, BBC News Online reports that:
Former Humberside Police Authority chairman Colin Inglis has been charged with 14 counts of indecent assault in relation to allegations of child abuse.
News Online goes on to say:
Following the launch of the North Yorkshire Police investigation last September Mr Inglis was suspended from the police authority and the Labour Party.
He was replaced as leader of Hull City Council in May this year.
This story was also reported on the BBC’s Six O’Clock News this evening, though Inglis’ party affilition and former tenure as Hull City Council leader weren’t mentioned, which is odd, since “Tories” (as the BBC unfailingly calls Conservatives) subject to legal proceedings are almost always linked to their party.
Update, 19NOV05:
Catching up with the news after a hectic few days, by way of contrast, The Times’ coverage of this story last Tuesday, Police chairman charged with 14 counts of child sex abuse, begins:
A LABOUR politician who supervised Britain’s worst-performing police force was charged yesterday with 14 counts of child abuse.
No doubt about Inglis’ political affiliation there then! The Times also reports:
The politician, who is openly gay, has consistently denied any wrongdoing, blaming the allegation on a homophobic conspiracy. He cited “dark forces” as the reason for his fall from political power.
– yet more facts that the BBC completely omitted from their coverage of this story. Would any of our BBC readers care to offer their adoring telly-taxpayers an explanation for keeping the public in the dark?
BBC1 10pm News has quotes from LePen.
He says that immigration should cease & that France should regain control of its borders.
The BBC reporter sums this up by saying that the views (may be regarded by some) as extreme.
Whatever LePen’s other nasty views, it hardly seems extreme to suggest that with 10% unemployment, immigration is not required by the French economy.
Yes, it was an astonishing remark – not least for the offhand way in which it was made.
You get the impression that if Le Pen had said ‘Motherhood and apple pie – two good things!’ he’d have received a similar riposte.
It is this level of imbecility which marks the BBC as utterly partial and completely unreliable.
The BBC reporter sums this up by saying that the views (may be regarded by some) as extreme.
dan | 14.11.05 – 10:16 pm | #
What the reporter meant by ‘some’, was his BBC bosses.
If France ‘controls’ its borders, what happens to EU freedom and musliculturalism?
An interesting choice of headline for the following article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4437330.stm
The headline reads “US must be bold on trade – Blair”.
The FIRST paragraph of the article reads “Tony Blair has urged the US and the EU to take “bold” and “ambitious” steps to make a success of next month’s international trade negotiations.”
Note that the Prime Minister urged the US AND the EU. Somehow, goodness knows how, the “EU” bit was left out of the headline. It’s a total mystery.
A better (and shorter) headline might have been “Blair urges boldness on world trade”. However, no doubt somewhere deep in the BBC is a department who have discovered that only 15% of viewers actually read the content of any headline article, so 85% of viewers naturally assume that problems in world trade are the fault of the US, not that nice ‘n fluffy EU.
In the olden days (when they really liked ole Tone) it would have read “Blair: Bold”
Slealth edit alert: This was changed at 0130 to ‘Blair urges rich nations on trade’
They must be reading this blog guys and gals….
“We all know that the Government doesn’t have to listen to anybody”
Say it with a cynical slant and sneering tone. Now who said it? An opposition spokesman? A disenchanted member of the public? Clare Short? George Galloway?
No, this was said by BBC reporter Kim Catchaside on the Today programme at around 6.35 this morning. Although this was an article on education, she was of course referring to the 90 day defeat a few days ago. Oh how happy that must have made her feel. But doesn’t this just sum up the BBC mindset – not listening means not listening to the chattering metropolitan classes inhabited by BBC journalists, not the general public who overwhelmingly supported Blair’s (supported by the police)push for 90 days.
The “flagship” Today programme is fast becoming a mish-mash of leftish editorialising.
Why, for example, when the papers are reviewed, does the BBC more often than not prominently feature the Independent front page? This morning the presenter told us in straight (affirming) tones about the latest anti-war details from the Independent and the Guardian. Always interesting to note that BBC often gives top billing to the two least read “quality” papers. Then the presenter turns to the Telegraph by saying, this time in a higher pitch (unaffirming)”and the Daily Telegraph turns its venom on….”
I know most people would laugh at this stuff, but if you have centre-right sympathies, the daily bias transmitted by the Today programme just drives you mad.
