backs 5 times a day in which to hide the peccadilloes of the followers of the religion of peace.
Leicester child prostitution trial: Six men jailed
Follow the above link and see if you can work out just who these men are. You here of a Diwali festival. (Hindu) you hear that the victim came from a Sikh family, but you don’t hear just who these men are. Read the bBC article where the bBC dodges and dives in which to make sure you just don’t know who they are talking about. Six men, the bbC names three in a way, you find it hard in which to put everything together and don’t bother with the rest and here is the ITV version:
14 years for child sex offenders’
Six men from Leicestershire have been sentenced to a total of 14 years for sexual offences against a 16-year-old girl.
The girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had sex with the men for money at various locations in Leicester.
The men pleaded guilty to paying for sexual services of a child and facilitating child prostitution.
Aabidali Ali, aged 39, received a 5-year prison sentence.
Rakib Iacub, aged 20, received a 3-year prison sentence.
Hamza Imtiaz Ali, aged 28, received a 2-year prison sentence.
Bharat Modhwadia, aged 25, received a 16-month prison sentence.
Wajid Usman, aged 21, received a 2-year prison sentence.
Chandresh Mistry, aged 37, received an 8-month prison sentence.
In court, the girl was described as “an emotionally damaged young woman with significant problems.”
Yet another example of how the bBC witholds the full facts in which to be able to continue the view that: Muslims can only be victims.
The bBC, the traitors within our midst
“hide the peccadilloes”
Is that a euphemism?
If that’s one of those crosses between a tree-boring bird and a South American mammal with an armour-like shell, it sounds like it could be bloody painful to me.
Is anybody keeping count of the number of culture-enriching gangs up and down the country caught so far?
‘Men’ at work:
QWe have reached the point where unless the names are mentioned in such cases we can safely assume that the perpetrators are muslim. Seems a self defeating policy to me.
You must remember that the political elite and their media hold ordinary people in utter contempt. The initial strategy is that they view us as too stupid to work out what is going. Strategy #2 is to try and persuade us that it’s all a small price to pay for the benefits(sic) of living in a vibrant and diverse society. Strategy #3 is to withhold the names. Strategy #4 will be not to report the crimes at all.
Strategy #5 if to accuse you of racism.
While we pay for it.
Maybe it’s time to make this Rule #2. If the BBC doesn’t mention it, you pretty much know who they are. Or maybe this falls under the penumbra of Rule #1.
looks like obama has decided to go to war over the weekend,how bizzare is that.
It’s Labor Day weekend here, so maybe He figures everybody will be at the beach and not notice.
Does this matter to BBC-NUJ?:-
“Miranda documents ‘threaten British national security'”
The National Union of Journalists, of which Beeboid membership is probably the biggest single component, is committed to supporting Miranda.
“NUJ announce that it will support David Miranda in application for a judicial review”
Read more at http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/08/30/nuj-announce-it-will-support-david-miranda-application-judicial-review#egzsAO7pPCsxu1Ux.99
While the BBC-NUJ will NOT support Americans Geller and Spencer in any judicial review against the British government ban on their entry into Britain, the BBC-NUJ will, through its trade union policy, support Brazilian Miranda on a judicial review against the British government.
And obviously, as a consequence, BBC-NUJ will report Miranda with political sympathy; but will NOT with Geller and Spencer.
They’re not credentialed journalists like Greenwald is, though, not part of the priest caste. They are usurpers, the enemy of all right-thinking journalists, especially because they hold unapproved thoughts.
What’s Brazilian Miranda’s NUJ status?
What is Brazilian Miranda’s special NUJ status to allow him to get such preferential NUJ political treatment?
He’s an associate of a member of the priest caste, doing the work of angels.
On BBC Watch this morning the pet poodle (she used to be a rottweiler until someone told her to tone it down) had the News Editor on to question her on the BBC left bias.
During the process we got to the Guardian and Greenwald and Miranda. Answer; No, no this case was very unusual. No one ever gets held for 9 hours hence our intense scrutiny.
Question; But the public and the report say that you use the Guardian more than any other source and there are statistics to prove it.
Answer; No this was and unusual and justified case.
No pushing any further with the latest revelations.
Then we move on to the Left bias report. Oh they are totally wrong; statistics can prove anything you want them too. Besides our impartiality is overseen by Ofcomm. Pet poodle does not have the background to say sorry Ofcomm state on their own website complaints about BBC impartiality must be directed to the BBC.
