Ian Katz, Newsnight editor, has penned an appeal for mercy, the BBC he insists is doing its very bestest in trying circumstances and yet it is under sustained attack as trust in the media is at an all time low and may go lower.
The irony is that it is those whom the BBC spends its time defending and shilling for that are the most aggressive critics of the BBC and the ones of course that Katz is responding to. The cross-party group of MPs who complained politely of the BBC’s pronounced pro-EU bias got extremely short shrift from the BBC and were told the BBC is not at all biased.
How different Katz’s response to those who have the BBC news shaped and customised to suit them and yet batter at the BBC gates claiming bias….’those’ being the SNP, Muslims and the Corbynistas.
Katz says…
In each case there is a specific, albeit related, animus. During the election, it was Corbyn supporters convinced the mainstream media was bent on doing down their man. At Grenfell, it was an alarmingly widespread suspicion that the media — and especially the BBC — were part of an establishment conspiracy to play down the scale of the disaster. For the Finsbury Park attack, the charge was that the sensationalist coverage of previous attacks had whipped up Islamophobia.
First the Corbynistas, the Muslims and the SNP street thugs are not actually complaining about BBC bias, there is none, none that is negative for their ‘people’. Corbyn was given an extraordinarily easy run-up to the election…a man who supports terrorists and terrorism, who has boasted of blocking anti-terror legislation all his career, who doesn’t want shoot-to-kill…and yet he was held up as the champion of the anti-terror position. He lied continually throughout the campaign and flip-flopped on very serious issues and long held beliefs..and yet the BBC didn’t pick up on that unlike when they thought May had done so. The SNP have in no way suffered the same degree of vilification and abuse that UKIP have and yet what’s the difference? The SNP are are if anything more nationalist and more racist. Muslims of course get an extraordinary amount of pro-Muslim programming on the BBC and the news shaped to hide the reality of Islam in the UK today.
What is such groups’ real point in complaining? To shut down debate and to stop all media criticism of their group. They intend to scare and bully journalists into toeing the line and are prepared to use any and all tactics to do so….and it works…Nick Robinson and Dimbleby came out demanding Corbyn got special treatment…and he duly got that.
Katz goes on…
When whole portions of a society don’t believe what they read or hear, the prospects of building any kind of cross-party consensus about what’s true and what isn’t become vanishingly thin. What’s left is a vacuum in which made-up stories are as plausible as any other kind. Fake news is not a tech problem; it’s a symptom of broken trust in the media.
Whose fault is that? The BBC is one of the most prolific peddlers of fake news, news produced to send a message whether about Islam, the EU or climate change or any of the myriad of causes that the BBC thinks should be given prominence. Katz of course does not accept that as his statement above shows….he says there is a lack of trust in the media that has left a vacuum for fake news to fill. Hmmm….what he misses out is why the Public have a lack of trust in the MSM that leads to that vacuum. It is of course because the MSM is itself mostly fake news and manufactured content selling a message….it is propaganda.
Ironically he finishes with this…
Possibly the most important thing we can do, however, is to acknowledge we have a problem. Right now the media’s attitude to trust brings to mind the proverbial frog in the pan of boiling water. Each increase in the temperature seems just about tolerable, but before we know it we are cooked. And it is starting to feel quite hot in here.
Trouble is he obviously isn’t prepared to actually do that and in fact used the article to do the opposite as it is clearly intended to pander to the corbynistas and the associated mob baying for blood over Grenfell.
Seems polite complaints about BBC bias just don’t work. The BBC only responds to threats and violence…as from the adherents to the ‘religion of peace’…as Mark Thompson said…a man with an AK47 kind of demands your attention and a willingness to put aside your principles.
The BBC, as always, feeding the crocodile.
Here’s a tip Ian. Don’t take everything you read in the Guardian as gospel, try a few other papers to get alternative opinions – some of them can be quite sensible at times. And, although you were once a Guardian editor of course, try to use some contributors from other news sources – not just on QT but on morning sofas and evening easy chairs, opposite Stayt and Minchkin and Munchergetty, Kuenssberg, Maitlis, Pienaar, Toynbee and all the other set-in-stone prejudiced idiots you keep trying to con us into believing have informed and balanced opinions.
Beltane-I remember when Louise MUNCHKIN was on Radio 5 Drivetime and the only traffic info
she would give was “to follow the yellow brick road!!!”
The BBC producers who dare to turn up on Feedback or any programme to justify their coverage always have a self righteous sneer at any critics and just lie about about balance and fairness.
For example snippet of news which has new Labour MP for Kensington saying on the news that Sir Martin Moore-Blick isn’t the man for the job, without any cross question… like have you met Sir Martin and why have you reached this view? Just a negative soundbite without any context and devoid of balance. We had the same thing on this morning with some chap banging for 5 minutes on about how Sir Martin lacked empathy with the victims as if empathy is a quality needed to assess facts. Who this chap was I have no idea but he certainly didn’t live in Grenfell Towers, so what his status was to speak for residents other than as a leftie agitator was unclear.
And who is Emma Hyphen Coad to judge the enquiry bloke given HER role on the Grenfell Housing Board in some opaque capacity or other? She surely is FAR more culpable than he is-so why is there no call for a by-election to sort out HER role in all this?
And how come Caroline Lucas and John Prescott aren`t getting badgered by all those residents committees and pressure groups?
Is there a verb “to Duggan”?…create a false narrative to bully and excuse evil and giving only the lefty take on any incident? If not-there is now.
Yes Chris, the BBC do a lot of “Dugganing”. They are a load of dirty duggers.
Didn’t see the bit you’re talking about vrager but there’s a gobshite named Joe Delaney, Kensingtons very own Foxy Smith, appearing all over the place at the minute. Looks like one of the Eastern Europeans from ‘Escape to Victory’. He seems to be involved with the Grenfell Action Group, ‘working to defend and serve the Lancaster West Community’. It could have been him.
