General BBC-related comment thread:

Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated.

Bookmark the permalink.

373 Responses to General BBC-related comment thread:

  1. Stephanie clague says:

    The BBC ‘TOADY SHOW’ and Sarah Montague are in full damage limitation mode with regard to the crooked loans to the Labour party.
    According to Montague, the lesson is that “all parties must learn humility” Er… Its the Labour party in the dock NOT the Libdems or the Tories!
    Its the same story as the NR fiasco and the stolen ID disks, the TOADIES rush to paper over the facts and try to lay blame on other parties, I wonder where the BBC trust is? perhaps in conference with Gordon Brown deciding what the party line will be?


  2. Oscar says:

    Stephanie – couldn’t agree more. And did you catch Katya Adler’s report? Using the Annapolis conference as a pretext they announced ‘the right of return would be a key issue’ which allowed Adler to give us a highly emotive (and entirely unfactual) report complete with anguished Palestinian refugee in Lebanon yearning to return to her village, and unfeeling Israeli of English origin sweeping aside Palestinian rights. Oh how happy they all were down at the Toady programme peddling their bias.

    Also did you notice how Alchemy CEO, Jon Molton’s interview explaining just how sweet the sweetheart deal with Virgin is on NR suddenly started to break up at key points, even tho’ he was in a radio car and not on a mobile. Naughtie was almost sniggering as he ‘apologised’ for only “90%” of the interview being heard. Sabotage? – surely not ….


  3. The Fat Contractor says:

    Have the BBC pointed out any close financial links between Northern Rock, its ex-chairman, Virgin Finance, Richard Branson and the Labour Party? Are there any links to report? Should we be told?

    It seems not.


  4. random says:

    Look on the BBC website for news of the defection of a respected Lib Dem MEP to the Conservatives. You have to go all the way to UK Politics, there’s nothing on the main UK news page. Even then it is not one of the top stories, set below sycophantic “news” of a Brown speech that hasn’t even happened yet!

    Apparently it has been missing from BBC broadcast news bulletins too, although I have not watched or listened to any so cannot confirm that.

    Does not compare with the way defections from the Conservative party of relatively minor members have been treated.


  5. Michael Taylor says:

    Yes, I particularly liked the way the Today programme has identified the various disgraces as “controversies”. Love that use of language!

    The casual trashing of 25m people’s privacy by the state: scandal or “controversy”? The collapse of Northern Rock despite having an ok balance sheet, and the subsequent open-ended government funding: scandal or “controversy”? The covert financing of Labour Party via NE real estate man’s bagmen? scandal or “controversy” (actually, “strictly speaking, it seems to be illegal” was the embarrassed line from Today’s reporter). The full-scale assault on government’s policy of ill-equipping our soldiers for their wars: scandal or “controversy”. Well, on that last one, there might actually be room for two positions so . . . . No Mention At All from the Today programme.

    Bias, Propaganda, or just systematic debasement of language?

    Scandal or “controversy”?


  6. Matthew says:

    Lib Dem MEP defects to Tories. Where does the BBC think this news appears?
    not any of the headlines

    Hmm, try the Politics section

    not any of the headlines there either; just listed under “OTHER TOP STORIES”

    Obviously defections TO the Tories are less newsworthy than those FROM the Tories in the eyes of the BBC


  7. Lee Moore says:

    As other people have pointed out, this opportunity for Jack Straw to pump out Labour’s take on events, uninterrupted by the contrary view given by David Davis for the Tories on the same programme, was the UK version of the BBC website’s top story all yesterday.

    Labour woes ‘no Black Wednesday’

    Today, this • another workaday speech to be given by Gordon Brown • maybe his twentieth “vision” speech in the last few months – is the second top story :

    Brown outlining ‘long term’ plans

    The BBC’s coverage has been noticeably friendlier to the government than Sky’s recently. For example during the recent military spending story, the BBC tickertape was running “Brown hits back over military spending” while Sky was running “Brown forced to defend criticism on military spending.”

    I think the BBC have been badly rattled by the last couple of months. It was all very well giving Cameron a relatively soft ride when he was just part of the campaign to get rid of Tony Blair and there was little real chance of finishing up with a Tory government. But now that Gordon Brown is cratering, some of them can see the appalling prospect of a Tory government a couple of years off. I expect BBC bias to get even worse, if Labour doesn’t bounce back soon.