Elsewhere we have John (I tell porkies about the nasty Israelis doing the dirty on those poor helpless Palestinians) Bell from the ludicrous “Iona community” in the “Thought for Today” giving us 3 minutes of bilge containing the phrase “global warming”, but that’s about all I could understand.
This morning “Today” had a piece on the EU Court of Auditors (6.30ish). Johnny (?)Diamond tells us they have failed for the 11th year to sign off the accounts. Naughty Court of Auditors; clearly not doing their job.
What’s that? Oh I see he meant refused to sign off the accounts. Now that’s completely different.
But of course the Today Programme isn’t the only offender. On PM last night we had an article where a short American commercial was broadcast featuring the mother of an American soldier serving in Iraq. She was supportive of the war and maintained that Al Qaeda cannot defeat the USA militarily, but can win by defeating American resolve especially at home. A clear message, even if you don’t agree with it.
So how does Eddie Mair respond to this? Why, by interviewing Cindy Sheehan of course, of the “growing antiwar movement in the USA”. I note that this tactic is not used by the BBC in the reverse case, i.e. Christopher Hitchens is not asked to respond when the Gorgeous One vents his spleen on the airwaves.
However, the thing that struck me was the softness of Mair’s treatment of Sheehan. Often Mair is like a terrier when interviewing people, cutting accross them, introducing inconvenient facts or past quotes (on the same programme he did exactly this with David Cameron). So why was he so easy on Cindy Sheehan’s tin foil hat views? Was it because he sympathised with them? Or because her son had died in Iraq? Probably a mixture of the two, but even if your son has died in action, if you start a political movement you should still be open to rigorous questioning. Mair completely failed to do this. But what’s new?
IndianRunner
I heard that too. There is an invisible force field around the EU that prevents the BBC from undertaking any serious critical analysis of EU structures.
The BBC and The EU have the same source code.
BBC ‘gets tough’ on the Lib Dems:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4250464.stm
Or perhaps allowing them x hundred words in a puff piece about themselves.
OT
Would it be possible to see something on this:
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2005/11/15/afx2336616.html
Alot of workers up and down the UK depend on the project, the implications etc, moreover as this is so pivotal not just to the ship building industry the aircraft industry as well depends on it too.
Surely something of this nature requires full coverage by the BBC?
Not mention of it whatsoever on BBC.CO.UK?
Even more important this article, no mention either on the BBC…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=WHVWHFMJFK12DQFIQMFCFF4AVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2005/11/15/nmend15.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/11/15/ixportal.html
I find the inaction of Mike Jackson a disgrace and betrayal. He has no spine, probably why he got the job.
Let alone the actions of No.10.
I’m beginning to see that Bias returning again.
I almost sense a “fear” at the BBC, people afraid to speak out.
Have no fear i say. The truth will set you free.
The govt would be wise to think very carefully on this one.
Re Rob’s link to LibDems
Ms Featherstone, a graphic designer by trade and the owner of an electrical retail business, told the BBC News Website: “I live behind the back of a pub myself.
What, in a little back to back?
Isn’t she a millionaire?
Also whilst she complains of increased drunkeness (& the unlikely possibility of noise permeating her mansion after 11pm), the BBC fail to point out that LibDem policy is to lower the drinking age to 16 (Couresy the late lamented Lib-Dem Watch blog)
Rob, Dan, re. ‘Liberal gets tough on pub hours’, see: my post from back at the time which adds an inconvenient fact or two unreported in the BBC’s soft-shoe shuffle coverage.
P.S. Is it just me, or would Mi-Lynne-aire Featherstone do a passable Barney the Dinosaur impression (perhaps with the help of a purple makeover)? 🙂
One other thought – note how the title misappropriates the term ‘liberal’ – the LibDems usually get very het up at being called Liberals. I guess it depends on who’s doing the calling…
Reference above to “Today” concentrating on the headlines from theguardian & Independent in the newspaper review (& of course these same papers set the BBC news agenda for the day).
I listen to R5Live “Upallnight” & hear regular Bush bashing pieces from US think tank folk. Imagine my surprise & delight when the other night they instead gave the mike to Frank Gaffney, introduced without a “right wing” tag. Gaffney gave a straight forward view on Iraq.
