271 Responses to WEEKEND OPEN THREAD

  1. Sinniberg says:

    Well, I’ve just clicked on the BBC News website and what a page full of utter doom and gloom.

    Fairly cheered me up this Friday. Not.

    Is it the BBC’s mission to fill everybody’s lives with misery?.

    I remember hearing Terry Wogan one morning before he retired.

    It was the 9am News Bulletin and the last article was the usual BBC blurb of how man was causing the destruction of the rain forrests or someting.

    As the jingle finished Terry Wogan came back on with the words “Oh give us a break!”.

    Indeed.

       68 likes

  2. lynette says:

    Today Programme – Montegu inteviewed Lady Warsi – a Muslim woman about the fact that because of the persecution of Christians from their lands of their origins.they are dissapearing .The BBC were in safe hands and managed to conduct a whole interview without mentioning that the Muslims or islamists were responsible. This must have been curious to the listeners who surely would want to know what was the cause of the problem.

    Lady Warsi talked of working with the Pakistan government to stop this but this was confusing as Pakistan was never a place Christians originated from.. . And then the presenter said “what about other governments in the Middle East such as Iran and Israel?” ……

    Ironically Israel is the ONLY country in the Middle East where the Christian population is in fact increasing.

    The presenter is not only ignorant but deliberately sought to misleed the listeners. To suggest the Israel persecutes Christians is nasty propaganda and the exact opposite is true. The BBC MUST hear our voices of complaint at this lie.

       97 likes

    • noggin says:

      Deliberate obfuscation, lying by omission, protectionist of the perpetrators …. same old story
      sheesh! that Warsi eh! … anyone would think she was
      muslim wouldn t they?
      On Sri Lanka, Scameron and the BBC eh! … like that they are (crosses fingers) …. erm those Tamil Tigers terrorists wouldn t be muslim would they?

      “Baroness Warsi has declared that IslamoFAUXbia is a government priority” … a Parliamentary Group on IslamoFAUXbia?!*!? … whatever next?
      sheesh! anyone would think she was involved, and deliberately batting for the deceitful and insidious OIC wouldn t they? …

      Warsi, Pickles, Vague, Scameron, Hughes

         43 likes

    • Derek Buxton says:

      Unfortunately lying is what they do. It is inbuilt in their brains……..What I hear you cry, they actually have a brain?????

         25 likes

  3. 45543 says:

    The BBC strolling hand in hand with one of David “has nothing to do with Islam” Cameron’s ministers. Today Programme this morning (Friday 15/11/13):

    Montague: It’s now six minutes to seven. Foreign Office minister Baroness Warsi has warned that Christians in some parts of the world face extinction because of violence against them. She says it has become a global crisis and she is giving a speech in Washington today about what should be done to address the problem. I spoke to her earlier.

    Warsi: I’m concerned Sarah, as are members of the public from the large amount of correspondence that we receive. That the birth place of Christianity, the parts of the world where Christianity first spread, is now seeing large sections of the Christian community leaving, and those that are remaining – felling persecuted. And there are huge advantages to having pluralistic societies, everything from the economy to the way which people develop educationally. And therefore we all have an interest in making sure that Christian communities do continue to feel like they belong and are not persecuted in the places where this religion was born.

    Montague: There have been a number of examples recently of churches and Christians being under attack. It’s particularly bad for Christianity do you think?

    Warsi: It is, I mean – look one in ten Christians live in a minority situation. And large numbers of those who live in a minority situation around the world are persecuted. And I think, tragically what’s happening is that they are being seen as newcomers, being portrayed as another within that society even though they have existed there for many-many centuries. And what we are seeing sadly is a sense of collective punishment which is meted out by local groups, sometimes states, sometimes extremists. They are seen as legitimate targets for what they perceive as actions of their co-religionists. And this concept of collective punishment about them being seen as agents of maybe the West, or other places around the world, or agents of régimes is wrong. And that therefore we need to speak out and raise this with the countries where this is happening. For example, I mean I have responsibility for -er- Pakistan. One of the things that we have been involved with is having very frank conversations with the Prime Minister there, with the Foreign Minister, with the minister who has responsibility for religious affairs. Saying that politicians have a duty to speak out when this kind of persecution happens and to set the standard by which they expect societies to follow.

    Montague: But you are talking about an area that is seeing a huge amount of upheaval at the moment. Beyond speaking out, one wonders what difference you can really make?

    Warsi: There is much more that we can do. Look there is a international consensus in the form of a Human Rights Council resolution on the treatment of minorities and tolerance towards other faiths. But we need to build political will behind that. Of course there have been moments when religious communities have been in conflict. But there have been great moments of co-existence between faiths and there isn’t an intrinsic clash between different faiths.

    Montague: But are you saying – can I just ask – countries like Pakistan that you refer to, or perhaps Israel, or even Iraq. Where there is a functioning government – is it just down to the politicians in those countries to speak out and this problem could be solved.

    Warsi: Politicians need to set the standard. There was some interesting research that came out of the US, which said that the way in which a community is treated after an incident. A minority community is treated after say an extremist incident, is very much dependent upon the tone that politicians set. Therefore politicians do have a responsibility to set the tone. They have a responsibility to mark out legal parameters as to what will and what will not be tolerated. It’s-it’s a tragedy Sarah, that 83% of countries have a constitution with in which freedom of religion is defined as protected, but it’s not followed. Er-we have- we have articles, international articles which are the most translated on freedom of religion but they are not implemented. So it is not just about having laws, it’s about politicians having the political will to implement these laws.

    Montague: Baroness Warsi – thank you very much.

       37 likes

    • chrisH says:

      Outrageous-only the BBC would dare to include Israel as countries where Christians are persecuted( or feel so, according to Warsi)…in the same carpet bag as Iraq and Pakistan.
      Only the BBC would omit Israel from the list of countries that raced in to give help to the Phillippines.
      Any sign of the Israeli Ambassador?…I`ll be writing today.
      Let`s hope lynettes call is acted upon…how do we deal with this?

         63 likes

      • Dave s says:

        Do not complain to the BBC but tell everyone. Hold it in your memory and be certain that there are many others who will too. The BBC is beyond condemnation in it’s attitude to Israel. I would expel every last BBc reportrer if I was Israeli. And I would tell the world why.

           37 likes

        • lynette says:

          Doing nothing is NOT an option Dave !

             19 likes

          • Dave s says:

            I did not say do nothing. I said do not complain to the BBC. It is beyond all such things. It is the other side in the culture war.

               14 likes

            • lynette says:

              You may well be right ! But if each individual here who ticked it sent in a complaint to the BBC it will have some kind of impact – the BBC is obligated to respond to complaints. The Charter( as far as I’m aware ) is still in place.and they must be held to account for slander and inciting hatred .

                 25 likes

            • chrisH says:

              I`ve told BBC Watch, Jewish World Review, Algermeiner and the Emmaus Group-as well as Ismail Khaldi who is the Israeli Diplomat charged with taking on this propaganda for the nation of Israel.
              He`s a Bedouin, Arab Muslim defending Israel in a “Christian” country….no other place in the “Middle east” would tolerate that kind of social mobility would it?
              God Bless Israel!…

                 46 likes

        • Guest Who says:

          ‘Do not complain to the BBC but tell everyone’
          At risk of coming across as one of those please-everybody pols, may I offer that what you both say has merit, and maybe the solution is pursuing what you both advocate.
          Complaining to the BBC is, essentially, pointless, yes. They self-arbitrate and have had any ethical self-awareness disconnected.
          However, within the BBC and more crucially outside, if you do not complain to them first, nothing else will count.
          Hence, I regret to say, despite the hoops and abuses they have created to drive you away, you need to play the only game in town: theirs.
          Because if… when you do, it is on record and they have to deal with it (until they get so embarrassed by their own inabilities to handle a complaint and make up a secret, internal, foi-excluded reason for an expediting – frustrating, but actually of value in its own right down the line). And if you keep your cool, don’t rise to provocation, avoid the cut-out bear traps, those records will count, and tell a story.
          It doesn’t matter that in 99.9999% of cases the complaint ‘fails’, because the reason it, and others fail, will be on record.
          And eventually, the BBC will be confronted by a public who have come to realise that their ‘belief’ in their getting things just about right… is not enough.
          Which brings me to Dave’s complementary point to Lynette’s.
          They rely on secrecy… so ignore that ‘let’s keep this our little secret’ legalese attempt at the end of all communications.
          Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and the BBC, CECUTT especially, react like vampires when the shutters are thrown open as much on them as they presume to hold others to account.
          So yes, tell everyone.
          And beyond the matter at hand, if the BBC also is seen to have tried to blow off any questions or accounting to make it go away, that simply compounds their complicity in running a propaganda outfit backed by censorship.
          Which is why they try and do all in their power to shut down any well-founded criticism in the public domain, anywhere.

             22 likes

      • noggin says:

        Warsi – Rep for the Conservative OIC
        but not for anyone here, unelected.
        Waffling on about Christian persecution?
        is that before the dinner table or after?
        she probably has to rush off to speak on Islamofauxbia?

        there s a sick joke in there somewhere.

           18 likes

      • MartinW says:

        Of course, there are many precedents. The previous one was the BBC ignoring Israel sending a large contingent of medical staff, equipment and supplies to Haiti after the earthquake, where they were one of the largest contributors (and did sterling work). The BBC news department are utter scum, I’m afraid.

           17 likes

    • Cosmo says:

      Has she been to Bethlehem lately, totally Jew and Christian free !

         29 likes

      • chrisH says:

        Thanks lynette.
        Heard it on iPlayer, sent my first ever complaint into the BBC…let`s hope they`re made to pay for this one at last.
        Should really have signed myself off as the Ghost of Balen shouldn`t I?…they`d probably run from that as fast as if I`d signed in as Sir Jimmy of Leeds!
        Woooo!

           35 likes

        • lynette says:

          Don’t accept their first unsatisfactory answer. Bring your complaint to Head of Complaints. Also get your local MP involved if BBC responses are too slow.or unsatisfactory – that way the BBC will take you more seriously. – it all helps. He /She has an obligation to see that they comply with the law and answer you within the required time etc.

             30 likes

    • Derek Buxton says:

      We are supposed to have “religious freedom”……..for every nutjob but Christians, funny that!

         20 likes

    • johnnythefish says:

      Where are the Defenders of the Indefensible?

      Each time you think BBC bias couldn’t get any worse, it does.

         23 likes

    • OldBloke says:

      That’s a very clever *log on name* you have there!

         2 likes

  4. Oldbob says:

    I watched qt last night. Ed Davey is clearly insane, he was in full delusional flow on his green religion but you could see the “possession” in his eyes and body language.

    How the hell have we ended up with such a deranged clown like this in control of something so fundamentally critical to our survival as energy ? When you reflect on it, it truly is scary.

       86 likes

    • Alan Larocka says:

      Watching his deluded performance on QT – he couldn’t hide his sheer contempt for Nigel Lawson. Unbelievable that this kind of prick has any kind of job let alone a government position. Who voted for this clown? Is it not abundantly clear that he is completely unsuitable for anything other than BBC/Guardian/Local Authority Inspector?

         75 likes

      • chrisH says:

        Well-when you were regarded as even LESS fit for Liberal office that Chris(trouser press) Huhne…you`re no better really that what Savile trod in as he preened at the back of the BBCs carparks up and down the land.
        Wavey Davey…as good an “icon” for the political class in the 21st Century in Britain as you might dread to find.
        Will we able to convert him to a concert venue when he`s done?…if which case he may NOT be as worthless an article as Blairs Dome in 2000.

