In at least two of the news summaries on this morning’s example of the lamentable BBC Breakfast programme they reported that “Tory” Sir Patrick Cormack had been re-elected in Staffordshire South with a “reduced majority” in the much delayed General Election vote there following the death of the first LibDem candidate.
Nonsense. Sir Patrick, standing as a Conservative (i.e. not the pejorative ‘Tory’ nickname hissed out by disapproving lefties everywhere, including at the BBC) was re-elected with a hugely increased majority on a much reduced turnout.
For the benefit of BBC Breakfast Beeboids, the figures for 2001 and 2005, according to BBC News Online and The Times Guide to the House of Commons, are:
|
Candidate |
2001 |
2001% |
2005 |
2005% |
Change% |
|
Sir Patrick Cormack, C |
21,295 |
50.5% |
13,343 |
52.5% |
+1.56% |
|
Paul Kalinauckas, L |
14,414 |
34.2% |
4,496 |
17.54% |
-16.63% |
|
Josephine Harrison, LD |
4,891 |
11.6% |
|
||
|
Jo Crotty, LD |
|
3,540 |
13.81% |
+2.21% |
|
|
Michael Lynch, UKIP |
1,580 |
3.7% |
|
||
|
Malcolm Hurst, UKIP |
|
2,675 |
10.43% |
+6.69% |
|
|
Turnout |
42,180 |
60.3% |
25,635 |
37.28% |
-23.04% |
|
Majority |
6,881 |
16.31% |
8,847 |
34.51% |
+18.2% |
I look forward to a correction being broadcast in each corresponding news summary in the next edition of BBC Breakfast – to do anything less would be glib acceptance of gross stupidity – even the most cursory glance at the figures shows Sir Patrick’s majority is considerably up. At the very least this repeated error should be noted and explained in Newswatch, the BBC’s error graveyard. Don’t hold your breath!
BBCNews website reporting ‘increase majority’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4120982.stm
Sorry to post OT, but I’m new to this scene & wanted to bring the following grossly biased ‘Today programme’ report to your attention:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today5_zion_20050624.ram
The report is ostensibly about a retired Israeli judge’s writings on the history of the anti-Semitic propaganda manual known as ‘the Protocol of the Elders of Zion’, but the first half consists largely of a one-sided ‘interview’ with an Arab pseudo-intellectual who takes full advantange of the opportunity to spread his anti-semitic propaganda.
Even the naughty Naughtie sounds a little taken aback by the obviously ascerbic nature of the piece. Listen to him state that we ‘understand’ the ‘arguments’ of the Arabs for their attitude to Israel.
UKIP (missed conservatives) did well increasing vote!.
Labour voters stayed at home, or went LD.
That seat is roughly 63% right leaning.
It’s the UKIP who have done particularly well here. Maybe an effect of the EU-CONstitution?
Citizen Journalists get the best shots!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/africa_dorset_storms0_23_june_2005/html/1.stm
John, what was especially striking about the Egyptian ‘intellectual’, is that although he didn’t claim that the ‘Elders of Zion’ had much influence over much of the populace, but the negative attitude toward Israel was a result of their annexing parts of Palestine and the Golan Heights.
One would think that an intellectual (professor no less) would have noted that Egypt got all of their lands back, including Sinai, which now generates billions of dollars since Israel developed it as a tourist resort, plus the oil wells there – AFTER EGYPT MADE PEACE.
What’s worse, is that neither the BBC reporter interviewing this man, or Naughtie himself, made any comment about that. Are they really that stupid or just plain evil?
BBC2 Newsnight had Gavin Esler having a cosy chat with Kate Hooey about Zimbabwe. Obviously they were of one mind. They scoffed at the African Unions statement that the happenings in Zimbabwe were an internal matter. They thought someone should do something.
Funny how these two were content to regard pre-war Iraq as an internal matter that did not warrant action by the coalition.
Prejudiced? Moi?
Now, don’t get me wrong there must be a place for drama that raises issues and reflects the real world; however, where once we had Cathy Come Home, tonight on prime time BBC1 there’s an hour and a half promotion for “Make Poverty History”, which presumambly all right thinking folk are supposed to sign up to right now, barely masquerading as a thread from Love Actually.
