BBC: UK tables final EU budget offer
The UK has tabled revised proposals for the EU’s 2007-13 budget at a summit in Brussels which is continuing into the night after a day of negotiation.
The Times: Blair surrenders more rebate in search of EU deal
Tony Blair made a further concession tonight on the rebate that Britain receives from the European Union to help break the deadlock at an EU budget summit in Brussels.
No difference there then!
Note also the BBC’s picture of Blair – another good ‘un from the BBC’s ‘special’ pictures department…
The BBC and the EU are all of a piece. Same mindset, same contempt for the funders.
Neither would survive a referendum in Britain.
Come off it. If the BBC had titled the report, for example, `David Cameron surrenders more rebate in search of EU deal`, all you tories on here would be screaming blue murder.
The term `surrender` in this context could be interpreted as a judgement. It could imply that giving away more of the rebate is a negative thing. But that this IS a negative thing is merely an opinion. Therefore, to be objective the BBC uses a more neutral headline.
When you print baseless complaints like this one it discredits a lot of the other perfectly valid criticism on here.
Billy Dear
Its MY money that Blair has given away, Thats Surrender!
About someone elses cash you are at liberty to be more objective.
OT:
On the subject of the BBC’s monomaniac concern about biased language, as exemplified in its reluctance to call terrorists terrorists:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/07/13/do1302.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/07/13/ixop.html
Consider the language used to descibe Denis Donaldson:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4537098.stm
Here’s a British citizen in the UK, so why does the BBC feel the need to describe him in every report as a ‘British agent’. Would a police informer in the West Yorks branch of the BNP be a ‘British agent’ ? Hardly. The use of the term ‘British’ is clearly meant to imply that Ulster is somehow not ‘British’ – hardly an uncontroversial position.
I have to agree with the chap from the Smashing Pumpkins here, though; the Times’ headline uses a loaded word, whilst the BBC’s headline is much more neutral. Given that the Lib Dems have expressed disappointment with the deal I would expect the BBC, if anything, to dislike it.
We have seen how the BBC reacts to valid criticism in some of the other stories here – “Have you been reading the Sun, Sir… or perhaps writing it?” from the Stephen Twigg thread – and if they’re that smug and self-satisfied when presented with something real and concrete they’re going to laugh at this kind of thing. It’s in their interests to paint the writers of this blog as a bunch of transpotting control freaks.
Billy,
This is about more than just which word the use. This is a massive backtrack for Blair and the BBC are presenting it as a ‘revision’.
Aye, BNilly, if Cameron were PM and gave it up, I’d be willing to call it surrender. It’s not about party affilitation (though with cameron at the helm the Tories are just Blu Labour), it’s about liberty.
By the way, that picture deserves a caption. “I’ll give you a pile of money this big if you pretend to listen to me for a few days” perhaps?
The BBC’s phrasing is more neutral than the Times. If your ideal is the least bias possible, then you should prefer the BBC version to the Times. The fact that you don’t reveals that what you really want is a right-biased BBC, not an unbiased one.
The BBC’s phrasing is more neutral than the Times. If your ideal is the least bias possible, then you should prefer the BBC version to the Times. The fact that you don’t reveals that what you really want is a right-biased BBC, not an unbiased one.
It’s not about preference but about how the BBC present the news differently depending on political party. I agree that the Times is hardly being neutral and the contrast would be better if Andrew had used a bit of BBC anti Tory bias instead of it but the general point still stands.
There’s no question here of the BBC treating the two parties differently. Only one of them is in a position to negotiate with the EU as only one is in power.
Thus the complaint here is that the BBC is not being biased against the Labour Party. As such it shows this site to be a sham.
O/T
“Haw Haw” Hawley is leaving Baghdad according to the latest edition of “From Our Own Adolescent”.
She even descends into Sun-speak with a Richard Littlejohn “You could not make it up”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4535262.stm
Presumably Peter Barron over at Newsnight would take a dim view of this type of writing.
What a shame for the Israel that having seen “Cry Baby” Plett and Orla Goering moved to pastures new they have “Haw Haw” as a replacement.