           28 likes

        • London Calling says:

          There is only one possible use for Davey, as in “It’s getting a bit chilly in here, pop another Ed Davey on the fire, love”

             2 likes

      • Ian Hills says:

        Huhne got a job with a renewables firm as soon as his 10 minute ordeal in prison ended….

           24 likes

    • Derek Buxton says:

      Indeed, scary it is. That people of that character could even be in politics is frightening, it certainly scare the hell out of me. But it says an awful lot about the Camerloon who gave him the job, just stupid or plain hatred of the British..

         28 likes

  5. Thoughtful says:

    http://rexcurry.net/nazi%20salute%206.jpg

    This photograph is often used in lectures at government schools and universities. The original photograph is displayed at the start of the presentation and the audience is asked “What does this photograph show?”

    The incorrect answer that is always given by spectators involves variations of: “German children under Adolf Hitler.”

    The correct answer is never received from audiences.

    Often, after the correct answer is explained in a lengthy lecture with additional photographs and films, some students/teachers/spectators still do not believe it.

       22 likes

    • Phil Ford says:

      As someone who has read a great deal on the history of The Third Reich and Hitler’s rise to power, I do find it odd, to say the least, that the Nazi Party is always referred to as a ‘far right’ fascist party.

      I suppose, if we put on our revisionist progressive spectacles and view events through them it might just be possible to see the National Socialist Democratic Worker’s Party (the Nazi Party) not as a political party fashioned along socialist lines, as Hitler intended and made abundantly clear in countless speeches, but instead as a far right, capitalist dictatorship.

      Personally, I follow the historical facts on this issue. Hitler saw himself and his Thousand Year Reich as a vast socialist project, one designed to create an undemocratic ‘European superstate’ – with ‘Germania’ at its centre. A project in which the ‘collective’ citizenry, every one of them essentially enslaved to the State, would all be subject to centralist rule, relentless life-long propaganda (with special focus on childhood indoctrination), unwavering dedication to the unelected Leadership (around which a cult was ruthlessly promoted) and a war-like hunger for conquest and domination.

      The Nazi Party were a socialist outfit (who even fought amongst themselves about just how socialist they were to be) who made pragmatic accommodation with the remnants of a capitalist military-industrial complex in the run-up to the outbreak of WWII. As the war years passed, more and more of Germany’s faltering industry would find itself under state control – something which had been Hitler’s stated aim right from the start.

         40 likes

      • chrisH says:

        Cogently put, 100% correct.
        And here is the ghost of Ralph Miliband to account for this seeming contradiction and here`s Tristram Hunt to tell us just how the Nazi Socialist Democratic Workers Party became a Right wing global conspiracy…would that be the Jews again Johann Hari?
        Oh-and now to Newsround…with the ghost of Jimmy Savile…how`s that Children In Need appeal going to get money to recreate your memorial stone Sir James?

           28 likes

  6. Phil Ford says:

    So, last night’s QT, if little else, proved to be a shocking display of the current level of ‘climate change’ ignorance at work within all parties of government here in the UK. Bravely, if largely ineffectually, Lord Lawson of the Global Warming Policy Foundation attempted to bring some reasoned – and factually correct – logic to the proceedings, but hampered by a dimwit panel and an equally clueless studio audience, he never really stood a chance of smashing through the decades-old wall of ignorance and misinformation built up around so-called ‘CAGW’ that the BBC and others have spent so long carefully inculcating into the public consciousness.

    Cheerled by the gullible Ed Davey, Chief Government Climate Alarmist at the comically named Department for Energy and Climate Change (and never was there a more socially redundant, politically and economically wasteful government department than this), it wasn’t long before Labour’s useful idiot, Stella Creasy, decided to get in on the Lawson-bashing, CAGW-promoting act.

    Creasy must fancy herself as some of kind of ‘Climate Change’ expert, judging from the way she vociferously carried on during last night’s QT. She launched into several extended hectoring attacks on Lawson on the subject of ‘one of the greatest dangers facing us all today’, seemingly unaware she was merely parroting all the usual tired, wholly-discredited CAGW memes that sceptics have long since debunked (melting ice caps, extreme weather events, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, ozone layer, glaciers melting, etc, etc).

    Creasy, like Davey and several useful idiots coincidentally in the audience, also gleefully linked Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines to ‘climate change’, shamelessly playing on the emotive aspects of the tropical storm in a desperate attempt to conceal her obvious ignorance of the science behind so-called CAGW. Things reached their logical conclusion when one audience member, in all seriousness, expressed his alarm that Portsmouth might soon disappear beneath the rising tides of the English Channel. You couldn’t make it up – oh, hang on.

    In the end, and despite Lord Lawson’s best attempts, the entire climate change ‘discussion’ was – predictably – dominated by the boorish haranguing of Davey and Creasy; both fully signed-up CAGW zealots and both determined to shout down, bully and silence their critics with ad hom attacks married to their poor understanding of their subject. Ed Davey appeared to have even less grasp of CAGW’s many fallacies than I previously feared. Which is worrying, to say the least.

    It all made for fairly depressing viewing. Frightening, even, when one considers just how deeply embedded into the complex layers of government bureaucracy, mass media and wider society the whole CAGW scam has become. We can look to the BBC to thank for much of that – a task it still performs today with undimmed enthusiasm, determined as it is to push the political agenda behind the climate change scare to the expense of scientific and journalistic honesty.

       68 likes

    • JimS says:

      We are told that the climate is changing and ‘we’ need to do something about it.
      Once it was ‘Global Warming’ but now it is ‘Climate Change’, which, of course, covers all the bases. So it is perfectly possible according to believers in human responsibility that the UK might get colder and wetter while the rest of the world gets warmer.
      We are going to look pretty stupid if our local climate changes to one which is cloudier and windless and our expensively procured ‘renewables’ produce nothing.

         42 likes

    • Beez says:

      Thanks Phil. I’ve pretty much given up on watching Question time now for obvious reasons. Your summation of proceedings doesn’t at all surprise me and fits perfectly within the BBC mould. Countless times i tell my friends about the BBC’s bias, evident every single Thursday night on QT. But they’ll have none of it. You see, this is what the BBC is capable of; distorting facts and continuous lying to fit their twisted agenda has rendered the most able of thinkers to cower from the truth.

         49 likes

      • Marsh says:

        Yes, I gave up on QT over a year ago now, and better I am for it too. Sadly, I have to pay for this pish.

           29 likes

        • chrisH says:

          Shouldn`t we
          a) count the number of hours of BBC output that we dare no longer go near, due to lefty bias and anti-Semitic/USA allergies breaking out?
          b) do this-collate it over a random week or two.
          c) quantify this segment of the license fee that only pays for terrorism promotion on free EU/UN/Labour/Greenie agitprop.
          d) En bloc-all refuse to pay this part of next years licence and give reasons for it.
          d) Give the saved money to Friends of Israel or the Syrian and Egyptian Churches to get them entry visas to get way…swapping them for many, many terrorist appeasers in return.
          Let the umma celebrate that we`d swap one Coptic Christian for 1000 Pally Army souljas and their supply vehicles like Doucett and Sackur.
          Because these Christians might tell the rest of us what Islamification leads to…for anybody who really still doesn`t know.

             24 likes

    • Roland Deschain says:

      I didn’t watch it: for reasons you will all* appreciate, I long since gave up watching that pile of drivel. I assume however that the studio audience all appeared to have bought into CAGW.

      Which is strange. Because I seem to recall that the public is actually pretty sceptical about it all, despite the years of indoctrination and that’s certainly been my impression whenever the subject is raised. Surely the audience wouldn’t have been skewed?

      *except Dez, Scott Albaman and sundry passing Germans

         41 likes

      • chrisH says:

        Do we need a rota system to watch Dimblebys tattoo get wider by the week?
        Maybe a whip round to provide a beer or wine or two to those who will put up with getting their souls slapped about and brains addled with limesmould and lavender nosegays as seen through Lennos rose tinted specs( copies available via BBC Ono Industries)…may be broken for artistic merit.
        I`ll do mine when one of the few thinking folks we all know and love(Mel, Peter, Douglas, James D etc) get to be on…maybe a campaign to get Scruton or Booker on would be a useful outlet for our rage until then.

           15 likes

        • Rueful Red says:

          From Guido:

          “According to CNN, a scorpion tattoo is a “biohazard symbol” in the gay community for having HIV. Apparently the stinging tale of the scorpion represents the virus.”

             14 likes

    • #88 says:

      I wouldn’t be so despondent Phil.
      You are right about the haranguing and the utterly appalling performance of Davey and in particular Creasy (interesting how the lightweight, shallow Miliband has culled Labour’s big beasts and replaced them with identikit sound-bite deliverers, all of them air-heads, of no talent and substance – no doubt to protect his own position).
      But there were a couple of telling exchanges that tell me that the audience were no mugs – one when Lawson snapped at Davey, telling him that he was having the wool pulled over his eyes, this to loud applause; and towards the end of the programme when Stella Creasy was going off on one, allowed at length to deliver a ‘Day after Tomorrow’ disaster speech. She waited for applause…she got tumbleweed. Her face was a picture as she looked pleadingly for some recognition from the audience, of which there was none.

         42 likes

      • Phil Ford says:

        Yes, you are quite correct; Lord Lawson did manage at least to get in a cracking jibe at the useless Ed Davey – and was surprisingly well rewarded with strong audience applause.

        Davey and Creasy, though? *facepalm.jpg*

        Is this the actual standard of ‘politician’ this country is now reduced to..?

           27 likes

    • johnnythefish says:

      So last week it was Euroscepticism – in the form of Nigel Farage – up before the QT kangaroo court.

      This week it was ‘climate change’ scepticism – in the form of Nigel Lawson – up before the QT kangaroo court.

      Nuff said.

         31 likes

    • uncle bup says:

      ‘If I said to you ‘There’s a 60 per cent chance your house might burn down; do you want to take out some insurance?’ You take out some insurance. I think we should think about climate change like that.’
      ————————————————————————–

      And as for this fat idiot.

      Dave, mate, how bout if I said to you that no-one has ever seen ‘fire’, that ‘fire’ only appears on the computer ‘modeling’ of people who are paid to promote this ‘fire’, and that you had to pay two or three or four trillion dollars to insure against your house being burnt down by ‘fire’ not to mention carpeting the country in utterly ludicrous windmills. Do you still think we should think about ‘fire’ like that.

      The man really is a fool, or pretending to be a fool. Immaterial because the end result to us is still the same.

      Still he’s had a lot of experience of the real world – working as a PR bunny for a couple of years and then becoming a full-time state apparatchik.

         7 likes

  7. Dick the Butcher says:

    I agree, scary it is. I normally regard conspiracy theorists in much the same light as I do astrologers or economists, but something strange does seem to be going on. “Those whom the gods would destroy…..” comes increasingly to mind as each day brings more evidence of the madhouse that is modern Britain. Thank heaven for the internet, because we don’t get much truth from the state broadcaster.

       50 likes

    • Geoff says:

      “…..but something strange does seem to be going on”

      Thought it was just me, have always had complete disdain for such theorists as Icke and Alex Jones, but remember Icke outed Savile years ago.

      Watching QT one or two panelists aside most seem alien!

         31 likes

    • Dave s says:

      They are pods. Remember ‘Invasion of the Bodysnatchers”
      Think of them as pods newly hatched out and you can laugh. Any other explanation is too depressing.

