Now that the..ahem… “world’s highest moral authority” the UN has finally gotten around to authorising “all necessary measures” – short of soldiers going in – the BBC has instantly responded in tried and tested manner. Mark Mardell was on Today just after 7am telling us that thanks to Obama’s decision not to show leadership, this has enabled the UN to show leadership. However whilst the BBC pays tribute to Obama the do-nothing, it is quick to posit all kinds of troubles for David Cameron. Noticed thee BBC suggested that this is a 50/50 Coalition Government we had. Really – I seem to recall the Lib-Dem’s getting a fraction of the Conservative vote?


…on the BBC at least. A B-BBC reader writes…

On 5Live on Wednesday Victoria Derbyshire gave us a fine example of the BBC manufacturing a news story.

Riven Vincent. the mother of a disabled child who caught the headlines in January for her criticism of provision for respite care, was dragged into the studio by Derbyshire for an interview….she wasn’t a ‘current’ story in the news so….


This is an old story and it seems that VD intended solely to use Vincent as a vehicle to attack the Government. The summary of the inteview was that Riven Vincent has declared that she ‘no longer believes David Cameron is on the side of disabled children.’

This was then cut and pasted into 5Live News.


It wasn’t ‘news’…it was a regurgitated story from January in which Vincent said the same thing.

The conclusion has to be that this is the BBC casting around for ways to attack Cameron…this is the same 5Live that assiduously followed every anti-cuts protest and helpfully told us where and when they would be occurring.

Contrast the normal BBC reaction with the cuts which is to blame the Governemt as ‘savage and brutal’….when VD asked who was to blame, expecting ‘the government’ as the answer, what she got, to her dismay, was the callers blaming the councils. VD’s reaction was to say the councils must balance their budgets and make decisions that reflect tight budgets….isn’t that exactly what the Government is trying to do?


Cracking morning for Tory-bashing on Today.  At 7.35am Nick Robinson got stuck into what he sees as David Cameron’s inconsistency on Libya. The idea that a UK PM might talk about possible military intervention in the form of an air-inclusion zone outrages BBC sentiment and this was not the last of it. Then, at 7.42am, the BBC runs an item where it brought “Big Society” Minister Nick Hurd to a small charity to see the awful impact of those dreaded Tory cuts! I thought Hurd answered the BBC trap questions pretty well but even so the BBC meme that the “voluntary” sector is under mortal threat was repeated time after time. Skipping past ANOTHER thought for the day from the fragrant Mona Siddique, our favourite Professor of Islamic studies, we arrive at the first cuckoo of spring – or Paddy Ashdown as he is technically known.

Ashdown was on to further discuss the Libyan situation – although I am unsure quite why his Balkans “experience” qualifies him. Ashdown was quick to point out that without the blessing of the UN security Council, ANY prospect of ANY sort of military action in Libya is not possible. Naturally, a tribune to Mr Moon at the UN will always be well received on the BBC.

Given the daily diatribe against the Conservative Party on Today, I fail to see why Cameron continues with accommodating the BBC. It will hollow out his policies and ensure Labour is santised. It will do everything possible to destroy the Coalition. The BBC is the enemy of a sovereign patriotic Britain and it despises anything and anyone who dares assert our national will. But if we prostrate ourselves to the will of the International Communinty – Labour policy – then the BBC will laud us.Listening to this daily dross is not good for me.

The BBC and the Dreyfus Affair

On January 13, 1898, an open letter by renowned writer Émile Zola was published in the French newspaper L’Aurore. Zola reacting to the unlawful conviction and imprisonment of a Jewish officer in the French Army, Alfred Dreyfus. He accused the government (and, one was meant to extrapolate, the press and society) of anti-Semitism, and declared that this prejudice is what led to Dreyfus’s imprisonment in spite of the facts of the case. It’s still known today as “The Dreyfus Affair”.