No idea what he is defending his community from or what qualifies him to do so other than availability of time but he seems a particularly agitated wee fella, rocks back and forward, seems a bit itchy, and really hates the Tories. Ahh, there’s the field of expertise.
So far I’ve seen him with a very accommodating Jon Snow on Channel 4 and also being indulged by Sir Moore-Blick at the recent public meeting. The BBC have probably just caught up with him.
On this site we know all the tricks and lies that the use to fabricate the propaganda that they push down our throats 24/7. But the BBC is not alone , Ch4 is just as bad, as is CNN and the other main channels in the USA. Right across Western Europe we see the same phenomena of the MSM all taking the liberal left position and purveying fake news in support of that position. Of course if a commercial station wishes to take a certain position they are entirely free to do so. But state funded organisations cannot be allowed to exhibit bias.
I suspect that Katz and his cronies at the BBC will use fake news to push their leftist agenda even further. The examples that Katz gives above are all that the left doubt the BBC impartiality. Where are the thousands and thousands of examples from the other side of the political spectrum . True to form Katz just ignores them.
Even those of my acquaintances who voted Labour , not many I hasten to say, acknowledge that the state funded BBC is biased towards Labour. The BBC may have a hold over the political class and many of the snowflake generation but most older folks know that BBC is untrustworthy and resentment over the LF is growing. The corporation was once held in high esteem by the public and was highly trusted. But over the past decades they threw this enviable reputation away. I hope that they will pay the price of holding the tax paying public in such contempt. But only the Tories and DUP have anything to gain by putting an end to the leftist bias and the Tories at least lack the courage to do anything but bowdown before the overmighty BBC.
That phrase ‘…most older folks know…’ sums it all up, don’t you think DT? We are literally a dying breed, our days are numbered and those that follow are being brainwashed in uni, on facebook and on TV to regard anything right-wing or small-c conservative as alien, selfish and ignorant. Long term we and, ironically, they, don’t stand a chance but that’s the trouble with being patriotic, we don’t accept any merit in giving up.
Beltane,
Spot on. Younger folks have been brainwashed by decades of leftist propanda , 24/7 on TV and radio, at school and at university. What I don’t understand is why the Tories have never at any time in the past forty years had a strategy to counter this barrage of bias. Instead they seem to accept it as a fact of life and so we steadily descend into morass.
Crikey, what typical hypocrisy. Faith isn’t plummeting because report after report highlights the inherent bias in the BBC, faith isn’t plummeting because your headlines are so deliberate in their agenda promoting, faith isn’t plummeting because many of your journos have simply given up maintaining the illusion of impartiality. No, it’s because the BBC viewers are too stupid and gullible and keep being seduced by those right wing commentators that can really only be found on the internet because you rarely see them on MSM.
The trouble with the BBC has gone on for decades…
I remember listening to Nick Ross in the 1980 ‘s…?
He had a phone in programme ..think it was on Tuesdays?
I was a stay at home mum in those days!
If anyone mentioned immigration on the phone-in on the programme the plug was pulled instantly..
Any debate was silenced …
Our Nick was outraged that the subject was mentioned!
Say no more!
Comet,
Yes – how people forget – the word ” immigration ” was banned for a long time on al beeb and other main streamers . Instant scream of racist .
I remember when various groups were given entry – e.g. Kenyan Asians – those that idi Amin through out . Concern was met with ” don’t worry there won’t be any more after this lot ” that was a long time ago and many live in a country we don’t recognise any more and were not consulted about foreigners coming here.
On a different subject – an observation .
Msm has put the survivors from the burnt tower block on a pedestal . It’s Lawrence again. They can do and say no wrong. They were tenants in Kensington . Now they want and want and want . And if not satisfied with a high court judge or terms of reference they can bitch about that too.
It’s a tough world and we are primarily responsible for ourselves .
They are lucky they are not paying the going rate for a flat in Kensington . I couldn’t afford it but accept that as real life and not ‘give me give me ‘ which msm has encouraged many to adopt . Rant done
Some of these people, asylum seekers mainly from Islamic countries, are housed in hotels in the Kensington area. These people refuse to go anywhere but their local area i.e., Kensington. It must cost a lot. They also refuse any accommodation that is not of “good” standard, and in the area they are accustomed to – Chelsea and Kensington. So they continue to live in hotels in Kensington.
Surely, Ugandan Asians. Idi Amin “threw” them out.
Kenyan Asians are still in Kenya having not ever been thrown out and are doing very nicely. As are many Ugandan Asians who have returned to the country of their birth. Shame Yasmin Alibhai Brown doesn’t do us all a favour and join them.
Nick Ross? Does he have an alibi regarding the still-unsolved case of Jill Dandos murder?
Any chance of re-opening THAT enquiry? Or is it only when the Tories are in power that we can endlessly carp over lost causes like that one.
Isn`t there a Jill Dando School of Criminal Investigation or such?
No irony there at all then!
Imagine they get put onto anything that Labour left us with like Aberfan, Shipman, Mid-Staffs, Chinese cockle pickers etc…..
Jill Dando like Princess Di knew a bit too much. They were good friends.
They died for being brave enough to blow the lid on the establishment. Appalling, very sad, very criminal.
With regards to Nick Ross, he definitely has a few questions to answer, as does Jill’s fiancee along with Cliff.
Princess Di’s announcement had everything to do with revealing secrets about Charles and other members of the royal family. Not a pregnancy.
Do the research. It’s fascinating as well as awful. I believe the BBC have blood on their hands, they were almost certainly accomplices in both murders.
“They died for being brave enough to blow the lid on the establishment. Appalling, very sad, very criminal.”
And very unsubstantiated. However, being in a powerful car, driven fast by a drunk, and not wearing a seatbelt might have had more to do with it. The seatbelt wearer survived.