         12 likes

  8. chrisH says:

    Happy Saviles day everybody!
    We`ll really have to create the card for this one next time.
    I was thinking white poppies surrounding the classic picture of Uncle Jim , with an EU/Saudi flag…with Glitter and Harriet Harman/Margaret Hodge in the background.
    “D`ya wanna be in my gang..yeah!”..recorded by the BBC news team etc?
    May well be worthwhile looking around your schools today-I`ve noticed lots of staff and kids going in, in their PYJAMAS FFS?
    But don`t look too closely will you?…seems the teachers and BBC local forts of bluster will be doing that for us all.
    Creepy?…but isn`t that the memorial to Jims Reign he would have wanted?
    Bless!
    Happy Saviles Travels everybody!

       26 likes

    • #88 says:

      I’ll be watching the football…the MENS’ football, that is.

      Mmm. Perhaps the BBC will be demanding we watch a women’s game and send detector vans round to make sure.

         25 likes

  9. pah says:

    One of our local school girls was on a round-a-bout collecting today in a skin tight latex Cat Woman suit – a road accident waiting to happen.

    The other year the sixth formers dressed up in St Trinian’s gym slips; again no doubt sponsored by the local body shops.

    All harmless fun – until someone makes it elsewise.

       15 likes

    • chrisH says:

      Until the peeping toms at the BBC make it a news splash!
      Lord Pattens “Savilisation” series needs making…a truly creepy culture developing, alongside all those dyes for the bearded gentleman.

         11 likes

    • Alan Larocka says:

      Hope they don’t go into the kebab shop

         21 likes

      • pah says:

        This is in rural Oxfordshire so there is no chance of them straying too close to a taxi rank or kebab shop. There aren’t any.

           14 likes

        • Mohammed Muhamed Mahomed says:

          Brother Pah, may allah bless you for your post.

          great business opportunity. can you inform me please how to get to oxfordshire from syria by safe route. I can run kebab shop and taxi firm from house infidel’s have to give me

             20 likes

          • pah says:

            Best way is to pop along to Aleppo town centre and shout ‘Jesus loves me’ for as long as it takes for some of your co-religionists to stop and offer you a lift.

            Of course, they may not bring you straight here and there is a chance you may die, but it must be worth it, no?

               16 likes

            • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

              ‘ there aren’t any’
              Not yet there aint matey, it’s simply a matter of time.

                 3 likes

              • pah says:

                Maybe, maybe not. House prices around here are such that most locals can’t afford to buy and the social housing lists are long.

                We do have some exotic restaurants and we did have a few Poles in caravans but they moved on to pastures new.

                So maybe not.

                NB The pubs round here are so rural that I’ve lived here 20 years and I still have trouble getting served. Unless there’s and ‘oooh ahhar’ in any request for drink one tends to get ignored.

                dal bysedd croesi eh?

                   2 likes

                • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

                  Bydedd croesi yn wir!
                  Mae pethe yn Sir Benfro yn iawn hefyd, ond pryd bydd yr ymfuddwyr yn dod.
                  Yes, when they reach Sir Benfro too?
                  Who knows pah.

                     0 likes

  10. John Anderson says:

    Earlier this week several people referred to Oprah Winfrey claiming that criticisms of Obama were rooted in racism.

    She has ranted on like that for years, so I was not surprised. Par for the course.

    My deeper worry is that many people at the BBC follow this line – such as Mark Mardell. They simply can’t accept that Obama had a paper-thin resume with nil real achievements in his background, nil real practical experience, nil legal experience of any depth, a lot of very questionable current friends and a background from childhood of being mentored by Marxists. Since his election in 2008 they cannot accept that he has shown himself to be intransigent on everything, scornful of all opponents and criticism – the very opposite of his election promises to bring a new kind of non-confrontational politics. That he has shown himself to be hopeless at inter-personal dealings – he can’t even be bothered to keep in contact with Congressmen on his own side. Hopeless on foreign policy, hopeless on economic policy. And a long record of covering up scandals – none of the promised “transparency”. With repeated instances of Obama acting outside the law, acting in defiance of legislation – as if HE makes the laws simply by executive fiat.

    THAT is why Obama is attacked. He has tried to impose radical change on America, and half or more of the population opposes such radical change.

    I have now seen a clip of the interview between Will Gompertz of the BBC and Oprah Winfrey. It was NOT Winfrey who raised the falsity of criticisms of Obama being rooted in racism. It was Gompertz who deliberately fed her that line. Blame Gompertz for the incident – not Winfrey.

    Just another sign that Obama-worship spreads right across the BBC.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/11/14/opran_obama_attacked_in_many_cases_because_hes_black.html

       43 likes

  11. pah says:

    I’m surprised it took the Dimocrites so long to appoint a Black President because the advantages for them are all there for everyone to see. No matter how the man or woman performs there will always be those dimwits who hate him ‘cos ‘es black innit! This allows the Dimocrites to claim that all opposition is racist and to wheel out one of those racist to foam their hatred as proof.

    Job done.

    Now all the Republicans need to do is appoint their own for the real fun to start.

       20 likes

  12. bannerman says:

    Under article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 (the founding document of our Constitution) we have a right to enter into lawful rebellion if we feel we are being governed unjustly. Contrary to common belief our Sovereign and her government are only there to govern us and not to rule us and this must be done within the constraint of our Common Law and the freedoms asserted to us by such Law, nothing can become law in this country if it falls outside of this simple constraint.

    Article 61 shows quite clearly who really holds the power in this country, that being quite simply us the people; we have Sovereignty not any Parliament and nor can this be taken from us by any Parliament who claim to have taken the people’s Sovereignty. As defined above any act passed by a Parliament to remove the power the people possess, or to remove the power from the point of constraint we invested the power in, is invalid as it falls outside of the constraint laid down by Common/Constitutional Law.

    This is a simple safeguard put in place to protect our freedoms under said law and to never allow such freedoms to be removed or diminished. So in reality any Act, Statute and subsequent law or legislation formed by these actions, that effects our freedoms asserted to us, is quite evidently unjust, invalid and most certainly illegal.

    By invoking article 61 we are quite clearly stating that we feel we are being governed unjustly and after giving the head of state (Her Majesty) 40 day’s to correct this, if this is not corrected, then we can simply enter into lawful rebellion and we do this under the full protection of our Constitutional Law.

    Lawful rebellion allows quite simply for the following recourse;

    1. Full refusal to pay any forms of Tax, Fines and any other forms of monies to support and/or benefit said unlawful governance of this country.
    2. Full refusal to abide by any Law, Legislation or Statutory Instrument invalidly put in place by said unlawful governance that is in breech of the Constitutional safeguard.
    3.To hinder in any way possible all actions of the treasonous government of this land, who have breeched the Constitutional safeguard; defined with no form of violence in anyway, just lawful hindrance under freedom asserted by Constitutional Law and Article 61.

    Above are listed the three main ways we can as a people rely upon article 61 and what this allows for. The British people were given over 700 years ago a Law to use as there recourse when faced with either a Parliamentary dictatorship, or a Sovereign trying to rule by Divine Right, which amounts to the same thing. We have a right, and a birth right at that, to be governed properly under our birth right law and no other and certainly not by laws introduced on the pretence of being British Law, when in fact all laws passed since 1973 have been European laws in the guise of British law. We have a right to freedom within our true law and no Parliament can remove this for they were not present in its implementation nor did it need any Parliament, or any Parliament involvement, this was quite simply a deal struck between the people and a Sovereign, a deal which can never be broken.

    The traitors that reside in the Parliament of this country only fear one thing and that quite simply is us the people and they know that they can never defend themselves, or defend their treasonous actions, lies and deceit against the power of the people, asserted by and given by, the founding document of our Constitution Magna Carta 1215. They realize, as many others do, that once the British public grasps the power of Magna Carta in both hands and start to use it in their defense; their game is quite simply up.

    What does Magna Carta stand for?

    In stands for freedom, that the people have Sovereignty that cannot be removed by anyone and it stands for the only real true rule of law; that no one, without exception, is above the law.

    What does Article 61 (Lawful Rebellion) stand for? You have Sovereignty, realize it, and use it.
    Share this

       28 likes

    • Joh de Melle says:

      You write :-
      “Article 61 shows quite clearly who really holds the power in this country, that being quite simply us the people;”

      My reading is that those who held (and still do?) are the Barons, for it was they who ‘forced’ the King to sign.

      A few years ago four Barons wrote to the Queen to declare that they were in Lawful Rebellion. What happened?

      Nothing!

         11 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        Be careful what you wish for. The BBC bosses and the rest of the Progressive metropolitan elite are the new barons. They’ve been quietly taking over for decades.

           23 likes

  13. AngusPangus says:

    Yet another small example of the BBC double standards and endless covering for islam (whilst it’s boring talking so often about islam, it’s also boring that the BBC constantly indulges in the same tactics):

    News headlines on 5 Live earlier today:

    * in relation to the awful stabbing to death of the pizza delivery guy in Sheffield on his last round, two “men” (unnamed) have appeared in court. Pretty much immediately followed by…

    * a convicted paedophile, who absconded before being sentenced, has been arrested in Spain. [White British] Michael McCartney was arrested blah blah blah.

    So in the same news bulletin, moments apart, one offender is named, and the other is not (one of the suspects who appeared in court in the stabbing case is under age and cannot be named). Why the differential treatment? Why discriminate between the two cases, moments apart?

    Oh, to save you looking it up, the adult murder accused is one Shamraze Khan.

       50 likes

  14. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Looks like I might have spoken too soon the other day about Venezuela not going the full Pol Pot yet:

    Venezuela jails 100 ‘bourgeois’ businessmen in crackdown

    Venezuela’s socialist government has arrested more than 100 “bourgeois” businessmen in a crackdown on alleged price-gouging at hundreds of shops and companies since the weekend, President Nicolas Maduro said on Thursday.

    “They are barbaric, these capitalist parasites!” Maduro thundered in the latest of his lengthy daily speeches. “We have more than 100 of the bourgeoisie behind bars at the moment.”

    The successor to the late Hugo Chavez also said his government was preparing a law to limit Venezuelan businesses’ profits to between 15 percent and 30 percent.

    Wow. Come to think of it, though, that last bit sounds a lot like the sort of thing Occupiers and BBC journalists say.

       34 likes

  15. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Nobody here will be surprised that the BBC decided not to mention that above incident in their latest two articles about Maduro moving to declare himself dictator for a year or the analysis piece about the economic troubles I was asking for the other day.

    I guess journalists will tell me that arresting a bunch of businessmen isn’t at all relevant to the story about political maneuvering (the only concerns mentioned by the local BBC correspondent were that Maduro would use his new powers to silence the opposition). As for Venezuala’s economic woes, the report from that same correspondent, Irene, Caselli, can be summed up thusly: Chavez simply didn’t do the extreme Socialism properly.

    They can admit it doesn’t work and that the policies are failures, but never, ever question the ideology driving them. It’s always a beautiful ideology ruined by a few bad apples. Better luck next time, eh?

       22 likes

  16. Guest Who says:

    Every so often I pop back and check the BBC’s ‘The Editor’s’ thread.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_editors/
    Hardly worth it any more.
    At one stage there was a chance of an actual posting on what the market rates were up to, and on rare occasions from a luminary like Hugs.
    It is possible that the universal panning their pearls of wisdom incurred, and usual early closing to spare their blushes, may explain why there is now zippy from anyone.
    For interactivity on such matters one seems restricted to the occasional enabled daytime HYS or the increasingly insane ‘what do you think?’ BBC FaceBook pages and their doubtless box-ticking numbers-over-anything-rational inmates.
    However, I would be interested in a non #foiexempted explanation for why the sole direct mechanism of exchange with those in charge of a £4Bpa compelled-funding social engineering monopoly edit suite seems to have been designated a parking zone for irrelevant old business stories.

