Because these fill up with hundreds of comments every day! I tuned in to the BBC Radio 4 at 6.30am this morning. They DO seem so sympathetic to “the opposition” in Syria and Morsi’s supporters in Egypt, don’t they? Muslim Brotherhood propaganda is breathlessly repeated and how often are we informed that Morsi was “democratically elected”? The situation in Syria is certainly complex but the BBC seems to have aligned with “the rebels without probing too deeply as to who they are and what they want. Anyway, I’m off for the day so detail the bias YOU see here…
FRIDAY OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
The great tragedy about Middle East politics is that no side can ever be a true ally of Western democracy.
There is one Middle Eastern country where democracy works according to the Western model.
Also, we have the ridiculous contradictory contortions coming from the likes of the Co-op and various universities, where Israel is boycotted but Gay Pride is promoted.
Mark wrote:
“The great tragedy about Middle East politics is that no side can ever be a true ally of Western democracy.”
Actually that isn’t exactly true, Until Israel started defying the numbers games and won against much more numerous (And better armed ) opponents, nobody gave a frig about what passed as politics in the region. And then the left got involved. Always looking for a cause to support, they found such in the poor Arabs who having spent all their wealth on weapons tried to use them on the Jew and lost everytime. For example years ago I used to teach officers and on one course an Egyptian Lt turned up. He looked around his fellow classmates and decided that he wanted to be top dog and thus he made himself up to Capt. Its as easy as that? Wow no qualifying reports a phone call back home and you get to lead men to their deaths. But hey don’t worry Abu Bowen will write up the Arabs are Lions defeated by lucky Jews and the left will lap it up as fact..
The British left just couldn’t understand why a group of people who exhibit the qualities of mass murdering paedophilic thieving bastards didn’t want to live in peace with the much smaller (in number) Non Islamic neighbours. and as they bred themselves poorer, they noticed the Jews getting richer and like all third world despotic people, instead of actually working for a future, they instead tried to steal themselves into a little income. problem is the jews were having non of it and everytime the Muslims got their hands slapped, the left cried foul play.
Yes the people who defend the rights of gays,women and animals in the west, do a full 180 when it comes to the religion of peace.
Currently the bBC is running an article about how the
government of Gaza (Hamas) is begging Egypt to let them free. I quote the bBC Harpy: Yolande Knell
“Officials from the Islamist group Hamas are urging Egypt to reopen the Rafah border crossing with the Gaza Strip.The Egyptian authorities closed the crossing point this week after more than 20 Egyptian policemen were killed near the border by suspected militants.”
Suspected Militants bBC?, bloody hell it was bad enough when the bBC decided to replace ‘Terrorist’ with Militant. But now a gang of armed terrorists who stopped 2 mini buses of policemen (in civilian clothing) on the border with Gaza made them get out, lie down on the floor face down and then shot them all in the back of the heads and the bBCs refers to them as suspected militants and yet in an article about how Egypt has clamped down on Gaza. The bBC finds the time to berate…Israel and that encapsulates everything about Middle-Eastern politics in the West as promoted by the left.
Its all the fault of the jew
The bBC, the traitors within our Midst.
Exactly. Which is why I’ll repeat for the umptieth time, the BBC should not only be privatized but also face their Nuremberg.
Face their Nuremberg. Brilliant Anat T. Well said
Pounce, what an excellent summation of the Arab. Of course it bears no relation to how the BBC portray them but I remember in the politically incorrect days of my youth the term “Lying Arab” was commonplace and no doubt based on what was then more frequent association with Arabs by many British in politics and business.
Morsi was democratically elected, so was Adolf Hitler. Hitler then abolished parliament, so did Morsi. By their stance, it would suggest that the BBC would object to anyone who oposed Hitler. National Socialism, International Socialism, they must all be the same to the BBC.
Hitler was a good Socialist, and like all left wing regimes he murdered his citizens on an industrial scale.
The BBC also has it’s favourite people, supports groups who believe in the murder of Jews & Gays, with a policy of expansionism similar to ‘Lebensraum’ .
The BBC probably would object to anyone who opposed Nazism, providing that those Nazis are not white.
“…Hitler was a good Socialist, and like all left wing regimes he murdered his citizens on an industrial scale.
True, but even Hitler and his cronies couldn’t murder as many innocents as good old ‘Uncle Joe’ Stalin, both before and during WWII. I’ve been reading a lot of WWII history lately, looking at the crimes of all on all sides. Stalin was by far the biggest butcher through those dreadful years – some estimates put his final death toll upwards of 20 million (Russians, Jews, Poles, etc).
Absolutely unimaginable, and while there is no doubt whatsoever that the NAZI’s murdered over 6 million entirely blameless Jews in the most inhuman ways, plus unknown hundreds of thousands of Poles, Russian POWs, Slavs, etc, one does start to wonder just why it is that we never quite see the crimes of Stalin given as much BBC approbation as that so readily meted out by the Corporation to the crimes of the ‘fascist’ (not ‘socialist’) Third Reich.
Having read so much about this, I can’t make sense of the strange logic at work there…
The Left and by definition the BBC are only just getting to grips with the idea that Joe Stalin, their poster boy for communism for so many years, wasn’t the hero their comrades made him out to be.
First they were in denial, now they are going through the difficult stage of acceptance then finally they will be able to condemn…..no, hang on, there’s always the goold old ‘memory hole’.
Today is the 74th anniversary of the molotov-von ribbentrop pact of 1939. Remember that the Russian Communists were happy to have a pact with Nazi Germany, to deal with that anti-Semitic, evil state. Russia only turned on the Nazi regime after the Hitler’s Nazi Germany invaded Russia in June 1941.
Don’t forget also that the Left in Britain weren’t all that keen for Britain to go to war against the Nazis because they were allies of the Great God Russia and Uncle Joe Stalin. The left wing ” peace movement” did all it could to loosen Chamberlain’s and then Churchill’s resolve. Michael Foot was one of the left wing newspaper editor who regularly railed against the war and did what he could to adversely affect the morale of the British people. He was such a nuisance that the Government threatened to close down Foot’s newspaper ( The Daily Mirror, the News Chronicle, Daily Herald or some such leftie rag – can’t remember which one). Foot himself was threatened with imprisonment under wartime regulations.
The left soon did an about turn when Adolph invaded Mother Russia in 1941.
The Mirror was certainly threatened with closure at least twice during WWII.
The Labour Party consistently voted against the re-armament which narrowly saved the country from slavery in 1940, something which has gone down the BBC memory hole.
Nor come to think of it can I recall the BBC paying much attention to the fact that CND was funded by the Soviet Union, or discussing the role which pro-Soviet Communists played in that organization.
Neither can I recall the BBC drawing attention to the role which Communism played in the famines in Ethiopia at about the same time.
I do recall however the BBC making a drama in which pro-Stalinist traitors of this country were portrayed as idealists.
Hitler was appointed as Chancellor not elected to that position. The Nazis never got near a majority in free elections.
True but just like the socialist and BBC beloved ‘Green party’ they got huge amounts of political clout and publicity with absolutely little or no power base in the country !
Nothing changes!
In the 2010 general election the Greens managed to garner 0.9% of the public vote, which made them exactly half as popular as the BNP who polled 1.8%
It’s funny how the left love to repeat the BNPs performance with regular monotony, and yet claim that the Greens are widely popular with the public.
Hitler was the first Green politician to gain power in Germany. The term Anti-Semitism was first coined by a group of C19th German Socialists who sought to update their anti-Jewish views with the latest racial science.
For all their obsession with Darwin the BBC rarely seem to mention the popularity of Eugenics and racial extermination on the Left prior to the Second World War.
Indeed he was.
But worth noting under the electoral system Germany had between 1919 and 1932 no party came near a majority.
The best any party managed was 37% (Social Democrats in 1919 and Nazis in July 1932).
1933 Federal Election – the Nazis achieved 43.91% of the popular vote, 266 seats in the reichstrag. More than the next four parties combined
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933
“The Nazis registered a large increase in votes, again emerging as the largest party by far. Nevertheless they failed to obtain an absolute majority in their own right”
Only the BBC and the African Union could describe that election as fair.
Much like Morsi’s election.
If the Nazis rigged the election why didn’t they go for 50.2% or something that would give them an absolute majority? Any self respecting dictator would given the chance.
BTW I am not an apologist for the Nazis – as vile a bunch of genocidal scum as ever trod the earth, but they appealed to the sentiments of a very large number of Germans at the time and they were elected
Yes that’s right. It was in March 1933, two months after Hitler was appointed Chancellor. They were already in power though I guess their vote rigging skills were quite polished enough by then, but…
A “combination of terror, repression and propaganda was mobilized in every… community, large and small, across the land.” – also Wikipedia citing R Evans “The Coming of the Third Reich”
.. and by November 1933 the Nazi’s scored a really impressive 92%. Rigging the vote was certainly working by then.
Of course the BBC never stop going on about the recent subversion of democracy brought about by Labour and Liberal MP’s refusing to bring Constituency size up to date.
No sorry I mean that the BBC are such champions of democracy they never mention it.
Something to do with the fact that it benefits the Labour Party I suppose – another example of the BBC memory hole.
He was still elected within the rules of Germany’s political model. The point is still relevant. Also Dubya was democratically elected (or at least reelected, the Florida votes in the first election was a bit iffy to say the least) and he systematically tore up peoples’ liberties in the same way as Hitler did and Morsi is doing. Same with New Labour.