That’s a massive jump there Steve. The argument being presented is that whilst most of the media are presenting the deal as at best as a number of concessions the BBC is presenting it as revisions and compromise. Now compare that approach to the one taken here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4507516.stm and you’ll see the bias.
Quoted at “The American Thinker”
“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno
Well here, we can substitute the BBC for the NYT.
Bill, there’s been no evidence given here that “most of the media” are doing anything. The only other sources that have been given are the Times and the Telegraph. And one thing we can all agree upon is that all the newspapers are biased. One should expect the BBC to be more neutral in it’s phrasing than any of the newspapers.
Of course as often happens, we are now getting to to point of the media reporting what people have said about the news, rather than the news itself. And the BBC are certainly reporting the criticism Blair has recieved.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4538292.stm
Can’t see what you are getting at with the Cameron piece. It seems pretty well neutral too.
OT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4538580.stm
I see that another one of those cuddly “militants” has been killed. Lucky it wasn’t a terrorist, eh?
DumbJon wrote:
“Here’s a British citizen in the UK, so why does the BBC feel the need to describe him in every report as a ‘British agent’. Would a police informer in the West Yorks branch of the BNP be a ‘British agent’ ? Hardly. The use of the term ‘British’ is clearly meant to imply that Ulster is somehow not ‘British’ – hardly an uncontroversial position.”
Well actually DubJon Ulster IS NOT British. Check your Passport it says “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” It is entirely accurate and non biased to describe and distinguish that an agent in Northern Ireland was working for the “British.”
It’s not biased to be accurate 😉
Blair did surrender….
Chirac gave nothing, and just waited for Blair to crawl to his feet…..
If it were put to a referendum, the UK public would have said NO to more money going to the EU…so Blair (and Billy) are flying in the face of democracy……and they know it.
Blair gave it away when he KNOWS we did’nt want him to.
I’d say he did worse than surrender. I think he is a traitor. We have rising un-employment, a pensions crisis of his making….and he gives more Billions away…and for what???
…a “promise” of talks in 4 years time……..utterly useless.
The UK press are right to call it a surrender, because that’s exactly what it was. He gave up, and got nothing in return. He lost……he failed.
Blairs Failure is complete. He is “nothing”. He is truely a poodle.
Blair gets whatever he deserves in the press……he’s earned it. And no amount of Positive spin from the BBC is going to make any difference other than to let people know just how NooLabour control the BBCs “Message”……
This is a dark day for the left wing Dictatorship in the UK….this action will not be forgotten……
Well, Lurker, there’s a hell of a lot more people in Ulster who think they’re British than there are people in London who think the July 7 bombers were ‘militants’, ‘activists’ or whatever the euphanism d’jour is.
Neither The Times nor the BBC mentioned thatr Britain’s Rebate could have been reduced by public spending in British inner cities – by claiming EU funds which must be matched by Treasury funds the rebate would decrease by the formula……………which is why The Treasury has kept it high by not using EU grants for inner cities.
It is the poorer areas of Britain which are paying for both the Rebate and the giveaway Blair has “negotiated” though I note Sir Anthony Meyer thinks Blair is strong on “presentation” and hopless on “negotiation”.
Chirac is now praising Blair, that fact ought to tell you all you need to know.
Is there a country, ethnic group, organisation, political party that Blair has yet to cave-in to ?
This maggot once stood up in the House of Parliament and said that Britains EU rebate was not up for offer.
Now it’s gone, and we have nothing in return.
This is the best example of “surrender” you could ever hope for.
So why are the BBC saying different ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4536932.stm
…”Home Secretary Charles Clakre”.
Posted at Saturday, 17 December 2005, 00:44 GMT and still there.
BBC Mole (Dan? Steve?) – please pass this on.
Anon
Love it!
I see advertising job vacancies in the Grauniad really works.
“A big Henry Moore sculpture worth $5.3m is driven away by thiefs from a gallery in southern England.”
The plural of ‘thief’, of course, is only ‘thieves’. Hmmm, carrying on tonight’s lesson in BBC-English: let’s conjugate verbs… I am patriot, you are a freedom fighter, he is a militant, they are terro… cough…. ahem.