       12 likes

  17. Geoff says:

    Did anyone see BBC News last night it was Sheffield IIRC a Pakistani was being interviewed in full regalia and was aghast at the arrival of the Roma and how it was bringing the area down. Somewhat ironic…

    Now if that were an indigenous person talking about the arrival of Pakistani’s in his area (assuming the BBC would let it get to screen) the interviewer would treat him with disdain and contempt with accusations of racism …

       50 likes

    • Guest Who says:

      ‘..the interviewer would treat him with disdain and contempt with accusations’
      OTish, but at the very least pull a full Kay Burley…

      Can never get enough of the media telling people what they should have seen.

         19 likes

    • AngusPangus says:

      I saw that, it was hilarious. They vox-popped a bunch of people all complaining about the Roma, only one of whom had a Yorkshire accent, as far as I could tell.

      Oh, the irony!

      Hang on, now I come to think about it, the report followed concerns raised by labour MPs. So perhaps the subtext was “look, these are concerns shared by all sorts of diverse people, not just racist white northern oiks”. And so it becomes:

      labour concerns about immigration = good point, well made

      UKIP/Conservative concerns about immigration – racist pig

         44 likes

      • noggin says:

        “it was bringing the area down” ha ha ha ha!
        just how deluded are these cult followers?
        Ask any old school member of the population of Sheffield, what they consider, has bought their area down … waaaay down.
        and they ll tell, you in a heartbeat
        and … it won t get aired on the BBC

           40 likes

    • Ah, the Beeb are gonna have some problems next year when large number of Roma arrive and Asians in this country get a little “hands on” about it. I’m sure some Asian communities wont be displaying “a reflective non reactionary, considered understanding of the cultural differences between the two communities and want to engage in dialogue with the Roma” so much loved by the BBC. How will the BBC report the forthcoming violence? It would be funny to watch the Beeb and the left tying themselves up in knots if it wasn’t going to be so horrible and so bloody unnecessary by simply cutting off social, housing and NHS benefits to anyone arriving in the UK from anywhere on January 1st.

         22 likes

    • Barlicker says:

      Yes, it seems that feeling are running high in the ‘Pakistani community’ that bloody foreigners are coming into “their country” and not fitting in with the local community’s way of life. Well, that is a shame isn’t it.
      So, a dilemma for the BBC; it may just have to re-think its policy of unqualified support for mass Roma immigration now that ‘British Asians’ are saying they don’t like it.

         17 likes

    • Andy S. says:

      There’s a delicious irony in the Pakistani colonists’ complaints about incomers into the Page Hall area of Sheffield. Now THEY know what local indigenous communities feel like when their areas are swamped by alien cultures which refuse to integrate.

         8 likes

  18. chris says:

    Has anyone considered setting up a BBC pressure group? I’m sure funding could be found from many sources. There is also vast scope for direct action including protests/picketing at live BBC broadcasts. There could also be financial help for people disputing the bbc licence in court.
    It reallys is time to attack this vile instituton and its soft power racial ideology.

       33 likes

    • chris says:

      Would the blog authors be interested? I’m thinking seek financial support from tories and UKIP? Contact solicitors interested in getting airtime by mass pro bona defending of people being taken to court by the BBC. Im thinking flash picketing behind Adrew Marr or from audiences on live shows? Basicly all the tricks HNH and UAF use but better organised? It would be hard to ignore constant picketing calling the BBC racist, islamist and corrupt? Might break the propaganda effect? It could be spread to cover guardian and labour people? Im thinking shouting “english people don’t deserve to survive” at Jack straw at every public engagement?

         16 likes

      • chris says:

        Funding could even be raised through the blog. I know it gets read by telegraph reporters like delingpole.

           15 likes

        • chrisH says:

          Good ideas Chris…maybe a dedicated website to keep the ideas separate from this site which deserves to stay as it is IMHO.
          Let me know. Shares could do rather well in the coming few years!

             10 likes

          • chris says:

            True. Keep it a site to analyse the BBC. Shame the authors don’t go for detailed statistical analysis of the BBC bias. Most right winger have a job so don’t have the time. Again, this maybe worth exploring? Get independent finance like migration watch? Start analysising the BBC in forensic detail? Really attack them from all angles.

               13 likes

      • flexdream says:

        I think seeking funding would just cause more problems in managing and accounting for it, let alone fundraising and give a target for the BBC and an excuse to dismiss any concerns. Does it need any money? Maybe the posters here just need to be organised and use the BBC complaints system. A paid lobby group will seem suspicious to some, and what would that money achieve? As it is, some countries like Israel and Sri Lanka might also think they don’t get fair coverage, as would UKIP and the Conservatives.

           5 likes

        • Chris says:

          Complaints? ignored and dismissed.
          Migration watch and other NGO manage to organize their funds.
          You would nee money to fund advertisement to expose the BBC. The key is to oppose them in strength, use the Fabians tactics against them.
          How much would it throw the cat amongst the pigeons if the BBC was suddenly called out for being racist, pro Muslim and anti English? how about funding research exposing the BBC? how about funding TV shows, news and independent films exposing the left wing? the possibilities are endless.

             8 likes

  19. johnnythefish says:

    8.10 on the Today programme yet another example that the BBC does not get more biased than when its reporting on the NHS – apart from when they cover Islam…or, er, climate change…hmm, then there’s Israel – ok, forget all that.

    So first they ‘interviewed’ Andy “Div 2 Football Manager Soundalike” Burnham on what he thought of the coalition’s latest changes to GP contracts, where each person over 75 will have a named doctor responsible for their total care package – in other words, someone with whom ‘the buck stops’.

    Ickle Andy given full rein to vent his spleen against the ‘Tories’ – cuts to social care, patients not getting a doctor’s appointment the same day and having to go to A & E (yep, he said that), Labour’s GP contracts having nothing at all to do with A & E pressures etc etc – without a single challenge.

    Then on to Jeremy Hunt – needless to say, challenge after challenge, especially on his promise that if an over-75 patient rings up the surgery they will be able to speak to a doctor that day, but not necessarily their own doctor(understandably, for reasons which are bleedin’ obvious). Montague banged on about this for ages because either a) it was the only possible chink in the policy she could spot or b) she doesn’t understand the word ‘accountability’ (not surprising as she works at the BBC) so couldn’t get it into her thick head that the responsible doctor would be appraised of the call and thus still maintain overall responsibility for that patient.

    Highly recommended listening.

    BBC bias – just when you think it can’t get any worse, it does

       41 likes

    • John Anderson says:

      Yet another incident where the Tory should have protested there and then that the BBC gave Burnham an easy ride, not keeping him to the point and not underlining enough how the whole shambles was caused by Labour’s renegotiation of GP contracts – while constant interruptions prevented the responsible Minister explaining and justifying the new policy.

         29 likes

      • John Anderson says:

        In fact you could do without interviewers on the BBC – just have a robot that says “Yes indeed” or sits silently while a Labour guy spouts off, but then keeps yelling “Liar Liar Pants on Fire” during any Tory interview. Very simple to make the robot, no need for electric power, a clockwork mechanism would work fine.

           35 likes

  20. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Pity poor Mark Mardell. The BBC’s US President editor had to dig deep within his bag of bias to come up with a way to defend the President this time.

    A humbled president defends his reputation

    As the sage might say, humbled, my arse! In any case, here’s Mardell’s excuse for Him:

    His problem, as so often with politicians, goes back to a rash promise.

    Yep, that’s all it took. Just another rash promise from a politician. Not a lie, not a statement proving He had no idea what was in the law, not a statement proving He knew he was shading the truth for political gain. Mardell the political junkie knows best. It’s just those nasty Republicans making noise that He has to deal with now.

    The Republicans have accused him of lying – and as he clearly has said something that is not true, it hurts.

    How unfair! It’s not really a lie, lie, right Mark? Not a word from the BBC’s US President editor about Democrats now saying the same thing, or that everyone who gets their news from somewhere other than the BBC or the NY Times knows He lied to get the law passed.

    Mardell doesn’t see it that way, but is acknowledging that the unwashed masses are starting to be affected by the Republican noise. But don’t worry, the President gets it and all will be well in the end.

    It is no coincidence that a new poll shows 52% of Americans now don’t trust the president – his worse ratings ever. He says he gets it, understands how upset people are, and understands he has to win but some credibility.

    So people will now be able to keep their old plan for another year.

    No mention that this is an extra-legal move from the President, deciding Himself which laws He will enforce and which ones He won’t. Again. Mardell doesn’t care about that, as He’s on record as seeing nothing wrong with the President’s ruling by executive dictat to bypass an intransigent Congress.

    Mardell also doesn’t want you to know how nearly impossible it’s going to be for insurance companies to undo the last year+ of work they’ve done to abide by the ObamaCare rules. Not everyone is going to be able to keep their policies. Certainly hardly anyone who’s already been cancelled will get their old plan back. Notice also the items Mardell mentions as being part of superior health care plans: maternity care, something other than basic catastrophic coverage. I don’t need maternity care coverage, and most healthy young people don’t need anything other than the basic plan which covers major illness. ObamaCare is meant to force a one-size-fits-all plan on everyone, in order to subsidize the whole scheme. Mardell doesn’t see this as a problem, and in fact his choice of words show what he thinks is best. Lurking and non-lurking journalists may now tell me that I’m reading something that isn’t there, but they’ll have to explain what he’s really saying.

    There are a number of problems with the President’s fix.

    It is debatable if his reputation will be changed by a tweak that makes his original words true – for another twelve months. The bigger problem is that he has to stop the momentum that leads people to see this as a flawed plan that doesn’t work in practice.

    Um, that’s not a problem with the “fix” itself, is it? That’s the problem in the first place. Mardell’s getting desperate here. Typically, he went out in search of some unwashed masses to prove his point. Kentucky is described as one of the unhealthiest States so you know that they need the President’s help, which sets up the prism through which you’re supposed to view their words. The moody background music is a giveaway as well. No prizes for guessing that the Beeboids found extreme outliers to use as typical examples and prove to you that ObamaCare is vital to all. The fool with the brain cyst doesn’t realize the President’s plan will save him, and of course anyone who criticizes the black man’s support for ObamaCare is a racist.

    It’s a false premise, of course, but that’s what the BBC is best at.

       24 likes

    • flexdream says:

      It’s hard to follow but isn’t Obama now doing what the Republicans asked him to do in return for lifting the debt ceiling i.e. to delay the implementation of Obamacare because it wasn’t ready?

         10 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        More or less, yes. Except the Republicans in the House would be doing it legally, whereas the President is not. Two weeks ago it was “The Law of the Land!!!!” and any attempt to change even a tiny part of it was treason, or just racist Republican hostage-taking and hyper-partisan obstructionism. Now, though……

           20 likes

  21. chrisH says:

    Can`t imagine that the BBC would ever mention such “unfortunate confusion in the heats of battle”…but when the Mail and Telegraph say that the Al Queda beheading technicians out there in Aleppo will conduct “appropriate judicial investigation” into this “alleged incident” we can only hope that lessons will be learned and we can all move on.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10449815/Al-Qaeda-linked-rebels-apologise-after-cutting-off-head-of-wrong-person.html.
    Sultan Scarman or Sheikh Al Pherson anybody?

       17 likes

  22. bogtrott says:

    any one notice the bbc said what we have been saying for years,its time for pointless celebrities,bang on for once.
    esther on with terry wogan,anything to portray esther in a good light.She must know where the bodies are buried.

       15 likes

  23. The PrangWizard of Engalnd says:

    Just watched BBC Oxford TV news. Emma Vardy has been fronting it all week and she has been relentless in pushing the ‘poverty’ and government ‘cuts’ agenda. Today we had a piece about children who couldn’t get enough good food to eat etc., etc.. There were pictures of very well fed children at a place where they could learn how to chop onions and so on, because they didn’t know how, and so on. They were all very happy looking and definitely not starving.
    Then cut to a charity man complaining about the poor state of the economy and ‘cuts’, ‘cuts’.
    A disgraceful piece of demoralising Leftist propaganda.
    Watch out for Vardy, she probably has a bright future in the BBC.