  8. Bryan says:

    Stranger than fiction: apart from Owen Bennet Jones on Newshour telling us that he thought Australia’s apporoach to global warming is “a bit whishy-washy,” and Hugh Sykes on the same programme producing a particularly gross example of bias against Israeli “settlers”, much of what I heard on the World Service yesterday approached normal, responsible, balanced journalism.

    We had Owen Bennet Jones on The Interview actually challenging Walt and Mearsheimer’s twisted concept of the “Israel lobby” and telling them that he didn’t feel they had backed up their proposition with evidence:

    And then we had a gentleman I hadn’t heard before hosting a fiery Have Your Say debate on Israel-Palestine without any discernible bias:

    The fact that the BBC did not cuddle up to the Palestinians during the programme led to the folowing bemused reaction on the website from someone who was evidently looking forward to the usual pro-Palestinian bias:

    Added: Sunday, 25 November, 2007, 19:23 GMT 19:23 UK

    Just watched the recorded discussion of this topic, and it is seemed very different from most programs. It was very stage managed with each person speaking their assigned role and a bizarre unbalanced picture of the situation was presented.On the one hand the Palestinian “terrorist” woman, on the other the Israeli whose family members had died. No dead Palestinians?
    Very disappointing. Usually these programs enlighten. That did not appear to be the goal of this show.

    [saranac], Boston, United States

    Recommended by 14 people

    Funny, they are having a problem with the video recording. I couldn’t link to it:

    And the audio recording is interrupted for a few minutes at around 25 minutes in by what sounds like a mob on the rampage and then silence. Weird. Maybe the Palestinians attacked the audio.


  9. Dr R says:

    Just to add, in her predictably emotional, agitprop report of Palestinian refugees Adler failed to make any mention of the estimated 700,000 Jewish refugees who were robbed and kicked out of the Arab countries.

    Have a look at

    But of course, only holy, blameless Palestinians have a narrative in Beeboidland.


  10. John Reith says:

    Bryan | 25.11.07 – 10:34 pm |

    …. admit that your poor attempt to defend the BBC in this instance has been thoroughly and ably demolished by the contributors above.

    No. On the contrary, what I have done (and not for the first time) has been to flush out you and some others here as the apologists for murder you are • the sort of people that Melanie Phillips warns ‘give Israel a bad name.’

    Unlike you and your friends here, Bryan, Israel itself has never sought to justify the attack on the UN post at Khiam.

    Zvipi Livni immediately issued a statement expressing her sorrow and explaining the that the attack was an accident. She forcefully rejected the idea that Israel would ever mount such an attack deliberately. “There will never be an [Israeli] army commander that will intentionally aim at civilians or UN soldiers”, she said.

    Ehud Olmert made a public statement of apology.( He had previously given a personal promise to Kofi Annan that UN facilities would not be fired-on.) It was, Israel said, ‘an operational level mistake’. Again, Olmert was at pains to point out that Israel would never do such a thing deliberately.

    And the IDF set up an internal inquiry which concluded that the attack was due to ‘severe professional errors’ by frontline units.

    Meanwhile, you and gharqad and (to a lesser extend David S) are cheerfully accusing Israel of a war crime it didn’t commit!

    Some might see it as some considerable irony that Israel stands accused of infamy by its own shills, while it’s left to BBC-defenders to put the record straight. But I recognize it as all of a piece with your warped moral outlook.


  11. BaggieJonathan says:

    Youths of unknown racial or religious background go on the rampage in Paris.

    Well that would be your conclusion if you only read the BBC…


  12. Bryan says:

    …flush out you and some others here as the apologists for murder you are

    You are crossing the line here Reith. Giving your anti-Israel attitude freer than usual rein, are you? Pity I don’t have the time for a rebuttal right now, except to say that obviously the Israelis were aiming at Hezbollah, not the UN personnel. Contrast that with your average Arab terrorist’s concern about targetting UN personnel. Does Iraq in 2003 strike a bell? Recall how many UN personnel were deliberately blown up and killed by Arab terrorists there? I believe the death toll was in the twenties. Funny, I don’t recall any words like “contempt” being flung at the Arabs then by the BBC.

    That entire motley BBC crew “reporting” on the Middle East should be fired, or if the BBC can’t bring itself to do the right thing here then they should be given more suitable employment, like cleaning the floors.


