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.
David Preiser (USA) | 14.01.08 – 8:46 pm,
The BBC has been covering every twist and turn claims Ray Snoddy of Newswatch re the US elections. Except for the Republican twists and turns, of course. Peter Barron was distinctly unimpressive in defence, brushing aside the objections and showing, once again, the frivolous attitude of the BBC to complaints. I’m sure he would have been even more unimpressive had Snoddy confronted him with the BBC’s extraordinary pro-Democrat bias.
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?tab=all&go=homepage&q=Newswatch&Search.x=30&Search.y=18&Search=Search&scope=all
I wonder why he didn’t. Is it really possible that nobody has complained about this blatant bias?
Mark Thompson on ‘Today’: brazen brazen BASTARD.
Reimer you got there first.
For a display of “What a decent, state-of-the-art and balanced news organisation we are, keen to promote democratic values”, collect your sick-bucket and listen to this:
“0830 We speak to BBC director general Mark Thompson about ‘Public trust’.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/
BBC on the Taleban’s speed dial.
Here is abolute proof the BBC are knowingly putting out propaganda for the Taleban.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2008/01/uk-bbc-on-terrorists-speed-dial.html
John Simpson
Great news story last night on the 10pm news, and on Today this morning about John Simpson. I mean John Simpson is so important and a great journalist, keen to be involved in derring-do. He is great and such an asset to the BBC with his hulking presence and that baseball cap! The ingenuity of this genuinely original BBC news reporter needs to be seen to be believed.
It becomes something when the reporter is the story. John Simpson was the story. Where was he? Can’t remember but he certianly left his mark!
David | 14.01.08 – 10:53 pm |
nowhere does it mention that Osborne didn’t declare because he was advised that he didn’t need to.
What makes you think that Osborne didn’t declare because he was advised he didn’t need to?
Osborne got the money in January 2007 and was ‘advised he didn’t need to’ register in December 2007.
So, for eleven months your neat little ’cause and effect’ formulation didn’t apply.
Osborne got the money in January 2007 and was ‘advised he didn’t need to’ register in December 2007.
John Reith | 15.01.08 – 9:45 am |
Sorry be clear about it.
1. The rules mean Osborne did not need to register on members interests funds given to him from Conservative Central Office to run his office. FACT.
2. In December 2007 with Labour Donordate corruption to the forefront
Osborne seeks clarification/confirmation about registration of the Central Office funds from Parliamentary Standards .
3. Parliamentary Standards CONFIRMS that he does not need to register these funds.
Which takes us neatly back to statement 1.
….errrr sorry JR what is the problem?
Muslims and smoking.
And, Muslims and Christianophobia: Muslim not selling ‘unclean’ Bible at M & S.
‘Daily Mail’ reports. BBC reports?
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/12368
JR – from your comment I see you take the line that to only declare to one of the required organisations is just as bad as failing to declare at all.Certainly not an impartial way to view the actions of Hain and Osborne.
The BBC have allowed Hain and his supporters (who seem to be allowed to appear on every news output this morning) to repeat unchallenged that it was when Hain discovered the annomaly in his donations he moved swiftly to declare them. Even the tiniest amount of research would shown this to be false – having been found out, Hain took nearly three months to declare.
Everyone can see that The Osborne and Cameron slurs were put out by Labour to try and take flak off Hain – you are doing their dirty work and you try to call this impartial?
Have you worked out yet how you are going to spin Northern Rock Nationalsiation as a Labour success yet? I am sure Evan Davies can do it- after all he told us last night that a plummeting pound was a good thing!
JR – You aren’t fooling anyone whose IQ exceeds their shoe size but you are fueling a growing number of people who want the to stop being forced to pay for this sort of obvious propaganda. Perhaps the BBC have realised the only way they will be able to keep the licence fee is by keeping Nulabour in power, no matter how corrupt they are?
Do you know the answer to this/ I think most on this site do…..
John, you say
‘Sky has revenues well in excess of 3 billion, but it produces an inferior TV product and doesn’t do radio or the internet at all.’
It produces nearly all the TV I watch. Why should I pay you to produce your TV just because I choose to watch football on Sky? If your product is so superior to that of Sky, why does your employer force me to pay for it before I’m allowed to watch Sky?
John, get a real job. Do something that people will pay for voluntarily and not just because the courts will fine them and give them a criminal record if they don’t pay you. Then you might gain some inkling of how the real world works. Your products are mainly trash, and those that aren’t have equivalents that are readily available elsewhere. Nobody need you. You need us. You need your wages, and everything you say is tainted by that fact.
Osborne got the money in January 2007 and was ‘advised he didn’t need to’ register in December 2007.
So, for eleven months your neat little ’cause and effect’ formulation didn’t apply.
