The text of the Robin Aitken story is now up at Blithering Bunny. It’s written by Damien Thompson.
Thanks to reader David H for the scan, and EU Referendumfor further highlighting the story.
The text of the Robin Aitken story
Bookmark the permalink.
David Field
Back in the mid-1980s Murdoch wanted to share the risk with the BBC and other UK broadcasters of launching a satellite system for TV services. They refused to deal with him. That is why he did it on his own. People at the BBC took a wholly unrealistic attitude to satellite TV, an arrogant and ignorant attitude. That is why they have filed in that area.
Knee-jerk criticism of Murdoch is too easy. I would not be surprised if, at the end of the day, Sky becomes the effective saviour of a cut-down public-service BBC.
The BBC website carries a link to video of Matt Frei’s report on the Newsweek retraction of its false Koran-flushing story (right side of page).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4553639.stm#
Surprise, surprise – Frei leaves the flavour at the end that there is systematic abuse of prisoners at Gitmo and insults to the Koran. “Story is false- but accurate”.
Someone in Washington ought to be rubbing Frei’s nose in his lies.
Steady on, Washington doesn’t have right of censor over the British national broadcaster yet.
Cockney
I don’t want censorship. I just want Frei to be better briefed – [rest of comment deleted]
Eamonn
Last night Charlie Wolf (unfortunately only standing in for James Whale and not a permanent fixture) had Sheriff Joe on the phone. This man would have given the Today crew reaching for pills.
As he says:
“”As Sheriff, I serve the public. The public is my boss”
This is a man who had an 85% approval rating when re-elected, who accomodates inmates in tents in the desert, who operates chain gangs and who puts inmates in pink underwear (“because they don’t like it”).
He is my Hero of the Week.
He’s also a man with a lower re-offending rate than any liberal, so-called prison over here.
I say vote for Sheriff Joe:
http://www.mcso.org/index.asp
Eamonn
Here are some candidates for bright orange jumpsuits, Naughtie, Humphries, Montague, Mair,Bolderson, Webb and thats just for starters.
You can see what would happen with the orange jump suits over here. Within seconds ‘ironic’ copies would be all over Topman and everyone in the country under 23 would be wearing them.
It would be better to make the petty criminals wear jacket and tie.
It’s not the clothes it’s the attitude and culture Cockney.
The Benefit addicted have been ruined by an expectation of handouts. They think the world owes them a living.
OT:
The BBC’s capacity to deny the truth (even to itself) continues to amaze.
Remember folks:
“A French No would reflect a variety of factors:
– Dissatisfaction with the current French government
– Worries (mostly misplaced) that the constitution moves the EU in an “Anglo-Saxon” direction economically
– General concerns at the development of the EU, especially a perceived reduction of France’s influence in the enlarged Union
– Concerns at possible future membership of Turkey in the EU.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4552937.stm
Of no significance to French voters, apparently, is the fundamental concern about French sovereignty being lost to a European superstate.
The whole piece is a classic; riddled with ‘institutional’ bias. My favourite is:
“So a No looks like bad news all round.”
.
Sorry PJF but that’s utter rubbish. This is a reasonable piece, far from uncritical and hopefully indicative of improvements following the recent impartiality review on European reporting.
In the real world no self respecting news organisation is going to preface every EU report with ‘the EU is an evil commie organisation hoping to crush the freedoms of everyone’. The minority of the British population daft enough to want to leave the EU entirely is probably worth mentioning in a report on British attitudes to the constitution. That’s not the case in France.
[Deleted – not for itself but as referring to an earlier deleted comment.]
Basil,
Send your email in and I’ll take a look.
With regards th EU and its rotten constitution, I think that the only question we need to ask is “how many tiers of Government do we want?”.
We have council, local, national and now European and perhaps even International Law if it ever gets going. We have the BBC setting itself up as some kind of “opposition” to elected government and the EU as a self professed (though effete) “counterweight” to the United States (Guarantor of freedom in the West since WWII).
There are far too many bossy “career” types who would have us obey them, put such people into uniform and give `em a lick of authority and we`re all done for. Goodbye Enlightenment, Goodbye Humanism. Hello Serfdom and no thanks to the BBC for thier championing of those forces that would enslave us all.
Sadly, I’m going to have to delete some of the comments on this thread in whole or in part.
Cockney
If the EU debate were to stay anywhere close to reality the question then would be: do we become part of the country of Europe, or do we remain an independent, sovereign nation?
There is no halfway-house, there is no ‘a bit of this and a bit of that’, there is no EU Constitution, it doesn’t exist, the document is the Constitution for Europe. There will soon be no EU. It will soon be the nation of Europe. We either become a province of that nation or we remain independent.
Have you understood? If so, which would you choose?
I’ve understood your opinion and respectfully but entirely disagree.