Things are getting better, I thought.
But last night back to the usual.
An obviously partial Canadian reporter criticised the Canadian opposition parties for seeking to force an election to maximise the effect of the upcoming report on corruption by the ruling Liberals.
The reporter poo-pooed the corruption as the culprits were Liberal politicians who have long since resigned & obviously felt that those still in office (including PM Martin, who despite being Finance Minister at the time hundreds of millions of taxpayers money was being misused) should not be tainted in the voters’ eyes.
Quite amusing seeing a “news” item on BBC World last night. Referring to how the internet is regulated by a private American firm (what could be worse, private AND American!!) And how “many poeple” wanted this responsibility to be shared out and governed like the UN (great choice that would be).
Nothing was said on how this firm (ICANN I think) had not once interfered in the running of the internet, or how the US government had never interfered. Only a throw away remark at the end that the likes of Cuba, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia were the ones pushing for the internationalisation of the internet. I wonder why?
OT
Women bombers break new ground
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4436368.stm
Conservative worldview
“Experts remain unsure whether female suicide bombers will be more widely deployed by al-Qaeda, whose conservative Sunni Muslim worldview restricts women to domestic duties.”
Denying women education, work or freedom is hardly “conservative” is it? Quite the opposite.
That choice of phrase makes me quite uncomfortable. Why does the BBC use the word “conservative” to describe Middle East dictator/despots, or worse, terrorists?
Ritter,
Why does the BBC use the word “conservative” to describe Middle East dictator/despots, or worse, terrorists?
In order to associate despotism and terrorism with the Conservative Party.
Ritter,
Small ‘c’ conservative, as defined by the Oxford English dictionary, means ‘averse to change and holding traditional values’. In the Sunni Muslim and wider Arab and Islamic context, restricting women to domestic duties (and for that matter fighting against the imposition on Western cultural and governmental values) does indeed reflect traditional values and an aversion to change.
I haven’t seen it used to describe secular despots like Saddam and this would clearly be wrong as Baathist stle socialism is a 20th century import, although it might be appropriate for the Iranian leaders. As far as terrorists go it might be appropriate to elements of Al-Quaeda but not Palestinians (by definition fighting Israel doesn’t have a tradition beyond the 1940s).
Having said that, given the political contexts in the UK it doesn’t show the sensitivity to potentially ambiguous language that the BBC is so keen to maintain in other areas. ‘Traditional’ would do just as well.
OT:
One aspect of lamentable BBC performance that’s less commented on here is its sheer journalistic laziness – notably the way it grabs at statements from single issue pressure groups, giving them massive doses of completely uncritical free publicity.
Today on the BBC Newsonline site (the fount of so much BBC rubbish) we find the headline: One in four are binge drinkers.
No quotation marks, no suggestion it is a claim – not even the possibility that it is anything other than incontrovertible fact – and nor is there any room for dissent within the puff piece of accompanying nonsense that pretends to be an article.
In fact, the claim comes from BUPA (hardly an impartial source) and is backed by the fanatics at Alcohol Concern.
Leaving aside the fact that plain common sense tells us that one in four Britons cannot possibly be “binge drinkers” (a hopelessly unscientific term anyway), that the BBC should report such nonsense without subjecting it to any critical analysis is actually socially dangereous.
By repeating such nannying untruths, it sets the agenda for politicians and bureaucrats on the make and thus changes the entire culture of the country. People who swallow news with their cornflakes come to believe such claims- especially when they are reapted over and over again (cf “manmade global warming”).
Just another reason why the BBC is a malign force and should go.
OT
Funny stealth edit today :
Parrot “did not die of bird flu”
but oddly the story mentioned Finches having bird flu. There were no parrots.
Then…
Finches ‘brought bird flu to UK’
Ah! right. Its not difficult is it?
This is getting boring.
Headline:
“US heads for internet showdown”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4436428.stm
Rather paints a picture of the US against the rest of the world.
While in the text…
“And in a recent letter to the Wall Street Journal, Republican Senator Norm Coleman wrote: “There is no rational justification for politicising internet governance within a United Nations framework.”
That view has plenty of support outside the US. ”
If countrys like China and Brazil want more control then build your own and stop complaining.
OT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4437708.stm
Still wondering what religion the “religious extremists” are so extreme about. Cant be Muslim.