Good debate above here!
I often used the notion that he was “democratically elected”…then Ralph gets me to review it all.
We never get these debates on the BBC do we?…this is our Open University these days. and thank God for that.
Bush “systematically tore up peoples’ liberties” ? Can you give an example of a single action that was not repeated or maintained by Obama?
This is an old canard. Within the context of the pre-Nazi German elecroral system his party led the reichstag and had the right to form a government in 1932. A consequence of coalition government. He bullied his way into the Chancellorship (Hindenburg was senile) but got a larger slice of the popular vote in 1933 than Tony Blair did in 1997*.
Was Tony democratically elected?
Virtually no one other than African kleptocrats and leaders of socialist “democratic states” achieves a majority in terms of the popular vote
*So did John Major in 1992
The difference is that Hitler was appointed Chancellor whilst Blair was elected.
Blair wasn’t directly elected, he was appointed as prime minister by Her Majesty on the grounds that his party had the largest number of seats in the Commons.
ofc…Blair commanded a majority in the representative HoC…and was invited to form a government. Hitler was also ‘invited’ to form a government as others in a representative Reichstag were prepared to support him.
That H. was demoratically elected under a constitution is indisputable.
A prime minister is not elected by the British people directly, but chosen on the basis that they can command a majority in Parliament.
Many dictators and totalitarians often use democracy in order to destroy it.
Prime Ministers in this country are not “elected” Ralph.
By convention, the leader of the party with a working majority of seats in the House of Commons is invited by the sovereign to form a government. He/she usually does so, but not always.
If the leader of that party is deposed by his party mid-term, then the new leader forms the government, without needing to hold a General Election, as we saw with the Thatcher-Major and Blair-Brown transfers of power.
Ralph, you just have to except that Nationalist socialism appealed to a huge segment of German society.
Were they also voting for the final solution? No, no more than people like me voted for the European super state when we voted to stay in the common market.
And clearly there is still a demand for populist politics (why has being popular become a political crime?) in Europe ,Putin proves that, as do some political figures in EU countrys. Despite the best efforts of the liberal inquisition to demonise them.
If that were not the case why does the BBC/Labour axis try so hard to ‘change the people’?
“…Were they also voting for the final solution?”
Perhaps they weren’t consciously voting for the gas chambers and crematoria, but even before the outbreak of war in 1939 most German citizens (and all of the armed services) would have known about the existence of ‘labour camps’ springing up all over German territory. They would have been aware of the NSDAP’s stated intention to rid Germany of all Jews – which most people probably assumed (rightly, at the time) meant ‘transportation’ either to labour camps (to be worked to death) in the East or onto ships bound for Palestine (if they had enough gold and jewellery to buy passage).
After Poland was overrun, the NAZIs really got work on ‘the Jewish Question’, first with the Warsaw Ghetto and not much later with the wholesale slaughter of every Polish Jew they could push onto cattle trucks and ship out to one of the many concentration camps the NAZIs were busy building all over the conquered territories.
I don’t buy the claim that German voters had no idea what was ultimately in store for the Jews. If you read the NSDAP’s policy manifesto from as early as the late 1920’s it’s all in there…
And the German’s supported that because, (much like the BBC), Germany’s state media conditioned them that the acceptable way to treat Jews was to round them up and imprison them, for the good of the Fatherland.
They believed that world Jewry had risen up against Germany and that the Jews (including all the antisemitic stereotypes about bankers) had declared war on Germany and that they must be stopped.
I am NOT saying that the German people were right to believe it, but that, just like in the UK now, the media tells lies often enough, sets the social norms and people follow them.
What was the social norm in this country in the 1950s-1960s? Blacks were lazy and no good and should be discrimaneted against and homosexuals were subversive and being homosexual was illegal.
The BBC had been at the forefront of setting those social norms and has been at the forefront of challenging and changing them too.
I am not condoning the ordinary German people for going along with it, but I am understanding why they did. Much like I understand why people vote the way they do, given the propaganda that is spewed out by the media.
When Germans were constantly told this:
![]()
http://www.overlordsofchaos.com/assets/images/express-jews-declare-war-hi.jpg%5B/img%5D
I can understand why the elected a man who swore to protect the German people.
Good points from you and Phil
I would disagree only by degree with either of them.
“…I can understand why they elected a man who swore to protect the German people.”
Here we must differ – I just don’t think Hitler was ‘protecting’ the German people from anything; his own illogical, homicidal delusions regarding the Jews were invented and continually nursed by him as a ‘justification’ for what became a calculated genocide.
What the majority of Germans voted for was the triumph of Germany’s rebirth under the Third Reich and if they could just manage to avoid reading the smallprint (directly and unequivocally) targeting the Jews it must have seemed wonderful for them in the years 1933 – 40 in particular as Germany triumphantly swaggered across large parts of Western Europe.
And anyway, as we all know, Hitler’s ‘protection’ of the ‘racial purity’ of the German people ultimately resulted in their absolute, catastrophic annihilation – and yet the seeds of that destruction were sown two decades earlier for all to see. I guess it was hard for the average German civilian to imagine the party (and The Party) would ever come to an end…
why has being popular become a political crime?
A very good question. After all in a democracy the most popular party wins.
No, no, no. The one with the most postal votes wins.
Golly these open threads nobody pays attention to do fill up.
I’d like to port over one from Thursday’s to reply to, if I may, as it seems worthy of more discussion:
A6GM Zero says:
August 22, 2013 at 10:29 pm
Check this out folks on the Jeremy Vine show, I think its a classic undisputable example of bias. This is probably one of the most blatant occurancies of the beeb pulling the plug on a caller who is not towing the line I’ve ever heard. In this case the caller is saying the Syrian Regime are not the bad guys and the FSA are the ones committing atrocities. You can hear someone press the button to cut the caller off mid sentence and some very random piece of music is put on. Did the beeb have a government adviser in the studio on this one who was calling the shots? They are preparing the groundwork for war in Syria and anyone who sticks up for the regime will not be given air time. Go to 56 minutes in on todays Jeremy Vines show…..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b038h976
I started off very relaxed by this. The preceding read-out vox pops were by any measure not the usual narrative. But then when got to our man ‘live’. And even here it was OK initially. Whether one accepts his premise or not he was not ranting. It is up to the interviewer to counter if necessary, which she started to do.
But then, as shared, the plug was mostly definitely pulled, and pronto.
I don’t much care for Ms. Feltz, but can’t argue that she is every bit as bright and competent as most other top tier hosts, but she was for sure told to deal with it, and dealt with it was.
But going straight to a 40’s-era Miller classic was too surreal not to have been deliberate. I am surprised they didn’t cut to the North Korean national anthem and another newsreader.
A response from Vasessa that you cannot always believe what you see on Youtube but beeboids always believe what they read on Twitter. This is the most blatant example of pulling the plug because it was not the BBC’s view.
Most of the people who read this site have no innate bias towards Assad or the Free Syrian Army; Morsi or Mubarak yet what we see on the BBC is bias towards one side. Even on foreign events the BBC feels it has to control the narrative and only give us one side of a story.
‘ you cannot always believe what you see on Youtube but beeboids always believe what they read on Twitter.’
As topically alluded to today elsewhere, there appear for the BBC some ‘you’s’ that ‘we’ are meant to believe, as served up by ‘them’… more than others.
‘..there appear for the BBC some ‘you’s’ that ‘we’ are meant to believe, as served up by ‘them’… more than others…’
Speaking of which…
http://order-order.com/2013/08/23/gibraltar-is-spanish-say-telegraph-readers/
Along with the rest of the MSM, the BBC does like it’s ‘research’/’surveys’/’polls’.
Equally it is not averse to projecting the ‘results’ of ‘have your says’ on its own forum pages into ‘what speaks to the nation’.
The circumstances leading up to and still evolving from this story may show that such faith in these polls and ‘public’ feedback suggests credulity on the part of our media estates that exceeds those of us in the public domain more cynical about integrity of systems and people.
I have always felt that, with an intranet of 20,000 and associated reach to the Graun readership, any reference to trust and national treasures may be somewhat skewed from influences closer to home that may not be reflected in data the public has access to (and doubtless FOI exempted).
I really don’t know what the government position is on Syria. They can’t act without the backing of the USA, and Obama doesn’t seem to know what to do. The Israelis have said that they want Asad to remain in power (better the devil you know?), & no one really knows what might emerge post a rebel victory.
It’s not an easy situation at all, but at the moment hoards of murderous Jihadists from all over Europe are being distracted from murdering us! I say it is in our interests to keep this conflict running as long as possible.
‘I really don’t know’
On a humanitarian level I can’t support that last para in such terms, as there are innocents caught up who don’t deserve ‘us’ keeping anything going at all.
However, I can only agree that no one seems to know anything.
Which is why I accuse our MSM of blatantly sacrificing professional credibility and ethics too often on the altar of ratings or misguided ideology.
As Deborah says above, I hold no flag for Assad or the FSA or near anyone from that benighted end of the Med. They all seem less than coherent death cultists the lot of them.
Which is why I want facts and nothing more.
Which the MSM is now incapable of providing.
Only one still forces people to pay for their version of truth still.