In his letter, Zola pointed out judicial errors and highlighted the lack of real evidence in the case. He went on to condemn the general anti-Semitic attitude of the government and many in society which led to the false accusation of espionage. He also stated that the General in charge of the investigation withheld key evidence which would prove the charges were false. In fact, Zola found that another man was to blame for the crime, but since charging him would also have implicated the Army brass, they sat on the story. Someone had to be a scapegoat, and they pointed the finger at someone, simply out of the convenience of prejudice. The Army even tried and acquitted the actual guilty man. Stop me if any of this is starting to sound familiar.

Another dimension to Zola’s point was that the entrenched anti-Semitism in the government, army, and society in general is what caused the crime against Dreyfus. Unfortunately, he was soon convicted of libel for it, and was sentenced to prison. He fled to England, where he stayed until the sitting French Government fell apart. Dreyfus served time at Devil’s Island, but eventually was able to get his case retried. He got a happy result in the end, but it took years and a lot of struggle.

Like the French Army more than a century ago, the BBC is blaming an innocent person for inciting a crime perpetrated by someone else. Even in the face of evidence that the murderer in Tucson had completely different influences, the BBC still accuses Sarah Palin of inciting him to attempt the assassination of a government official. In fact, the BBC tried to censor the news that Jared Loughner was left-wing and had been angry with his intended victim since 2007, long before anyone ever heard of Sarah Palin. In other words, in spite of all the evidence telling them that there’s no possible way the perpetrator of the crime could have been inspired by the words and deeds of Sarah Palin, they accuse her anyway. By extension, they are accusing the Tea Party movement and pundits and leading figures on the political Right for these murders. But they need a scapegoat for the story they want to tell, and found one out of convenience. All in the face of the evidence, and all due to their political and personal prejudices.

Let’s get the first line of defense out of the way. The BBC believes itself to be a special organization, one which stands apart from the rest of the worlds’ media. It’s at least part of their justification for the license fee. Thus, I would say that it would be unacceptable for them to claim that, as the rest of the media is making the story about political rhetoric, so too should the BBC, and that it’s perfectly acceptable for them to ignore the facts of the case and change the story to suit the Narrative.

If we’re to accept the BBC is what they claim it to be, then we expect that the BBC ought to rise above petty politics in the case of a tragedy which was so clearly due to mental illness. Mark Mardell should have followed his own advice from back when that Muslim Major committed mass murder at Ft. Hood, and demurred from pointing fingers at easy targets. The BBC News producers should have held their staff back from declaring a Right-wing cause for this crime in the exact same manner in which they restrained their staff from immediately blaming Islamic Jihad on such crimes when reporting on that Palestinian with a bulldozer, the attempted bombing of Times Square, the attempted bombing of that London night club, when MP Stephen Timms was stabbed, and Maj. Nidal. In those cases, the BBC was among the last to associate the crimes with the influence of Islamic Jihad, and often even warned against such a connection. All in stark contrast to the way they’ve reported on this case in Tucson.

Or did they not have to be reminded of their duty to journalistic integrity in those cases? Is there an instinctive move to defend in some cases, but attack in others, regardless of the facts involved?

Now, the BBC seems to be relentless in this attack of convenience on their political enemies. In spite of the evidence that Loughner was clearly mentally disturbed and dangerous, and had targeted Rep. Giffords since 2007, the BBC still wants to make the story about Sarah Palin, the Tea Party movement, and many others on the Right of the political spectrum. They surely haven’t failed to take advantage of a crisis. A weak attempt to make this about the larger issue of the nature of political rhetoric in the US doesn’t alter the basis of their reporting, or the overall tone of the coverage across the spectrum.

I submit that this behavior is due to an inherent political prejudice at the BBC, specifically in the News department. I include World News in this, as they all share footage and resources so much as to be virtually indistinguishable when reporting on international stories. They all sign off as reporting for BBC News in any case.

In spite of known facts that the murderer in Tucson had no connection to Sarah Palin or the Tea Party movement or Fox News, and was in reality mentally disturbed and had a wide range of influences, they are making the story about the non-Left elements only. Why not discuss his interest in Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto, BBC? Why not use this as an opportunity to discuss how society needs to improve the way we look after the mentally ill? No, instead the BBC uses this as a chance to attack their political enemies.