A few weeks previously, Di and Dodi took a private helicopter to Derbyshire (I think it was) to see a fortune teller. A better opportunity for assassination, I think, than trying to stage a car crash in a foreign city with the numerous variables involved.
are you new here Joseph?
pertelote,
Joseph is a BBC troll, Don’t think Clare is (see below) she is just a simpleton with a closed mind.
Beware. Taffman will flush them out
Why, because I disagree with your crackpot and unsupported conspiracy theory?
Your tolerance of contrary opinion seems to be as bad as the BBC, if not worse.
As it happens, I’ve been posting here for a while and don’t recall making any comment which was remotely favourable to the BBC.
I used the name “Jo” with a red nose Mohammed avatar. It was supposed to be temporary, but Google would not let me change it, so I reregistered with BiasedBBC. This site would not let me use “Jo” again so I inserted my full name instead.
I’m not a troll, I just think you’re the sort of conspiracy loon that infests the internet. Feel free to prove me wrong by providing some evidence however.
‘ being in a powerful car, driven fast by a drunk, and not wearing a seatbelt might have had more to do with it. The seatbelt wearer survived.’
Exactly what the BBC told us. Unbelievable that so many on this site, the Biased BBC site agree with the BBC message. No doubts! I hope you are sure.
You are troll and there is no denying it.
There are so many unanswered questions with regards to the death of Diana. You would not be able to answer them, it would be pointless. To be so absolute about supporting the BBC message suggests either a closed mind or you are a BBC troll. There is enough doubt to be suspicious.
Joseph you are a BBC troll.
BTW I think you have had number of previous names not just the one.
I will not be replying to you posts, but I will be monitoring what you post very closely.
I am warning others to be careful of this BBC troll. Do not be sucked in.
“I will not be replying to you posts, but I will be monitoring what you post very closely.”
Feel free to “monitor” anything you please if you really have nothing better to do.
In the meantime, I suggest you give some thought to how petulant you sound. Sad, really.
Now I understand the meaning of being “savaged by a dead sheep”.
🙂
‘Do the research.’
So how much is a subscription to the National Enquirer?
you.. a troll clare ..just a simpleton with a closed mind? Joseph?..you out there?.or don’t they pay overtime ol’m8?
Closed mind huh?
If folks want just the one view they can go with MSM. I prefer a variety of opinion but not everyone does – it gets them mad.
My departed cousin used to run quite a large electrical contracting company back in the sixties. His company undertook a contract at the BBC. My cousin was very quickly informed of the antics of Jimmy Saville and his friends. My cousin had no reason to doubt the number of sources he heard this from. Their stories all maintained a common thread. Whenever I relayed the stories of Jimmy Saville I was called a conspiracy theorist or as Joseph would have it a ‘conspiracy loon’. Sadly my cousin died before Saville was exposed. Before Saville was exposed people like you, the BBC and Joseph would have supported Saville’s behaviour.
Be very careful before you condemn people as conspiracy theorists. They tend to ask questions which the establishment won’t answer and often for no reason. The BBC for example. I write to them often. They rarely answer my specific question.
Another recent example is the child abuse at the Haut de Garenne Children’s home in Jersey. This had been common knowledge on the internet for many years, there is more to come from this. I suspect you would have wrongly accused the truth seekers of the this children’s home as stupid conspiracy theorists. Another is the false flag situation which began the Vietnam war. There are so many more. In every case the people you denigrate as ‘conspiracy theorists have been proven to be correct. Unfortunately, it is people like you, they have had to fight against to be heard.
Just for the record I am currently investigating the possibility of the ship The Titanic being an insurance fraud. It was not uncommon occurence in those days.
My advice to you and Joseph is always not to believe what the BBC report as they have their own agenda. Be intelligent and ask questions until you receive an answer. If you do not receive an answer then be suspicious. On Princess Di I have read many books and reached a conclusion that there are still many questions that the authorities refuse to answer. The BBC are acquiescent in following the line of the establishment when required. Maybe this is why the BBC seem so untouchable. I don’t know.
As I said before,do the research before you condemn people like me on this site. I detest the continual lies and doublespeak emanating from the BBC. Like many on this site I will continue to ask questions and expose their lies and bias.
So rather than condemn so-called conspiracy theorists-people who try and expose BBC lies and bias like the people on this site do- start asking questions of the so called facts, then form your own opinion. Once again, it is your condemnation with blase comments like
‘So how much is a subscription to the National Enquirer?’ that anger people.
Both yourself and Joseph seem absolute in your support of the death of Diana, supported the BBC message without exploring areas of grey. Do you still believe Jimmy Saville was innocent? it was people like me-in a small way- and others who did the work that you would have been against.
The BBC took you and others for a ride about Jimmy Saville for many years. So go on, trust what they say about Diana’s death. I expect you to.
Whilst insurance frauds are not unknown, it is extremely unlikely that the Titanic is one. New ships are not normally sunk (scuttled), still less a prestige ship with people on board.
There would only be one good reason for sinking the Titanic and that is if the entire concept of the design was not fit for the market place in which the ship was trading. Eg., had the market moved adversely between the concept stage and the date of launch?
The Titanic was a slow but extremely luxurious ship. Did this type of ship have a place on the Trans Atlantic crossing? Could such a design be traded profitably? Did the market prefer fast but cheap ships? Was the market for sea crossings dwindling because of airships or aircraft?
To sink the flag ship of a fleet is a very bold decision since even if most people had survived, there would be a complete loss of confidence in the line. Malaysian Airlines lost a lot of passenger numbers because they were involved in a couple of well known plane crashes/incidents. They lost passenger confidence even though the planes were nothing special, and were not the flag ship of the fleet or something that set them apart from their rivals.
I know that some people think that White Star had a motive because of the collision involving the Olympic. But you should ask yourself this: What is the difference between negligently colliding with another ship (the facts of the Olympic) and the negligent colliding with an iceberg (the likely foreseeable fact if the Titanic incident was pre-planned).