And this Islamic jihad threat to people in the West is increasing:
“Outgoing FBI chief warns of U.S.-based jihadis bringing jihad home from Syria”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/08/outgoing-fbi-chief-warns-of-us-based-jihadis-bringing-jihad-home-from-syria.html
What the BBC never reported at the time regarding chemical weapons attacks in Syria…
Today Obama declared that the gassing of up to 1000 people in Syria was ‘troublesome’.
Can you imagine what the BBC would have done if it were Cameron or Hague saying that ?
‘Can you imagine what the BBC would have done if it were Cameron or Hague saying that ?’
Well, Hague has gone a bit further, if with the qualifying weasel of ‘belief’, which has been cue to most of our war-hungry media to decide that’s all the confirmation they need (many headlines on twitter dropping the qualifier and relying on ‘quotes’ to get to the current facts once you click through).
I have tasked several now what part of responsible reporting they decided was just too bothersome to worry about when they wrote their headlines for FaceBook or mobile, and which glimmer of integrity they might retain as they try and drag us into a sh*t fight with no exit door based currently on no more than propaganda and rumour and inept statesweenies’ crowd-pleasing best guesses.
Obama is a vacillating husk exposed for his true abilities, especially after his ‘this line… no this line…. credibility death spiral), but as of this point, I remain keen for one pol, or one medium, to still actually produce any proof of who did what.
The President said a year ago that there’d be trouble in River City if Assad ever crossed that red line. Now that we’ve passed the red line so far that it’s barely visible on the horizon, Mark Mardell is worried that not doing anything will bring charges of dithering against his beloved Obamessiah. Everybody else on the planet knows that the President’s policy on Syria has been a joke the whole time, and that He’s been secretly trying to arm some of the rebels for more than a year (see Benghazi, just for starters), and this fuss is really only about the superficial aspect. Behind the scenes is a different story, but Mardell can’t possibly reassure his readers that the President really is quietly using weapons of war trying to defeat Assad because the cognitive dissonance would be too great to bear. Although clearly even the support for rebels isn’t going too well.
Warmongering is the only policy on which the BBC’s US President editor has ever disagreed with Him (recall his crisis of faith regarding Libya), and Mardell gets all mopey and lashes out when He lets those evil aggressive fools in the US twist His arm into action. The less the President does now, the more Mardell will work to defend Him.
Time to play ‘good job this isn’t the private sector doing this’ – Evan Davies would need the smelling salts:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10259641/Watch-out-the-BBC-is-coming-after-you.html
The mere fact that Crapita is involved with the TV Tax, should ring alarm bells. Any readers of P Eye will know that Crapita is the name coined by them due to its innumerable instances of Capita cock-ups outlined in the eye.
But at least they donate to the Labour Party…..
It seems to be in the realms of ‘may’ currently (all I saw until my cut-off limit for the month shuttered up).
However, a computer glitch of such a scale, potentially creating default state legal injustice, would seem a story of some significance.
It will be interesting who is outraged, who follows up, and who goes quiet.
Listening to 9am phone-in on Five Live.
The subject, in essence, is whether the RSPCA has become too politicised and whether they channel their efforts in the right areas ie are they focussing to much on countryside pursuits, fox hunting and the like (bad, bad, bad – natch) and should they be making more efforts to protect domestic animals – trophy dogs etc
The point I would have liked to have heard debated was how much effort they put into investigating the abhorrent practice of halal killing in this country.
And, though I’m speculating, I suggest there may have been others who, lke me, contacted the show raising the same point.
The show’s just finished and not a whisper of it – clearly doesn’t fit the agenda – some animals are obviously more equal than others (where have I heard that before?)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2364755/RSPCA-fatcat-rakes-45-previous-boss-reveal-figures-spending-LESS-animal-welfare.html
No direct mention of the ‘fat cat’ issue on the BBC. Odd that an animal welfare charity should so happily overstuff its own fat cats.
Meanwhile BBC favourite animal idiot Chris Packham breathlessly shouts :
‘The RSPCA is national treasure – just like the BBC!’
Do I detect a BBC / RSPCA common purpose?
Highly likely they both like all things Muslim.
The RSPCA would rather chase old ladies with too many cats than do something about the barbaric way a lot of our supermarket meat is now being slaughtered and purchased by us in complete ignorance.
Really?
“The RSPCA recognises that religious beliefs and practices should be respected. We also believe that it is important to ensure that animals are slaughtered under the most humane conditions possible. Scientific research has clearly demonstrated that slaughter of an animal without stunning can cause unnecessary suffering. The RSPCA is opposed to the slaughter of any food animal without first rendering it insensible to pain and distress until death supervenes. ”
“We continue to press for changes in legislation that would improve the welfare of the animals at the time of slaughter.”
“All meat produced from animals that have not been stunned before slaughter should be clearly labelled in some way, so that it can be identified by consumers. The RSPCA believes that consumers have the right to choose whether or not they wish to buy meat from animals slaughtered without pre-stunning.”
http://content.www.rspca.org.uk/cmsprd/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobnocache=false&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1233019408442&ssbinary=true
What they say and what they do are two different things.
–“All meat produced from animals that have not been stunned before slaughter should be clearly labelled in some way”–
Silly me, I remember now all those horse products were also so clearly labeled weren’t they……
Your original assertion is shown to be false and you now change the argument.
How very bBBC!!
Not at all purely pointing out that labels mean jack …
Alby,
a few little questions for you, as you are the fountain of all knowledge:
1: How are animals slaughtered for Halal meat?
2: Is Halal meat on sale in the UK?
3: Is Halal meat specifically labeled as Halal?
4: Regarding the RSPCA’s bluster, what the fuck are they doing to combat this inhumane practice of ritual slaughter?
The RSPCA MUST have some powers, other than taking cats away from old women, otherwise, it is no more than a political quango, designed to make us all sleep nice n cozy in bed, knowing that animals are not being mistreated.
Looking forward to your answers, you little sausage. (Pork free)
1. The answer to this is in the RSPCA fact sheet.
2. Yes
3. Obviously not or the RSPCA would not be asking for it to be labelled as such.
4. See 1
The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995’ sets out specific requirements for the slaughter of animals by the Jewish and
Muslim methods. The RSPCA can hardly take action against businesses that are conforming with existing laws.
Also, although I prefer beef sausages I am partial to good quality pork or even venison sausages.
67,000 sheep went missing last year, maybe the the RSPCA should be investigating these disappearances and the butchery going on in farmers fields, it seems they don’t want to get involved, I wonder why?
Rise in sheep rustling across Britain
Rise in sheep rustling across Britain
4th Oct 2011
Organised gangs of crooks are thought to be behind a dramatic 80% rise in sheep rustling across Britain reports The mirror.
About 30,000 were stolen in the first eight months of this year as the impact of the recession bites.
Police fear the criminals may be shipping the animals abroad as cheap meat.
The North East is the worst-affected region. Recently 86 sheep were stolen from fields near Belsay in Northumberland.
And in Lincolnshire, 1,500 sheep and lambs were snatched near Louth. A spokeswoman for insurance firm NFU Mutual, which deals with many of the claims, said: “In the last decade, livestock rustling has been at historically low levels, while farm thieves concentrated on stealing quad bikes, tractors and power tools. High meat prices and improved security appear to be leading to a resurgence in livestock rustling.”
Chief Superintendent Mark Dennett, from Northumbria police, added: “I have been an officer for 29 years and incidents of livestock going missing have never been on this scale. I believe this is organised crime. The gangs must be using large vehicles.
“I suspect the sheep could be transported out of the region, or even loaded on ships bound for Europe. The farming community is very close knit. The vast majority of butchers and suppliers know exactly where their meat comes from. It is crucial we get information.”
Sheep sell for around £100 each on the black market. Theft of livestock in 2011 has cost farmers across England, Scotland and Wales more than £5million.
So, with regard to “what the f**k are they doing to combat this inhumane practice of ritual slaughter”, they’ve produced a fact sheet? Jolly good.
Thanks for the answers Alby, y’see, you can be civil at times 🙂
I’ll respond in kind:
The RSPCA are a highly influential body in the UK, I would assume they also lobby MP’s on a regular basis.
Why are they not pushing for the banning of the practice of ritualistic slaughter that is part of the Halal production process?
If they are not actively attempting to stamp out this practice, I will ask again, what use are they?
If this really bothers you you’ll have to mount a campaign against kosher meat first. Kosher meat is not stunned before slaughter in the UK. The majority of Halal meat slaughtered in the UK is.
Is there possibly a link between that policy and this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10249027/Archbishop-Justin-Welby-snubs-RSPCA-after-refusing-lead-role.html
The simple solution is to outlaw the practice here in the UK. If Muslims don’t like that then they can import meat from Muslim countries. The imported Halal meat would have to be labeled as such or penalties would be imposed. If this is unacceptable then they are free to leave and go and live in a country that sanctions this cruel practice.
I was working in an abattoir 30 years ago, as an accountant, when the Halal method of slaughter was first introduced. It was forced upon the owners of the company much to their disgust and to the disgust of the slaughtermen, who despite their trade did have feelings for the animals welfare. Their view was that up to the point of slaughter it was an animal and required respect and was not to be mistreated. After slaughter it was meat.
Prior to the Halal method of killing, which is by cutting the throat and bleeding the animal to death, whilst the Imam says a prayer of course, and for which he is paid handsomely, all animals were stunned into unconsciousness. The Halal method does not (or did not then) use a stun gun.
The slaughtermen and most people in the trade, who know the Halal process, do not like it because the animals smell the blood of the previous animals killed and start to panic. This did not happen with the stun gun.