The fact that the BBC is now giving air time to Keith Olbermann, someone who is known not for his journalistic integrity but almost exclusively these days for his venomous political vitriol, tells you all you need to know about the bias at the BBC.

It’s an intellectual failure, and a failure of integrity. It’s not enough to start admitting after two or three days of stories focusing exclusively on blaming political rhetoric from the Right that the murderer had other issues. The damage is done, and the real story buried deep beneath a mass of political attacks. The BBC has done an equivalent of the Dreyfus Affair here by accusing and convicting Sarah Palin and Right-wing pundits of directly inciting murder, in the face of known evidence to the contrary. They leapt to accuse before the facts were out, then ignored and suppressed the facts which pointed in another direction, simply because that would hurt the Narrative, the story they wanted to tell.

In short: BBC, j’accuse!

Nothing short of an apology from the BBC is going to fix this, and nothing short of a wholesale change in personnel at BBC News is going to prevent this from happening again and again in the future. They should start with those in the US.


Well, I was on the BBC this morning to make some points in support of Lord Young. It was the Nolan Show. Unhappily it was a fact free zone other than those I tried to make but with Stephen interrupting and challenging me whilst allowing Maguire a free run it was frustrating. The meme is that Conservatives = heartless and evil. It’s a pity that Cameron has thrown Young to the wolves but one could ask who was it that appointed Young to the job? Young gives them a line of attack into Thatcher so they love that. As I did point out, Public Sector workers have never had it so good. Don’t think that went down well. It’s true though but truth gets in the way of Coalition bashing, the BBC’ s main preoccupation.

An Irrational Fear of God at the BBC

The BBC, along with the rest of the Left-leaning media, has from almost the very start tried to portray the Tea Party movement as a far-right, extremist movement. At first, their main Narrative was that racism was the primary motivating factor behind the movement, with a generic anti-government theme as window dressing. When the movement which the BBC at first ignored, then played down, kept growing far beyond their expectations, the next Narrative was that it was a primarily Christianist movement. This of course was intended to lead the audience into thinking that the Tea Party supporters were clearly off the deep end, as all good Liberals know that anyone who self-identifies as a Christian is halfway towards extremist beliefs anyway. The recent offerings from various BBC-enabled comedians on such programmes as Have I Got News For You and Radio 5 are proof of this mindset.

As we got closer to the mid-term elections in the US (to which the BBC reacted as if it was the second-most important election in human history), the BBC made all sorts of efforts to portray the Tea Party movement as extremist and Christianist as possible. The staggering number of times they mentioned Christine O’Donnell and the fact that the BBC only once mentioned Marco Rubio and Col. Allen West until about a week before the election (and then only in passing, with no features at all) betray the BBC’s biased agenda for what it was.

A few days before the election, the World Service’s “Heart and Soul” programme gave us an installment entitled “God and the Tea Party” (Oct. 27 podcast). Here, Matthew Wells went to Kentucky to speak to a number of Tea Party supporters. Without exception, no matter how much they professed their Christian beliefs and their attitude that the US was a “Judeo-Christian country”, based on Judeo-Christian values, all of them equally expressed their desire for government to stay out of people’s lives and stop the taxing and spending (Note to bigots at the BBC: If someone makes an effort to include the Jews, they’re not the bogeyman you’re looking for). Yet, Wells kept pressing each of them to express their Christianist goals anyway, as if they all harbored a secret desire to turn the US into the Christian equivalent of Saudi Arabia. Then Wells gave a good portion of the segment to far-Left journalist and think-tanker, E.J. Dionne, who said that yes, they’re all extremist Christianist, but don’t worry because the far-Right Christian movement is not going to last long.

At one point, despite what the people themselves told him, Wells stated that conservative, Christian social issues are “at the heart” of the Tea Party movement.

