Just why is there so much bullshit…er…meaningless speech on the BBC these days?


The BBC have had to alter the way they report Boris’ article…previously every bulletin said he claimed that Brexit woud save us £350 million…now they have had to actually tell us what he really said…that we would take back control of, roughly, £350 million.  A completely different meaning to his words.  Were the people who drew up the original reports unable to understand what he said or did they understand and decide to alter it to make it sound as if he was lying?  Either way whoever drafted those reports is unfit for the job.

Interesting to hear the BBC’s Chris Cook ‘explain’ the issue.  Several times over the last couple of days his expertise was called upon to run us through things…and yet all we got was a run down of the mechanics of events with no analysis or conclusions about who was right….could that be because Cook knew Boris was in the right and the BBC et al in the wrong?  Unusual for the BBC not to treat us to their valued judgement on events as in Cook’s latest piece in which he has decided that May is not serious at all about ‘No deal is better than a bad deal’….the BBC once again interfering in the negotiations by spreading negative partisan speculation as fact in support of the EU.  When you consider that that stance of being ready to accept a ‘no deal’ is major bargaining chip in the negotiations you then recognise the betrayal that Cook’s attempt to undermine Brexit is with his purely speculative and highly damaging verdict.

The BBC moved on from the actual figures to trying to nail their man….Boris.  Naturally when arch-Remainer Phillip Hammond tried to hijack Brexit when May was on holiday the BBC did not attack his statement or question his motives, nor did they then go on to try and discredit him with utterly false innuendos and inane smears.  The BBC cheered and applauded Hammond as he proposed we ‘transition’ out of the EU, or rather stay in the EU, and they didn’t suggest this was a machiavellian ploy by Hammond to dethrone May.

On Monday Humphrys began a piece by comparing Boris to ‘the most devious politician in French history’ and suggested that Boris’ article in the Telegraph was mere ‘petulance’.  Apparently it was all a devious ploy to keep the Brexit voters on his side as he attempts to go for the Tory leadership and was also meant to insulate him if [when] Brexit goes wrong.  [No need for that as the fault would purely be with the Remainers who oppose and undermine Brexit at every chance].

Paradoxically they finished the hatchet job with the thought that it was ‘strange times when the foreign secretary is criticised for making comments on the biggest foreign policy issue of our time’…and yet the BBC continues to slate Boris at every turn….today was no better as the Today show dragged in two Remainers [08:50] to tell us what they thought of Boris….Craig Oliver and Margaret Heffernan…both ex BBC and, as said, both Remainers.  No guesses for the line they took.

Apparently Boris is guilty of blustering optimism as he speaks nonsense devoid of reality….Boris, they told us ‘had lost touch with reality.’  Boris, they said, was lying.  Presumably recorded after a few bottles at the wine bar the night before as clearly the stuff of drunken, loose lipped prejudice slipping out…no?

Heffernan it seems is the one who has lost touch with reality as any glance down her Twitter feed will show….competition…bad…..wages low…such a mystery [er no…due to immigration…usual supply and demand distorted by open border and unlimited supply of cheap labour]…..and let’s talk gender fluidity…no such thing as boys and girls…and of course a Clinton supporter…..no wonder the BBC likes her….



Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Just why is there so much bullshit…er…meaningless speech on the BBC these days?

  1. Richard Pinder says:

    Almost true, but it looks like Hilary Clinton stands in the middle of 5th Avenue and does nothing, while an aid employees a supporter who employees someone who knows someone who knows how to shoot somebody like Seth Rich.


  2. Richard Pinder says:

    And following on from that, I have just received a third story about BBC bias, in three days.
    It follows on from my comments on BBC Licence Fee Martyrs.
    It regards a complaint about an early “BBC Fake News” incident in 2001 by a theoretical physicist called Matt Campbell, who has become a non-payment of the BBC Licence Fee Martyr.
    Apparently, there is proof that the BBC reported the collapse of the 9/11 WTC7 tower, before it happened, and that the BBC removed the sounds of huge explosions going off in the WTC7 tower moments before it collapsed.

    The WTC7 tower was occupied by the USSS and the CIA at that time.
    It also looks like the BBC could face a Judicial Review on more than just Climate Science censorship from Scientists/Mensa members. They would like it to happen before Xmas.

    They say it looks like intelligent people in the intelligence agencies have lost control, wound up in knots by all those dogmas about Climate Change, Islam and the need to turn the narrative from internal leaks about corrupt and unpatriotic Democrats, into a narrative about a patriotic fight against Russian hacking, Wikileaks, Mr Snowden and the President of the United States of America.

    The good news is that this means that those within the CIA who are patriotic and loyal towards their President are winning against the internal neo-con enemy of the people.