  13. John Reith says:

    Bryan | 26.11.07 – 11:28 am

    Giving your anti-Israel attitude freer than usual rein, are you?

    No-one reading what I wrote above could fairly construe any of it as ‘anti-Israel’.

    You must learn to distinguish criticism of Bryan from criticism of Israel. They’re not the same thing!

    obviously the Israelis were aiming at Hezbollah, not the UN personnel..

    Not content with implying that they’re war criminals, now you’re casting the IDF as some kind of ragtag army that can’t shoot straight.

    The accident didn’t happen because they were aiming at Hezb but hit the UN observers by mistake…. check out the IDF’s own inquiry and you’ll see how the error did come about.

    Fortunately, Israel’s leaders exercise a faculty for moral discrimination that you appear to lack. Olmert, Livni and the IDF all agree it is wrong to fire on unarmed UN observers, even when they’re being used as human shields. You, by contrast, argue that it’s perfectly okay.

    Giving Israel a bad name.

    It’s what you do.


  14. Allan@Oslo says:

    The BBC vows “no Black Wednesday”. If there were one, the BBC wouldn’t report it. As an aside,
    Gordon Brown’s sale of half of the UK’s gold reserves has a market loss of how much? Is this figure to be found easily on the BBC?


  15. Infection says:

    Al beeb is at it again and again lionizing that appalling anti-Semite Desmond Tutu. The best rebuttal to Tutu’s bigotry is from a former slave in the Sudan. Here he is:


  16. John Reith spins in his grave says:


    There’s a piece of information missing from your extensive documentation of the Israel/UN conflict.

    During the six hours that the UN was calling the Israelis 10 – 14 times to cease fire, how many times did they call Nasrallah to move his rocket launchers away from the UN post?

    By the way – I wouldn’t rely too heavily on John Young’s “Cryptome Eyeball” site for your world view, he’s been investigated by the FBI for “endangering US interests and possibly assisting terrorism”.

    Actually, come to think of it, that fits the BBC world view pretty well – I bet you’ve all got it in your IE Favourites.


  17. Stephanie clague says:

    So John Reith, Im an “appologist for Murder”? and you have “flushed me out”? Oh dear, getting angry are we? Your anger betrays you JR and I can see my post has touched a nerve! But lets leave aside the insults and slurs on my character as such low insults demean the argument.
    Hezbollah have shown themselves to be remorsless killers and totally without morals of any kind. Time after time proof of their cruelty and their criminal behaviour has been freely available to BBC journalists but the BBC only chooses to show Hezbollah propaganda and tell Islamist lies. We all noticed that you didnt answer other points in my post about the ‘war crimes’ commited by Hezbollah, I again wonder why?
    The truth is that the UN post WAS being used by Hezbollah fighters as cover, just as they used human shields and hospitals for their rocket attacks Etc.
    War is a terrible thing where mistakes are made and if you add in the dirty tactics of terrorists like hezbollah then it becomes even worse. Your angry outburst is very revealing to all here and says much about the how low the BBC has fallen in standards that a spokesman like you cannot answer simple allegations without demeaning and insulting anyone who dares to question your political views.
    I should thank you for the insults as they show me that I am on the right track.

    Get your ‘facts’ right next time, Olmert did NOT appologise or admit singular guilt, he offered REGRET about the death of the UN soldier, while he expessed his view that the primary cause of the accident was indeed that Hezbollah fighters were in and around the compound and were using the UN as a shield with which to launch attacks! So JR instead of sinking to your level by accusing you of lying, I will say you are mistaken?


  18. Gerald Brown says:

    Anyone in any doubt about the BBC view of the Howard years in Australia?

    Saturday morning Radio 4 news summing up by the local coorepondent would leave no one in doubt. Whats the betting that the benefit of dragging the Australian economy into the real world will be frittered away by an incoming government with a good majority that hasn’t been in power for a while.

    Now just where have I seen that before. But doubtlessly the BBC will fawn on the new “left of centre” government, unless it chooses to attack somewhere like Iraq!

    Now just where have I seen that before!


  19. pounce says:

    The BBC its love for Hamas and half a story.