“Well actually DubJon Ulster IS NOT British. Check your Passport it says “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” It is entirely accurate and non biased to describe and distinguish that an agent in Northern Ireland was working for the “British.”
It’s not biased to be accurate
A Lurker | 17.12.05 – 6:16 pm | # ”
Well actually Lurker I think you’re talking through your rectum.
1) It may well be the United Kingdom of of blah blah blah, but last time I checked the atlas these WERE the BRITISH ISLES (which “actually” includes Ireland)
2) In any case, haven’t most of the Troubles been caused by the Ulster folk wanting to BE British (ie refusing to be Irish), “actually”?
Cheers.
As clarification: that headline is on the front page of the International Edition of the website rather than the UK version. Literacy, rather like charity, obviously begins at home.
Kulibar Tree:
“2) In any case, haven’t most of the Troubles been caused by the Ulster folk wanting to BE British (ie refusing to be Irish), “actually”?”
Ulster of course is,geographically, in both NI and ROI.
I think you will find that it is the other way round and that the Troubles have been caused by the Ulster[NI] Irish not wanting to be British and wanting political unification with the rest of Ireland.
The Ulster[NI] British still want Union with GB hence the naming of their political parties to include the word ‘Unionist’.
Steve
The BBC’s excuse for being biased against the Thatcher government was an open admission that it felt it had a duty to attack the government in power. So according to the BBC it should have a bias against the government in power – only they seem to operate this against Conservative governments but not against Labour ones.
However I would disagree that this is neutral anyway. They make no menion of the policy background, and the failure of Blair to stick to that policy he promised months ago. Without mentioning that Blair vowed not to give up any of the “rebate” unless changes were made to the CAP then the political implications of the cave in cannot be seen. Therefore by ignoring that background this report is biased in favour of the government, a reversal of their stated position during Conservative government.
The ‘thiefs’ spelling mistake has been corrected now. Glad to see that someone at the BBC is reading these pages 🙂
If the BBC wanted to remain neutral, then it should’ve said “Blair surrenders rebate, critics say” or something like that. It’s what they usually do anyway. And given that the rebate is certainly the main talking point of the summit, I would’ve thought that his giving up of the rebate should’ve figured somewhere in the headline.
I agree with those who say that the Times headline is more judgemental, but the BBC is there to *report the news* and not mentioning the rebate in its headline is a failure to do that.
The BBC were pretty judgemental about seven in the morning.
“It would be unreasonable to expect the poorer Eastern European countries to pay for Britians rebate”
The one consolation about the extra £350 a year on top of what we already lose to the EU is that people in this country realise what a shoody deal they get from this club-even the BBC will have trouble countering that
i do not necessarily disagree with billy on using the word “surrender” in such a headline, although i have a nagging suspicion the beeb is not always so neutral (to the point of blandness!)…
i mean, weren’t they rather forthright recently in their (IMHO) insistence on implying a connection between plumbing and terrorism, in obvious disregard to the likely offence many plumbers would take?
i mean, to make the neautral headline, plumbing had to be fair and therefore relevant, right?
sorry about repetition of “i mean”
and i do so like “just a minute!” – you’d think i would know better!
The term “British” agent would be OK if said agent were operating in the ROI.
Usual disclaimer: “A Lurker” is not this one.
Richard
To right.This is why the BBC has become dangerous to us all. Since 1997 it has become sadly obvious that their healthy scutiny of the Tory goverment has to say the least not been repeated. I cant remember one single thing the Torys did for 18 years,which was not hammered in every perceivable way. The diference to anyone that was paying attention is truly shocking. The fact that we are being forced to pay for it just adds insult to terminal injury. It must be closed down. Or two thousand years of bloody history will have been in vain. This country has now elected the crazy party 3 times thanks very largly to the BBC. We are now finding out why previous generations were wise enough not to have done this before. This democracy is no longer working in the interests of its people. IT DOES NOT GET MORE SERIOUS THAN THAT.Depresssed?…you should be.
As the British goverment seems to have had succesfully infultrated the Irish Republican organisation. It begs the question as to why they could not have simply arrested the buggers,30years ago,and saved 4000 lives.