Perhaps they dont like the Hot Wings.
GCooper – re single issue pressure groups press releases making 1st on running order on BBC News. Yesterday I groaned as WWF issued their press release on Tony Blair & global warming and it was first in the running order of ‘news’ on radio4 ‘Today’ prog all morning. The BBC News Online website is a NGO press release playground. The BBC need to learn that not every press release from a NGO is ‘news’!
Here’s a few recent press releases from WWF, dutifully re-printed by the BBC…..
WWF Press Release 14/11/05:
Blair poised for failure on toxics and climate change
http://www.wwf.org.uk/news/n_0000002053.asp
BBC ‘News’ re-print/report 14/11/05:
Blair ‘failing’ over environment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4434456.stm
and more from WWF/BBC….
Climate change will ’cause chaos’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4199206.stm
Climate change ‘species threat’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4199736.stm
Europe getting hotter, WWF warns
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4140606.stm
DR Congo’s hippos face extinction
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4240420.stm
Power station named in Dirty 30
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4306816.stm
UK to decide on Sakhalin funding
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4304682.stm
….can we get ‘NGO’ added to the left hand Menu sidebar on the BBC news online website so we can distinguish between real ‘news’ and NGO press releases?
Rob White – I think we should let China, Cuba, Brazil have a go. Maybe the BBC would be high on the list of websites that
‘go missing’….. 🙂
rb – big ‘C’, small ‘c’ conservatives – I’m just surprised the BBC doesn’t call them (al-Qaeda) ‘tories’ ! Just a matter of time……
I’ve searched the page for the word Muslim and Islamic. They don’t feature anywhere. Maybe it was those ‘evil jews’ again.
Grimer
Likewise we have this piece – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4435172.stm – which begins:
Gill Hicks lay in an Underground train carriage with her lower legs almost blown off when two police officers arrived and, with a tap on her shoulder, she heard the words “Priority one”. Months after the bomb attacks in London, the trio were reunited.
In case anyone’s wondering, those terrorist attacks (sorry, ‘bomb’ attacks) were carried out by muslim terrorists. The piece doesn’t mention it.
What convinces me this was written by the BBC?
“Anger at losing loved ones to conflict appears to be a major source of motivation among female suicide bombers. The first suicide bombing by a Palestinian woman in Israel was carried out by a 28-year-old paramedic, Wafa Idris, in January 2003. Her mother later said that her daughter had probably been motivated “by all the wounded people she saw in ambulances”.
….so she decided to make more of them….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4436368.stm
Ritter – who is “Dr Congo” and why are his hippos facing extinction? Indeed, why does he own hippos?
Perhaps I have misread something…
BTW I am joking!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4436368.stm
I note in the above page cited by Eamonn the subheading “Conservative worldview”, thus allowing the Beeb to use the capital ‘C’!
Andrew
Colin Inglis has appeared in court:
EX-POLICE AUTHORITY BOSS IN COURT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/4439646.stm
We find out again he’s an, well, ex police authority boss, social worker, Leader of Hull City Council and the fella who ignored Blind Lemon Blunkett’s order to sack the Chief Constable of Humberside. Strangely, the BBC is still shy about telling us of Inglis’ party affiliation.
On Look North his party affiliation was not mentioned too. The following story about someone who used her position to turn the traffic lights green did mention her party. (not Labour of course)
I really should have known better.
When, earlier today, I posted criticising the BBC’s swallowing, hook, line and sinker yet another NGO press release (and hats off to Ritter for providing yet more), I should have waited an hour to let the full map unfurl.
Now it transpires that Bliar and Co have decided to launch an ‘initiative’ on binge drinking this very day.
What an amazing coincidence that BUPA, ‘Alcohol concern’ and the BBC should all swing into action to prepare the ground for it!
Thus does the ZaNuLabour spin machine trundle on, crushing opposition and reason beneath its wheels!
Aye and if Alcohol Concern can claim that 1 in 4 of us are binge drinkers does this mean that our economic problems are solved as surely Gordon Brown is making BILLIONS in tax from all these pie-eyed alkies lying in gutters nationwide…not seen any up here though !
Next survey: 1 in 3 women want to sleep with me coz I is hunky, hung and horny. (Signed D Blunkett)
Next survey: 1 in 100,000 of all BBC workers are unbiased and impartial.