Enjoy your tea.
Interesting point OT. I recently had another aspect of halal slaughter pointed out to me, which you may be able to confirm or deny from your knowledge of the industry.
I understand that to comply with the rules of halal slaughter, the actual killing must be done by a Muslim and that subsequent butchery and handling of the meat must only be done by Muslims, otherwise the halal meat loses its “halal-ness” due to passing through the hands of unbelievers (and who knows WHAT they might do to it, Allah forfend).
We all know that all the supermarkets and most local authorities now only supply halal meat exclusively, in order to save the cost of having two parallel systems of supply and to appease their Muslim masters, who must never be offended at any price.
This means that significant numbers of native abattoir workers have quietly been pushed out of their jobs and that large swathes of the industry are now the exclusive preserve of the Muslim colonists.
So aside from the obvious animal welfare concerns, we are faced with yet another bit of surreptitious ethnic cleansing of the indigenous people from yet another aspect of British life.
The Beeb and the rest of the MSM, of course, are silent on this, as are the RSPCA and the laughingly-named “government don’t want to know.
“Nothing to see here…..move along”.
Yeah. That’s bollocks.
Camels slaughtered the proper way for Islam – caution – not for beeboids (so they can keep pretending “the religion of peace” is humane)
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d55_1356983520
This really is horrible – and not the way that Jewish shechita is carried out.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324670/What-drove-RSPCA-whistle-blower-life-Former-inspector-claimed-charity-destroys-healthy-animals-hanged.html
Beeboid Rachel Burden also somehow manages to conduct her BBC phone-in debate with no mention of this issue…
‘In a statement published on its website in early January, and widely circulated among animal rights extremists, the charity suggested she was a liar primarily motivated by malice.’
Call me Chelsea, but I though the BBC loved whistleblowers?
We are all Chelseas today…this phrase will stick I suspect!
I’m Chelsea and so is my wife.
No, I’m Chelsea, and so is my cat.
“If I had a son, he’d look like Chelsea”
Brendan O’Bama
Yes, and a search of the BBC website yields no results for Dawn Aubrey-Ward. And there is another reason why the BBC should be interested. According to the Mail
Over the days that followed, Aubrey-Ward went on to endure a torrent of abuse on Twitter and Facebook, telling friends that she was struggling to cope with the tide of hate mail, death threats, and abusive telephone calls.
A woman is abused on the internet, subsequently commits suicide and the BBC is not interested? Wrong sort of woman, wrong sort of abusers, I guess.
BBC search is notoriously shit so I tried Google with BBC as source…nothing, unbelievable (still a possibility that I did it wrong)…
And ‘But the RSPCA responded by publicly attacking Aubrey-Ward’s character and integrity.’
What, that old lefty tactic?
Further proof that the RSPCA has been taken over by…….lefties.
And then there is the clear issue of the use of prosecution in order to raise profile
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/pets/10149908/The-RSPCA-made-US-feel-like-criminals.html
‘Gavin Grant, said last year. “We can’t print our own money. We have to get ourselves into a sustainable position pretty quickly.” Mr Grant, a former PR man and Lib Dem activist, has led an energetic campaign to raise the charity’s profile, taking expensive prosecutions against hunts and protesting against the “blood-stained milk” of farmers who allow the badger cull.’
The RSPCA weren’t exactly given the hagiography treatment on Face the Facts the other week.
Muslim Brotherhood.
While in Egypt, more people are now openly describing the Muslim Brotherhood(MB) as ‘fascist’, in the West, the main ‘Guardian’-BBC-‘NYT’ mantra is that the MB is ‘democratic’.
But all three media organisations seem reluctant to explore key aspects of the MB, its history, its beliefs, its political progamme in any detail.
And when the issue of the MB comes up in the news, that media triumvirate gets on the likes of Tariq Ramadan, or some other such MB supporter, to tell us how wonderfully peaceful the MB is, despite the evidence.
now come come 😀 … George
you know its “moderate islamists” 😀
example
“the reaction has affected all Islamists, including the more moderate Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood took no part in the action ” BBC
maybe we can have a Newsnight jamboree special, with T Ramadan that bint Rep from the MB, (who appears to be a permanent fixture at al bbc), hosted by Mehdi Hasan with additions from Lauren Booth or Selma Yaqoob? … I mean whats wrong with that?
mind you its not only here
http://freebeacon.com/coptic-christians-march-on-white-house-washington-post/
“the clear bias of the Obama administration and the American media in support of the Muslim Brotherhood and its terrorist ideology.” ooeer missus!
“The Washington Post, they don’t give a voice to the people and tell the truth,”
“They have to show all the truth and not just hide it like Al Jazeera”
genuinely want a laugh? just google –
bbc moderate islamists
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-23790148
Really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this one. Also note the description clearly states Manning changed his gender, when he’s done no such thing. He’s changed his gender identity, sporadically and likely out of desperation after receiving a ridiculously excessive jail term for reporting the crimes of others. You can’t sincerely compare that to someone who goes through years of genital realignment and hormone replacement surgery. There’s a massive legal, ethical, and simply anatomical distinction that the BBC is deliberately ignoring because it gives them a chance to look all progressive. Pathetic pandering.
Sometimes my gaze drifts on a page and alights on stuff that really doesn’t add up.
Like on BBC complaints, when the apparent top Q&A to a concerned viewership on a complaints page is usually ‘What time is Strictly on?’.
Hence, for a piece about transgendering, I wondered what may fall under ‘More on This Story’.
Quite how ‘Beside the Seaside’ and a generic quiz fall under this, who knows, but we do get a link to Gender Identity Center of Colorado.
Why this was chosen one can only guess, as its home page is not exactly coherent to the casual viewer.
The BBC is of course irres… not responsible for the content, but is for the selection.
Too many people with too much time and not enough brainpower to write a get well card springs to mind as one explanation.
Really missed this site these last couple of weeks.
Having heard the BBC abroad, only confirms for me how traitorous and despicable their whole agenda has now become.
Yet we fund these national suicide notes and pills…Thompson, Entwhistle, Hall(Stuart OR Tony…same agendas) and Savile…and we let the racaille of Marseilles or Liege, Rotterdam or Duisburg KNOW how craven we are(if indeed the BBC is allowed to get away with calling itself the “voice of the EuroManche District 2″….or “Britain” as we tend to call it.
To hear the likes of fatty Mardell, l`il Justin Webb etc wondering just when THEY will get their desert boots on to sort out the Syrians, Egyptians…oh sorry-when they`ll send the rump of kids who can get home to Woolwich barracks safely- ought to be funny, but is actually sickening.
They just want Eurabia here and Islam elsewhere-and hope they`ll be spared for endless dhimmitudes and taqqiyas, as evidenced by their recordings.
FFS-the BBC have got to go-those who “can`t pay, won`t pay” need a wall of martyrs set up where Brian Haw used to be!
it`s what he would have wanted.
Big punch-ups in the Middle east, and Lord knows what else of import, but I am grateful to Radio 4 “Today” this morning for wheeling in a professor at Exeter University (where else), who informed us all at length that snails move ever so slowly at night.
To give him his due, he didn’t say a). that he’d been funded by the taxpayer (or would continue to be so funded), or b). that it was all the fault of climate change.
I went back to sleep.
I was actually pleased to hear about the snails; an interesting story without any of the usual bBBC leftie bias.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23807456
“Researchers have been fitting snails with LEDs and coating them with UV paint to study and raise awareness of their behaviour.”
Can’t wait for the snails to be fitted with high-viz jackets too.
Think about what you have just written Sir Arthur.
You/we expect to be brainwashed even on a program about snails.
Surely there was just a teeny weeny mention about climate change destroying the habitat of snails?
How many nurse’s annual wages went to discover that snails move about in the garden?
Barak Obama’s brother Malik is a muslim and a financial investor of the Muslim Brotherhood.
frontpagemag.com/2013/raymond-ibrahim/obamas-brother-muslim-brotherhood-leader/
Details:-
“Obama’s Brother: Muslim Brotherhood Leader?”
By Raymond Ibrahim.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/raymond-ibrahim/obamas-brother-muslim-brotherhood-leader/
The BBC seems to be waging an all out war on the indigenous British people.
First up was tory MP Patrick Mercer in a Panorama covert sting operation, why pick on him and not say George Galloway ? Next was UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom with his ‘bongo bongo’ remark, why, it’s the crime of the century !
The third person in their sights was bookish Jacob Rees Mogg who attended a dinner by the ”Traditional Britain Group.” But it’s not what Mogg said, someone on the Traditional Britain’s Facebook page wrote ” Doreen Lawrence isn’t up to much !!” Shock, horror !! So Jacob Rees Mogg’s only crime was guilt by association.
And it gets worse, the Traditional Britain Group would like the country to return to the 1950s and 60s, a homogenous, monocultural Christian nation, what a sickening, disgusting thought !
Thankfully we’re living in a Multicultural utopia of mass immigration, multiculturalism, aspirational rappers and their Nike trainers
Since Britain is no longer a Christian country and Multiculturalism has taken its place as the new state religion. We have a new narrative, ‘Saint’ Stephen Lawrence is the Risen Christ and Doreen Lawrence is the Virgin Mary.
Kirsty ‘mutton dressed as lamb’ Squawk, Stalin’s house keeper, went into Roland Freisler mode, full of self righteous indignation. Quite nauseating.