Bald, blatent and probably piss poor.
Some fine actors in Bill Nighy and Kelly MacDonald though. I notice old commie bastard Corin Redgrave’s name in the TV Quick too. That ought to be a warning.
The Girl in the Café
A tenderly funny and poignant love story for BBC One.
BBC One: 25 June 2005: 9.15pm-10.45pm
Commissioned as part of a range of programmes the BBC is making to celebrate Africa in 2005, the 90-minute film stars Bill Nighy (Love Actually, State Of Play) and Kelly MacDonald (Gosford Park, Trainspotting, State Of Play) and follows the story of a hard-working, shy civil servant, Lawrence, and his life-changing relationship with a mysterious girl whom he meets in a café opposite Downing Street.
He takes her on a romantic mini-break – to the G8 Summit. Set against the backdrop of a G8 Summit Meeting, in Reykjavik, Iceland – where Lawrence is one of the British delegation – their gentle love story develops as world leaders compete for media and political advantage. While the politicians argue, the Millennium Development Goals are sidelined.
The film follows both the growing love story between two shy outsiders and the progress of the summit, until the two become dramatically, comically and inevitably entwined.
The Girl in the Cafe faces perhaps the most important issue of 2005: will this be the year when world powers seriously address the issue of world poverty – once and for all?
Hmmmm.
Andrew- having watched coverage on Sky where the news of his victory was a major headline (I think ‘increased majority’ may even have been in it- so simple, so incontrovertable) I am totally amazed that the BBC got this wrong. It’s astoundingly stupid; grossly ignorant; utterly indefensible- and whatever else I can think of. Any journalist capable of that error, repeatedly, would be incapable of getting anything straight at all.
Has anyone on this site ever pursued this?
“America is often portrayed as an ignorant, unsophisticated sort of place, full of bible bashers and ruled to a dangerous extent by trashy television, superstition and religious bigotry, a place lacking in respect for evidence based knowledge. I know that is how it is portrayed because I have done my bit to paint that picture…” BBC’s Washington correspondent Justin Webb, in a remarkably frank admission of his role in misinforming the British public about America and Americans
Was anyone unfortunate enough to hear the “News Quiz” last Friday night on Radio 4 ? If so you could have heard Jeremy Hardy defending the new religious hate bill he said Rowan Atkinson is only against it because he doesn’t get on TV enough ! The mind boggles.
In case anyone is thinking of pouncing on the fact that the numbers in the 2005 column don’t add up, it’s because there were some minor candidates who got a few votes as well.
On the business of using the term “Tory”, I don’t know if it’s a term of abuse. It’s shorter than “Conservative”, and the media does prefers shorter terms (such as their favourite, “row”). I use “Tory” a lot myself.
To be fair to the Beeb – not something I normally try to do – the Tory victory was barely covered, let alone commented on, by the “quality newspapers”. It seems that nobody is interested in any story that looks good for the Tories (whoops! but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the term).
It was, despite the UKIP candidate putting up a respectable showing, a very good result for the Tories. A swing of nearly 9%, had it been reproduced in last month’s general election, would have wiped out Blair’s majority completely, along with the smirk on his face.
Carla, it would be very good if Justin Webb would have just left the quote the way you have it, since we all know that this is the BBC policy. However in the actual article this is taken from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4400865.stm he adds the following sentence; America is often portrayed as an ignorant, unsophisticated sort of place, full of bible bashers and ruled to a dangerous extent by trashy television, superstition and religious bigotry, a place lacking in respect for evidence based knowledge.
I know that is how it is portrayed because I have done my bit to paint that picture, and that picture is in many respects a true one.
Has anyone noticed that BBC has now found a way to avoid bias in its broadcasts?
Both BBC1 & 2 are broadcasting Wimbledon throughout the day and into the evening. BBC1 was supposed to have regurgitated another episode of Only Fools and Horses at 18:10, but at 19.00 they decided their viewers would prefer continued coverage at Wimbledon. Thank God it gets dark, he certainly knew what he was doing when he made the sun set.
You can bet some BBC executive is already planning the 100 Best Darts Tournaments, and 100 Best Snooker Tournaments, to be broadcast to their adoring viewers.
Good, there isnt enough darts on the tellt these days.