    Hamas dismisses Middle East talks
    The Islamist movement, Hamas, has said Palestinians will not be bound by any decisions taken at this week’s US-backed Middle East peace conference. Ismail Haniya, a leader of the group that is not attending the talks, said discussions would be “fruitless”.
    Hamas, which is designated a terrorist organisation by the US, EU and Israel, is not represented at Annapolis at all.

    and here is what the BBC left out.
    Hamas official says deadlier rockets can be developed in short period to fire at Israel
    Hamas can make the rockets it fires at Israel much deadlier by packing them with more explosives, a senior official in the Islamic militant group said in a statement Saturday.The official, Ahmed Yousef, made the threat just two days before the start of a U.S.-hosted Mideast conference in Annapolis, Maryland. Hamas opposes the conference, saying the time is not right for negotiations with Israel because the Palestinians are weak and divided.Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel, says Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who is leading the Palestinian delegation in Annapolis, does not have a mandate to negotiate.
    The BBC its love for Hamas and half a story.


  20. Robin says:

    John Reith illustrates yet again that most BBC figures know only one way to deal with concern about the Corporation’s journalism – either to say ‘we know better’ or to slur the motives of those making a complaint.

    The correct way would be to investigate properly,swiftly and above all, independently, but that would be too simple.

    Instead, there’s endless prevarication – and mud-slinging. Those who exist in over-bloated, protected environments sure know how to scratch and scream and shout when it comes to protecting themselves.


  21. backwoodsman says:

    Perhaps the Toady prog might like to get their economics editor to tell them what the cost of black wednesday was to the economy, in comparison to nulabs latest little whoopsies.
    Then when the next nulab muppet mentions it, they can correct them and explain that northern rock has comfortably exceeded the cost on its own.


  22. John Reith says:

    Stephanie clague | 26.11.07 – 1:37 pm

    So John Reith, Im an “apologist for Murder”? and you have “flushed me out”?

    No Stephanie. Much as you may wish to be the centre of attention, I wasn’t referring to you. As linked, I was talking about exchanges involving Bryan ghaqad and David S.

    I can see my post has touched a nerve!

    Afraid not. What post?

    Hezbollah have shown themselves to be remorsless killers …

    Err….yes. So what?

    The truth is that the UN post WAS being used by Hezbollah fighters as cover….

    Yes. I know that. You know that. Everyone knows that. That was never disputed.

    War is a terrible thing where mistakes are made …

    Yet another statement of the bleedin’ obvious.

    It’s funny, but with the exception of climate change (when you manage to focus) you always seem to get the wrong end of every stick.

    Now let me make it easy for you:

    Do you believe –

    A. That Israel deliberately attacked the Al-Khiam observation post and intentionally killed the UN observers inside….and that Israel was entirely justified in taking such action because Hezbollah rocket crews were setting up in the grounds around the post?

    or do you believe –

    B. That maps and other targeting papers used by the IDF mistakenly labelled the site an ‘enemy position’ with no mention of its UN status… and as a result, the post was destroyed in an accidental attack.

    Bryan and others have been arguing in favour of A.

    I have been arguing in favour of B.

    The government of Israel supports my interpretation. That’s B.

    Now, which is it? A or B?

    Now it may be that you and Bryan etc are members of some nutcase extremist group …. I don’t know.

    But you aren’t doing Israel any favours when you seek to excuse what would have been a war crime – but wasn’t ‘cos it didn’t happen!

    As for Olmert’s ‘non-apology’ – you are wrong.

    Here’s Finnish Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen:

    Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has sent me a personal letter to … offer an apology for what happened. In his letter, Mr Olmert states that the Israeli government admits that the loss of the military observers was a consequence of errors made by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF). According to Mr Olmert, the Israeli government has stated that it will take measures to ensure that such errors do not occur in future.


  23. Stephanie clague says:


    Perhaps the BBC could ‘investigate the link between the share price crash, Nulabs pet capitalist buying up £200 BILLION of assets for mere pennies(now thats great leverage), NRs former chairman running his company into the ground while selling his shares at the top of the market and Gordon Brown ordering a massive injection of taxpayer cash with no gaurantee of repayment?
    What we do know is that lots of people got rich while lots of little people lost their nest eggs!
    How much money did NuLabour get out of the NR collapse? How many executives will become knighted? How many pensioners have seen their shares turn to dust while those at the top got rich?
    The BBC should be asking those questions but they wont will they?


  24. Ben says:

    “How many pensioners have seen their shares turn to dust while those at the top got rich?”