Well if the BBC can do it why not us?
New survey please!
Dave T
Exactly! I mean, where does the BBC get this info from anyway? Where’s the evidence? What studies were done?
Of course,
Didn’t you know that ‘sources close’ to the BBC think it is ‘generally accepted’ that the BBC shows a ‘institutional bias,’ as ‘critics’ have pointed out?
😉
Just keep it non-specific, it works for the BBC!
Whatever happened to ‘a little birdie told me’…
Dave T:
or “some people say” or to make it more proper “some think tanks say”
Just Curious…..
But do you think anyone is doing anything to “bring about change” with respect to the BBC?
I’m not talking about Johnathan Miller and the Ban the Licence Fee people, I’m talking about serious people…..CIA, Mossad, Chinese Secret Police?…lol.
I mean the BBC is being positivley dangerous at the moment, and I believe fueling the fire of Muslim hatered by continualy attacking Bush and Blair and the “war” in Iraq, yet always seemingly protecting the general public from “the truth” about Islamic violence around the world…….
I can’t believe that people like the American Government (and others) don’t see the BBC as a threat…..even Bill Clinton came out and said that the “BBCs coverage (of Hurricane Katrina) was STACKED AGAINST the Federal Government”….
I just hope that someone with a bit of power is looking in to this….or the BBC and the PC loons that run Europe are going to drive this continent into War again….this current disaster in France just a small example of what the PC Brigade have created for us……
People have valid quiestions with respect to Muslims and integrating into European Culture……..yet anyone who dares rais these concernes is hammered as being racist……and the BBC is the biggest hammer of all…yet it won’t last. They can keep the lid on for so long, but then something will happen….something bad, and all the pressure will come out in a few violent nights…..
I mean “what if” a Muslim terrorist did manage to kill the Queen, can we even imagine how bad that could be…..what would the public reaction to that be, I have a gut feeling that it would be utter and sadly uncontrolable outrage…..other people would certainly die.
I think if the BBC really took all sides of an issue fairly, they could be a great use to the world and bring people together…..but by being so biased to the hard left, and for some reason in favour of Islam…..on one hand it gives un-due power to the hard left and Muslim voices……and on the other, the rest of the population feel un-listened to, abandoned and frustrated at being called “racist” whenever they ask for simple equality…..
It’s going to get a lot worse, before it gets better…..
Carl “I mean “what if” a Muslim terrorist did manage to kill the Queen”
By no means a stretch of the imagination, given previous security lapses & the fact that al-Qaeda have shown in the past that they are not given to idle chit chat when naming targets.
Carl
You haven’t been reading your Gramsci. Chaos and disorder in our previously polite and civilised western nations is the very point of what some call PC but is, in fact, Frankfurt School Marxism. The very point of it is not to create a different kind of order but wholly and simply to end our Judeo-Christian, liberal civilisation. Violence and brutality in everyday life is just fine and mass immigration from alien and inferior cultures is a primary method of bringing this about. This is allied with an undermining of belief in and support for the traditional underpinnings of life such as family and personal freedom. Within a few generations you have what we now have. It is not by accident, it is all by design and carried out not by those who are misguided but by those who want to bring it about. Frankly, the Gramscian left are as much enemies of my values and way of life as any AK-toting jihadi and far more dangerous.
Pete-London………you are right on the money.
Karl Popper warned us…….but we let the 1960s spores infect too many institutions and now we get a light patina of Marcuse blemishing the skein of the nation. Seemingly broadcast media is a honeypot for such types as it feeds their detachment from the real world in a world of fantasy. I especially find English Lit graduates to suffer from this with their BA in Unstructured Thought
Rick,
They cluster wherever the market (i.e. peoples free choice)is kept out by state extortion.
BBC, Government, Academia & Schools all claim to work for the people, but in reality parasite on the people.
Quite. Let’s cut out government and education (and the BBC) and let people get on with it. I hear Somalia and Liberia have been very successful using that approach.
Lets cut out the state where the market provides better.
The BBC is crap. It should be taken of the list of things that are extortion funded.
rb
These states also fail to provide the basis of financial calculation i.e. property rights and to make parents responsible for their childrens education (something the UK also fails to do).
Perhaps exortion funding everything like the USSR is your option?