    I repeat the other two stories below


  3. Richard Pinder says:

    The first story:

    The BBC Presenter of Radio 4‘s “Inside Science“, Adam Rutherford, has been reprimanded by the BBC for organising an Anti-Science campaign against the re-selection of the Labour MP Graham Stringer, to the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee, despite the fact Stringer is the only scientist on the Committee, and its not the job of BBC employees, to lobby Parliament against appointing a Scientist to a Science Committee, in the same way that the BBC discriminates against Causational Climate scientists from attending BBC Climate Science seminars.
    Rutherford, a Geneticist who worked with Geneticist Steve Jones, both appointed experts on Climate science by the BBC, called on environmental activists to complain about Stringer in letters to their Members of Parliament, and invited the chair of the committee onto his programme.
    As far as we can see, the senior management at the BBC has told Rutherford that he can keep his job with the BBC, but has been advised to keep a low profile from now on.
    This follows other incidents including an incident when the BBC ruled that a radio debate about climate change, involving former Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Lawson should have been censored.
    That was widely condemned by MPs, including both Members of Parliament with scientific qualifications. Peter Lilley, saying it shows the BBC is ‘afraid of letting a single critic point out  that the climate change emperor has no clothes’. His Labour colleague Graham Stringer who is also a scientist said: ‘This is a form of censorship’.
    Graham Stringer said about his complaint about Rutherford
    “I appreciate the BBC’s swift and appropriate response to my complaint. I have been a member of the Science and Technology Committee for 10 years.
    I have a degree in chemistry and have worked as a scientist in industry for a decade. I will continue to use my scientific training to look at all the issues that come before the Committee, including global warming.”
    I understand that members of the Royal Society of Chemistry have managed to keep the society free from being dragged into the shit hole that the Royal Society has found itself in, as regards its position on Climate Science. This I presume is because the formula used to calculate carbon-dioxide warming in a Planetary Atmosphere, is a Chemical formula that Chemists and Atmospheric Physicists with Chemical training, should be the first scientists to see, that the assumed results of the formula do not, and have never produced any real results in the real world.
    Sceptics have managed to save the reputation of the “Royal Society of Chemistry” for the future survival of the “age of reason“ in its battle against the BBC and its favoured employees like Rutherford and Cox, who remain employed by the BBC.


  4. Richard Pinder says:

    The second story:

    Nigel Farage on LBC, has just effectively announce that he will lead the non-payment of the BBC Licence Fee martyrs, if the BBC does not apologise for its “Fake News” story saying “Nigel Farage has blood on his hands” after a drunken Polish immigrant Arkadiusz Jozwik was killed by a 16-year-old boy from Harlow in Essex, who has now been sentenced to 3½ years in a young offenders institution for manslaughter.
    The CPS suggested there was no evidence that the lad who punched Mr Jozwik was driven by anti-Polish prejudice. Evidence in court suggested that Jozwik and his friend “appeared to be drunk and smelt of alcohol”. Blood tests showed Mr Jozwik was around twice the drink-drive limit. In court, the boy responsible for the killer punch claimed the Polish men were “aggressive and loud” and saying: “Fight me, fight me.”
    He also said it was the Poles who used racist language. He said one of the Polish men grabbed a friend of his and called him a “nigger”. And according to psychological reports the boy regretted his actions and felt remorse over Mr Jozwik’s death. He did not mean to kill him. Therefore what “BBC Fake News” called a murder, turned out to be manslaughter.
    Even Jozwik’s brother Radek has said “None of us had ever suffered any racism. I never thought his death was race-related. I think he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. English people have always been friendly and welcoming.”
    The 16 year old was sentenced to three-and-a-half years in a young offenders institution, for manslaughter.
    I believe Farage said that he went to the BBC and personally handed over his complaint to Lord Hall.


    I believe the above information is censored by the BBC.


  5. Guest Who says:

    Like this, another from that BBC Beauty Katty, who has seen what the BBC ‘has been told’?:


    • JamesArthur says:

      I heard that and saw the Guardian headline – so listened to the whole speech – which was by the sounds in the audience relatively well received – a good statesman like speech but telling people how it really is. There was nothing you could really disagree with – Unless you were the Guardian – and the only paper the BBC quoted. They took the words about North Korea completely out of context in the headline. Their aim , as it seems, is that of the BBC to paint him as a warmonger..
      Why didn’t the BBC actually have a report on it in an open honest way…probably because it was a good speech.
      As for the Swedish FM..isn’t this the same person who says there isn’t any problem with migrants in Sweden? I am not sure but almost certain…may be she didn’t like it because it raised some hoe truths…


      • JimS says:

        The BBC’s famous ‘some’ is at it again – “Trump’s first UN speech met with criticism from some leaders” heads its web story. What about the other 180 plus leaders?