‘Pet poodle does not have the background to say sorry Ofcom state on their own website complaints about BBC impartiality must be directed to the BBC.’
Really? On the show that supposedly deals with complaints?
That is either a woeful lack of information and education or deliberate. I was with two mates in the pub who swore every which way a licence was needed just for having a TV. Only producing a TVL admission in our local paper (which I had forced after a #prasnews attempt to keep folk unsure backfired) did they accept the actual situation. The BBC has form on maintaining inaccurate beliefs.
That the BBC can point at OFCOM and OFCOM can point at The Trust as ultimate arbiters, and both can refuse to engage further thanks to the gap they’ve created, is just one of many unique and dire conceits spun by the BBc but tacitly supported by the establishment.
If there’s a YouTube of that exchange I’d value it highly.
Ms. Hockaday makes Hugs Boaden at her most delusional sound like a font of rational accuracy.
Just listening to Five Live now and the Beeb’s fave war correspondent luvvie John Simpson.
We know how enamoured he was of Sadam, he now explains how much he liked Assad when interviewing him – “don’t know if he’s changed”.
And the Cameron bashing is relentless – Simpson telling us how Cameron wasn’t “clever” enough to get his motion through Parliament.
Now, as others have said, I’m no fan of call me Dave – but the blatant bias against him is obscene.
No idea what the BBCs take on the Syrian thing is-but based on their run up to yesterdays vote, their sucking up to Morsi and their love for all things Obama….it`ll be fun to see how they square all these issues into a “position” to take-and to ensure that we “get with the programmes”…as long as they`re BBC ones.
Bit like the intro to Soap all those years ago.
Sir Tony and Lord Chris love Barak, don`t much like Dave.
But they employ Jeremy, Eddie and the like-and they hate Dave, love Obama.
But Dave wanted to be friends with Barak and Barak rather likes Dave…but Ed blew his vuvuzela as they both tried to be friends, so the friendship is in doubt.
But they like Ed…but remember that it was once George and Tony that were once rather too close for Lord Chris, Ed and Sir Tony.
A;ll this-so complex and they`ll end up putting a joint out trying to strike a pose or simply do the cha cha slide-AND keep all their friends happy, enemies at arms length.
Very messy, very mind-bending-all manner of madnesses, inconsistencies, hypocrisies to address while on the hoof…and all the history there for us all to check on Google.
Who`d be a BBC lefty now…and I`ve not even mentioned Bashar, Vladimir, Morsi either!
Let me know how it goes…if only Mandela was able to tell them what to think…
Will BBC-NUJ now politically distance itself from Islamic Al JAZEERA TV?
We know many ex-Beeboids work for the Emirate of Qatar’s Islamic Al Jazeera, both in London (soon to be based in Qatar’s Shard skyscraper) and in Doha, Qatar.
We know Qatar’s Islamic Al Jazeera, like INBBC, has been supporting the Muslim Brotherhood-
“Al Jazeera’s Muslim Brotherhood Problem”
By Bob Dreyfuss
(July 10, 2013).
INBBC needs to politically distance itself from both the Muslim Brotherhood, AND from Islamic Al Jazeera.
“EGYPT DETAINS 4 AL JAZEERA JOURNALISTS, CALLS TERROR TV STATION ‘THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY'”
“Al-Jazeera Commentator, Former MB Official, Gamal Nassar: Al-Sisi Is Jewish, Implementing Protocols of Elders of Zion in Egypt”
(2 min video clip).
That is whom INBBC is politically associated with, in its links to Al Jazeera and Qatar.
Although many ex-Beeboids work for Al Jazeera, INBBC must politically dissocate itself from Islamic Al Jazeera and its political links to Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.
This isn’t directly linked to the BBC, but instead serves as a warning about why what the BBC covers up about jihadist terrorists in the UK is so potentially harmful:
If the BBC ever got wind of british police or security services proactively spying on any of the major mosques in London, Birmingham, or any other city with large muslim populations, you can bet we’d not hear the end of how institutionally racist the country had become. And yet, in light of the terrorism carried out on these shores over the last few years, the majority of which is liked to jihadis, the nation’s broadcaster covering it’s eyes to whats happening cannot simply be excused away on the grounds of political correctness.
The BBC doesn’t much care about people spying on mosques in search of jihadi stuff. Just as long as it’s not the likes of Charles Moore doing it…….