    Investing in shares is always risky. You should never invest money you can’t afford to lose. That’s the nature of the game – surprisingly they can go down as well as up.


  25. R. Jones says:

    Firstly I should say I am not a Jew but I did spend some time working in Israel and have taken an interest in their history and I believe I hold a fairly impartial view. I listened in with disbelief this morning to Katya Adler’s report. If anybody is looking for evidence of BBC’s anti- Israeli bias then here is a classic example. She stated that the refugees were driven out by Israeli armies. What armies did she think Israel had in 1948? Settlers, men and women armed and organised themselves for self defense, but from my research the reason why most Arabs left was because they were advised to by their leaders because the newly formed Israel was about to be attacked by all of the Arab countries surrounding it. Their intention was to obliterate Israel, but as we know they did not succeed. The Arabs who fled were kept by their Muslim brothers as refugees in camps ever since. They were not absorbed into the larger communities of these enormous countries as they could easily have been. Even now children born in camps are not given nationality or passport. They have been clearly kept to fester their resentment and have become the terrorists of Hamas, Hezbolla etc. etc. Those that ignored the advice to leave make up Israel’s present (20% ) Arab population who have full rights as citizens.
    None of this was mentioned in this report nor the fact that the fledgling Israel absorbed 800,000 Jews who had lived in Arab countries and were driven out by force in fear for their lives.
    As a British citizen it is utterly sickening to see the BBC distort issues such as this. I wish to God I knew why they were doing it, and why they are spending thousands of taxpayers money trying to suppress the Balen report which is said to reveal their anti-Israeli bias.


  26. John Reith says:

    Whoaaaa LIBEL ALERT!!!

    Stephanie’s cavalier way with facts and details neatly illustrated here:

    NRs former chairman running his company into the ground while selling his shares at the top of the market…

    Stephanie clague | 26.11.07 – 2:28 pm

    She points the finger clearly at Matt Ridley.

    I suspect she actually has Adam Applegarth in mind.

    These little distinctions matter, Stephanie.


  27. Stephanie clague says:

    John Reith,

    How about you look at Fridays posts? You will find my post along with the others and a reply to your post. Why do you feel the need to be so insulting? why do you feel the need for the personal attack John Reith?
    I found the Finnish link quite revealing! The letter from Olmert was not shown was it? “Offer of appology” thats the phrase to think about isnt it? It only shows just how diplomacy works.
    Put simply the offer was a restricted and limited way of resolving a diplomatic problem as you know full well.
    I leave it to the others you attack to reply but I want you to know that should you wish to reply to my posts then at least try be civil(if you can).


  28. John Reith says:

    Stephanie clague | 26.11.07 – 3:04 pm


  29. Stephanie clague says:

    John Reith cannot help himself can he? “libel alert” I asked some questions and nothing more. If Im “cavalier with the facts” John, then what are you when faced with bias proof that you have no answer for? shall we call you the invisible man? or how about McCavitys cat? My post was to question why the BBC seem unwilling to investigate the murky facts behind this disaster.

    Dear Ben,

    The shareholders I talk about are the original investors who got shares when the BS turned into a bank. These people were not buying and selling shares, in the main they were ordinary people sitting on what they thought was a nest egg and now their nest egg is worthless.



  30. John Reith says:

    Stephanie clague | 26.11.07 – 3:04 pm

    A or B Steph?

    Which is it?


  31. John Reith says:

    Stephanie clague | 26.11.07 – 3:17 pm

    I asked some questions and nothing more.

    Wrong. You defamed Matt Ridley.

    I quote:

    NRs former chairman running his company into the ground while selling his shares at the top of the market ….

    So far as I know the former chairman sold no shares.


  32. Dr R says:

    John Reith.

    Big deal. The BBC routinely defames whole groups of people. Your attitude shows the venal tendentiousness and preciousness that is part and parcel of the Beeboid mind, especially in its senior ranks.

    Matt who?

    Grow up.


  33. John Reith says:

    R. Jones | 26.11.07 – 2:46 pm

    Firstly I should say I am not a Jew… I listened in with disbelief this morning to Katya Adler’s report. If anybody is looking for evidence of BBC’s anti- Israeli bias then here is a classic example.

    Well Mr Jones, according to – the voice of Jewish pop-culture on the net, Ms Adler is Jewish.