Cockney.
Are you happy with the never ending stream of barmy directives emanating from the EU and the corruption and waste?
I’m not.
What is the EU actually for?
What is the EU for?
The eventual aim is to manage pesky and dangerous free thinkers, free marketeers and pro American Capitalists.
Tie `em all up in beauracracy, regulation and the dull orthodoxies of collectivism.
……and freeborn Englishmen actually vote for it.
Back to “The Gorgeous One”
Did anyone hear the egregious Justin Webb puffing Gallowsway’s performance before the US Senate. Apparently in a small room he made a big impression, so that even if the story sticks, it won’t have as much weight!
Oh, and Galloway insulted the Senators, calling them, amongst other things “Pro Israel”. So it’s official. Being Pro-Israel is to be evil in the Galloway universe.
Yuk. Yuk.
“egregious” is too good a word for Justin Webb !
I understand that Galloway did more than just accuse Senators of being “pro-Israel”; he also sneered rather bufoonishly at their “trips to Israel paid for by the American Friends of Israel Society.”
Such a laughably stereotypical left European view of a US legislator — they’re all held in thrall to the all-powerful “Israeli lobby.” Also Minnesota, where Chairman Norm Coleman is from, is not exactly known for its large Jewish population — trips to Norway paid for by the American Scandinavian Friendship Society would probably be a more accurate charge.
“Sorry PJF but that’s utter rubbish. This is a reasonable piece, far from uncritical and hopefully indicative of improvements following the recent impartiality review on European reporting.”
Cockney, I guess the BBC doesn’t fully agree with your assessment of reasonableness. My favourite part, “So a No looks like bad news all round.” has been stealth edited out (not before I captured it, though). I can’t speak for your motivations, of course, but I think it’s reasonable to suspect that you may support the EU, and that this support is blinding you to the unbalanced nature of Hughes’s article.
She doesn’t mention the fear of loss of sovereignty as a factor that a “Non” vote might reflect – a major oversight and journalistic failing that can only be explained by bias. You and she may regard such fears as silly, but many French citizens do not. Despite your allusions to the contrary (and it has nothing to do with “leaving the EU”), the fear of loss of sovereignty is a major factor in the French vote on the constitution.
If you believe otherwise, perhaps it’s because you’ve swallowed the BBC line.
.
PJF
I can’t speak for your motives, but I think that it’s reasonable to suggest that you are against the EU and that this hostility is blinding you to the fact that the article is pretty well balanced.
Of course fear of loss of sovreignty is a factor, but this is far less of an issue in France, generally being confined to the far right and far left (who see the whole thing as a capitalist plot). I would have said that those attitudes were covered by ‘general concerns at the development of the EU’.
Peter
What’s the EU for?
Facilitating a huge increase in intra-European trade under the common market and increasing the weight of the European voice in global trade and other affairs, to our mutual benefit.
Yes I do think that a less onerous regulatory regime would be beneficial, and I do think that the French need a good kicking.
Cockney
The genuine and well-placed fear of a loss of sovereignty is hardly covered by the insipid phrase ‘general concerns at the development of the EU’. That means nothing.
“Facilitating a huge increase in intra-European trade under the common market and increasing the weight of the European voice in global trade and other affairs, to our mutual benefit.”
Given these specific benefits (and leaving aside the fact that we can have those without an EU) can you tell me where a European passport, driving licence, flag, anthem, parliament, president, foreign secretary and army each fit in?
I would also like to know one other specific thing. Please tell me why it is not desirable for Britain to be governed not by Britons but by non-Britons.
Please tell me why it is desirable for Britain to be governed not by Britons but by non-Britons.
I knew I’d get there at some point.
Pete,
If one is to have a common market as opposed to a simple free trade zone, and one accepts (as some of the more devoted Adam Smith fans may not) that a regulatory environment is required to ensure minimum standards of consumer and workforce protection within that common market then clearly a supranational body is required to agree, implement and monitor that regulation.
Furthermore, if one accepts that it is advantageous to pool negotiating power in the international arena, there must be a supranational body through which common negotiating positions can be agreed and expressed.
Why in certain circumstances is it desirable to adopt a supranational approach and be ‘governed’ by supranational bodies? Take that argument to it’s logical conclusion and you might ask why any individual should be subsumed within any democracy. Why should the interests of Scots or Liverpudlians or rural kent be subsumed within a British government? Why should the interests of my road be subsumed within the policies of a London borough also concerned with the tower block 5 miles away?
Cockney
Thanks for clearing that all up. I can see clearly now why we need a European Army, and a judiciary, European Courts and the European Arrest Warrant, under which you can be arrested in Britain at the behest of foreigners for committing no offence in Britain, followed by deportation to some other country without any appeal.
Oh how I was blind to common sense!