       42 likes

    • BBC Heart Labour says:

      BBC local news – a hot bed of pro-Labour propaganda which remains under the radar where a day doesn’t go by without a Toree cutz or a dodgy Tory councillor story.

         19 likes

      • johnnythefish says:

        The BBC’s comprehensive local news coverage through TV, radio and the internet is driving local newspapers to the wall.

        All part of the plan….

           9 likes

  24. Alex says:

    I wonder if the Muslim extremist-loving BBC will be reporting this horrific evilness, the likes of which I fear is widespread in Islamic countries?

    http://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/islamic-cleric-rapes-4-year-old-girl-on-her-first-day-at-quran-school/

       23 likes

  25. Reed says:

    “One relief for Miliband’s inner circle is that the BBC and other broadcasters aren’t picking up on the story.”

    You don’t say!

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100246077/labour-is-lining-up-scapegoats-for-the-falkirk-scandal/

       23 likes

    • Guest Who says:

      That ‘other broadcasters’ certainly offers an out on the ‘not news’ line.
      But one can’t help but feel that, for some reason, the nation’s most beloved holder-to-accounter monopoly, and all its staff, have suddenly become astoundingly uncurious on a story that with other protagonists may have moved them to ask the odd question.

         18 likes

  26. thoughtful says:

    What does it take to lose your driving licence? Well quite a lot if you’re one of Liebours brown eyed boys apparently.

    You can even keep your licence and your taxi drivers licence even after you’ve spent a month as a in patient at a mental health hospital as a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic !

    No that isn’t enough, for one of the bruvvahs to get a driving ban he needed to drive from Middlesbrough to London in an alleged attempt to kill the prime minister.

    Hidden in the car was an astonishing array of weaponry – get this!

    a knuckleduster
    an 18 inch hunting knife
    three eight-inch kitchen knives
    a claw hammer
    a lump hammer
    an axe
    a machete
    a Blast Knuckles 950,000 volt stun gun

    And a cuddly toy ! Didn’t he do well ? !!!!

    Consultant psychiatrist Pratish Thakker (CORR) told the court that Naz suffered from paranoid delusions of a grandiose scale believing there was an impending world war. He was prepared for some kind of worldwide calamity and this stems from his beliefs and delusions,” he said.

    I think many of us believe that there is some kind of low level of world war going on and it comes as no surprise that it has disturbed the balance of the fragile mind.

    But how does the BBC report all this? Well it’s rather short on detail and contradicts other reports which claim that:
    “The Judge also disqualified Naz from driving for three years and ordered the weapons be destroyed. ”

    The BBC page says:
    “Earlier, he was disqualified from driving for three years and the weapons were ordered to be destroyed.”

    Giving the impression the ban was imposed at an earlier hearing when he was sectioned.

    http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/10813861.Mentally_ill_man_detained_indefinitely_for_threatening_to_kill_the_Prime_Minister/

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-24960600

       20 likes

    • chrisH says:

      Weapons destroyed?…God they`re really angry aren`t they?
      Poor Naz…I imagine Mansfield and Robertson are already appealing.
      I make a prediction now…that this years “Children In Need” will break last years record…because we, the British people are SO awesome and generous!
      Suppose there`s no chance of looking at those accounts is there?…probably in a pirates locker that went down with HMS Savile off Flamborough Head in 2011.

         15 likes

      • chrisH says:

        I`m Mystic Meg…don`t ask me how I was able to predict that the BBC would raise more money than ever before for Mark Duggan, Raoul Moat as well as the good `uns.
        Pity they`ve depleted the Phillippines funds though eh?…or will that be Israels fault again as always?
        Ouanquers….that`s them that is…the BBC.

           7 likes

    • David Kay says:

      i wonder if he was going to shout allahu akbar if he got to downing street.

         9 likes

    • ROBERT BROWN says:

      Shame he was stopped.

         5 likes

  27. John Smith says:

    I sort of enjoying the new programme on the Tudor Monastery Farm. I note that in the marketplace crowd there is a black lady plausible I suppose but a bit unlikely. And how come I get the feeling when I programmes of this type Catholicism is portrayed as how can I say it, acceptable Christianity? The monasteries did good works, but let us not forget that the Church was a political force and its prince bishops not entirely saint like.

       10 likes

    • Thoughtful says:

      There were quite a lot of black people in the UK in Tudor times ! More than you might imagine.
      However they grew so numerous that Queen Elizabeth I decided to deport them all back whence they came.
      The demonization of them at the time is where the devil got his black skin in representations of the time.

      The BBC isn’t going to make an issue or let people know this story, it might give people ideas !

         7 likes

      • John Smith says:

        Actually I know that.

        But when I see such why do I get a feeling there is a tick box equal ops exercise underway?

           1 likes

    • Ian Hills says:

      There’s a conflict of victim cultures at work – sometimes Catholics are vilified because they’re Christians, but sometimes they’re praised because Sinn Fein-IRA is Catholic.

         1 likes

  28. David Preiser (USA) says:

    I guess all these Democrats are racist now:

    House passes proposed GOP Obamacare changes

    The House approved Republican legislation on Friday giving health insurers the option of extending plans through 2014 that would otherwise be canceled for not complying with Affordable Care Act standards.

    The bill, approved 261-157, would also allow new customers to enroll in those plans. Thirty-nine Democrats crossed party lines and joined a nearly unanimous GOP caucus in voting for the measure proposed by Rep. Fred Upton, R-Michigan.

    Now Mardell and the BBC will have to describe these Democrats as enemies who want to destroy the President. Perhaps if they had read the bill before voting for it in the first place, and the President and Pelosi and the rest of the top Dems hadn’t lied about it to get it passed, and these same 39 Democrat Reps weren’t so hyper-partisan and polarizing that they voted for anything – blindly, even without knowing what it was – just to beat the Republicans, we and they wouldn’t be in this situation today. Of course, you’ll never hear a Beeboid put it that way. According to the BBC, they were simply doing the work of angels, helping tens of millions of people in need, under His benevolent guidance.

       26 likes

  29. Framer says:

    Hard to know where to start on interview on ‘Today’ this morning (Sat, c. 7.15 am) between Justin Webb and a Professor of Disaster Studies or some such. Full of chortles and knowing giggles assenting to the fact that imperialism was the culprit in the Philippines. It was unfortunately not British imperialism but American given that country had been a US colony and treated so badly (from 1900-1941). I vaguely recall the Spanish were in charge for 400 earlier years but Latinos are of course the subjects of racism never a cause.

       33 likes

    • Guest Who says:

      “imperialism was the culprit”
      —-
      Impositions on self-determination being another issue, it can be interesting to compare how certain countries fared on matters of logistics, etc, before White imperialist intrusion and, this having passed on, afterwards.
      It would be interesting to discover if the post-typhoon population feel their interests would be served better by yet more BBC anchors emoting during forays from the hotel balcony, or the efforts of US military personnel from carriers and cruisers rushed there to help.

         22 likes

      • chrisH says:

        And Hitler was to blame for the poor sods of Page Green in Sheffield getting their garden furniture nicked as well as their washing lines denuded of the clothes the suckers left out for roaming Roma.
        Listen to Dan the Splat on Today this morning( 8.45 or so)…that nasty mix of mockney pretensions and a degree in cultural oppression or suchlike.
        He supports Sheffield United…so Justin Webb bowed down to his expertise.
        Let`s see that family tree of yours Dan…millions of Roma would just LOVE to check your “heritage”…and could we see how £31million was raised by Wogan and Chris Evans please?
        It`s OUR BBC innit?

           20 likes

  30. Ian Rushlow says:

    An article on the BBC website by Will Self – “A point of view: behind the hijab” (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24954256), allows the self-opinionated (no pun intended) pundit (ditto) to wax lyrical on the subject of Muslim women’s head coverings. Wrapped in with some spurious references to the philosopher Baruch Spinoza (presumably chosen so as to head off any accusations of ant-semitism), the basic message is that it is all a Great British Tradition and nothing to worry about. Will Self is, of course, entitled to his opinions, although whether the taxpayer-funded BBC is the place to express them can be debated. The article, however, is misleading, both in terms of itself and the illustration (which, presumably, was the choice of a BBC editor). The implication is that the Muslim headscarf – the hijab – is banned in France. But it is not. French law prohibits full face coverings such as the veil, burkha and niqab, being focused on clothing items which prevent the face being seen. State schools do have restrictions on the wearing of and display of religious symbols, having always been secular despite France being a predominately Catholic country. But there are no public restrictions whatsoever on the wearing of headscarves.

       28 likes

  31. Milverton says:

    What does it take for a BBC journalist to ask even vaguely awkward questions about immigration?

    Justin Webb gave us the answer in a piece about Roma immigration in Slough on Today at circa 8.45 this morning.

    The answer? You can take such a line if those affected by it are Asians. That’s the key which suddenly unlocks the more difficult aspects of the issue.

    Now we know.

       31 likes

    • AsISeeIt says:

      In fact the first BBC report to expose any downside to mass-immigration to cross my consciousness happened a couple of years ago.

      I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. Consider this:

      – a shopkeeper was encouraged to speak about the large number of non-English speaking people suddenly arriving in a local area.

      – an NHS GP was interviewed and talking about her growing and burdonsome patient list pointed to her computer screen and explained how a third of the names there were from one particular newly arrived community.

      And the punchline…. well you see this report was about the Gurkhas and was payback to those who had humiliated BBC chum Phil Woolas then Labour’s immigration minister.

         26 likes

  32. AsISeeIt says:

    Interesting that when a blog site such as this allows us to compare BBC local news, then the debate often goes like this:

    ‘mine is the most anti-Tory!’
    ‘no, my regional BBC is more Lefty than yours!

    Sorry, but BBC London wins hands down.

    Recent BBC reports of bicycle accidents and what ‘campaigners’ have to say about the issue have been treating the story as though Boris were out to assassinate the cyclists.

    An early airing of a BBC London filmed report from an accident hotspot actually caught a near miss on camera. It was a side on coming together at a juction – so someone was in the wrong. It was however bike on bike. Naturally the off message event exposed in the clip disappeared from a later showing of the report.

    Local BBC: Mine’s more biased than yours

       30 likes

    • chrisH says:

      Could be a contest here!
      Maybe a few of us should agree to listen at one and the same time. Each of us stating our local station and agreed quantifying of content, interruptions and Beebthink.
      I could do Solent and Somerset anyway!

         12 likes

    • Geoff says:

      One would think living in the West country one would be somewhat shielded from bias and diversity. But the recent Inside Out exposing businesses and landlords over their refusal to employ or house Muslims when compared to similarly qualified white applicants was way up there.

      Don’t forget we can all experience each others regions both on the Iplayer Sky and Freesat.