The same fundamental issues are raised, eg., (i) sailing too fast in and around a port/shipping lane, and sailing too fast through an ice field, (ii) a failure to keep a proper look out for other ships that might pass the path of the ship, and a failure to keep a proper look out for ice that might incept the path of the ship.
Having just been involved in one negligent collision case, which would cause insurers to be doubly careful and extra vigilant in checking the facts and deciding whether to accept the claim, why would White Star think that they could get away with a deliberate sinking of the Titanic where the facts explaining the sinking which would be put before the their insurers would be based upon the negligent collision with an iceberg?
PS. I suppose that you know that the propeller of Titanic was checked and this was correct for Titanic. It was not the Olympic‘s propeller.
At last, somebody with a more intelligent outlook than Joseph and Clare, thank you sanitycheck2, you raise some good points. However, this is primarily a site focusing on the bias contained in the BBC so I won’t indulge too deeply in this topic. I will suggest a few areas for further research
1. A shipping company could not claim any insurance money if it hit a Royal Navy vessel.
Check the financial situation of White Star after the collision.
2.Check the location of the White Star ship The Californian and under crewed ship close to where the Titanic sunk equipped with an abundance of blankets, food, extra supplies.
3. Check the list of wealthy people who withdrew from the voyage at a late stage. The ship was was only half full, especially the friends and assocites of JP Morgan.
4. Check the actions of Captain. Smith and JP Morgan.
5 Check the film of The Titanic leaving harbour.
5. Check the fitting of the repairs carried out in Northern Ireland.
The sister ship/ same size The Olympic had alterations made similar in design to the Titanic.
6. Check the comments on the accounts the crew of the Titanic who were gathered together and given a ‘talking to’.- Not convinced of Paddy the Pigs version though. There is a documentary available on You tube what Paddy leaked on his death bed. I sceptical somewhat about what he said.
Whether White Star switched ships ( ironically the Olympic served as a merchant ship in the war and was referred to as ‘Old Reliable’. It also sank a U-boat by ramming it.Or was it the Titanic? I’m still not 100% sure but it raises questions which need investigating. As does Princess Diana’s death, and especially Jill Dando’s et al.
Before you draw your conclusions. Please take time to watch the following documentaries. I hope it sheds a new light.
and less so
I have been studying in some depth the friends and associates of JP Morgan who left the ship prior to departure and come up with some interesting relationships. I have also studied in some depth the financial affairs of White Star and its history.
I hope you have found this helpful instead of labelling me as a ‘conspiracy loon’ as Joseph and Clare did.
I will not reply in depth since that would be a distraction from the main purpose of this site, namely to comment on the BBC and its misdirection and bias.
I have watched both videos and obviously issues are raised, but it is very difficult to verify facts and to distinguish facts from mere speculation.
I nearly commented on the Board of Trade (BOT) inquiry and the conflict of interest. White Star got lucky with the BOT inquiry simply because of the scale of the disaster. Had there been no or little loss of life, the inquiry may not have worked out in White Star’s favour since there would have been less need to cover up the failing of the BOT’s own involvement in the design specification and testing of the Titanic Thus if everything had gone to plan with California picking up all the passengers, the BOT inquiry might have had a very different outcome especially since all the senior crew would have been available for questioning.
The biggest problem I have with the theory is that one has an unsinkable ship, how do you explain to underwriters how an unsinkable ship came to sink? The underwriters are going to need a lot of persuasion that the ship sank accidentally through perils of the sea. The task is made even more difficult by the fact that White Star had just been involved in a collision case on the Olympic.
Placing EM Smith as captain makes matters even worse since he has a poor record, and underwriters might easily have argued that Titanic was unseaworthy on sailing due to the incompetence of the captain (who ought to have been retired after the Olympic incidents). This coupled with the fire (which in the planning stage of the switch theory was probably an unforeseen event, and not a plan B scenario as the first video suggests) could give underwriters a valid reason to decline cover (unseaworthiness on sailing is an exclusion in most insurance cover).
With an unsinkable ship, one would need to have a lot of evidence of a major casualty, with passengers witnessing an extraordinary event, if not the underwriters are likely to think that the ship was simply deliberately scuttled. With the California in close proximity rescuing everyone, are not the underwriters likely to conclude that everything is just a little too convenient?
Negligent collisions with other ships are the classic case of perils insured against. I do not know whether there was a specific policy term excluding liability if the collision is with a naval vessel, but I would have thought that unlikely. I find it difficult to understand why White Star did not simply sue their insurers when the underwriters declined to cover the Olympic incident. Given that the switch and deliberate sinking is such a high risk strategy including potential criminal liability of senior management if fraud was discovered and manslaughter charges if people died, I would have thought that any commercial company would have decided to first pursue the option of simply suing the underwriters to obtain full and proper compensation for the Olympic casualty, before even contemplating a switch and fraud plan.
Would the senior management have the b@lls to carry out the switch and sink, since this theory involves people putting their neck on the line, and I mean that literally since if things went wrong and the plan discovered, it could have led to conspiracy to murder charges involving the death penalty. Can one see Ismay and Morgan sticking out their necks to that degree?
One could write a book on this, and no doubt many have. These are just my views, for what they are worth.
I am pleased you have shown an interest in this area. There are indeed so many unanswered questions. i enjoyed your analysis very much. Many opinions can never be answered. It’s a fascinating subject all the same,one I have enjoyed exploring.
Anyway back to BBC bias.
I thought you were going to leave this alone?
If you feel you are not being taken seriously, you have only yourself to blame IMO. My original comment about Diana was pretty innocuous. I remember the sequence of events quite clearly, believe it or not I have read alternative opinions on the death, but as an alleged assassination it is totally lacking in credibility. As I pointed out, there were far better opportunities if that is really what the “establishment” wanted.