I’m with Billy on this one. ‘surrender’ is way too politically loaded word and see nothing wrong with the BBC version.
A rather weak example of bias.
the bbc’s war against america
there is a daily kick at the united states.
todays delight:
“bush got a poke in the face”
Kulibar Tree wrote:
“Well actually Lurker I think you’re talking through your rectum.
1) It may well be the United Kingdom of of blah blah blah, but last time I checked the atlas these WERE the BRITISH ISLES (which “actually” includes Ireland)
2) In any case, haven’t most of the Troubles been caused by the Ulster folk wanting to BE British (ie refusing to be Irish), “actually”?
Cheers.
Kulibar Tree | 17.12.05 – 7:10 pm | #”
Sorry to be pedantic but I think it is Kulibar Tree who is in need of a protologist – for it s/he that is talking out of their rectum.
First of all I am surpspirsed the by you quoting an atlas as an arguement. If, as I suspect, like many of the people who read B-BBC you are right of centre, then I would exepct that you would place more importantce upon the constitutional position rather than an atlas. Constitutionally it is “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” Constitutionally there is no place such as the “British Isles” it purely a geographcic term such as Scandanavia. Frankly I am surprised that you would argue that a map term takes precedence over a constitutional term. And to be honest I’m pretty sure most folk on this forum would agree that the constitutional term takes precedence.
BillyCorgan, Ashley Pomeroy, steve:
The point you miss is that whilst the BBC are bending over backwards to present the EU deal in a very impartial, non-critical way, they pick and choose who and what subjects they choose to handle with kid gloves or alternatively, with a Humphries grilling. This is how they present the Iraq war in an impartial, non-critical way:
Newsnight: “Allies on Trial”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4507010.stm
The BBC would never broadcast pieces on the EU in this way. Why? Can you answer this question? This is the biased reporting that we talk of here, day in, day out.
The BBC could ask Simon Jenkins to come on the ‘Today’ prog to defend his remarks made today in the Sunday Times:
“This protectionist cartel is internally corrupt and externally a menace to global trade and peace.”
Blair set out for Waterloo and found himself at Dunkirk
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1937829,00.html
Will they?
More on Blair, the piss-poor ‘negotiator’:
Irish EU money safe as Chirac outsmarts Blair
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-1937985,00.html
The Irish delegation also succeeded in restoring €500m that had previously been cut in rural development spending. Ahern says that farmers can be reassured that farm subsidies will not be altered before 2014.
Newsnight: “Allies on Trial”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/progr…ght/ 4507010.stm
The BBC would never broadcast pieces on the EU in this way. Why? Can you answer this question? This is the biased reporting that we talk of here, day in, day out.
Quite so. Will any Beeboid lurker care to tell us when we might see “The UN on Trial”, or “The EU on Trial” on the BBC?
A Lurker,
I live in a place called England, but “constitutionally” its pretty hard to find. Still call myself English though, even at the risk of getting misunderstood in a constitutionally correct gathering.
What do you call nationals of the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND NORTHERN IRELAND? UKers?? UKists??
“Well actually DubJon Ulster IS NOT British. Check your Passport it says “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”
Well actually A Lurker you’re being disengenuous (and not pedantic) to cling to that view. While the former province of Ulster comprises 9 counties, (three of which of a part of the ROI), in “common usage” Ulster is used to denote Northern Ireland. Check the standard reference point on English usage (Oxford English dictionary) if you don’t believe me.
And to anticipate your follow up, “British” is defined as: of or relating to Great Britain or the United Kingdom or to its people or language.
So yes, to describe a government agent operating in a part of Britain is as redundant as calling a policeman patrolling London as British.