  34. John Reith says:

    Dr R | 26.11.07 – 3:29 pm

    I assume the moderators would prefer defamatory remarks to be withdrawn or corrected – if only for safety’s sake.

    Funny kind of respect for truth you’ve got when someone pointing out that slurs are being directed at the wrong man is accused of being tendentious and precious.

    Matt who?

    Ridley – as in nephew of former Conservative cabinet minister Nick Ridley and son of the 4th Viscount

    An unlikely candidate to be part of Stephanie’s imagined NuLab plot.


  35. Ben says:

    “These people were not buying and selling shares, in the main they were ordinary people sitting on what they thought was a nest egg and now their nest egg is worthless.”

    So what Stephanie, I like many people gained some HBOS shares but I’d have been a fool to keep them given their poor performance. NR is just an extreme case. Shares aren’t worth anything until they’ve been sold and the proceeds are in your account as cash. Responsibility lies with the individual.


  36. Oscar says:

    Well Mr Jones, according to – the voice of Jewish pop-culture on the net, Ms Adler is Jewish.

    John Reith – Hadn’t you heard – there are plenty of anti-Zionist Jews about. Being Jewish proves absolutely nothing when it comes to BBC bias against Israel. I suspect Tim Franks is also Jewish and it doesn’t stop him turning in utterly biased reports. Once at the BBC Jewish reporters adhere to BBC groupthink as slavishly (if not more so) than the rest. So don’t try this tired gambit. Katya Adler’s report was an appalling case of emotive manipulation without any objective, informed reporting. Her origins make no difference whatsoever to that fact.


  37. random says:

    John Reith

    What does Adler’s race or faith have to do with it? It doesn’t make the report any more truthful, and it doesn’t make the lies any more palatable.

    A lot of posts here, but no answer even attempted to several cases of bias. Today defending Labour’s receipt of illegal donations? Important defection from LibDem to Conservatives? Claim that there can be controversy over the loss of 25 million people’s private information, when in fact it is universally viewed in a negative light (of course).

    Does your ignoring these issues mean that you accept that there is bias?


  38. Poor boy says:

    Stephanie: Since you jumped into an argument with Reith – taking offence at comments which were clearly not addressed to you – the least you could do is answer his question.

    A or B? I think we should know.


  39. John Reith says:

    random | 26.11.07 – 5:01 pm

    No, these allegations of bias are groundless – like so many others mounted here.

    Let’s take the Labour donation story for a start.

    The BBC has certainly not been ‘defending’ Labour on this.

    In fact, it was a BBC interviewer who moved the story on today by securing the testimony of the husband of one of the supposedly ‘free will’ donors:

    Michael Kidd, Mrs Kidd’s husband, told BBC Radio Five Live his wife had been given the money by Mr Abrahams “with the clear instruction to donate it to the Labour Party”.

    “It was never a gift. She did it because she works for him part-time and she saw it as part of her job. She was given no money to do this,” he added.

    The supposedly unreported Lib Dem defection is fully reported here:

    A Liberal Democrat MEP has defected to the Conservatives, saying the Lib Dems had “lost their way”.

    Sajjad Karim, MEP for the North West of England, said he had been impressed by David Cameron’s speech on immigration.

    And what is controversial about the data loss is not the fact of it – obviously – but who should bear the responsibility for it.

    As usual – trumped up cases of bias based on mere assertion by green-ink cranks.


  40. field.size says:

    This is well worth reading, puts a large question mark over the “inside” knowledge of Journalists.


  41. Lurkingblackhat says:

    Good Grief.

    R4 17:38

    Talk about trying to play something down.

    Labour Party General Secretary resigns as he knew about the disguised gifts of £380,000 from the boy Abrahams to the Labour Party.

    Guess the link from Rita Chakrabarti?

    I paraphrase…”we understood over the weekend that the electoral law was not clear that using proxies for donations was illegal”.

    Who the heck was she listening to?

    New Labour spin machine?

    Certainly not this….

    Certainly not Martin Bell who was on straight after saying

    “against the spirit and letter of the law”


    “alarm bells should have been ringing [in the Labour party] about this”

    Will update with a link from listen again when available.