Instead of responding to this point, your knee jerk reaction was to dismiss me as a “troll”, totally ignoring many comments attacking the BBC. Your response was similar to a snowflake, unable to tolerate a challenge, and hiding behind an insult. For “fascist” read “troll”. I didn’t realise that BiasedBBC was supposed to be a “safe space”.
A story isn’t a conspiracy merely because the BBC has reported it. I didn’t even associate the Diana story with the BBC because it was all over the place at the time. I also don’t accept that she was the problem for the “establishment” that many maintain. Her supporters were certainly noisy, but my impression at the time was that many people were sick and tired of her moods and manipulations. A mere twelve months after her death, an attempt to resurrect the grief at St James’s Palace fell flat.
The Jimmy Savile issue always had more substance. I’ve never been involved in anything remotely connected to the NHS, prisons, or any of the institutions that JS was involved in, but even I had heard rumours about him. Perhaps I was willing to believe them because I have alway detested him, largely because he seemed to make a virtue out of being inarticulate. I’m still not sure that the Elm House abuse issue has been resolved.
Believe it or not, you are not the only person around here who is not gullible. However, there is still something called common sense, and the Di assassination story does not stack up IMO. Interpret that any way you wish.
A better response
‘ I’m still not sure that the Elm House abuse issue has been resolved.’
So you are a ‘conspiracy loon’ as well then!
‘A story isn’t a conspiracy merely because the BBC has reported it.’
But you can bet your bottom dollar that it will have an agenda and therefore should always be questioned. I trust nothing the BBC report to be wholly accurate.
With regards to Princess Diana, I would recommend any books written by Jon King. I don’t know him but I have met him. He is quite an unassuming person. He does strike me as someone who does not deal in hyperbole.
In a act of friendship I am happy to withdraw my remark of troll. Trolls tend to call people like me a conspiracy theorist if it does not comply with the BBC view of events.
My advice to you is never denigrate someone as a ‘conspiracy loon’ if they question a BBC account. I will never trust the BBC’s version of events, it always has a left wing brainwashing bias.
Enough.
Still being offensive, telling me to ‘grow up’, I put out my hand of friendship to you and that is your response.
I see you quickly deleted your response. Good. More sensible.
I changed my response only after you had moderated yours, and had decided to withdraw the “troll” accusation, which wasn’t in your original comment. So much for honesty.
OK then – from a review of “Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence” by Jon King, as recommended by you:
But then why in God’s name does the author have to drag in everything from the Freemasons to the Merovingians to the Knights Templar to the secret bloodline of Jesus to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (really? yeah, really) to the Bilderbergers and the Trilateral Commission and Robert the Bruce etc. etc. etc. to make his point? Does this strengthen his argument? No, it makes him look like a gullible twit, which he is, and gives any intelligent reader an excuse to toss the book aside after reading the table of contents. (The only reason I read it is because I *study* crackpots.) The ultimate conclusion here is that Diana was killed because she is a direct descendant of Jesus Christ and the Merovingian cabal known as the Priory of Sion wanted to put her on the throne because she’s apparently a member or representative of the House of Stuart (which she ISN’T, incidentally) and they wanted her to become Queen of Europe or something, but she was killed by the “Judaeo-Teuton” (sic!) dynasty of Hanover-Windsor who control the world’s finances. What a load of hooey.
Wow! “Intelligent” stuff huh?
This may come as a surprise to you but people write books to sell.
I think I’ll give it a miss, thanks.
Three issues of loony left-wing BBC bias today:
(1) According to the BBC: The Judge of the Grenfell Tower inquiry should be a dark skinned Judge with the most poverty stricken upbringing for a dark skinned Judge in Britain, preferably from London.
I was thinking that the inquiry was about fire safety, technical and political decisions made, and was not about class or race or blaming the Grenfell Tower residents for the fire.
(2) According to BBC Panorama: Tom Heap will ask in a negative anti-Brexit way, whether Brexit means higher food prices, lower quality food and less choice.
But Tom Heap does not ask in a pro-Brexit way, whether Brexit means lower food prices, higher quality food and more choice.
I was thinking that Brexit means lower prices and more choice and therefore a potential for importing more “expensive higher quality food from rich countries not in the EU” and “cheaper lower quality food from poor countries not in the EU”
(3) According to BBC Blackadder: People who vote Labour must be part of a Master Race, as is proved by those University towns who returned Labour MPs at the last election, such as Oxford, Cambridge and Hull. However the BBC regards Oxford as a dump.
I was thinking that all three are now dumps full of people who are not educated, uneducated, uneducationable, do not want to be educated, want to sack Professors who believe in free speech, in case they say something they don’t want to be educated about. As well as not being educated about anything negative about Marxism such as the history of the Soviet Union, or anything that young people today would regard as positive about Hitler such as his statements that “We are Socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system” and “National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order”
Richard your first para beat me by about 2 minutes !!
I bet you’re really fed up about that Fedup!
Joseph you have blocked me from replying.
‘I changed my response only after you had moderated yours, and had decided to withdraw the “troll” accusation’
Which makes me a better man than you.
I agree The Hidden Evidence is the worst book of those he has written, but the first half of the book is very interesting. The second part I agree with you is odd, it was co-written. I hope and assume Jon King wrote the first half. However must have authenticated the second part as well which makes it chaff and wheat book. The piece you refer to does not appear in the books he has written under his own name about Diana.
I repeat, to be so absolute in your denying that her death has no circumstance that can be assumed to be suspicious with still many unanswered questions, and does not require further inquiry suggests a binary mind.
“Joseph you have blocked me from replying.”
I don’t have the authority to “block” anyone. First I’m a troll, now I’m the moderator?
Perhaps a “Merovingian cabal” did it?
Had enough. Go away.
Well someone did.
It’s openly biased these days….Just like CNN I suppose..