         14 likes

  33. AsISeeIt says:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10393457/BBC-shelves-Panorama-expose-of-Comic-Relief.html

    If you go down to donate today you’re sure of a big surprise
    If you go down to donate today you’d better know what’s been disguised
    For every celeb that ever there was will gather there for certain
    Because today’s the day the BBC have their picnic

    Every luvvie who’s been good is sure of a treat today
    There’s lots of marvellous things to eat and wonderful games to play
    Beneath the trees where nobody sees they’ll hide and seek as long as they please
    That’s the way the BBC have their picnic
    Picnic time for the BBC
    The little luvvies are having a lovely time today
    Watch them, catch them unawares and see them picnic on their holiday
    See them gaily gad about
    They love to play and shout
    They never have any cares
    At six o’clock their Mummies and Daddies will take them home to bed
    ‘Cause they’re tired little BBC celebs

    If you go down to Wood Lane today you’ll find yourself alone
    It’s lovely up in Salford today but safer to stay at home
    For every celeb that ever there was will gather there for certain
    Because today’s the day the BBC have their picnic

       31 likes

    • chrisH says:

      Fine lyric-there`s a CD here sir!
      These are the same shits who`d mock the Gang Show, Am Dram up and down the country…and the likes of Peter Glaze!
      Yet their own hammed incompetence and self-righteous flatulence and worthless waste of good celluloid(cue Scott!) is allowed-paid for-indulged-because its for “cheridee”.
      F*** em….no better than the tattooed ska mongers that force you to pay up for their booze ups…yet cheridee is their excuse to extract money with menaces.
      All in a good cause though eh?…the BBC says so.
      31 million eh?…any proof of that-or just the teleprompt as scrawled up for the well-oiled Irishman.

         17 likes

    • Geoff says:

      Superb!

      Did you see Harry Hill’s piss take of the A-Ha Take On Me video, I recall at the time the original was ground breaking and cost a fortune to make.

      Of course with improved technology this ‘remake’ was cheaper, yet it was in no doubt made at the courtesy of the BBC tax payer using BBC staff and facilities, and you bet they didn’t give up their time for free…

      As far as I’m concerned charity begins at home….

         8 likes

    • uncle bup says:

      Did Wigon trouser another £10,000 for last night or have they been smart enough now to ‘wink’ it into his normal contract.

         4 likes

      • chrisH says:

        Wonder how many “prizes” Wogan gets to hop along with.
        Normally golf matches at nice Mediterranean courses just as it`s getting a bit nippy here in early Feb.
        Probably better though than tramping grapes for La Toynbee in Tuscany or picking olives for Humphrys and his lads out there in Greece.
        No wonder the BBC nomenklatura are so cheesed off at that bloody typhoon creating a shortage of houseboys and maids.
        All that “compassionate leave” as well-48 hours will “destroy” Jocastas cello schedule.

           5 likes

  34. Thoughtful says:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24954256

    Will Self self described die hard leftie, shows the usual intolerance of the Fascist left by penning a piece supporting the niqab and the burka and name calling anyone who dares disagree with him.

    Rank Ignorance is the word he uses to describe those who oppose his views.

    Why am I paying for him to have a platform ?

       33 likes

    • chrisH says:

      Turned the bugger off after a minute-didn`t understand a dame word he was saying in that lugubrious careworn manner that the true artiste/intellectual uses.
      Saw the transcript by mistake-now I know what his game was…and is.
      Typical lefty shallow shill…don`t the other half of the BBC fuss over “body language” and “elitism”?
      How squares that with the burqa?
      Still-Will`s at Brunel…so he`ll not cause too much harm(unless he`s passing on his drug tips or contacts).
      Selfie-the very face of our lefty culture today…as Ed Davey is the face of our political debauchery.
      At least Huhne could draw on his business empire to screw us over-what the f** else could Davey do , other than to fleece the public pocket?

         19 likes

      • Llareggub says:

        Will Self should feel comfortable at Brunel, lots of wearers of the Burka there, and the Religion of Peace is well represented.

           23 likes

        • chrisH says:

          Are they even ALLOWED to ask questioned of a man, whilst dressed like this?
          Does the Taliban know that they`re getting an education(or does Self drawling old dope stories and the day he gave Mick Jagger a pretzel count as such)
          How does Selfie do his register?…fire drill?
          At least Savile took the train when he wasn`t running everywhere…what the hell is the point of William Self?

             16 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Fortunately, because of the backlash, Self turned down Radio 4’s offer to become their public champion and resident “writer”. The insane Beeboid in charge at the time said this about the plan:

      The station’s controller Gwyn Williams had, it emerged in January, been talking to novelist Will Self about the new post in which he would have been expected to blog and write about the station’s output and to act as a champion and creative figurehead for the station.

      Williams had said in January that she wants somebody who can offer an “independent and creative mind” as well as bringing “passion” to the job and had identified self as the man for the post.

      This is the definition of “independent” the BBC really means when they claim to be editorially independent. Unfortunately for the extremists, even former Today boss Rod Liddle, a dyed-in-the-wool Old Labourite and Leftoid (despite his occasional Clarkson-esque contrarian posts about immigrants and Mohammedans) noticed that this was a blatant sign of bias at the BBC. Liddle recalled his own experience with having a resident commentator and the grief he got from top BBC brass about having a non-Left voice. His two paras are worth reading in full, but the key is in the closing lines:

      I notice that this time around there is no attempt to balance Will’s views. I suspect the notion of balance did not remotely occur.

      Liddle knows. We know. Defenders of the indefensible – which include lurking and non-lurking journalists – have never dared touch this, and no way can they say we’re reading or hearing something that isn’t there.

      Once Self heard the mutterings, he backed out.

         16 likes

  35. Alex says:

    I don’t see the vile and treasonous BBC analyzing this worrying story:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2508120/Fear-loathing-prejudice-Blunketts-yard-A-deeply-disturbing-dispatch-ex-Labour-Home-Secretary-warns-race-riots-Roma-influx-Sheffield.html#comments

    The treachery, lies, contempt and loathsomeness of the Marxist scum that is eating away at Britain and Europe like a pus-ridden cancer makes my blood boil to breaking point. Labour and its foul mouthpiece, the BBC, will go down in the history books as the Marxist enemy within that destroyed Britain, but especially England. The English, well, those who aren’t brainwashed, need to grow a pair and fight before it’s too late.

       31 likes

    • That’s because no one from the Beeb or the leftist mates come from or live in these areas so these communities can go to sh%t.

         27 likes

    • chrisH says:

      Watch out for the rise and rise of Dan Le Blatt…self-styled leader of the Roma community in Europe.
      Talks like one of us-degree in cultural oppression form one of our unis…and all the Romas are doing is a bit of payback for slavery, forced sterilisations from Empire days and Hitler etc.
      If this man is not the coming Lee Jasper…I don`t know who is.
      He`s on Today from this morning(16/11/13…8.45 or so).
      Dans the coming man….

         27 likes

  36. Geoff says:

    Apologies if this has been brought up elsewhere, but has anyone caught up with Tudor Monastery Farm?

    You know the score ‘right on’ lefty academics and some in favour ginger BBC type who has no history qualification what so ever try and live life ‘as it was’

    We begin in rural Sussex in 1500, we’re told England’s population was just 2.5 million, cut to a Tudor market place and centre screen what do we? Yes you’ve guessed it ‘a token’ and all within three minutes.

    I may accept that there were immigrants in our cites at the time, but with such a small population their ratio must have been minuscule yet we happen to stumble on one in rural Sussex.

    When I studied the Tudors at school no mention was made of their presence, yet schools may well use this production as reference, which of course gives completely the wrong idea.

    The BBC Brainwashing Bollocks Cooperation, maybe they stick to the Diane Abbots view of our history as found on the BBC History website. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/dabbott_01.shtml

       25 likes

    • Old Goat says:

      Are you sure it wasn’t just a muddy face, after a tumble in the pig ordure?

         11 likes

    • bob says:

      “The earliest blacks in Britain were probably black Roman centurions that came over hundreds of years before Christ.”

      Julius Caesar had a quick look at Kent in 55-54 BC but the Roman conquest of Britain really took place under Emperor Claudius in AD 43. Not “hundreds of years before Christ” but that’s just, you know, facts.

         9 likes

      • Ian Hills says:

        “From the days when the Norman French invaded Anglo-Saxon Britain, we have been a culturally diverse nation”

        I think Dyssiwig_Cymraeg might have something to say about this.

           6 likes

        • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

          Well just this: our celtic language predates all of that!
          But I didn’t grow up speaking it sadly, hence still learning it now.
          Thank you Ian Hills

             2 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        I just read this drivel. Apparently my country is so racist we’re shocked that a black woman can be an MP. More likely it’s somebody who listened to Ms. Abbott talk nonsense for five minutes and was shocked that she’d ever get elected for anything of substance. I found this bit interesting, though:

        From the days when the Norman French invaded Anglo-Saxon Britain, we have been a culturally diverse nation. But because the different nationalities shared a common skin colour, it was possible to ignore the racial diversity which always existed in the British Isles.

        This just proves to me that the whole concept of race is BS, an artificial construct used generally to control or divide.

           2 likes

    • Joshaw says:

      I’m not an historian but I should think most of the blacks in earlier times would have been north African, not the sub-Saharan blacks that the BBC likes to insert.

      I’m thinking in particular of the campaign of Septimius Severus who was himself born in what is now Libya.

      Any (non BBC) historians out there?

         2 likes

      • Span Ows says:

        Agree although probably before: the general Paulinus had extensive campaigns in North Africa (specifically crossing the Atlas mountains and exploring Saharan Africa) before going to Britain.

           0 likes

  37. noggin says:

    After the shill Warsi s, “do you know who it is yet” interview
    BBC R4 … we have
    D “nothing to do with Islam” Cameron s – Brave New Britain?
    ahem … Coptic Christians Dave … concerned at all?
    “Muslim Brotherhood’ protesters storm London university lecture on Egypt”
    London Evening Standard.
    “A guest lecture at a London university was abandoned when protesters backing Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood chased the speaker from the stage. Speaker Mohamed El-Nabawy had to be ushered off stage by security guards when around 30 demonstrators stormed a lecture theatre at Bloomsbury’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), which is part of the University of London.”

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/video-muslim-brotherhood-protesters-storm-london-university-lecture-on-egypt-8937580.html

       11 likes

    • RCE says:

      More jobs for security guards at seats of learning is presumably another example of how the economy benefits from The Great Enrichment.

         17 likes

      • Llareggub says:

        Worth noting that the Evening Standard mentioned that Scotland Yard had informed them that no police were present. Now if it had been a protest against an Islamic hate preacher the police together with BBC crew would be there to see the arrests of far right extremists.

           15 likes

    • johnnythefish says:

      That would be the same Muslim Brotherhood that the BBC leads us to believe is committed to democracy?

         4 likes

  38. David Preiser (USA) says:

    I suggested yesterday that the BBC was going to call the 39 Democrats in the House of Reps. obstructionist and enemies of the President for joining Republicans to pass a bill removing the more draconian aspects of ObamaCare that’s caused – and will continue to cause if it’s not stopped – so many people to lose their health insurance.

    Today, the BBC has acknowledged the Democrats’ unhappiness, but so far have stopped short of demonizing them the way Mardell and Co. have demonized Republicans simply for not approving of the President’s policies.

    The article does point out that many are up for re-election next year and are worried about being dragged down by this, which is fair enough. However, at no time does the BBC suggest that their motives are nefarious or based on some personal or race-based animus towards the President. Simply by having a ‘D’ next to their names, these Reps get treated as reasonable people with a legitimate grievance. Even though it’s the exact same grievance as so many opponents of ObamaCare have espoused over the last couple years, the BBC sees nothing sinister lurking beneath.

    Not only that, but the President has vowed to veto the Upton bill should the Senate pass it, yet the BBC doesn’t refer to Him as being obstructionist. If it was the the other way round, the BBC would be excoriating the opponent of the bill for deliberately blocking progress for partisan reasons. Isn’t the President now announcing He will hold the country hostage unless He gets His way? Funny how the BBC doesn’t interpret things that way now that it’s Him.