  42. Gibby Haynes says:

    Are ‘BBC lawyers’ anything like BBC journalists? If so, I don’t think he’s got anything to worry about; they’ll probably i) show up at the wrong Courthouse; ii) lose all of their papers; iii) do something else really, really stupid, all of which will guarantee they’ll lose the case. Or in other words, I’m sure he’s not going to lose any sleep about it.
    Andrew is my name too. It’s the most awesome name in the history of humanity. It means ‘leader of men’ or ‘strong, manly and courageous’ or, in my case, ‘has massive balls’.


  43. Oscar says:

    On tonight’s 6 o’clock news there was a report on the poor teacher who’s been jailed in Sudan for letting her class name a teddy bear Mohammed. Nick Ravenscroft lets us know that her colleagues believe it was “an innocent oversight”. Good grief – he makes it sound as if there could be some sinister motive, implying that punishment is somehow reasonable. What would it take for the BBC to stand up against Islamo fascism? If American evangelists had detained a Brit how different would the report be?


  44. Gibby Haynes says:

    It’s a huge, pernicious plot to justify a war against the sovereign, peaceful utopian state of Sudan to steal their precious valuable resources like genocide, poverty and failure.


  45. pounce says:

    The BBC, Its hatred of the British Army and another story.

    So the BBC issues a story about how the British Army is taking up kabaddi in which to recruit the ethnic minority in the Uk.

    Utter Tosh.
    The Sport was witnessed by a number of British Soldiers in the Uk, they liked what they saw and took it up. They are in India not for recruiting as the BBC article alleges but rather to get some solid training in with the masters of the game before the kabaddi European championships to be held in January. But hey don’t take my word for it here is how the story has been reported by the Indian press;

    Even the British High Commission paints a different story than the BBC version;

    Strange how the BBC reports that they have just taken up the sport,(4 months) yet the Indian media reports that they have been taking part for over 3 years.

    The BBC, Its hatred of the British Army and another story.


  46. Martin says:

    BBC 6pm news gave the story about 4 minutes.

    Luckily turning over I saw Jeremy Thompson giving lackie Denis McShame a right good kicking.

    mcShame tried all th eusual crap, blame the Tories and the best of all that the GS of the Labour party didn’t know the rules.

    Why is NOT knowing the rules an excuse? Can I get off a speeding fine because I didn’t know the speed limit? NO.

    Can companies use the defence of ignorance to get out of their health and safety responsibilities? NO

    Of course McShame tried to bully Thompson by suggesting he was making “wild allegations”

    Perhaps it’s my imagination, but is Sky and Channel 4 news reacting to the easy time the BBC is giving Labour?


  47. Martin says:


    What rubbish. The BBC have hardly mentioned this story until this Labour pillock resigned.

    You have to have watched Sky news to see this story growing.

    The BBC have been obsessed with the Australian election all weekend.

    If you can’t say anything sensible, say nothing at all.


  48. Martin says:

    I thought perhaps THIS story might have been more prominant on the BBC website?

    After all, everyone else is talking about it.

    Also, the BBC are now using the link that the Saudi girl gang raped and sentanced to jail/lashes was having an affair? What and that’s an acceptable excuse then BBC?

    What’s the link with both these stories? Have a guess

    Oh and just out of interest I had a look at the website of LIBERTY that great defender of human rights, expecting to see both these stories high on their website.

    Libery and the BBC both playing down Islam as a barbaric and backward religion? YOU decide.

    No wonder the BBC like Shami Chakrabarti so much (just out of interest is she any relation to Rita Chakrabarti on the BBC?)


  49. Rustigjongens says:

    John Reith makes some valid points in some of his comments posted on this blog, however, John Reith seems to have become as extreme in his views as some of the bloggers here he so clearly detests.

    After a trawl through John Reith’s posts it is clear that he is passionate about the BBC, he is intolarant of opposing views and only answers posts in which he can express his narrow views, mind you this discription is also valid for a large minority of other posters.

    I would have thought that the best way to engage in debate about the BBC is to be respectful to both views, rather then trying to score points.

    On a personal note, I believe that the BBC has a centre of left bias, however, I also believe that this bias is being reduced due in no small part to Blogs such as this, and the great British public finally finding it’s voice and using other news sources to gain a balanced view on whatever is making the news.


  50. Allan@Oslo says:

    Question to JR and any other BBC employee who visits. I would like to know who are rioting in Paris: which news agency would you recommend that I consult?