I sense sarcasm. Fortunately under British democratic principles people sharing your common sense desire for EU withdrawal can all vote for the UK Independence Party for immediate satisfaction. Best of British luck!
By the way has anyone else had a good laugh at the irony of this a few comments up.
‘I don’t want censorship. I just want Frei to be better briefed – [rest of comment deleted]’
Cockney
Of course Frei should be better briefed. Otherwise he trots out all his leftie claptrap.
Like yesterday he FAILED to report on the key aspect of the Galloway questioning – the Mariam Appeal accounts. Instead Frei preferred to report on Galloway’s grandstanding, because that chimes in with all Frei’s views on Iraq.
Cockney –
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. It’s certinaly not in the interests of London and the South East to be ruled by the rest of the UK. The Republic of Londonia (actually make that a monarchy – we don’t want to lose tourist revenue) would have a Tory Government, an income tax rate of about 20% and personally I’d have several thousands extra in my pocket each year. Of course we would have to dig a very deep ditch to keep out the starving millions to the north, not least our kilted confreres who enjoy such an easy life under the lopsided fiscal arrangements for the UK.
Mr Field
you would not have to dig a ditch, the new reality (i.e. no funds sent north from wealthy south) would force people into the modern age, replace cloth caps and superstition with hard hats and business facts. Perhaps regions could compete for investment by offering very low company taxes and even lower income taxes.
Liberation is what the North needs, not hand outs, not socialism, not sympathy. Just freedom.
People may even start to go “up north” to earn a few bob.
Everywhere you look you will find the status quo strengthened because people are not free to make a buck without interferance from government, European Goddamned Union meddling and the monolithic state funded BBC entrenching the “victim” culture in order to strengthen its own hand.
Freedom is what people need Mr Field. Just plain old “get out of my face” FREEDOM.
…..and in large numbers, people are voting for the opposite. Amazing!
Cockney, my lamb, as we are forever saying on this blog there is a difference between a privately-run organisation and one funded by State taxes. It’s like the way that I am entitled to demand that a guest in my house refrain from certain types of speech even though that guest has every right to say what he likes when he leaves my house and speaks in the public arena.
Re: Whats the EU for?
One thing that is often overlooked as a primary function of the EU is massive and systematic redistribution of wealth from the richer western nations to the far less well off nations furthur east, indeed thats why so many innocents get crushed in the stampede to join up.
Socialism, discredited time and again, just keeps coming at you. Its mutating like a deadly virus.
Reject this cloak of malevolence.
We don’t need to be in the EU to trade with the it because the balance of payments is in the rest of the EU’s favour. ie They need us more than we need them. Forget the lie that 3,500,0000 jobs rely on us being a member.
“Of course fear of loss of sovreignty is a factor, but this is far less of an issue in France…”
Cockney, your saying something and then repeating it doesn’t make it true.
Nationalism, both extreme and mainstream, is a much larger and more influential political force in France than in the UK (the last French presidential election was between Chirac and Le Pen – of the National Front). Fear of loss of sovereignty will be a real and important factor in returning a “Non” vote, should one occur. It should be reported as such.
Even just mentioning it would be nice, with a simple line something like:
“The No camp also includes those who think the treaty threatens France’s sovereignty.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4554363.stm
See, the BBC can do it (even if they would rather clutch at the ridiculous ‘unpopular government’ straw). If you really think that “general concerns at the development of the EU” cuts it, then I’m embarrassed for you. Particularly since you left out the ‘especially’ qualification Hughes added (but, amazingly, simultaneously dismissed).
Of course, you simply ignored what the BBC stealth edited out; the glorious “So a No looks like bad news all round. It summed up the imbalance of Hughes’s piece (which remains). She talks about all kinds of consequences (even offering her own “better” suggestion) but doesn’t address what should be the most obvious – that the process of political integration be abandoned, and fairly so.
The focus of my comments is on the partiality and imbalance of a (rambling and badly written / edited) BBC piece on the EU. Discussion of the merits or demerits of the EU isn’t really pertinent; and judging by your inability to respond to the points raised by Pete_London, would be a complete waste of time.
.
“Furthermore, if one accepts that it is advantageous to pool negotiating power in the international arena, there must be a supranational body through which common negotiating positions can be agreed and expressed.”
An example would help here. How well did this work in dealing with ex-Yugoslavia?
Who actually sorted things out in Kosova? Was it the beloved “supranational body” or was it maybe the usual NATO allies and their long-suffering taxpayers?
Come to think of it, why doesn’t NATO need two capitals, two parliament buildings, an army of civil servants, a council of corrupt commissioners, and the power to regulate everything down to the shape of bananas?
Why do the people who actually get stuff done not seem to need the kinds of intrusive powers that the EU wants?
thedogsdanglybits (responding to Ken Kautsy):
“And who do you suggest Blair appoints to the post of ‘Communications Minister’?