I don’t know anything about the Evening Standard but it cannot be much good if it employs Mr Osborne.
Is he employed as some sort of Care in the Community role ?
Well, he didn’t care much for me and Mrs Scroblene when he was Chancellor.
Watch out for him and Cameron getting their anti-Brit stance into the deplorable freebie rag, which will then be copy/pasted by the bbbc.
From then on it’ll be ‘The popular press says’ or ‘Rumour has it’.
Such is life when you’re a bbbc autocue reader, little earphones on all the time like that old Peter Mandelson joke ‘breath i, breath out, breath in, breath out’…
Ian Katz had a stroke of luck last week, with his wife’s business getting a free 5 minute ad on the R4 Media show
… Her biz Mumsnet is setting up a mini soap opera video section ..and they are looking for corporate sponsors
..Somehow Amol gave her the platform she needed.
Masses of comments on Twitter here
eg “@realhansard Jul 6
.@iankatz1000 re: Piece in Spectator:
We always hear on Newsnight from the recipients of public spending, hardly ever from the contributors.”
Katz and his chums are heaving with money and so remote from most of us that every word he says is to be ignored. Self serving rubbish.
He starts the article with:
When the audience don’t believe the news, we’re all in trouble
That’s a problem, for sure. But the much bigger problem is that the journalists themselves don’t believe the news, but write it anyway, either as part of their agenda or simply because they want to keep their jobs.
Rick, excellent point, please see comment a few posts above, and have a nice day too…;0)
RB
The problem is actually that they do believe the news they peddle.. totally disagree with your post.
When the audience don’t believe the news, we’re all in trouble
So long as they can “tax” the people for watching Telly, they couldn’t give a damn.
I have a dream, that one day this nation will rise up and be rid of this iniquitous Telly tax.
Owing to the political cowardice and dishonesty, our craven hearted politicians have for years allowed this deeply flawed organisation to become totally isolated to the real world and act like some sort of moral and ethical arbiter on our society and culture.
In reality all it has been doing is reflecting the current “fashionable” views of our chattering classes who also are isolated from real life and do not generally have to deal with the consequences of any poor political decisions.
The BBC has been getting away with pushing these “progressive” and dangerous policies for years (and since Grenfell has even appeared to have even strayed into the territory of sedition by conventionally en-flaming passions about what at the end of the day was an accident). In fact it has pretty much embraced anything that degrades our national self confidence and weakens us as a nation. Even to the point of wrecking relations with the US president.
At the same time the BBC has also (up until recently) attempted quite successfully to to present itself as a custodian of tradition and all things that are good and honest about broadcasting and English values (viz their recent self declared intentions to “expose” fake news whilst at the same being a major wellspring for misrepresentation and disingenuous reporting). So much for the much loved world class broadcaster/national treasure!
As they have continually got away with these stunts they have become increasingly arrogant and with this recent meeting with MPS they have reached a point where their sheer hubris and desire to denigrate our society and culture has finally been exposed for all to see.
With the likes of “Sharia May” as Prime Minister – I expect little will be done to reign in this treacherous organisation. However I do wonder now whether some journalists like Katz have now realised much of the population have now looked beyond the cosy BBC mask and have started to see this unwholesome, maggot infested organisation for the collection of traitors and unscrupulous political schemers it has turned into. Revolution has always depended upon” divide and rule” and the BBC has certainly won the prize for encouraging policies which divide our nation and degrade our society.
Like a maggot which has burrowed deep inside an apple – little can be done now about the BBC without some sort of drastic action. Lets hope those days come sooner rather than later – it is definitely time to start draining the swamp. Unfortunately many of our “snowflakes” have been tainted by the BBC/MSM poison. However I do think last weeks meeting (and the predictable BBC response) was a step in the right direction – and hopefully at some point at least some of our snowflakes will realise the have been sold a pup.
The old BBC is long dead, and has changed into something truly unpleasant and damaging to our society.
I am afraid in the case of the BBC, just like Doctor Who this organisation seems to have reached its final re-animation but in this case George Butterworth has turned into George Sorros. – Pity,
Oak,
Thank you for saving me posting the same. Excellent. The BBC is a cancer at the heart of Britain and needs to be excised.
Grant – I prefer put down!!
Unfortunately it has metastasized so only the most rigorous treatment now will be effective now in dealing with this pernicious disease.
Probably time to consider euthanasia.
Oaknash:
Excellent. Thank you.
I dont want to ban the BBC.Just be rid of the Telly tax.
In this age there is no reason why PAYG/PAYV cannot be applied to the BBC as well.
The BBC is a purveyor of manipulated news. It’s aware of the risks of transmitting pure fake news and so is more subtle. The failure to hold Corbyn to account when he reversed his position on many issues during the GE campaign, is a good example of BBC news manipulation. Corbyn did the lying but it was the BBC who failed to challenge him robustly . Equally , the issue of how Corbyn’s election bribes would be funded was not investigated by the BBC.
Regarding Grenfell, keep an eye out for rabble rouser Joe Delaney, mentioned above. This self appointed ‘community leader’ is getting a lot of media coverage. I don’t know much about his background but he will almost certainly be a left wing ‘activist’ of long standing. He is leading the hounding of the ex-judge appointed to lead the public enquiry . Delaney says there mustn’t be another Taylor Report. In fact Taylor’s main conclusion was that Hillsborough was caused by a failure of police control. How that is translated into prosecutions was down to the police and CPS. Grenfell is totally different because the police are not remotely to blame and have no reason to conduct a cover up. But Delaney wants mob justice and uses Hillsborough to try to achieve his objective.
Also keep an eye on Coad Dent. The media have thus far completely failed to investigate her background as Councillor and Board Member in having some role in the catalogue of failings that caused Grenfell. Her role certainly compromises her ability to be a disinterested critic. Yet she was the first to criticise the choice to lead the public equity. The BBC reported this without challenge.