This is virtually a witch-hunt by the interrupting Labourite Wark.
This is a blanket BBC-NUJ condemnation of any political group to the right of the BBC-NUJ.
The BBC-NUJ advocates unlimited open-door, mass immigration into Britain and uses a remark on Facebook as a political opportunity to condemn anyone who argues against BBC-NUJ irresponsibility on mass immigration.
It would appear that without immigration Britain would be even “less Christian.”
“Results from the 2011 census published last year showed that the total number of people in England and Wales who described themselves as Christian fell by 4.1 million – a decline of 10 per cent. ”
“But new analysis from the Office for National Statistics shows that that figure was bolstered by 1.2 million foreign-born Christians, including Polish Catholics and evangelicals from countries such as Nigeria.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10062745/Christianity-declining-50pc-faster-than-thought-as-one-in-10-under-25s-is-a-Muslim.html
There is no doubt that immigration has increased the number of Muslims in England & Wales but they cannot be held responsible for the declining number of the indigenous population who describe themselves as Christian.
No that’s the result of years of anti-Christian agitprop from the secular fundamentalist ‘liberal inquisition’ who’s primary pulpit is the BBC.
Hers one of there favourite evangelists
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/freddy-gray/2013/08/stephen-fry-the-silliest-high-priest-of-juvenile-atheism/
You took the words out of my mouth or at least something similar
Thank you all for bringing the Traditional Britain Group to my attention. On the face of it they seem to share many of my views.
It is a pity that the power of the liberal left, focused by the BBC , have so much power that the MP felt he had to apologise and distance himself from the views of the group. Once again free speech is denied to anyone or any group who have different views form those of the liberal left.
Proves that ,as I said on an earlier thread , to engage with the liberal media or speak to them ever is a complete waste of time. It is past time backs were turned on these people.
Conservatives need to learn this important lesson and quickly.
Because these fill up with hundreds of comments every day!
——————————————————————————
Yes unfortunately though the threads degenerate into Albania Man posts and replies and posts and replies nested into posts 100 lines long and two words wide which I just page down page down through. I can’t imagine new readers being too enticed by these posts either.
Maybe just ignore him eh.
Not disagreeing on your assessment of the cause of much of the problem, but less sure of the solution.
Ignoring and hence leaving the field clear to an obsessive tasked with cluttering the threads with inaccuracies, zero-BBCbias rants and personal commentary may seem attractive, but if those are all ‘new readers’ encounter they may not be too enticed by this either.
And if certain species become protected, there’s a chance the indigenous population it preys on may leave too.
Leaving him, and you.
Ignore, or add “this comment has been removed.”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9000431/forget-about-richard-dawkins-fight-the-real-fanatics/
This comment was interesting…
‘But it is one minute and 39 seconds longer than the BBC has ever given her.’
Is this true?
If so, what explanation might the BBC and its representatives offer? Bar one, critical aspect of the victim hierarchy, most boxes ticked.
And digging out an obscure web reference as a counter may look just a little bit daft.
The comments to the piece are interesting in the tacks taken, mind.
As the bBBC ‘news’ continues its relentless publicity for Labour’s propaganda – today’s being Alastair Darling’s U-turn on HS2 – it’s not surprising that they don’t mention the cost to us of another Labour government.
Obviously its good that the GDP figures have been revised upwards today, slightly to 0.7% (1.5% up n the year from last July), but its interesting the slant that Hugh Pym puts on “the true recovery” in his online comment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23807182
The BBC, always looking for a damper on good news.
What is quite galling about his comment is that we have gone through the BBC’s general down-playing of the growth to last week’s “its not the right kind of growth” type comment… now we see something slightly different.
What we see now is the implied statement from the BBC that says there is no growth at all till the economy reaches the level it was 5 years ago.
It’s a disgrace that they’ve been allowed to get away with it really, after all, they’ve refused to recognise and educate the fact that the massive de-leveraging of the banks that has happened (and which in all honesty they have to a degree championed) was bound to have had an economic impact.
They really are a shower and their journalistic quality is pretty poor in relation to the standards they say they set themselves.
I’ve had one ear on the radio for most of the day and have not heard this reported at all.
This tweet yesterday…
…drew this passive-aggressive response from the News Editor for BBC News online in Washington:
I replied in kind:
Needless to say, they haven’t followed up the story.
Nasaw tweeted this today:
Evidently that Zimmerman verdict still irritates our betters in the BBC newsroom priest caste.
My response:
The Delbert Belton story has been trending on US twitter for hours, but I haven’t seen a single tweet about it from a BBC journo. Zimmerman goes to a gun store – now THAT raises the hackles of a BBC news editor.
They are touchy, aren’t they? Very immature.
The Delbert Bolton story is disgraceful – and as you say it is getting a lot of attention in the US, as is the killing of the Australian student. Both black-on-white crimes, no apparent motive except “Get Whitey”. I bet the Bolton story never sees the light of day on the BBC.
Totally twisted “news” at the BBC. It Ignores the casual killing of a poor old pensioner, but stays obsessed for a year and more about a black thug who attacked a white man and got shot in self-defence.
As ever, excellent work DB.
I know BBC were very selective in the photographs of Trayvon, i.e. showing him as a cute 14-year-old, but does anyone know, has the BBC ever shown a picture of Zimmerman and his obviously (and badly) broken nose and the cuts on the back of his head caused by Trayvon.
‘Dear trolls: Pls don’t mistake editorial judgement for self-censorship or political bias, esp if you’re unsure how a newsroom works. Thanks.’
Mr. Nasaw may need to be careful, because by the look of it he’s in some danger of conflating ‘trolls’ with ‘people catching and calling me out on BS’, and the usual trick of a block or banning really won’t do his or the BBC’s reputation for handling legitimate criticism much good at the stage they’re at now.
Indeed GW.
The sheer arrogance of the BBC when questioned is astounding. No other organisation would ever respond to criticisms in such a way. Certainly no private sector company, can you imagine Tesco saying that to a customer, and publishing it? Even the jobsworths on a local council would not reply to a member of the public like that.
Almost certainly entirely due to the unique way the BBC is funded. “Don’t question us, you peasants! Just pay up”.
One day karma may catch up with both individuals and the collective entity too.
With great abuse of power can come great application of accountability.
And walls are falling. Even firewalls.
I love the smell of shredders & archive servers overheating of a Friday afternoon.
Meanwhile, on the not irrelevant matter of public sector employees and their twitopining…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100232334/mod-twitter-blunder-this-will-feature-in-whitehall-social-media-seminars-for-years-to-come/
‘You’re a young SpAd with two Twitter accounts. One is your own, for broadcasting personal opinions online (“views mine, not my employer’s” etc). The other is the official Ministry of Defence account, which has nearly 60,000 followers. For just a minute, wires become crossed.’
Luckily, even if your personal is still littered with corporate logos and URLs, or is actually the corporate one, in one unique case, you’re still golden.
Nice one, DB. Nasaw doesn’t have to explain his “editorial judgment” to the unwashed, does he? I wonder what criteria he used in this case? Presumably the same professional judgment which instructs him to censor all news about the ObamaCare trainwreck the rest of us are witnessing, or all those Presidential gaffes, or the ongoing IRS scandal. Or the news that NBC and ABC deliberately doctored audio and video tapes to push lies about Zimmerman, lies which Nasaw apparently still believes…..
INBBC’s continuing censorship of Hasan’s cry:- ‘Allahu Akbar’.
INBBC & its euphemistic misrepresentation of: ‘an Islamic benediction’ applied by jihadist Hasan remains.
INBBC censors out still the actual phrase Hasan used as he murdered people:-‘Allahu Akbar.’
Two contrasting reports on latest stages of trial:
1.) ‘Jihadwatch’:-
“Fort Hood jihad mass murderer’s email signature: ‘All praises and thanks go to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the Worlds.'”
[Opening excerpt]:-
“Hasan is clearly a devout Muslim. If he were a devout believer in absolutely anything else, the mainstream media would be full of analyses of how the belief system in question incited violence, and what could be done about it. The trial would be considerably preoccupied with his motive as well. But he is a devout Muslim, the very thing that the government, media, and Islamic supremacist groups don’t want you to know that he is, and so the trial judge has forbidden most discussion of motive, and the media is focusing on Hasan’s criticism of the Afghanistan war, failing to realize that were that pretext for jihad removed, another would be put in its place.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/08/fort-hood-jihad-mass-murderers-email-signature-all-praises-and-thanks-go-to-allah-the-cherisher-and-.html
2.) INBBC:-
“Fort Hood shootings case against Nidal Hasan goes to jury”
(The ‘Islamic benediction’ bit is repeated near the end.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23805482
A quick Google reveals that the BBC is the ONLY news organisation in the world to report the Fort Hood killer as shouting an “Islamic benediction”. The rest say what he actually did say i.e. Allah u akbar, God is great,
Such obfuscation goes against everything the BBC claims to stand for, i.e. openness and transparency and honesty in its news reporting, and a mission to explain.
Such misreporting has been a constant theme of the BBC coverage since the very beginning – starting with Mark Mardells disgraceful reporting telling us that basically the whole thing was a mystery and we should move on.
I’d like to see an editor explain themselves.
‘I’d like to see an editor explain themselves”
I doubt you will.
It seems to be covered by FOI exclusions for the purposes of ‘Journalism, unique funding and massive butt-covering’.