    The BBC also mentions that the President met with insurance industry bosses privately to discuss His Fix Plan For Us. Of course, they fail to mention that He announced the plan before consulting with them. Yeah, this will end well. Basically, the entire insurance industry is being destabilized. That was always the real goal, of course, but they didn’t mean to do it this way. This is just the result of ideological extremism and incompetence.

    The BBC will never see it this way. Instead, it’s a wonderful plan, just not executed properly yet. Not only that, but it seems they no longer feel the need to defend Him against accusations of lying now. Remember, not only did He lie about the insurance situation, but also lied that the website was going to be great. Either He lied, or is just an empty suit who has no idea what’s going on in His own house. Over to you, Mark Mardell. I guess the BBC feels a line has been drawn under it, and they can move on, nothing to see there.

       9 likes

  39. chrisH says:

    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/4od#3608784.
    Watching a harrowing report on North Korea that Channel 4 put on the other night.
    Remind me again-apart from putting LSE students at risk of death, from producing a fatuous 30 mins of retreads and apart from grooming John Sweeneys ego with some financial benefit to his wife….what the hell did Dispatches do so well, and the Godawful BBC did so badly?
    Or maybe North Korea as witnessed in this programme is the dream society for the BBC…all thos tannoys on the lamp posts pumping out Comic Relief crap and appeals for Jimmy Saviles laundry basket to get a posthumous pardon.
    Remember journalism and undercover reporting BBC?…unless its Vince Cables office, no…probably not.
    Well done Dispatched-have my £145.50 please!

       10 likes

  40. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Shocking revelation! Mark Mardell blames Republicans for the failure of ObamaCare.

    Mark Mardell: Obama’s worst week yet?

    Poor Mardell, it’s killing him to witness this debacle, the continued dressing down and withering of his beloved Obamessiah. But don’t worry, he’s worked out an excuse. After a lot of hand-wringing and garment-rending, Mardell gets to the point:

    At the heart of his problem is a plan that is inherently complex and confusing. He decided at the beginning of his presidency that he would never sell a simple government-run scheme.

    It would have been even more controversial than Obamacare, it probably wouldn’t have got through Congress, but if it had it would have had the huge advantage of simplicity and clarity.

    So the plan Mardell and the President and the BBC dreamt of, universal, socialized health care, would never have passed. Which is why the apparatchiks and lobbyists came up with this disaster instead. You all know the joke about the camel being the result of a committee trying to design a horse. In this case, it’s a horse designed by a committee of camels. All the disparate aspects of the law were designed by former health care company apparatchiks who saw an opportunity to get the government to subsidize their products. They figured it would be great: the entire population would be forced by law to buy their products – which would be more bloated then ever before (I would have to pay an increased premium to cover “my” birth control pills and maternity care, for example) and the government was going to subsidize a lot of it. Win-win, right? They didn’t realize just how incompetent the people writing the law were going to be, and just how incompetent the Administration actually would be about implementing it. More fool them.

    Yet Mardell blames Republicans.

    Instead the federal government parts of the plan got whittled away. But then when Republican states refused to set up their own programmes, the federal government came back in.

    Wrong. The States refused to join and instead set up their own exchanges, but that has nothing to do with the failures of the law, people losing their insurance, premiums going up, etc. The law, in fact, forced more restrictions on insurance companies (at their own request) by making them deal with whatever the individual States wanted. Realizing that they’d have to charge way more, and that some States weren’t going to let them, many major insurance companies backed out of the State exchanges. Now, about those evil Republicans:

    Blue Cross, Aetna, United, Humana Flee Obamacare Exchanges

    Founded in Hartford, Conn., in 1850, Aetna withdrew its application to participate in that state on Monday, the Hartford Courant reported. The company said it was withdrawing from there and in Georgia and Maryland because limitations the state governments would impose on their rates would not allow them to make money.

    Connecticut and Maryland are run by Democrats. Oops.

    United Health Group, the largest health insurer in the United States, has taken a pass on California’s individual health insurance exchange.

    Aetna will stop selling health insurance policies to individuals in California all together, leaving nearly 50,000 existing individual policyholders to find new coverage by January. The company will continue to directly sell health insurance to employers in California–outside of the government exchange system.

    California. Not a Republican State. This is pretty much what’s going on all around the country, in both Blue and Red States. I’d say Mardell is delusional, but he’s really just sadly ignorant and misinformed, most likely misled by the extremist echo chamber of the media and Left-wing blogosphere. And the White House propaganda he swallows on a daily basis. The thing is, even if there was a single, happy, perfect national exchange run by supremely competent unicorns and fluffy bunnies, powered by green energy and fairy dust, people would still be losing their insurance, both private and employer-based. None of that can be blamed on Republicans. Yet that’s all Mardell can do.

    The problems of the website have nothing whatsoever to do with Republican intransigence either.

    The BBC’s US President editor can recognize that The Obamessiah is in trouble, and this is a fiasco. But he has yet to even remotely consider questioning His competence or honesty. Instead, he’s been consistent in His defense, in blaming and casting aspersions on those who wanted to delay the individual mandate (which the President ended up doing anyway), delay the employer mandate (which the President ending up doing anyway), and who said this was going to be one giant [email protected]#$%. If this was never going to work in the first place, as Mardell seems dimly to grasp, why pass it at all? Why spend so much time and effort and political capital to do something that was never going to work? The BBC’s US President editor is never going to ask that question because he’s intellectually incapable of such a thought.

    The man cannot be trusted as a journalist. Call him an editorialist, an opinon-monger, a political pundit. But don’t trust him to explain reality to you because his personal ideology prevents him from understanding it.

       16 likes

    • Umbongo says:

      “The man cannot be trusted as a journalist. Call him an editorialist, an opinon-monger, a political pundit. But don’t trust him to explain reality to you because his personal ideology prevents him from understanding it. ”

      You’ve just summed up the whole “journalist” cadre at the BBC in one go.

      BTW good to see you back – and in fine form.

         16 likes

    • Guest Who says:

      http://www.ijreview.com/2013/11/94860-pobodys-nerfect-jon-stewart-annihilates-obamas-presser-yesterday/
      ‘That wasn’t the slogan you campaigned on’
      Guessing this makes Mr. Stewart what now?
      Still, it can’t be all bad…
      http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4362/the_continuing_and_continuing_obamacare_disaster
      Oh. Yes it can.
      Lucky the BBC is there to ‘report’.
      And as they are ‘in the zone’, one wonders how their version of this event may grace our screens, being the who and what being said may cause conflict reactions:
      http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4363/baroness_warsi_s_cringeworthy_dumb_america_speech

         4 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        This just makes Stewart even more of a saint. He’s not criticizing ObamaCare, or the idea of national socialized health care at all. He’s criticizing the implementation and the fact that the Democrats messed it up. Just like Mardell, he firmly believes in the power of government to help people and save lives. He wanted this to work with all his heart, and is upset that it hasn’t. Most of all, he and Mardell are furious that this is fodder for small-government “extremists”. This is criticism from the Left.

        Neither of them ever thought for a minute that this wouldn’t work, or – more importantly – that it couldn’t. Now this is just more “credibility” for Stewart for appearing to criticize both sides equally.

        Remember, Mardell, like the NY Times, doesn’t actually believe the President lied. The NY Times said that He “misspoke”, but Mardell believes that He simply made a prediction that didn’t come true, which gives the appearance of lying.

        Neither one of them will dare question the President’s ultimate integrity or competence, or how He could say all this stuff and have no idea what was happening.

           7 likes

    • DB says:

      Check out the BBC’s “‘Obamacare’ crisis in 75 seconds“. The brief section about people losing their policies is everything you’d expect from the BBC. There’s no mention of Obama’s lies about people keeping their plans, and the video even contrives to give the impression that Obama is somehow stepping in as a saviour of those who lost their policies:

      “Some people faced cancellation of existing policies.

      President now says these can be extended.”

      Orwellian.

         17 likes

      • John Anderson says:

        DB That is an appalling bit of pro-Obama rubbish. Even by the BBC’s standards, it stinks.

           13 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        They don’t believe He actually lied, DB. Bush lied, people died. The Obamessiah merely misspoke and made a prediction that didn’t work out properly. When people with cancer start missing treatments early next year because insurance companies are unable to easily turn back the paperwork clock, the BBC will place blame squarely on the Republicans, just like always.

        Note to any lurking journalist: this reflects badly on you and your profession.

           9 likes

    • johnnythefish says:

      Is it me, or does Mardell have trouble speaking plain English?

         8 likes

  41. Old Timer says:

    Children In Need.
    I may be a cynic but….
    Let’s put that £30 million in perspective.
    It represents about 30 pay offs for a BBC elite.
    It represents less than 1% of their £3 to £4 billion income p.a.

    As for how much the BBC paid their Pedophile in Chief, Sir Jimmy Saville, who knows? He owned 8 houses, several cars including a Rolls Royce and left several million pounds in his Will. That’s having lived in luxury for 17 years after his retirement. That’s retirement from the BBC not his other pastime of course. Mr BBC Pedophile was not on his own with his predilection in that wonderful corporation either. I’m pretty sure that £30 million is a small sum compared to what Saville got out of the BBC over the years.

    Then there are the other dozens of other charming celebrities at the BBC that get millions each year and every year for their indispensable services to the nation.

    The boss of the Children in Need organisation was on TV this morning thanking the nation for their generosity. Seemed a very nice lady. Salary Undisclosed. Probably similar to the Save the Children charity boss, said to be about £156,000 +expenses + car + a millions or so in the pension pot.

    Sorry but the whole thing is a sham and a pittance compared to the profligate BBC that is paid for on pain of our imprisonment.

    For those that gave, you have hearts of gold, but look who you gave it to.

       28 likes

    • Umbongo says:

      I don’t know what the Grand Executive in Chief of Children in Need Worldwide receives annually but in respect of last year’s effort and in respect only of BBC Children in Need as disclosed here “the full time salary of the Chief Executive for the period was £100,489 per annum”. There is an ambiguity in the statement since the accounts from which these figures are taken were for a 9 month period, not the usal 12 months. I would not be surprised if his receipts in respect of salary for the year ending 30 June 2012 were in the region of £135,000 which, I suspect, don’t include pension contributions paid by his employer.

         17 likes

    • johnnythefish says:

      Compared to the CEO of the WWF, that’s peanuts:

      ‘Blogger Richard Telofski pointed out last week that Carter Roberts, the CEO of the US branch of the World Wildlife Fund, was paid a total of $455,147 in 2009 – his base salary being $425,000.’

      http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/03/28/the-enormous-ceo-salaries-behind-earth-hour/

         9 likes

    • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

      They get FA from me.
      Apart from my £145 telly tax.

         6 likes

  42. John Anderson says:

    OK the BBC is finally forced after Obama’s excruciating press conference to admit that ObamaCare is in a mess. But they ar still understating it. There is every chance that Obama’s new “fix” will not work because it is too late – it is like Obama as a Canute ordering the waves back. With no chance of cooperation from the insurance industry or the state commissioners of insurance who have to keep the market stable. And even if the “fix” worked for some cases, this merely pushes the whole scheme closer to the actuarial death spiral, and makes things look worse for this time next year as the mid-term elections arrive. Meanwhile thousands of doctors are being dropped from Medicare – so huge numbers of seniors are losing their doctors.

    There is only one realistic answer. Total repeal. No, that is not a nutty Tea Party idea – it is being spoken about openly in Democratic circles, before they all get sucked down beneath the waves. It is even being advocated by the Chicago-Tribune, in Obama’s home town.

    I bet that will be in the BBC reports tomorrow. NOT

    This site has been weeks ahead of the curve compared to the BBC

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/11/16/newspaper-that-endorsed-obama-calls-for-obamacare-repeal

       17 likes

    • John Anderson says:

      Think of ObamaCare as Humpty Dumpty. It has had its calamitous fall – and there is no way All The President’s Men can put it back together again.