EE,
Spot on ! The BBC are the world leaders in Fake News .
Grant : The BBC are the world leaders in Fake News.
Not a surprise as they are the original Ministry of Truth.
Hello again, after a while! I haven’t posted for ages because I no longer hear and see the BBC. I have switched off. I simply do not want to know the BBC’s opinion on anything. Though I have been watching Wimbledon, and wasn’t quick enough to avoid the “News” headlines the other day tell a breathless public that President Trump had “lashed out” at North Korea and Russia, with the swift implication that it was Trump who was the danger, instead of reporting his speech in Poland in even-handed manner (yeah, right). OFF, quick!!
However, I do think it’s worth passing on news from the front, out beyond the M25, where pretty much everyone is saying that they too have hit the off button. Even those who previously loved Radio 4 for its stories and humour. “It’s wall to wall migrants, borders and Conservative-bashing. Just ridiculous and thoroughly boring,” one lost listener told me. She’s a lovely woman who is what we would call an old-fashioned liberal, like most of us here who are routinely – erroneously, bloody rudely – labelled rascist and xenophobic for daring to have more awareness. What has it come to when Radio 4 has pushed her away?
Last night, at another gathering, everyone groaned when politics and the BBC were mentioned, and nearly all revealed that they too had had to switch off. Not just the BBC, but Ch4 too. Very interesting discussion ensued about how the way forward was to return to old ways of speaking face-to-face, and looking around at all the good that surrounds us, not just the bad as constantly flagged by the media demoralisation programme.
The danger, of course, is that we all switch off and have no knowledge of the dangerous lies that are being peddled. What fills the vacuum? The work of Biased BBC has never been more important – so big thanks to all the stalwarts on here.
I humbly forget the surname of the little boy Charlie who our medical elites say should die despite the fact that his parents have raised the money for experimental treatment, but the BBC reported that Donald Trump ( clearly not President Trump ) has ‘waded in’. How sickening to belittle anyone who has sympathy for a possibly terminally ill child, and they also managed to get that obnoxious alleged Doctor Winston to give his tuppeny bit diatribe against the POTUS.
“Waded in.” “Lashed.” Anyone with the slightest sensibility for language winces at the pejorative terms – curiously reminiscent of The Sun – that the BBC uses. Completely inappropriate for a serious and unbiased news source, and completely normal for the BBC.
I must admit I’m increasingly switching off too. I avoid news bulletins, Newsnight, Question Time and, increasingly the Today Programme. One day I hope someone will sort the BBC out but when? The charter renewal was the perfect time to do it and it was botched .In fact it acted perversely by allowing current BBC funding via the TV set tax to continue yet pushing the BBC to start charging for i player. This gives the BBC the best of both worlds, both a tax funded main income and the chance to join the subscription or pay per view bandwagon. Truly a disastrous decision. Meanwhile no mechanism for really holding the BBC to account was introduced. Ofcom will be useless eg it says it cannot hold BBC staff to account for things they say on social media in a private capacity. Hence on C4 we have Jon Snow’s ability to say what he likes over many years yet also pose as an impartial news anchor. Similar for many BBC people.
My other big grievance is how BBC regional news has been allowed to kill off local newspapers . This is anti democratic because local papers could help hold local politicians to account. The BBC should not be allowed to have regional TV news. The market for this should be opened up to competition if it’s going to be publicly funded.
Agree with all of that, EE, most of all with your point about the killing off of local newspapers, which are/were by and large a-political and a respected forum for the local population. Yet another example of how diversity of views is being eroded…by the organisation that prides itself on being at the forefront of “Diversity”. There is no need for the BBC to step into this area, unless it’s all about control of the narrative.
It really is insidious. I happen to know someone who works for a local BBC station (TV) and she is the most Brit-loathing lefty – almost a communist – who is absolutely convinced that her “progressive” views should be insinuated into output in every way possible. So, you’ll find no story about local grammar schools ending on a pro-grammar note — while gasping at the hypocrisy which sees her own daughter attend one of the top, highly selective, grammar schools in the county…
Orwellian.
Stella,
I also know several other gross hypocrites who are against grammars but send their own children to private schools. I know doctors who work for the NHS , urge people to vote Labour, whilst making strenuous efforts to avoid tax on their bloated remuneration packages which allow them to make a fortune when working part time. The stench of hypocrisy surrounds them but they don’t care. This attitude is typical of many who have well paid jobs in the public sector, rape the tax payer whilst knowing that Labour will always protect them.
DD, The Left doesn’t do logic and reason. It can’t, as logic would expose the lies. That is a big part of the problem. They have to ignore it, so yes, they don’t care.
I object to paying £147 a year to an organisation staffed by people who think that £147 is pocket money / small change. . As much as by the BBC distortion of news , current affairs and propaganda in their documentaries and entertainment, I am offended by the conspicuous affluence of the BBC and it’s contributors – It started with the holiday programes about 25 years ago and now everywhere the wealth is on show, If it were funded by voluntary contributions then it would not matter but from a tax ……. (I would still like someone to explain why champagne socialists are not embarrassed by their own avarice and conspicuous consumption) – I object to paying £147 a year to an organisation which is strongly left leaning and so powerful that no one dares to take it on . Yes there are one or two good programs but the majority are rubbish. As I only need a TV license for live broadcasts and Iplayer, I can easily live without a TV license. For everything else I do not need a TV license – there are so many classic films on youtube to watch free and radio from all around the world on the internet . I enjoy listening to LBC radio , it’s coverage during the EU referendum was excellent. Nick Ferrari 7am to 10 am is very good (far more interesting than the leftyfest on radio 4 at the same time). Nigel Farage is still broadcasting on LBC 7pm Monday to Thursday. We don’t really need the BBC anymore.
Excellent post, Stella2!