So they can carry on pretty much doing, or not doing what they like in guise of a professional, objective news outfit ad infinitum.
Whilst the BBC has been giving full scale coverage of the alleged Assad poison gas atrocity, it has also mentioned the mass exodus of Syrians to Turkey including many children.
No mention or investigation as far as I can tell of the reason for the masses of fleeing refuges on BBC. On Euro News earlier this week a refugee was shouting that they fled because of atrocities by the ‘rebels’ including he claimed the killing of children.
I think this is worthy of proper investigation and balanced reporting, so why hasn’t it been?
Er, is it because the BBC doesn’t do proper investigation and balanced reporting?
BBC Radio News at 2pm. Rotherham Council Social Services under investigation for allowing a man with criminal convictions to groom a young girl.
Front page main item in todays Times says he got the girl pregnant twice, gives details of his convictions and even gives his name…want to make a guess at his origin?
-and this Rotherham Labour Council?:-
“Children in UKIP foster row have been split up: Rotherham council leaders told to quit as authority faces further criticism over care” (2012).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238955/Children-UKIP-foster-row-split-Rotherham-council-leaders-told-quit.html
So a boy has been separated from his two sisters. Well done grooming-friendly Rotherham, spreading child misery as usual.
Help me out with some details here.
I heard (actually on the BBC) a fleeting reference to a senior councillor (Akhtar?) Deputy leader? Head of the councils policing board? He’s been suspended and reported to police since revelations in today’s Times. Anyone have more info?
The Times article is peculiarly-written and has lawyer’s fingerprints all over it. But it says:
Among those who became aware of the relationship was a local politician, related to the offender, who is now the deputy leader of a Labour-run council and vice-chairman of a police scrutiny body. Jahangir Akhtar said last week that he was unaware Hussain was suspected of grooming a child.
But even the bBBC is now reporting that he has resigned, although it is not yet (18.01) saying what he has resigned from.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-23820054
And The Times is now reporting
A man who is now the deputy leader of Rotherham Council played a role in discussions that led to an extraordinary deal under which a violent offender agreed to hand a missing child to police after being assured that he would not be detained.
Jahangir Akhtar became aware that a 14-year-old girl who had been reported missing by her parents was with his relative, Arshid Hussain, 24, who was enjoying a spell of freedom between prison sentences.
But says this happened when Akhtar was a 39-year-old taxi-driver, and he is now 53, so the implication is a cover-up 14 years ago. I think this story will run and run, especially if a proper journalist gets on the case; so, not the bBBC.
Aaah.
See the BBC are now reporting this story….but in line with their style guide, they don’t say which party the councillor belongs to.
Funny that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-23820054
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2400844/Judge-orders-Muslim-woman-remove-burkha-court-appearance-bans-entering-plea-refuses.html
I wonder why this hasn’t appeared on the BBC as yet?
How long do you think that poor judge, who showed common sense will last?
I’m surprised that Labour and the BBC haven’t called for a public inquiry.
Burka story there now: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23814711
Buried way down on the UK pages though – not on the ‘Home’ page.
Sp!ked, as ever, pulls no punches, this time about the Guardian – the print arm of the bBBC – and their synthetic anger at one of their spying ‘journalists’ being found out using his boyfriend to smuggle stolen goods.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/david_miranda/13938#.UhdtX3-BWCg
Have the BBC covered the murder of Delbert Belton yet, in anyway?
As of 4:40pm, nothing….not on the UK or “World” pages.
No doubt Alby will be along shortly to inform us it was on the webpage of BBC Radio Chipping Sodbury for about three minutes.
8pm, still nothing.
“World class journalism”
“National treasure”
“Inform, entertain & educate”
Yeah, right.
When a link appears Dez will post it. He’s good at that.
Saturday, 24th….still feck all about this on the world class BBC’s front page…
Those pesky editorial decisions must get in the way, favoring stories about fecking Syria again, some feminist bint winning some pissy award for telling crap jokes in some lefty love in comedy roadshow in Scotland, (pity she don’t speak out about the miss treatment of women by muzzbots though), …how resilient Mandella is to death, the US celebrating 50 years since the “I have a dream” speech (That turned out well, didn’t it?) and of course, “Meeting Trayvon Martin’s parents”
So many stories to tell, just as long as they fit our narrative.
BBC are cunts…I hate them with a passion…sick to death of having to pay for this leftish, common purpose bullshit.
This is extraordinary. The BBC are normally all over any “racially motivated crime” like a rash.
I just can’t fathom why they haven’t picked up on this one…
There’s no need for the BBC to report this, because:
I DO hope this isn’t going to be a recurring ‘treat’ here. Once a year on “National Know-Nothing Lefty Porkers Day” will be quite sufficient, thagyouverrymuch.
What colossal ignorance, the stupid cow.
Or sexist towards men?
http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/obamas-brother-linked-to-muslim-brotherhood/…the bbc wont report this will they
Anyone interested in how discussions about the BBC can be diverted, select ‘most recommended’ for the comment stream here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellmp/100231750/the-bbcs-mid-twentieth-century-tv-poll-tax-should-be-consigned-to-the-history-books/
Just two have set up a tag team that has dominated the first few pages, despite themselves having near zero likes to their name.
One also concedes a whopper having misinformed left, left and left of centre, before breezing on with more.
It’s very effective.
I was not inspired to read on much more.
Now, I wonder what their motivations were and who benefited from their activities most?
Sounds like they may have honed their technique here.
Oh for an FW190!
BBC Radio Manchester promoting deviant lifesty… er, I mean Manchester Pride. Apparently, it’s gonna be ‘fabulous’. (puke)
And we have Notting Hill down here.
Safe to say, we`ll not be hearing too much about any ” turbulence” between competing “gangs n t`ing”.
Surely the Rusty Lees and the Brian Paddicks are fed up with those annual dancing lessons….
If we had a revised growth forecast of 0.7pc under those utterly useless buffoons, Labour, the BBC would be singing call to prayer from every mosque across the nation. However, when under the boys in blue the BBC exercise exorbitant restraint:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23807182
Ah yes, hidden away on the business page, but the important news is that “Miliband Targets Cost of Living” on the main UK page.
Are the BBC actually the official Labour Party Press office?
roll back to 1941.if rommel and his generals suceeded in there military coup against hitler and his nazi henchmen 60 million people would not have lost there lifes in world war 2,forward to 2013,the generals in egypt made the right decision to launch a military coup against the far right fascist muslim brotherhood to save that great country and people from a fate where millions of innocent non muslim brotherhood egytians could of suffered the same fate as minoritys groups under hitler and the nazis in world war 2,1000 peopple died a few weeks ago in egypt and that was sad,if the egytian army had of failed with there coup against the muslim brotherhood millions of people would have faced a dark future and bleak future in egypt,we should be applauding the egytian generals for ridding that country of the religious fascists who wanted to bring that country back to the stone ages.
Stuart wrote:
“Roll back to 1941.if rommel and his generals suceeded in there military coup against hitler and his nazi henchmen 60 million people would not have lost there lifes in world war 2”
It was July 1944 and that figure of 60 million the vast majority of those were in China. However that doesn’t detract from your POV about the Egyptian army.
Study shows that the BBC has a right wing bias
Ignore the rubbish you read about the BBC being liberal or left leaning, The truth as assessed by Cardiff University indicates exactly the opposite!
the Tories get more airtime than Labour (even after allowing for incumbency bias)
Euroscepticism dominates coverage
business representatives received substantially more airtime on BBC network news than on other main channels, with trade unions being particularly poorly represented
City financiers who had caused the crisis were given almost monopoly status during the crisis
Conclusion: The BBC tends to reproduce a Conservative, Eurosceptic, pro-business version of the world, not a left-wing, anti-business agenda. (and this doesn’t even include all the sickly sycophantic royal coverage)
http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-bbc-17028
http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-bbc-17028
‘DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The funding for some of the research discussed in this article was provided directly by the BBC Trust.’
So… hard-ish evidence, at best then? The kind that throws up ‘balance’, and ‘impartiality’ a lot?
So proof at last the Beeb is biased.
Check out the author first. From his publisher and previous research/study in Glasgow I would gauge a certain sympathy for the Socialist Workers Party:
“Dr Mike Berry is a Lecturer at Cardiff University School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies. After completing his Bsc at Bath Mike spent two years working as a researcher at the University of California Santa Barbara on a major research project funded by the American cable television industry. He then completed a PhD at the University of Glasgow where he worked with members of the Glasgow Media Group. Following that he was employed as a researcher on an ESRC project examining the framing of security threats in Russia, the United States and Britain before taking up a lectureship in late 2006 at the University of Nottingham. Recently he has been working on projects funded by the NSPCC and London Inclusion. Mike Berry’s research interests are focused around the question of how the mass media affects public knowledge and understanding. His research is especially concerned with examining the social, political, economic and cultural contexts in which messages are produced and received. His recent publications include More Bad News from Israel (Pluto, 2011), and Terrorism, Elections and Democracy (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010). He is currently completing research looking at media coverage and public understanding of the financial crisis.”
This work for the BBC Trust looks remarkably thin and unsophisticated, which figures. Most of these issues are only issues because the left/statist view is being challenged. It doesn’t mean the other view is getting anything approaching a free ride.
It all seems to be based on the number of appearances, with no investigation into the quality of those appearances. Looks like all those BBC efforts to bring in Tories and euroskeptics so BBC presenters can attack their positions and their character has backfired.