John,
Thanks for posting the TODAY link on ‘Protocols of Zion’.
Sounded to me like Israel has put pressure on the BBC for more balanced coverage. How wonderful it was that the lady ex Israeli judge took Naughtie up on his point that the way to overcome Arab belief in the truth of ‘Protocols’ is through “dialogue”, and pointed out that Egypt, even though it is a State formally at peace with Israel, has a boycott of Israel by its intellectuals which makes “dialogue” impossible. Naughtie scrabbled that she had to accept that this was for reasons entirely separate from ‘Protocols’. Lucky Arabs. Naughtie prescibes “dialogue” as the way forward and then blames the Jews that the Arabs dont want it. What was a piece designed to make out that the TODAY programme’s wantonly biased coverage against Israel isn’t at all due to anti-semitism proved the opposite. If B-BBC wants to run a “Bent BBC Broadcaster of the Year Award”, I’d like to nominate Naughtie.
Jh
Fascinating to hear Jeremy Hardy defending the law against criticising Islam. I remember listening on the radio to JH doing stand-up (I think it was in the wake of 11-S) mocking Moslems for protesting against people mocking their faith and saying “Of course we’re going to laugh at your crappy little religion”. Now of course Islamofascism is a totalitarian ally of the Socialist Workers Party (Hardy is a member)viz a viz ‘Respect’ the tune has changed. One also remembers Hardy being amongst a western pro-Palestinian terrorist group • oops!, sorry, ‘peace activists’ – who got into a church in Bethlehem when it was taken over by Palestinian terrorists being pursued by the Israelis. I vividly remember an interview ‘peace activist’ Hardy gave the BBC in which he told a bare-faced lie “There is not one gun inside the Church”, making out he and his colleagues were just helping to protect innocent, unarmed Palestinians who the Israelis wanted to kill just for being Palestinian. I wonder when, in the interests of balance, the BBC are going to invite an evil bigot from the other end of political spectrum on? Apparantly the BNP have a lot of ‘stand up’ turns at their get togethers. Maybe one could be on the same side as Hardy. When the question of Israel came up he’d find they have a remarkable lot in common and will have us all laughing at their death camp hatred.
Good, there isnt enough darts on the tellt these days.
Lurker | 25.06.05 – 10:59 pm
It’s about as close to the arts as the BBC gets for the maority of programmes.
That was, of course, meant to be telly rather than tellt.
Hal
I must admit I don’t know why I still listen to the News Quiz although I enjoy listening to Alan Coren the resident Respect crowd always annoy me. I know Linda Smith is one of them but she is at least funny sometimes while Hardy sticks so rigidly to the party line it is painful. It would be be great if someone could find a recording of Hardy doing his anti Moslem routine – Perhaps he could be prosecuted under the law he loves so much 🙂
I must admit a strange fascination for listening to the left at times like this. I remember reading about the Nazi Soviet pact in 1939 and how overnight party members had to change their views totally. Now we see it again as the folks on the far left suck up to a bunch of beheaders and adulter stoners ! It would be funny if it wasn’t so serious.
Speaking of sucking up to beheaders and stoners, check out this thread on (D)HYS about the result of the Iranian “elections”. (D)HYS outdoes itself in publishing laudatory comments for the Islamofascist who’s just been “elected”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4091508.stm
He may be a fan of stoning people to death, but the US got “its face slapped” and that’s all that matters to the moonbats who run (D)HYS.
These comments are so nuts, I’m suspecting some Moonbat Bingo players are at it again.
Is the bbc making any connection with the brain-dead Anglican move to boycott Israel, a staunch ally,trading and scientific partner of Britain, and the fact that the Queen is the head of that Church? Would it therefore be an act of TREASON to join the Republican movement? Surely those great “Naughtie” opinion mongers on that morning joke show must have something insightful to say!
Thanks for the (D)HYS link, Susan – virtually every comment there is completely bonkers. ‘The elections in Iran seem to have been as fair as in any democratic country.’ from Joe, Toronto seems to be pretty representative. These comenters are so nuts it’s difficult to know where to start.
Mike: I’m half-convinced that (D)HYS sources it’s “team” directly from several local mental institutions.
Mark Howard,
Re;The Girl in the Cafe.