It just keeps getting better:
Report: Assad moving human shields to possible target sites in Syria
Embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad is moving prisoners taken by the regime to military sites across the country that could be targeted by U.S. forces
Buses reportedly filled with Syrian prisoners streamed from facilities in Damascus toward the Mezzeh airbase to the south of the city, according to recent reports.
Mezzeh airbase is likely one of the key military targets U.S. military and intelligence officials have tagged for missile strikes in the country.
The move is a possible sign that Assad is planning to use human shields as a way to deter American warships from launching missile strikes against vital military installations in the country.
I guess Assad figured he wasn’t going to get plane-loads of the anti-war muppets to come in and protect the innocents from the big bad US war machine. Where are they these days, BBC? But wait: isn’t this another violation of international law? I mean, the Palestinians do it regularly and nobody cares, but Israel isn’t the villain of this picture, so the BBC might have to handle it differently.
Still, I don’t know why Assad thinks this is going to do anything. What’s a few more innocent lives to a Nobel Peace Prize laureate?
Does anybody know a private company that does the same as the BBC?
BBC spent £42,971 on alcohol and another £33,745 on leaving parties
Ordered in 13,000 bottles of wine and 11,000 bottles of beer and cider
Another £1.3million was spent subsidising canteens for staff to eat cheaply
How many staff could have been kept if the BBC weren’t subsidising their canteen, or buying booze and food for leaving parties?
You’ll be reassured to hear
A BBC spokesman said: ‘We are mindful of our obligation to the licence-fee payer when purchasing food and drink and the BBC has tight guidelines that govern the occasions when alcohol may be bought.’
‘Tight guidelines’? He must be using the slang term for tight meaning getting drunk.
Sure. Lots of mega corporations and banks and hedge funds do that on a regular basis. It’s a drop in the bucket for some of them. Of course, those aren’t funded by a tax and run by people who regularly demonize those who do this sort of thing with their own money. You won’t hear Robert Peston describing any of that as as “bonkers”.
This website is filth. The ministry will shut this down in due course.
Credit when its due to the BBC.
Just listened to Roger Scruttons slamming of the EU and defense of nation states:
BBC-NUJ ♥ MIRANDA.
This is who BBC-NUJ is STILL embracing, now financially, and legally, and well as journalistically too!:-
“Lives of MI6 agents ‘put at risk’ by 58,000 secret files seized from Guardian journalist’s partner at Heathrow”
“David Miranda: NUJ supports judicial review”
-an NUJ PR piece from, of course, ‘Guardian’s R. Greenslade.
1.) Is Miranda a British subject? Or Brazilian?
2.) Is Miranda a member of British NUJ?
3.) Is NUJ concerned that Miranda may have acted against British national interests?
4.) Will, e.g. BBC-NUJ not inevitably report on Miranda in a politically favourable, biased way?
5.) Will BBC-NUJ afford similar treatment to Americans, Geller and Spencer, who are banned from UK, as it is doing to Miranda? If not, why not?
The NUJ-MIRANDA love-in.
NUJ ❤ MIRANDA.
BBC-NUJ ❤ MIRANDA.
Guardian-NUJ ❤ MIRANDA.
Let’s hope Miranda will fully be accustomed with his Miranda rights.
I mean, come on, selling to the Chinese or Russians US/UK secrets has always been something to be aspired on, even by the average Beeboid–GroanYard rookie.
despite best efforts to bury this – still pops up on the Yorkshire Page
a deceitful lying head of council, who knew and was related? to a groomer of children, orchestrator of child gang rape, knew all about it, but said nothing?
… would that be a muslim by any chance?
more … enrichment?
where every bodies religion get a mention it appears, apart from? …….. erm I ll let you guess
This is interesting …
One of the biggest canyons in the world has been found beneath the ice sheet that smothers most of Greenland.
The canyon – which is 800km long and up to 800m deep – was carved out by a great river more than four million years ago, before the ice arrived.
It was discovered by accident as scientists researching climate change mapped Greenland’s bedrock by radar.
The ice sheet, up to 3km (2 miles) thick
But why is it necessary to add this?
The canyon has never been seen by humans, who didn’t exist four million years ago. If the Greenland ice sheet melts completely it will raise global sea level by 7 metres and swamp many major cities
Rather like an chat between BBC employees I heard recently about space exploration. Necessary said the BBC “expert” because in a few billion years the earth will become uninhabitable – have these jokers no conception of geological time? Our civilisation has only existed for a handful of thousands of years.