Craig’s detailed statistics and interruption quotient would most likely prove to be a corrective here.
Phew. For a minute there I thought this seemed to undermine everybody’s hard work on BiasedBBC.
No, because on here you will find lots of factual evidence of the BBC’s left-liberal bias.
In fact, you can choose to argue with it if you like rather than through some poxy proxy.
‘City financiers who had caused the crisis were given almost monopoly status during the crisis.’ A biased statement in itself – in turn echoing BBC bias – which doesn’t bode well for Mr. Berry’s impartiality.
So left-wing academic says BBC biased because it acknowledges that there is an alternative view to his
I’m convinced
Ah , good old Pluto Press eh?….file under Marxist Muppets with graphic artists aplenty.
Like Virago and Spare Rib…signs of old lefty types that give homes to the likes of Beard and Jones.
Just so the BBC can say that they`re not lefty wazzocks…but are, in fact “authors”.
Sheesh.
No point in taking him seriously. His CV screams liberal. Yet another example where to refuse to engage is the right course of action.
I looked up this Pluto Press. I think the chances of a conservative viewpoint being published by them is about the same as five consecutive zeros coming up on a roulette wheel.
Its amazing that lefty’s unquestionably believe highly questionable stuff like this, yet will argue black is white when hard evidence is put before them.
Even if this report were true (big if) it doesn’t take into account all the subliminal messages and and unbalanced ethic on screen appearances.
So the evidence is clear that BBC does not lean to the left it actually provides more space for Conservative voices.
Was this written by a four year old? Read it again and tell me how the 2nd half of the sentence ‘proves’ the first?
How about “So the evidence is clear that water isn’t wet it actually provides minerals.”
Slight wobble t’other day (on proof of the justice system working being the 25,000 hauled by the TVL net in when innocent), but this resource again on form:
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/decisive.html?
‘Alan Yentob, on the panel originally to take Tone’s position, was asked about more salary transparency, and, according to the Telegraph, rejected it. “The BBC is not a local authority, OK? We need to invest, we need to get people to come in. Who wants to come to an organisation where their privacy is [affected]?” Mandy Rice-Davies, ou quoi ?’
Marie Antoinette may be closer to the mark for Mr. Yentob with remarks like that.
The public pay for you, bozo, and what we see you spend it on does not inspire.
“‘Silent’ staff stood by as £100m BBC IT project tanked – DG”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/23/bbc_dmi_hall/?
That’s a good fill-in-the-blank game:
Silent BBC staff stood by as: ______________
a)Jimmy Fixed them
b) Stuart Hall made frequent comfort breaks in BBC Manchesters medical room
c) The world realised that Islam and homosexuality are somewhat at variance.
There`s three of my tumbleweed connections anyway
Another for the media plurality review the BBC doesn’t think they need be part of, as they have internal oversight systems that are the envy of the world.
I bet the Inner Party can switch off their telescreens too.
North West tonight carries banging on. The case of the 17 year old arrested and they hadn’t been informed. OK he has my sympathy but fails to mention he was arrested for drunk driving, the reporter failed to remind him. Earlier in the week the man killed by a bouncer. Of course they play down the fact it was found to be in self defence and no mention of the circumstances that this incident took place. Right or wrong it would be nice to just be given the facts.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2400593/BBC-iPlayer-Threat-TV-licence-BBC-reveals-watch-programmes-online-fuelling-fears-thousands-legally-dodging-fee.html
Not keen on ‘legally dodging’. If you obey the law, you don’t have to pay it yet still can watch programmes. Like the rest of the world has been able to for ever (cue weasel input.
This seems rather at odds with stated sanguine views and facts on the low tack-up by such as Mr. Purnell, hired at bvast expense to be aware of such things.
Do they take into account the hits on the iPlayer site when the selected item won’t play? (I.e. most of the bloody time in my experience, both on my high end desktop pc & my WD Live box)
Nothing to do with my connection either (BT Infiniti 2, DL at 20-80mbps most of the time, UL at a steady 15mbps all the time)
So, if one person tries to watch MOTD, and it don’t work (Like on Monday evening for example) and try to play it 10 times, i.e reloading the site, multiply that by about 4m….you get a shit load of hits.
Anyone else thinking maybe the loverley, ever generous, loving Beeb might fancy using these figures for a nice little Ip tax?
Looooooovley little earner, eh boys?….nudge, nudge.
Admitted enemies of the US not doing very well in court this week, as Maj. Hasan had been convicted on all counts today: 13 counts of pre-meditated murder and 32 counts of attempted murder. Dez and our other defenders of the indefensible probably still claim Hasan is just a disgruntled anti-war activist and there is no connection between his actions and his religious beliefs.
The BBC reports soberly that Hasan’s court-appointed lawyers believe he declined their help and barely defended himself because wants to be executed.
Note that in this as in all recent BBC reporting on the story, “Allahu Akbar” has been sanitized into “an Islamic benediction”. The BBC Style Guide is as ever a living document, flexible according to the needs of the agenda.
The BBC also has a timeline of the entire story. Missing from the timeline is Mark Mardell’s claim that there was “very little to suggest“ that Hasan was a jihadi and committed mass murder because he felt a religious obligation to do so, and that it was most likely a “senseless tragedy” with no ulterior motive, even though Hasan’s shouting of that “benediction” was all over the news when Mardell made that ridiculous suggestion. Even the Guardian had reported it by then, yet Mardell pretended we didn’t know.
“scream an Islamic benediction”
hmmm…Holy Moly?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23818930
Just discovered that the BBC website actually reported the TV licence fee prosecutions story – but on its Entertainment and Arts page with a rambling, justificatory story.
If that is the level of their journalism, command of English and knowledge of politics (‘House Of Lords’) it is certainly time the fee became voluntary.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23792388
‘Entertainment and Arts’? WTF??!!!
‘actually reported’
Interestingly too taking this odd connection in justification……
‘some critics to accuse the BBC of “clogging up” the courts.
But the TV Licensing authority said most cases were dealt with in “bulk sessions” that took up a “small proportion” of court time.
Which I rather take as clear evidence the ‘justice’ is secondary to a production line, meat grinder approach to legal process via intimidation and weight of bureaucratic inertia.
In true BBC style, tell it often enough…
‘..TV Licence evasion cases take up a small proportion of court time as they are dealt with in bulk in dedicated sessions and very few people attend court’
Semantics for over 10% of criminal court cases on a civil debt matter.
Interesting also that the police and courts seem so dedicated to justice being seen to be done on behalf of the law abiding.
“we have a duty to enforce the law on behalf of the 95% of people who pay. ‘
Shame that doesn’t seem the case with many actual breaches of the peace vs. those that require police presence as security ‘just in case’.
http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/tv-licensing-enfarcement-failed.html
This one has garnered considerable notoriety already, not least because the hapless copper did not appear to know his law and was won around by the householder’s logic in the end.
One wonders how much it cost for TVL/Capita to fail to do this all correctly.
It’s just possible that, like so much with the BBC, there is certain justice that needs to be seen to be done, and certain aspects of their part in it that they’d rather went down the memory hole if it doesn’t play out as planned.
How can you seriously expect the BBC journalists to have a command of the Queen’s English when so many of them aren’t British? Seems to me that you are making sneering whitey comments here. Who are you to decide how English should be written or spoken? I bet you are just a white Brit male who don’t belong any oppressed minority and therefore what you say is prejudiced Neo Nazi rubbish.
Neo Nazi? Is that the best you can do? I thought the policy of the hateful left was to call somebody racist first, sexist if possible and a few other isms before the Neo Nazi card is rolled out.
Oppressed minority? Which minorities are oppressed in out multi culti paradise?
Piss poor trolling,
‘just a white Brit male who don’t belong’
Make a heck of a blues song, ironically, doesn’t (see what I did there?) it?
If anyone here used the opposite of the word ‘whitey’ the post would have been duly reported and removed, but hey racism only works one way.
Methinks you are the prejudiced one and a racist to boot.
I think he’s taking the p%ss – he is, isn’t he?
Being ironic is the term your looking for and yes he is
Thanks. Took some time for the rest didn’t it!
The trouble is it is almost impossible to lampoon the bourgeois left ,as no statement, however outlandish, can ever exceed the ones they make themselves
“The trouble is it is almost impossible to lampoon the bourgeois left ,as no statement, however outlandish, can ever exceed the ones they make themselves”
You mean like the “You can’t be racist against white people” comment by the comedienne and anti-racism campaigner [sack Carol Thatcher] Josephine Brand mentioned a few post above?
I will bear that in mind in future.
It never ends:
What Remains: a bleak picture of Britain today
A new series on BBC One calls itself ‘a state of the nation whodunit’. But what exactly does it prove about how we live, asks Matthew Sweet.
This sounds more monocultural than ‘Midsomer Murders’.
And it’s supposed to reflect the state of the nation?
Are they avin’ a larf?
shortage of carers for eldely
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23810109
odd that no one seems interested in where they should come from with 7.5% unemployment
Maybe they would not be that keen.
Or are ticking boxes?
http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/54794/useless-jobcentre-waste-time-says-businesswoman
That all said, would you want you Gran left in the care of such folk?
Still, lots of new, dedicated, hard working contributors to the workforce coming soon.
One hopes. because if they are just further drains, and then stay & get old, things may get worse.
