Hi All, been away all day so just catching up now! Well, what about poor Georgie Porgie and that “conversation” with that Russian billionaire? A few points strike me.
1. Osbourne has been foolish in the extreme and has left himself – and his party -open to the smears of sleaze now being generously applied. For that he deserves no pity.
2. The BBC coverage has been exultant, almost hysterical. The Great Leader will be pleased.
3. The comparison between the fevered coverage afforded to this non-story contrasts with the subdued interest Al Beeb has shown in the serial corrupt dealings of Labour during the past decade. Anyone detect the hand of Mandelson in all this spinning? The Prince of Darkness is back but the BBC are throwing all the light on stupid little Osbourne. It is my view that the BBC will help Labour further narrow the opinion poll gap with the Conservatives by ignoring all decent suggestions that Cameron makes and then crucifying the Tories each time they commit an error. In this way, over the next two years, the way for four more years is being prepared and you and I, dear reader fund it.


Do you like the way in which the BBC portrays David Cameron’s decision to “break” his “truce” with the Dear Leader? Once again, the Conservatives are being portrayed as the bad guys because they dare dissent from Gordon’s world-view. Cameron is absolutely right to point out that Brown has his grubby-fingerprints all over many of the economic woes that afflict us but the Brown narrative is that our problems all originate in the USA and the BBC then uses this to suggest that a dissenting Cameron is being unreasonable.

You really can’t blame the Labour Party …

… for arranging for a few dozen of their activists to protest outside the Conservative Party conference, cunningly disguised as “financial services workers”. It’s just the cut and thrust of politics, and while a neutral observer might wonder how the Tories are implicated in the current crisis, having been out of power for eleven years, trying to associate them with the sins of the incompetent banking fat-cats is all part of the game.

But did BBC Television news tonight have to (prominently) report it straight-faced as a demo “by financial services workers” ? Even my (thin) cat could see the whole thing was a set-up. Are the Labour Party paying them, or do they do it for love ?


Well now, did you catch the boy Cameron being interviewed on the Today programme by newbie Evan Davies? Interviewed is probably the wrong word – harassed is perhaps more accurate. He was not given a chance by Davies, he was constantly interrupted, his answers were dismissed, his agenda thrown aside – all in all it was an attack piece. How things can change in a week. Last week, we had the fragrant Sarah Brown and her allegedly statesman-like husband, Gordon. Solid and reliable. This week we have the hated Tories and they have been treated appallingly by the BBC, in my view. I say that as someone who has grave reservations about Cameron and co but I also speak as someone who believes in fairness. True BBC colours shine through folks, even in Evan Davies.

MardyMarr’s casual smear

It was so noticeable in his interview today with the Conservative leader how much less friendly Andy Marr is to David Cameron than he is with Gordon Brown.

At 19.30 in the Cameron interview here Marr starts from nowhere by asking DC if he agrees that mass immigration has done something terrible to Britain. If it were a Labour man Marr was interviewing, he would gently quote the source before accepting serenely the response that it was an attempt to make a wider point.

Well, what happens when he interviews a Conservative? A misquote, hauled from nowhere, planted in hostile fashion following another attack on Cameron’s “broken society” theme. The misquote was the standard one: immigration confused with multiculturalism. But what followed was more telling still. When Cameron leapt lightly up and quoted the source (Dominic Grieve, Shadow Home Secretary in the Observer) and explained it thoroughly, the sour Marr culminated in the bitter throwaway line that Grieve “talks about the long-term inhabitants of Britain, by which he presumably means white people”.

Cameron had no chance to reply to that particular smear and the conversation cross-examination moved on. Yet why did the BBC journalist feel free to put words in the mouth of the Opposition?

Standard BBC smear in what was evidently a premeditated atmosphere of hostility.