      It has been a GRAND week for America. Sad memories of the hope of the Kennedy era will tinge next week – but this week it looks as though the tide of Big Government is being rolled back.

      ….”Westward look, the land is bright”

         10 likes

  43. John Anderson says:

    Ex-BBC Martin Bashir being a total potty-mouth in his attacks on Sarah Palin. This sort of deeply unpleasant prejudice against Palin has run through the BBC for years :

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/11/15/Shock-MSNBC-Host-Bashir-Suggests-Someone-Should-Defecate-in-Sarah-Palin-s-Mouth-Urinate-on-Her

       22 likes

    • chrisH says:

      He`s the one who collected Lady Dis tears in a gossamer bag when he set her up for that Panorama interview isn`t he? Just the kind of virulent moral pygmy that Leveson SHOULD be nobbling-but of course, being in Guru-Murthy, Chakhrabhait, Husein territory-the new media Raj won`t be getting anything but purring approval for their bile and nappy contents being thrown around the media studios and press offices.
      Sarah Palin will live long and well enough to see him dealt with, I`m sure.

         18 likes

    • DB says:

      Noticed the silence on this from the BBC sisterhood on Twitter?

         14 likes

  44. hadda says:

    Apols if this has been mentioned before, but WTF is this? In what way is African Footballer of the Year part of the (supposedlty British) BBC’s remit, and why aren’t there any white African players incuded in the shortlist?

       11 likes

  45. Pounce says:

    How the bBC promotes Islamic terrorism
    Have you noticed how the self righteous bBC promotes the cause of Islamic terrorism every chance it gets. Take for example the blood fest in Libya yesterday were 45 people were killed and over 500 injured. To the bBC this warrents a headline which downplays the significant deathtoll so we have:
    Rival Libya militias in fresh clashes near Tripoli

    Meanwhile the bBC is more than happy to tell me that the Taliban have run them up in which to inform them they were behind a deadly suicide bomb which killed 10 and injured 20. of the death toll 1 was a policeman and the rest
    civilains, now I wonder what the headline would have been if it had been a NATO airstrike instead. I am pretty sure that ‘Civilian deaths’ would be in there, as well as a paragraph about how killing civilians is a NATO past time and how the Afghan Pres is very very angry, yet when the Taliban do so (which is nearly all the time and the bBC reports…Nothing. But this brings me back to the Libyan article. You see over 45 died and over 500 injured, yet the bBC doesn’t use the adjective ‘Deadly’ at all. So from that do I get the impression that when Muslims kill Muslims that they are never deadly . Yes somebody may say that the Taliban killing is described as..deadly. Yet the fact remains Islamic terrorists use the cop out of claiming that those they kill for Allah are apostates, thus are not Muslims. which bring me to this bBC article of Al Q chopping off the wrong head. This is how the bBC ends their article: he alluded to a saying by the Prophet Muhammad that Allah forgives those who kill a believer by mistake.

    Excuse me!, who the hell can close off an article which such an excuse. The only message I get from the bBC’s continuing white Muslimwash of the news, is that Islam can only be right and the rest, well they are all fucking racists.

    The bBC, the mouth piece of Islamic terrorism , paid for by the British taxpayer.

       18 likes

    • Pounce says:

      Amendment:
      Delete
      “Take for example the blood fest in Libya yesterday were 45 people”
      Replace with
      “Take for example the blood fest in Libya yesterday where 45 people”

         2 likes

    • chrisH says:

      Oh pounce-this unfortunate error in shaving is-as yet-sub judice, so you should not really prejudge the case.
      As our friendly Al Queda spokesperson says( male or female?…who`s to say?)…it`ll be “subject to appropriate judicial enquiry and review”.
      Wait three years-Judge Savile to report sometime in 2017…Robertson, Mansfield, Stafford Smith and Pierce to give evidence…and a nice cushion to be fashioned from the hardback copy that`ll double as a cushion to dull the thud of all those heads that will roll for this “incident.”..near-lethal, so it`s alleged.
      Until then-no comments possible…or Uncle Anjem will be huffy with us all.

         4 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      In this case, surely the BBC is just adding that line so people know how insane this is, rather than as support for the excuse. They’re sick in many ways, but not this way. If they didn’t include that bit, people would be complaining that they censored it to protect Islam or something.

      I just hope at least one BBC journalist has learned a lesson here about the realities of the so-called Arab Spring and their insistence that there shall be no White, Christian, Western boots on the ground to see things through. This is the result everyone here warned about, but you don’t see the BBC talking about how it’s worked out for them.

         8 likes

  46. Pounce says:

    Amendment:
    Delete
    “Excuse me!, who the hell can close off an article which such an excuse. ”
    Replace with
    “Excuse me!, who the hell can close off an article with such an excuse. ”

       1 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      “The residents have expressed concern, there is intelligence to support that notion, yes.”

      LOL. Apparently there was trouble a t’mill for some time. Gosh, I wonder why? Oh, right, I’ve read the Telegraph piece so I know why.

         5 likes

  47. John Anderson says:

    Another airhead environmentalist (Cambridge degree in philosphy) gets free unchallenged airtime on the BBC – attacking the profit motive :

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03h429d/Four_Thought_Series_4_Putting_Profit_in_Its_Place/

    http://www.npl.co.uk/people/jane-burston

    This country needs a total purge of environmentalist nutters. Sweep them aside, sack them, shut down all the useless Green initiatives and Green “jobs”.

    I would make it a condition of employment that anyone wanting a job in the public sector should be debarred if they have anything in their background that is Green – because it shows bad judgment, fallacious science, a belief in mumbo-jumbo, and ecofascism. Kick them all out, they have sold this country down the river.

       15 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Venezuela: coming to a country near you.

         4 likes

      • Stewart says:

        “coming to a country near you.”
        Do you mean Scotland?

           0 likes

        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          That depends on whether or not they get independence, and what that will actually mean in economic terms.

             0 likes

    • chrisH says:

      Cliff Lyons quote seems to sum up the idiot-savant who can be relied upon to say nothing but banal Beebspeek.
      Until he actually says something that a policeman might tell us, based on some knowledge of murder n t`ing : I shall have to assume that it was a baptism that went tragically wrong.
      If I find a body in a well, it can only be one of two things….a new card for my Cluedo this Christmas…or is that Clueless?
      If only Blake Edwards had waited a few more years, he`d not have needed a Clouseau…he neeed only have picked a plum from Hendon Arts College for Criminal Therapies.

         2 likes

  48. Teddy Bear says:

    Let’s see, what has emerged about the BBC in the past year?
    Scandals about knowingly allowing and enabling paedophiles to operate for years while averting their gaze.
    Burying a programme that would have highlighted this abuse, while screening another that blamed an innocent man.
    Scandals over excessive pay-offs to executives that are already vastly overpaid for what they actually provide. In any event, a self-serving bureaucracy that seeks to milk the public purse for all they can while providing very little of real quality in return.

    Highly paid executives that further need to hire consultants paid for out of the public purse to advise them what to do.
    Exorbitant expenditures on properties that give nothing to improve output, and possibly made it worse.
    Wasted huge amounts developing failed digital schemes that were already available on the market, not to mention huge losses over the purchase and sale of Lonely Planet.
    Then the real crime – the constant left-wing bias that has ruined a once great nation. The agenda that will support evil if they feel it beneficial while sacrificing the good.

    People are threatened with prison if they don’t support this cancer on our society.
    But Kate Chisholm thinks that it should go on like this so mental illness can be brought out into the open.

    Oh I can see just how the BBC has made sure of that – but not for the reason she writes. The licence fee makes sure there will be plenty more mental illness.
    What an ignorant article!

    Radio 4’s All In The Mind is a perfect example of why we still need the licence fee
    We must ensure uncomfortable subjects like mental illness are brought out in the open — and not as a freak show
    by Kate Chisholm

       16 likes

    • chrisH says:

      Oh good …is Raj Persaud coming back?
      With Johann Hari, they could do something about scizophrenic writings(where one person channels another, but it`s deemed criminal plagiarism instead of a tribute act).
      No shortage of loose material floating around Beeb House.

         5 likes

    • chrisH says:

      Jimmy Savile, Russell Brand, Owen Jones?
      Not a freak show there whatsoever.,,,no sirree.

         10 likes

      • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

        But bbc breakfast has the answer this morning, bigging up the claims that somehow lowering the age of consent to 15 will protect the young from the attentions of older men.
        Fat chance, all they want is to keep the trend of going ever lower.
        And the guy who espouses this solution is being given an unchallenged platform to spout his peado friendly solution.

           16 likes

        • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

          Named expert as
          Prof John Ashton, of some organisation known for peado enabling.

             10 likes

        • +james says:

          Yep, noticed on Radio 4, the Jimmy Savile Broadcasting Corporation wants to lower the age of consent.

          What a bunch of groomers they are.

          The BBC wants to legalise what Savile did

             12 likes

          • +james says:

            Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall, Jonathon King, Chris Denning, John Peel, Wilfred Bramble, Gary Glitter and Uncle Mac would be proud with the BBC’s paedophiles charter.

               9 likes

        • Ian Rushlow says:

          Perhaps the age of consent could be done away with altogether, instantly de-criminalising the activities of gangs of “Men” from Luton, Dewsbury, Oxford, Birmingham, Manchester etc, plus rescue the reputation of the BBC (“Saville was simply a trailblazer…”).

             16 likes

        • deegee says:

          Lowering the age of consent WILL reduce attentions from older men (and women), as much as any law could, if the maximum age of the other partner is also specified. Thus a thirty year old partner would be guilty of the crime of carnal knowledge with a 15 year old while a 17 year old having sex with the same girl (boy?) would not. Perhaps the minimum/maximum age could be set on a sliding scale so that unlimited consent could be RAISED to 20?

          The professor and the BBC (and most reports like that in the Mirror) seem to relate to this as an issue involving teens of near the same age. Look at the background photograph the BBC chose for their interview. Just imagine what a different message would be sent if one of the hands belonged to a visibly much older person?

          I’m curious to which countries the professor is referring. The BBC didn’t feel obliged to ask. Canada raised the age of consent (in 2008 – from 14 to 16); , Iceland (in 2007 – from 14 to 15), Lithuania (in 2010 – from 14 to 16), and Croatia (in 2013 – from 14 to 15). I am not aware of a Western country that has lowered it.

          There is a possible spin-off effect. I am not sure if this is positive or negative. The number of under-age girls who suddenly disappear and then return a couple of years later married to a Pakistani cousin might drop. I don’t suppose dropping the age of consent will reduce the number of these marriages but at least the girl would remain an extra couple of years in school.

          10903293875_a65bf30194_o.jpg

             5 likes

          • deegee says:

            Why is it I can never post a picture?
            holding-hands

               0 likes

            • Bonzo says:

              Me too.

                 0 likes

            • Alan says:

              10903293875_a65bf30194_o.jpg

              Flickr doesn’t like you copying its photos…right click on photo for menu…then click on ‘original’ then right click and choose ‘view image’…then copy url.

              Should work.

                 1 likes

          • flexdream says:

            The BBC reports like to choose pictures and ‘people in the street’ to reinforce an unsaid and unjustifiable position, in this case that it is all about teen on teen sex. The organisation which gave Saville most of his opportunities clearly has no shame.

               8 likes

    • johnnythefish says:

      ‘We must ensure uncomfortable subjects like mental illness are brought out in the open — and not as a freak show’.

      I think, Kate luv, that if you escape your BBC bubble and its 1970s mindset you’ll find that it already is.

         5 likes