Meanwhile the boom in jobs for #prasnews press release writers in funded NGOs and copy-typers in uniquely funded ‘news’ media continues apace.
`Still, lots of new, dedicated, hard working contributors to the workforce coming soon.`
Exact – what they leave out is more revealing than what they say.
Africa of course. We have a shortage of British people who are able and willing to wipe a bottom, apparently. Coupled with a shortage of people able to get out of bed before 9 am.
The BBC runs its take on saint Trayvon again Trayvon Martin’s parents on self-defence law campaign. The story is run at about 0945 on BBC One’s Breakfast (not yet available on IPlayer).
The story includes a clip of Obama making the claim that Trayvon could have been him. (Was that comment really made post-verdict as the reporter states or am I confusing it with the pre-trial ‘if I had a son’ prejudicial comment?).
No doubt where the BBC’s sympathies lie though.
Let`s see both Trayvons “parents” together on the same platform then shall we?
Jeremy Kyle to handle the questions from the audience of chavs and hacks, as allowed by CNN….
BBC this evening while doing the headlines mentioned a march in the US to commemorate MLK’s ‘I have a dream speech’. The BBC chose to add that the march was attended by Martin’s parents and reminded us that Martin was an unarmed black who was shot. I’m sure there were Civil Right’s colleagues of MLK who were there, maybe some of his family, but clearly none of these were worth a mention. You wonder if MLK was alive today if he would be using the Martin shooting as an example of black youth being poisoned by bad role models, rather than as a totem to stir racism. MLK RIP.
IMMIGRATION.
BBC-NUJ is politically sympathetic to Labour Party’s Ms Abbott on immigration, (devoting an online page to her this week).
“Diane Abbott: Polls swaying Labour’s immigration stance”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23784368
But BBC-NUJ is apparently less interested in the following criticism of U.K border controls and immigration.
‘Daily Mail’:-
“Vital migrant I.D checks scrapped: Stowaways no longer fingerprinted at Calais which means they can keep trying to sneak back in to claim asylum.
“Huge security downgrade gives illegal immigrants endless chances.
“French police free them allowing them to try to enter Britain again and again.
“Critics describe loophole as ‘disturbing’ and call for it to be closed.”
By SUE REID.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2401168/Vital-migrant-I-D-checks-scrapped-Stowaways-longer-fingerprinted-Calais.html
Apologies if this has been covered already, but did anyone watching ‘The White Queen’ notice that the battle at Bosworth was depicted as a winter fight with snow evident, bare trees etc…? Bosworth was on the 22nd August, 1485, high summer! WTF are the BBC playing at, revisionist history? Pathetic. Also, some time ago, in a drama about Henry 5th, the Duke of York was portrayed as a BLACK man! You couldn’t make it up! I remember i got into a ding-dong battle with a pathetic leftie, who was trying to justify their casting. Their is no hope for such dingbats.
In York, they have street scenes of Roman York, teaming with Blacks.
It was justified on the basis of women found with ivory jewellery which was more common and cheaper in North Africa, the ivory would have been traded up the Nile, and turned into jewellery in places such as Alexandria. I was told that there where concerns that the female scientist responsible did not bother to use the water isotope location method, but based evidence on the shape of the scull, which is less common in Roman Yorkshire than North Africa. The sculls facial features where Caucasian. The fact that Roman North African mosaics do not show street scenes with Blacks, confirms overwhelming evidence that North Africa before the Islamic slave trade was hideously white, with Romans, Phoenicians, Greeks and indigenous Berbers, even the Barbarians to the south between the desert and the Roman coastal territories where white Caucasians. The find in York, wasn’t even new, it seems to have been a 100 year old find, subjected to a predetermined politically correct reassessment, to justify the York Museum street scenes. Maybe they use this to justify the Black Duke of York .
Archaeologists, at least those allowed on the BBC,
are desperate to prove how multi-cultural the past was . The most minor trinket discovered in any context is heralded as proof positive of direct links between here there or anywhere .
Ignoring the common sense explanation that artefacts, like the Coptic bucket found at Sutton hoo, probably travelled across Europe by a process of trade osmosis ,taking decades or even centuries.
Control of the past ensures control of the future
This comment covers virtually all media. That is the way our news is censored. I know this is a conspiracy accusation, but I deeply believe that the British public are being mind controlled with the news, not only in what is published, but how it is published. A small example, the word ‘Murder’, you will almost never hear it said on the news, nearly always being substituted with the word killing.
I will make the prediction that the investigation into the ‘Rotherham girl sex grooming’ will be toned down. The whole edifice of the council, police, politicians, social services stinks to high heaven, but for Public consumption it will not be suppressed, but quietly sidelined. I stongly believe that this kind of censoring is taking place on a whole range of issues. I am generally not a supporter of conspiracy theories, but this one I support and this is going on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23817600
Fluff article with no purpose other than to once again try to victimise women.
“To once again try to portray women as victims”
There, fixed that for you, Jethro.
I`d have thought that that weekend supplement vibe we get at 8.10 on the Saturday ToadyShow might have been put on hold.
Syria, Egypt, Snowdon and Miranda…all those issues that the BBC impartially choose to wring their lavender hankies over on working days(…as if the BBC would know!).
But no…
OK then-what of the stories that the BBC chose NOT to cover on weekdays lest we take pitchforks down to Media City or Tower Hamlets Town Hall in Bethnal Green or wherever?…you know, TV License prosecutions and criminal records clogging up the courts…Labour and its use of bailiffs to wring a pittance from the poorest in our society…oh, wait these chavs are only useful to bash Tories or provide sandbags for crocodile tears. When Labour or the BBC want the money…that`ll be “getting value for the taxpayer won`t it” in these cases won`t it?
OK then-fresh sheets-Rotherham Council letting Muslim boyos attend abortion clinics with their white teenage bootylickers whilst supposedly in “council care”…whilst banning UKIP supporters from providing care as foster parents at one and the same time?…a story that ought to be a SCANDAL…but no…nothing to see here folks…
So what do we get?…yes folks, a hungover Jim from a nice hostel jaunt talking crap about the arts and devolution…and are the shortbread tendency as anti-Royal Opera handouts as the Bravehearts?…the Sunni and Shia of Scottish artistic debate as defined by Jim foaming in the gloaming with his white thistle and jaunty heather?
Jim and Kirsty are taking the mickels and muckles out of us as we pay them to go home and talk crap to their luvvies, aren`t they?
News items we would like to see….
A Public Enquiry has found that the BBC is indeed biased toward the Left.
In response Director General Tony Hall has announced that the BBC must at last come out and admit the truth of its bias.
In future the Corporation will go under the name Chelsea and will live as a black woman in Salford.
Alternative reports on launch of Qatar’s Islamic ‘AL JAZEERA AMERICA’
1.) ‘The Blaze’ :
“AL JAZEERA AMERICA’S HILARIOUS DEBUT
(AS ENVISIONED BY THE BLAZE TV’S ‘B.S. OF A.)”
(4 min video clip.)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/23/al-jazeera-americas-hilarious-debut-as-envisioned-by-theblaze-tvs-b-s-of-a/
2.) INBBC:-
“Can Al Jazeera succeed in the US?”
(4 min video clip.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23777043
(video clip)
Apart from any thing to do with Israel, Al Jazeera is quite good.
Better foreign reporting than the BBC anyway.
Hi folks,not really bias but just thought I’d share this little BBC link with you as it is relevant to the whole Lefty mindset that is eating away at our country like a cancer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-23808788
It reports the Fringe prize-win of the feminist ‘comedian’ Bridget Christie, who in my opinion is simply not funny but a perfect example of a new breed of politically correct and trendy ‘comedian’ who we are expected to laugh at/with because it is seen as the ‘right’ thing to do. Never mind that she is simply an awful comedian who is not in the slightest bit funny. She represents Left-wing accepted thought and so we must laugh at her jokes if we are to be seen as part of the ‘in’ crowd.
We see this PC humour every these days and promoted with zeal by the BBC. I cannot remember the last time I actually laughed at any comedy (the BBC’s output is simply appalling). Whereas in the un-pc days of Young Ones, Only Fools and Porridge we now have feminist and gay comedians that are full of anger and agenda. The new breed of PC comedians can, no doubt, rely on the BBC to give them airtime.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-23808788
‘”Star” names, who have already had a TV series or can perform in a 500-seat venue under their own name, are not eligible for the award.’
Interesting criteria and use of quotes there. Persuading 500 to attend, much less part with money, is a fair measure one supposes, but ‘stardom’ based on getting a TV series out of some commissioners is less of a trial.
‘Course, she has powerful, and powerfully influential fans beyond the BBC…
Ed Miliband @Ed_Miliband 5m
Saw Bridget Christie’s ‘A Bic for Her’ earlier. Great show. Thoroughly deserved today’s win of Foster’s Award.
This may not of course be the endorsement the cred-craving up and coming fringer may deem helpful.
There have only been two previous female solo winners: Jenny Eclair and Laura Solon.
“I’m in good company” said Christie.
Unintended maybe but probably the funniest thing she will ever say.
I think it’s important that some kind of robust independent study of BBC output is conducted. Something that does indeed rely on statistics and better sampling than the selections Berry has used.
His conclusions are rank.
Hi, i think that i noticed you visited my blog thus i got here to return the want?.I’m trying to find things to improve my site!I suppose its ok to make use of a few of your ideas!!