Well, as forecast here yesterday morning, the BBC has lavished praise on the Brown conference speech. Indeed in the BBC worldview bubble, Brown has triumphed magnificently, silenced his critics, routed the Tories, and laid down solid “serious” plans for the future. They have even suggested, oh so subtly, that Brown has moved the Party “slightly” to the left. Cheers all round and time for more “regulation”. The thing is that the BBC is now completely immersed in the NuLabour spin zone, indeed it is the broadcasting arm of the Labour government. They have been doing their best to “Save Gordon” for some time now and will feel that their mission has been accomplished, at least for this week. Let’s see if Cameron gets such an easy ride next week. Of course OUTSIDE the BBC bubble, things remain as they were. I suggest that Labour remains in terminal decline and the loss of the seat in the forthcoming Glenrothes by-election will surely bring some reality back to this BBC created faux reality. Finally, if you want to see just how great the Brown love-in is, just check out the image on the Today page this morning – Gordon and Sarah kissing each other, even as the BBC drools over them. Pass the sick bag.



What do you make of the news that a senior BBC executive told reporters to ‘go easy’ on the Labour Government now it is lagging behind the Tories in the polls. According to a well-placed source, the man in charge of BBC Radio 4’s flagship “Today In Parliament” told his staff that it was right to be ‘aggressive’ when things were going well for the Government but not when it was in trouble. Some of those present were outraged by the comments attributed to Peter Knowles, editor of the BBC’s parliamentary programmes, at an ‘away day’ gathering in London. Naturally the BBC denies this but then again they would say that, wouldn’t they?


Listened to a report on Today this morning around 6.20am concerning the saga of the death sentence handed down by the Afghan authorities to a 23 year old student whose crime was to download an article of the net on the treatment of women in Islamic societies and noted the references by the BBC correspondent to the “conservative” mullahs behind this rampant stone(ing) age intolerance compared to the “liberal” elements with Afghanistan that want to see the sentence reversed. Now I know that he is not actually suggesting that the Mullahs are card carrying members of Cameron’s party BUT the term “conservative” is smeared in this way by attaching it to the behaviour of these radical Islamic barbarians and I suggest to you that the BBC knows exactly what it is doing when allowing this language air-time.


It’s so touching, isn’t it? I refer to this article on the BBC portal concerning the news that GOP star Sarah Palin’s family is human after all and that her 17 year old daughter is ..gasp horror…pregnant. B-BBC favourite Justin Webb weighs in pointing out that this news “may” not hurt her politically although this is immediately followed by the suggestion that there may be other skeletons in the Palin closet. But here’s the thing; why does the BBC not compare the Palins reaction to the news that their daughter is pregnant (They call the pregnancy a blessing) with what Obama thinks such a pregnancy would mean to him (He calls such a pregnancy a punishment). Here is the link. Surely THAT is a story? Also, when we are at it, where is the BBC when it comes to the news reported elsewhere that Dem V-P nominee Joe Biden reckons Israel better get used to a nuclear Iran? It seems to me that the BBC is so preoccupied with its own toxic narrative (The US must elect a black democrat to the White House) that many more interesting stories get dropped. On purpose.


Did anyone else just see Justin Webb on the BBC 10 0 Clock news suggesting that by selecting the “inexperienced” Sarah Palin the GOP has made it much more difficult…. for themselves to attack the Obamessiah? Amazing to see the BBC twist in the breeze as it struggles to come to terms with McCain’s audacity in his VP selection! They are looking to find ways to character assassinate Sarah Palin and watching the venom coming through is quite an experience. Anyone else feel a BBC bubble being burst..?


. Is it just me or do others find the attention the BBC is paying to the case of a former Tory candidate who has pleaded guilty to a campaign of harassment against his Liberal Democrat rivals excessive? It ran as a major item on the PM programme earlier this evening and whilst I do understand that the behaviour of Ian Oakley was despicable, I just don’t get the high priority the BBC is giving this lowdown story. Unless, of course, it is to try and obviate the endless bad news that afflicts poor Mr Broon and his cronies?