The writeup says hard working,shy civil servant.
Never has a senior civil servant in Whitehall been hard working except against the wishes of the people.
And he would`nt be shy,he would be sly.
More moderate Muslims
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4618595.stm
“The Indonesian province of Aceh has held its first public caning, under the region’s special Islamic laws.
Fifteen people were caned for gambling offences outside a mosque in the town of Bireuen on Friday.”
But hey, its all just a bit of fun
“According to reports from the scene, the event was more of a festival than a punishment exercise.
According to a BBC reporter in Bireuen, Maskur Abdullah,”
Only moderates, you see, because
“But analysts say that some of the harsher punishments imposed in other Sharia states, such as amputation of hands and feet or even stonings, are extremely unlikely to be carried out in Aceh.”
How quaint!
Credit to the Today programme, who this morning have again criticised the Zimbabwean regime for the destruction of shanty towns, which are in fact the homes of many people.
Indeed the BBC are very good at protesting about the destruction of homes. Here the BBC rattle cages with regard to the homes of Palestinian Arabs in East Jerusalem:-
“Palestinians in East Jerusalem have been demonstrating against a reported Israeli plan to demolish 88 homes.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4597401.stm
But there are certain homes whose destruction the BBC doesn’t feel able to protest about. Care to guess which ethnic group they belong to?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4107800.stm
On “Mock the Week” last night, the assembled panels of comedians tackled the subject of the Religious Hatred bill.
Lots of jokes about Christians and Catholics, but strangely no jokes about Islam, which I must say is odd considering the Religious Hatred bill is clearly designed to benefit Muslims.
Linda Smith joked that Christians would threaten people with tea and biscuits and suchlike…and of course, that’s why she doesn’t mock Islam…they kill you.
OT:
How’s this for a compare and contrast ? Apparently, the Beeb’s rules on declaring the religion of individuals involved in cases are in a state of flux – we get the religion mentioned here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/americas/4625201.stm
But it’s apparently irrelevant here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/south_asia/4624799.stm
BTW Those who say terror doesn’t work should compare how many artworks/plays/comedies mock Christianity, with how many mock Islam.
Zimbabwe: The BBC has made little mention in it’s coverage of China’s supplying Mugabe with weapons and spying equipment.
Why does coverage of Africa’s woes always blame the West, when it is China which has the most influence in that region?
DumbJon, that contrast is very revealing…
The first story portrays Muslims as victims. Thus the word is mentioned at every opportunity.
The second story, if it mentioned the word “Muslim” or “Islam”, would portray Muslims in a “negative” light, which would of course be breaking the Prime Directive of PC (“Muslims are saintly victims only”).
OT
In spite of its huge resources, BBC reporting from Zimbabwe has been pathetic. A scandal – people should be sacked for the ineptitude and shallowness of the coverage.
By contrast, with far fewer resources, ITN has achieved real coverage, with lots of undercover film smuggled out, and with a fierce and coherent reporter who personally challenged the South African president at a press conference and made him look stupid.
ITN 6, BBC 1 (and that is charitable)
The BBC’s idea of Africa coverage is the ludicrous “Girl in the Cafe” play, a 90-minute piece of propaganda that implied the US is the villain, the rest of us are bad as well, it can all be fixed up by a conference, and nothing is wrong with Africa itself.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14934-1668397,00.html
Unlike Enron, Worldcom etc & any negative tale about Wal-Mart, this story does not feature at all in today’s “business” ceefax pages, & one must look hard for it at BBC’s website (down the Europe page, not in business headlines)
“Parmalat founder to stand trial”
Well only a £10billion fraud.
Even then the report includes this enigmatic para
“The charges came just two days after US bank Morgan Stanley agreed a 155m-euro settlement with Parmalat.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4622161.stm
JH:
I must admit a strange fascination for listening to the left at times like this. I remember reading about the Nazi Soviet pact in 1939 and how overnight party members had to change their views totally. Now we see it again as the folks on the far left suck up to a bunch of beheaders and adulter stoners ! It would be funny if it wasn’t so serious.
You are probably already aware of this, but it was exactly this volte-face that inspired Orwell’s stuff about ‘Eurasia has always been the enemy of Oceania’ in 1984, prefigured in his earlier writings.