        And then we get the BBC’s ‘expert’ analysis by Jonathan Marcus:

        Nonetheless Mr Trump’s world view contained many contradictions. Where exactly is the boundary between national sovereignty and collective action? And does America’s newfound foreign policy pragmatism extend just to calling for the return of democracy in Iran and Venezuela or actually for doing something practical about it?

        Neither of these statement illustrates a ‘contradiction’. The first is similar to the ‘sovereignty’ line used by many remainers, that by being members of an international body we aren’t sovereign, which completely ignores the difference between agreeing to do something and being told to do it, the former is by choice, the later isn’t.

        Trump’s calls for democracy in Iran and Venezula were actually calls for the UN to return to its original charter aims and for the UN, (i.e. the member countries), to do something about it.

        But then I think the BBC’s response (and the scripts for News Quiz, HIGNFY etc.) had already been written before Trump spoke.


        • Alicia Sinclair says:

          S`pose it`s never occured to Sopel that there may-as well-be some “praise” from some countries too. But bet he never tried to find it.
          Balanced output in that they hate Brexit as much as Trump-so spit venom out of both sides of their mouths at one and the same time…balance.


      • MarkyMark says:

        Diplomacy is the art of lying until you get found out.


      • Alicia Sinclair says:

        The BBC had Kevin Rudd on last night too, who was set to sniffiness re Trumps speech.
        Julia Gillard, Barak Obama, Francois Hollande and Zapatero? All failed lefty discards who will always tell the BBC what is required.
        Got to be a roster for this lot, maybe that`s what Bildeberg and Davos arrange for us all.


        • Wild says:

          Strange that Newsnight failed to mention that Rudd is on the Left politically. They mentioned that he is a former Prime Minister of Australia, and that he was at the UN when Trump made the speech, but missed out that rather relevant bit of information. If he gave a positive assessment of Trump the BBC would have been astonished.


    • Deborahanother says:

      That means it was the right speech at the right time .The UN gravy train is being called out by Trump and he will take action .Quite right as his strategy is MAGA.This includes giving power back to taxpayers.USA is the main funder of the UN which is about to change if they don’t change .Its a useless talking shop.
      There were gasps in the audience because Trump is calling them out to their faces.He is owned by no one. If only we had such a person leading us….


    • MarkyMark says:

      Could it be that Trump’s speech was the right speech to the wrong people. As Christian Fraser said on the Beyond 100 Days BBC programme – “The speech (U.N.) was meant for those who voted for him. Not the United Nations.” (paraphrased)


      • Alicia Sinclair says:

        And how much of the analysis from the BBC majored on “handclaps,”…”applause” and how this compared to Yasser Arafat or whoever.
        Guess there`s some political Statto these days, paid to count the “gasps in the hall” as Maitlis said that she heard…oh dear, fake news again Maitlis.
        What does my hubby see in that one?


    • Alicia Sinclair says:

      Would our Swedish meatball tell us when a “right time” would be for Trump to tell the UN what socialism, communism and islamic terrorism are doing to the world-as the assembled trash Israel and anything western, patriotic and truthful to an Iranian, North Korean or Corbyn?


  6. Guest Who says:

    The BBC claims to ask a question, when in reality it again grandstands its blatant advocacy.

    The comments mostly call them out on this. Maybe the good lady and Nigel Farage could team up to tell this propaganda machine to seek less unique funding?


    • Alicia Sinclair says:

      The old Burmese would have slapped the BBC gobshite full in the mouth, then put him up on some charge of denigrating the State president or such.
      Happier, simpler times.


  7. Cranmer says:

    I recall that either just before or just after the Brexit referendum, Nigel Farage explaining the £350m in a TV interview (not sure if i t was BBC or not). At any rate, anyone who made the slightest bit of effort into researching the £350m stuff would know there was absolutely nothing dodgy about any of it. It was simply seized upon by people who wished to discredit Brexit and promote fake news.


  8. EnglandExpects says:

    I see that Golding and Fransen are being charged by Kent Police with ‘religiously motivated harassment’ regarding leaflets distributed at the time of the trial of Muslims for raping a girl in Ramsgate. The four on trial were found guilty and received heavy sentences. Robinson got a suspended sentence for filming outside the court. Britain, no longer the home of free speech? Given the slow and uneven performance of the criminal Justice system in dealing with Muslim rapist gangs , I would defend people speaking out. .Then we have plod searching for hate speech to pass on to Saunders.
    Be afraid folks….


  9. Edward says:

    You have to laugh at Heffernan’s tweet: “Competition regularly produces just what we don’t want: fraud, cheating, stress, inequality and political stalemate.”

    No, that’s socialism in a nutshell!


  10. Guest Who says:

    Here’s another reason:


    One suspects the BBC likes Sharon’s thinking.