My advice not that anyone will pay attention to it, is that the whole imperalist debate on Ireland and Scotland has very much moved on. I sugest that England is now the victim of a cultural and political takeover. The Scotish now run England. The Scotish political class HATE ENGLAND and everthing it stands for, with a passion. This has been radicaly encouraged and promoted by The Scotish BBC since the Thatcher goverment. This deliberate destruction of England is motivated by revenge for perceived past injustices. The New Labour and Liberal parties are infested with this cancer and it is a large part of the motivation for their exsistance in politics. Apart from the money and power. If the BBC was able to be balanced and impartial it would balance its bias with English independance. This is the present undemocratic injustice here. There would hardly ever have been a Labour goverment if England was independant. The lack of Tories in Scotland was and still is constantly highlighted by the BBC but hardly a mention of the fact that nearly the entire rulers(and BBC presenters and producers) of England are not English. The corruption of the Scotish and Irish political system because of this is also never impartialy discused by the BBC. New Labours policy is that they could never get the English Turkeys to vote for Christmas,(although they have tried) so they just change the Turkeys to non English ones of any discription. The political division between urban and rural life is now compleat,this is also never debated. Scotish nationalists have been conspiring with Europe, mainly the French,to distroy England for a Thousand years. It seems they have finally succeeded.
Depressed and ashamed?….you should be.
Also I would like to make the point that the main purpose of EU farming subsidies is simply to bribe Europes reactionary forces to silence. That is why this criminal and imoral practice is so hard to reform. French farmers just wont stand for it. There co-operation is central to this nazi organisations political survival. Break this vast murderous political corruption and the dimming light of FREEDOM may be at least visable.
Sam Roony wrote:
“I live in a place called England, but “constitutionally” its pretty hard to find. Still call myself English though, even at the risk of getting misunderstood in a constitutionally correct gathering.
What do you call nationals of the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND NORTHERN IRELAND? UKers?? UKists??”
I was born in and live in England and I call my self English too.
The issue here is whether the BBC were biaed in calling a an agent wotking in Northern Ireland “British.” All I was trying to point out that I didn’t think it was the case as Nothern Ireland wasn’t part of Britain but part of the UK. Given that NI isn’t in Britain it is accurate to describe an agent as “British” without being biased.
Jack Bauer wrote:
“Well actually A Lurker you’re being disengenuous (and not pedantic) to cling to that view. While the former province of Ulster comprises 9 counties, (three of which of a part of the ROI), in “common usage” Ulster is used to denote Northern Ireland. Check the standard reference point on English usage (Oxford English dictionary) if you don’t believe me.
And to anticipate your follow up, “British” is defined as: of or relating to Great Britain or the United Kingdom or to its people or language.
So yes, to describe a government agent operating in a part of Britain is as redundant as calling a policeman patrolling London as British.”
I am surprised that you would rather use a dictionary as a more important reference material than a passport when debating constitutional issues. Is a UK passport incorrect cos the OED says so?
The BBC may well not always report accurately and it may even be biased but I think the campaign against the BBC is made to look pretty ridiculous when people start to argue that the OED has a greater weight than a passport on matters relating to constitutional issues. Sometimes it’s better to just admit that you are wrong than arguing an absurd position.
The BBC trumpet
Dance show ratings beat X Factor
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4539122.stm
Well thank goodness that we are forced to provide the BBC with £3 billion pa, otherwise this essential public service programme might never have been made.
A Lurker: You are wrong. Northern Ireland is British, people from Northern Ireland are British by default. They are also entitled to declare themselves as Irish, and thus obtain an Irish passport.
As I understand it, citizens of the Republic born before 1948 have an automatic right to a British passport if they want one, those born later have to be naturalised. Britain and Ireland have a special relationship anyway – citizens of the Republic are allowed to vote and stand in UK general elections – not something that any other nationality has, EU or not.
It’s all a moot point anyway – in the context of Dennis Donaldson, it’s reasonable to refer to him as a British agent – there are so many different groups and players in the murky world of Northern Irish terrorism that it’s helpful to be clear exactly who he was an agent for.
Gary Powell: Utter crap.
A lurker
Instead of wasting your time on semantics( if that is how you spell it ) The BBC does not bother to use the language properly and they all have University educations. But we all hear now know what they really MEAN,and we know its not for our good. As for describing anything on this site as “a campaigne against the BBC” is to tottaly misunderstand this site. If only it was.
If it was it would organise protests on the street, or at least lobby parliament. This site just plays some kind of numbers game, designed to impress I dont know who.