He also argued that the reason oligarchies such as the Church had been so long-lived was because their dogma is basically stable. The Church has never argued that Christ is the Son of God one moment, then denounced that view as a capital heresy the next. Yet this is exactly what Communism / Leftism / the BBC routinely does. For citizens of the USSR, one moment Germany is a vile fascist dictatorship (up to 1939); then it’s Russia’s biggest buddy (1939-41); then it’s a filthy fascist dictatorship again.
Likewise, with the BBC, if you hold certain views you’re a filthy homophobe and racist; but if you hold those views and you’re an Arab, the clients du jour of today’s left, you’re just fine.
Political dogma is inherently unstable, which should give us all hope that the BBC will crumble to dust one day as other bigoted hate-mongering organisations – Communists, Nazis, etc. – have always done in the end. Orwell could have been thinking of the BBC today when he wrote
The Catholic and the Communist are alike in assuming that an opponent cannot be both honest and intelligent.
Actually, here’s the Orwell passage in full:-
What is new in totalitarianism is that its doctrines are not only unchallengeable but also unstable. They have to be accepted on pain of damnation, but on the other hand, they are always liable to be altered on a moment’s notice. Consider, for example, the various attitudes, completely incompatible with one another, which an English Communist or ‘fellow-traveler’ has had to adopt toward the war between Britain and Germany. For years before September, 1939, he was expected to be in a continuous stew about ‘the horrors of Nazism’ and to twist everything he wrote into a denunciation of Hitler: after September, 1939, for twenty months, he had to believe that Germany was more sinned against than sinning, and the word ‘Nazi’, at least as far as print went, had to drop right out of his vocabulary. Immediately after hearing the 8 o’clock news bulletin on the morning of June 22, 1941, he had to start believing once again that Nazism was the most hideous evil the world had ever seen.
Whole essay at http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/prevention-of-lit1.htm
Thanks to the camp commandant for that suberb example of Orwell’s writing. The thing is that during the period of the Nazi-Soviet pact (i.e until he invaded) and just before Hitler at least made some attempt to cover up the fact that he wanted to destroy the Soviet Union. I admit he didn’t try very hard but as this is what Stalin wanted to believe he could get away with it.
But the Islamofacists on the other hand doing make any effort at all. They will openly talk of destroying western civilization , oppressing women , beheading , stoning and generally wanting to kill many of the lefts sacred cows in varied but always nasty ways. But despite all that the hard left still love them and are blind to their little faults. So what will it take before the hard left realise what they have allied themselves with ?
Whoops that should have been “don’t make any effort at all” and not “doing make any effort at all”.
Camp Comandant wrote:
“which should give us all hope that the BBC will crumble to dust one day as other bigoted hate-mongering organisations”
Or, let us hope that the BBC will return to being what it once was: A bastion of integrity and impartiality that was a tremendous source of British pride throughout the world.
A Tale of Two Countries.
I’ve been living in Spain for nearly three years now.
After Zapatero treacherously pulled Spanish troops out of Iraq, there was a tv debate on TVE1 (Government run), three on either side. I tuned in late to hear this guy speaking, and he was on the verge of making a truly killer point, waited for the Chairman to cut him off, and he didn’t, and the guy made his killer point, and then went on to make killer point after killer point after killer point completely without the faintest hint of interruption. After his alloted few minutes or so, someone on the other side had their turn. And so on and so on. Fair, open debate, leaving people to decide what view they wish to take at the end of it. For a Briton, this was absolultely staggering to watch. I literally sat with my mouth open in shock. Its so ingrained in me to expect a biased lefty interviewer/chairman to try to chop up a Conservative speaker in the same way as I still get confused about which way to look when I’m crossing the roads here.
When are we going to have a Conservative Party broadcast blowing the lid off what a threat to democracy the BBC represents and the need to take it back for the British people?
“When are we going to have a Conservative Party broadcast blowing the lid off what a threat to democracy the BBC represents and the need to take it back for the British people?”
When it becomes clear to them that the BBC are not going the give the party a fair hearing in a month of Sundays. In the meantime, perhaps its up to those of us in the blogosphere and beyond to start agitating more publicly – yes, even print and TV adverts and the like. Might need a bit of a whip-round of course!