In August, Mark Mardell had the same thoughts, wondering if the Christian Right wasn’t really at the heart of the Tea Party movement. Again, he asks this in spite of everything they keep telling him. It’s as if he suspects it’s all a big smoke screen. Mardell could always be counted on to find the outlier that fits this agenda and let that color everything.

Then, of course, there’s Glenn Beck, whom the BBC kept trying to portray as being a leading light of the movement, even though he’s actually a social conservative who tried to jump on the bandwagon, and did not come from the heart of the movement itself. There is a wide overlap between conservative Christians and supporters of the movement, but that’s all it is. Beck’s big rally in Washington, DC was for the former, not the latter. And let’s not forget Sarah Palin. The Beeboids sure haven’t. I’m sure the screener of her new reality show is already making the rounds, and they’re having a great laugh while at the same time being slightly afraid.

With this whole Social Conservative Christianist Narrative in mind, how does the BBC explain the fact that now several Tea Party organizers have written an open letter to the Republican Party leaders in Congress, telling them to lay off the social conservative issues and focus on stopping the taxing and spending?

I’m reproducing the full letter below. Read it, and decide for yourselves whether or not this matches the BBC Narrative across their spectrum of broadcasting, or what I’ve been saying for the last 18 months.

On behalf of limited government conservatives everywhere we write to urge you and your colleagues in Washington to put forward a legislative agenda in the next Congress that reflects the principles of the Tea Party movement.

Poll after poll confirms that the Tea Party’s laser focus on issues of economic freedom and limited government resonated with the American people on Election Day. The Tea Party movement galvanized around a desire to return to constitutional government and against excessive spending, taxation and government intrusion into the lives of the American people.
The Tea Party movement is a non-partisan movement, focused on issues of economic freedom and limited government, and a movement that will be as vigilant with a Republican-controlled Congress as we were with a Democratic-controlled Congress.

This election was not a mandate for the Republican Party, nor was it a mandate to act on any social issue, nor should it be interpreted as a political blank check.
Already, there are Washington insiders and special interest groups that hope to co-opt the Tea Party’s message and use it to push their own agenda – particularly as it relates to social issues. We are disappointed but not surprised by this development. We recognize the importance of values but believe strongly that those values should be taught by families and our houses of worship and not legislated from Washington, D.C.

We urge you to stay focused on the issues that got you and your colleagues elected and to resist the urge to run down any social issue rabbit holes in order to appease the special interests.

The Tea Party movement is not going away and we intend to continue to hold Washington accountable.

Here’s a link to a PDF file of the letter, with all signatories.

After more than a year of careful observation, the BBC has figured out that the Tea Party movement has mostly been busy trying to transform the Republican Party (Scott Brown in MA was an anomaly to them, a sign of nothing to come, apparently). But their bias makes them think it’s for an entirely different reason. Why, it’s almost as if they had a story they wanted to tell and went out there and told it, in spite of everything they learned from the very people about whom they were supposed to report.


Sorry it’s taken me until now to catch up with you all but I’ve been engaging with the BBC this morning. Sort of. Let me explain. The Nolan Show was covering the CSR this morning and had invited representatives of local political parties on to discuss it. Except mine. We were treated to student grant “Smash the Tories” gibberish – including a vox pop that contained those ready to follow the Marseilles Model of street protest. I eventually was allowed on after complaint. I was gifted about 2 minutes during which I spoke up for private business, criticies the establishment class, demonstrated a half £billion saving that Nolan instantly rejected, and was then promptly dispatched. When you’re saying that which they do not want to hear you get the exit treatment from Labour’s broadcasting arm. Nolan even raved about the Conservative Secretary of State Owen Paterson, stirring up the Smash the Tories Trot line even more. Appalling stuff.


Anyone catch this interview on Today? John Humphrys versus Theresa May. As ever, our intrepid BBC impartial interviewer (it’s in his DNA) was out to grill the evil Conservative and I think he gave the game away when at one point he claims “your job is to protect police jobs”. No, her job is to provide us with an efficient and affordable Police Force. In the BBC world view, the role of the politician is to protect Public Sector jobs at all costs. Humphrys all too evident hostility towards May is simply the manifestation of BBC outrage that the scale and size of the State can be directly challenged.  However rather than cut back on Police numbers, I would prefer the Government to get us a cool £3bn per annum saving by cutting the parasitic BBC from the public purse.