I’m in the same camp (is that a safe word to use on what I am told is ‘pride’ day? Funny… haven’t seen any lions around). I too have more or less abandoned the BBC, notably R4, which has become a wasteland.
What I would dearly love to have is some reliable evidence that what you say is true, because, though it tallies with my anecdotal experience, the only thing that would make the BBC change (short, perhaps, of a government led by Jacob Rees-Mogg ) would be some devastating listener figures. Faced with that they would have to change but while they collect (and I have no doubt) massage their own figures, it seems unlikely we will get to the truth of what is really happening, as you put it, outside the M25.
Thanks, G. Yes, very hard to pin down anecdotal evidence. I only post it as a reason to be a little bit more cheerful, and like you, would now question any viewing/listening figures the BBC produced.
Can you just imagine a government led by J R-M? The clarity of thought and argument! The BBC wouldn’t know where to put itself. You know, I think a big section of the young would go for him, too, if only because he brings such confident rationality, intelligence and isn’t scared to be a bit different (dare I say, I think that’s what the young like about Corbyn, apart from the money tree).
‘And it’s starting to feel quite hot in here’.. good, hope you bloody fry!
Any body listen to radio 5 live this morning the 8th. You should have heard the bias from the sports editor and the news team in the studio! It was disgusting!
Those BBC elites were discussing the sports news and who was in the royal box at wimbeldon. And the sports reporter immediately started smirking about who was sat next to William Haigh, and how they had noticed that whoever was sat next to him vacated their seats and left him on his own all the while laughing their heads off then one of those idiots in the studio said: who would want to sit next to Haigh anyway! “roars of laughter, banging of the desks etc!
Someone in the studio – who must have recognised the bias – tried to equal the bias by suggesting “he quite liked haigh” but it was too late and his female prestenter knew it by laughing her head off! Tricky, eh!
tried to equal the bias by suggesting “he quite liked haigh” but it was too late and his female prestenter knew it by laughing her head off! Tricky, eh!
Liberals laugh at Trump
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2016/11/17/hannitys-revenge-listing-liberals-laughing-idea-president-trump
Has the BBC shown Pres Trump’s speech in Poland? The Leftylib media is trying to pretend that Pres Trump was referring to N Korea as the threat to Western civilisation.
“At Grenfell, it was an alarmingly widespread suspicion that the media — and especially the BBC — were part of an establishment conspiracy to play down the scale of the disaster.”
WOT? Is this from a forthcoming comedy sketch? Is anyone actually expected to believe this utter nonsense?
We’ve heard them going on about it round the clock, every day since it happened. Scaled it down? Beeby has overblown it to a sickening degree. If anything it has been the atrocious nature of the three previous Islamic terror attacks on home soil that have been “scaled down”. Grenfell? I usually switch off now as soon as I hear the name or see an image of the burned out tower. I’ve seen it hundreds of times. Where is the other news?
The BBC never allows a story with Tory bashing potential to die until every last drop of Tory hate has been wrung from it. But still the Tories stand by and let them do it year after sickening year.
Which makes you wonder whether they are all in it together…
Do they really have bodies to bring to the surface?
Clearly, our political crowd have lots of things to hide, which if any journalist worth her or his salt would know about, but does it really matter when you have worms like Blair and Frost etc. in the background?
What a shitty time it all is. Crap broadcastings, feeble papers, useless councillors at every level, and they all get funded by you and me.
I despair – well, I don’t really, I just denigrate the whole lot to anyone who bothers to listen, and d’you know, sometimes it gets through…
Dangerous times actually.
Meanwhile “Open Borders” Clooney moves back to America
George Clooney Plans to Move Amal and Twins Back to LA for Security Reasons (EXCLUSIVE)
http://www.dailywire.com/news/18345/open-borders-advocate-george-clooney-moving-back-joseph-curl#
I thought he moved out of America because of Pres Trump. Surely it cant be because illegal immigration into the USA has dropped like a stone.
Just anotherluvvy hypocrite.i
And because migrants are pouring into Como, near his palatial Italian estate. Another luvvie Berkeley Hunt.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3689928/We-don-t-want-refugees-George-Clooney-s-super-rich-Lake-Como-neighbours-say-Italian-idyll-RUINED-migrants-doorstep-Switzerland-closes-border.html
Now, I did hear that Trump would be stopping off in London on his way home. If that was the plan May would have to convince him not as she is so verwy, vewry , fwightened of what the bbc would say.
I suspect the useless Appeezer will offer Trump a back-door, low-profile visit to London, possibly with a blanket over his head not to upset the beebistan, the rent a mob and the idiot Berk-o (berk is rhyming slang for Berkeley Hunt, btw – how appropriate.)
To which he will rightly say: I’m President of the greatest nation on earth and I want the full state visit or f*** you and your miserable little island of timorous leftie whingers.
Meanwhile Macron, who’s no fool despite being a socialist, will put out all the stops on Bastille Day, they’ll become best buddies and we’ll be left out in the cold on vital trade deals and alliances.
Another own goal thanks to the libtards and the beebistan. Makes me sick.
The G20 confirmed that Britain will have a trade deal with the USA, Trump will visit London and that he values the special relationship.
“…but he’s (President Trump) not somebody who has always seen through his promises to the American People (7 months into Presidency). He said he’d build a wall. He said he’d renegotiate NAFTA. He said he’d repeal Obamacare. Why I’m sure you will welcome his intervention…”
– Mexican Wall (not yet started), I think Mexico should build a wall to stop their own people from leaving their great country? Mexican President should ask “Why do all my lovely Mexican People want to be somewhere else? Why America?”
– NAFTA (being renegotiated), he said he’d cancel it (No Deal better than a bad deal) and then renegotiated on better terms. Maybe?
– Obamacare (pending), try removing free stuff from people and they see at as their right to have it. A lesson in Bureaucracy and rights.
Back of the queue? Front of the queue? Out of the queue? In the queue?
Ohhh, the hokey cokey!