Cut to scene in Downing Street, PM’s sofa.
“Blah blah blah. . . New Labour is just not caring enough . . . blah blah blah . . . where’s the real socialism . .. blah blah blah . . . Why can’t Gordon take over . . . blah blah blah . . . Andrew Marr is a beautifu Pagan God . . . blah blah blah . . . let the people pay forever . . . blah blah blah . . . blah”
No. Not anymore thanks. The preferred option is, of course, to privatise the BBC.
However, assumimg the UK, for now, maintains the publicly funded State Broadcaster, then obviously there would be no better people to run it than those with the actual mandate from the people (i.e. please read about responsible government).
Your alternative is to leave this massive information bureauctacy in the hands of the hard left; people with absolutely no mandate whatsover.
Even the Conservative Party, when ever they decide to wake up – which is a political organisation with a signicant level of community support – would prefer New Labour to effectively run this orgaisation than the present farcical situation.
New Labour and the Conservatives notionally reflect closing on 70 percent of the community. Let the people have back their own broadcaster; after all – they’re the ones who are paying for it.
A State Broadcaster with as dominant a position as the BBC should be the preserve of Authoritarian States such as North Korea, China, Cuba and Apartheid era South Afica.
It is highly undesirable in a Western Democracy such as ours.
…….and yet people defend it in large numbers. Makes a grown man wanna cry.
Alex:-
‘…….and yet people defend it in large numbers. Makes a grown man wanna cry.’
It makes me wanna quadruple the licence fee but make it voluntary. The BBC has 25% market share so 1/4 as many people will pay 4 times as much, making this measure revenue-neutral.
The poor brainwashed saps who approve of the BBC poll tax all insist it’s far too cheap, so they’ll be quite happy to pay what it’s worth. The rest of us will save our money, so we’ll be happy. Effectively, everyone would pay what the BBC is worth to them – in my case, nothing at all.
camp_commandant for DG.
Ken Kautsky
I’m sorry, but I actually believe the least worst alternative at the moment IS to leave the BBC in the hands of the hard left.
I do think there was a time when the BBC was staffed by the sort of people who re-read the Charter every night with their bedtime cocoa. It’s worth reading some of the wartime discussions about reporting policy. Despite Government pressure it was the BBC’s submission that unless their reporting was reasonably accurate, they would inevitably lose the trust of both the public at home and the world at large. The reputation that those conscientious principled people acquired provided a fund of good will that the Corporation has traded on ever since.
Well that bank account is almost empty now. The bureaucrats, the trendy lefties, the PC crowd have squandered that trust.
Look at the results of the last election. If one party has come in for more vitriol from the BBC than any other it has been the BNP. BNP voters are generally at the bottom of the social scale. The C’s & D’s. The sort of people who do little else but watch TV. By rights they should have been well & truly brainwashed by all that mealy mouthed multi-culturalism. In fact the BBC is probably the best recruiter the BNP has. Every election their share of the vote goes up and by definition every voter distrusts the Corporation.
Criticism of the BBC is not just restricted to this website. Yesterday Johninlondon was kind enough to link to the Evening Standard board: http://ichat.thisislondon.co.uk/messageboards/threadnonInd.jsp?forum=18&thread=220023&message=577706 Read the posts. Seems to me the only favourable posts were coming from either current of former employees.
Putting in some sort of reputable watchdog will only make the situation worse. I personally know at least half a dozen people involved in BBC program making. In the part of London I live in that’s not hard. They are all, uniformly, left wing. Some so far left you’d need binoculars to spot them on a clear day. Whoever you appoint you’re not going to get rid of these people. They’ve all got contracts of employment and are rooted deep within the organisation. As Robin Aitken tells us, there are no conservatives. No libertarians. No matter how good your watchdog you can’t achieve balance if no one’s sitting on the other end of the see-saw.
What it might do is give the abomination another lease of life .A renewed legitimacy. “Look at us” they’ll say “We’re doing balanced reporting. We’re sticking to the rules” And meanwhile they’ll just carry on feeding us the same old crap.
The old nag’s on it’s last legs.
The only thing remaining’s the humane killer.
thedogsdanglybits: “I’m sorry, but I actually believe the least worst alternative at the moment IS to leave the BBC in the hands of the hard left. ”
No. Your view is plain wrong. Please, take the time out to “read” about responsible government. Staff at the BBC will, at least, appear more balanced when they are properly managed. That would be an improvement straight away. However, it requires management from the top down.
Why has Communications Minister, Tessa Jowell, been paid so much money when she is the person who is ultimately responible to the UK Parliament for such ongoing massive distortions (lies) and other suppresssions (daily) of opinion and information? Again, please “read” about responsible government – its the actual doctrine/convention that your nation was bulit upon.