It’s going to be a crunch week for the Coalition and the BBC is out to ensure maximum damage, as one would anticipate from such a biased leftist broadcaster. So, take the news this morning that the leaders of 35 of the UK’s most successful large companies have come out supporting Chancellor Osborne’s approach to making the necessary cuts. It’s good news for wee Georgie but Robert Pesto (He who speaks in an odd voice) isn’t impressed. As he puts it...

“However, some people would point out that these bosses may be experts at running businesses but that does not make them experts at how best to manage the economy, our correspondent adds.”

Great point, Robert, Oh, and some of them are are “widely viewed” as ..gasp, supporters of the Conservative Party. Where will it end? Who needs Labour when you have the BBC to oppose the Coalition?


I bring you this via the Libertarian Bulldog…

“The BBC has made available on its website a 54 minute recording of the discussion in Parliament about the quangos situation. The page is headlined:

Quango reform will cost jobs, warns Maude

No, really? Wow, who would have thought it.

I’m not watching the entire discussion so cannot say whether Frances Maude did or did not make such a warning. What I’m pretty sure of though is that he probably said something more interesting in his speech than the obvious. In fact the article quotes him saying:

For too long we have had quango pay spiralling out of control so that seven people in the Audit Commission are paid over £150,000 a year at a time when the average civil servant’s pay is £23,000.

Would it be too cynical to suggest that the publicly funded BBC didn’t want to bring too much attention to the positive sides of cutting government spending on non-government jobs?”

No, not cynical. 100% accurate


Listen to this interview by Sarah Montague and in particular focus on her tone when she engages with Conservative Francis Maude. The glacial edge is so obvious, hostility barely disguised when she gets going. I can’t understand why the Conservatives indulge the BBC, treating it as some sort of benign national treasurer when in fact it is an international malignancy.  


Interesting piece of analysis sent to me by a Biased BBC contributor…

“I have looked at the BBC Website Politics Home Page stories for the 3 weeks covering the party conferences. The analysis was done by reading the headline of the story where possible since this is the impression any reader of the page first gets. If unable to allocate the story I clicked on the story to read it in order to categorise it as good(in favour) or bad(adverse). 

The categories were good and bad for each of the 3 parties and the rest were allocated to Other.

Over the 3 weeks there were 496 headlines, 35% related to the Conservatives, 37.5% to Labour, 13% to the Lib Dems and 14.5% to Other.
The ratio of good stories to bad were: Conservatives – 3 good for every bad story. Labour – 6 good for every bad story. Lib Dems – 8 good for every bad story.
The coverage figures were reasonable since they equate roughly to the size of each party and/or to the current % vote in Opinion Polls.
But the content of each story was twice as likely to be adverse for the Conservatives compared to Labour and nearly 3 times as likely to be adverse for the Conservatives compared to the Lib Dems.
I would call this BBC bias against the Conservative party.”


Brought to my attention by another eagle-eared B-BBC Reader, Ryan.

“Have a listen to the 10-11PM hour on 5 Live from yesterday. A reply of a “live” debate “from the Conservative Conference”. Several observations —

1. The Conservative debate was the only one to not be broadcast live but shunted to the late evening schedule at short notice and with hardly any publicity because of the Ryder Cup. What is 5Live SPORTS Extra for?

2. Listen to the first 30 minutes and you will be hard pressed to find a more feral bunch. Much worse then any Question Time audience. Was there any audience moderation? I suspect not.

3. Despite repeatedly being misled that this was “from the Conservative Conference” — hmm, you do wonder why a Tory audience was so anti Tory policies — you have to listen for quite a while to hear it was being recorded “just around the corner” from the ICC. Ahh. I began to wonder if it was held at the TUC HQ?”