John Reith | 15.01.08 – 9:45 am | #
Sorry to labour the point, JR, but you’re either woefully misinformed or lying through your teeth again.
George Osborne didn’t receive the £487,00 in January ’07.
There are no receipts by Tory central ofice recorded in Jan 07.
The bulk of the money came in between July and September 07 and was properly recorded in detail for the 07 third quarter on the Electoral Commision website (there are no figures yet for Q4 07).
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regdpoliticalparties.cfm?ec=%7Bts%20%272008%2D01%2D15%2011%3A44%3A06%27%7D
It was therefore perfectly reasonable and timely for him to raise the query in December 07 as to whether he needed declare them a second time in the member’s interests register.
Who’s feeding you this stuff? – your lefy Beeboid friends or directly from Nulab HQ I wonder.
LURKINGBLACKHAT | 15.01.08 – 10:33 am
Sorry be clear about it.
1. The rules mean Osborne did not need to register on members interests funds given to him from Conservative Central Office to run his office. FACT.
No, that isn’t a fact. It’s a moot point. It is precisely the question Sir John Lyon, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, will, in due course, adjudicate upon.
Ewan Wauchope | 15.01.08 – 10:38 am
JR – from your comment I see you take the line that to only declare to one of the required organisations is just as bad as failing to declare at all.
No, I don’t take that line at all. The line I take (personally) is that those who trumpet their support for the principle of transparency (and vote for it in the Commons) should not be looking for technical excuses not to declare. They should cheerfully declare whenever the opportunity arises. They could go even further and volunteer the information on their personal websites. If you really believe the public has a right to know this stuff, then tell ‘em • whether you have to or not.
The BBC have allowed Hain and his supporters (who seem to be allowed to appear on every news output this morning) to repeat unchallenged……
What do you mean ‘unchallenged’? The BBC has invited on every party to this dispute. One after another critic of Hain has been on. And the BBC has hardly been keeping ‘friends-of-Osborne’ off the air. They put Cameron on to defend him!
Everyone can see that The Osborne and Cameron slurs were put out by Labour to try and take flak off Hain –
Yes • I suspect you are right about that. But that doesn’t give the BBC the right to censor them out of the public debate.
I don’t understand why so many people here have trouble with the idea that a big part of ‘impartiality’ is the broadcasting of a range of (often conflicting) opinions. I can’t see that anyone in this case can fairly claim that the BBC has failed to give them a chance to put their case fairly and squarely before the public.
So when the Balen report investigated BBC “impartiality”, why did the BBC spend a shed-load of money suppressing it?
The Guardian have called into question whether the story about two twins who accidentally married is true.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2240874,00.html
Re: Hain and Osborne
As I see it, we have two senior politicians, one of whom has demonstrably broken the rules that his own party made, and another who is accused of breaking the rules, but against whom none of the allegations have been substantiated at this time.
Three questions for John Reith:
1. Do you agree with my synopsis?
2. Do you feel that the BBC’s coverage reflects the difference between Hain’s and Osborne’s cases effectively enough?
3. Several Labour politicians and stooges have been invited by the BBC to comment on George Osborne. Nothing wrong with that. Predictably much mud has been slung. Surely any journalist worth his salt would challenge such mudslinging with a simple rejoinder such as “But there is no proof that Osborne has broken the rules”, or a question such as “Do you have proof that George Osborne has broken the rules?”
Could you provide me a link, transcript or recording of any BBC journalist, anywhere, challenging a Labour party spokesmen in such a way?
Should you be unable to do so, the BBC’s journalists must be either biased or totally unfit to do their job.
John Reith | 15.01.08 – 12:02 pm:
I don’t understand why so many people here have trouble with the idea that a big part of ‘impartiality’ is the broadcasting of a range of (often conflicting) opinions.
Answer: because the BBC doesn’t broadcast a range of opinions from across the spectrum, John. It broadcasts a range of views it likes from the Left, and is able to tolerate from the Right, whilst censoring those views, facts and events that undermine its Leftist ethos.
The proof is the Neil Hamilton affair, where the BBC has censored one side of the story for the past ten years – no doubt because it shows the man to be the innocent victim of a cover-up involving forgery and perjury by the Beeb’s favourite newspaper, The Guardian.
If the BBC’s reporting of the affair was indeed impartial, as you have claimed in these columns, then why would my book and website lead intelligent news-savvy people to doubt Hamilton’s guilt of taking cash for questions, contrary to the BBC’s mantra that the man is guilty as charged?
If the BBC’s suffocating coverage of the affair had indeed been impartial, then people would not be swayed by my book and website one iota.
Your a posturing fraud, John Reith, just like the 99% that populate the BBC’s News and Current Affairs.
John,
you say
‘I can’t see that anyone in this case can fairly claim that the BBC has failed to give them a chance to put their case fairly and squarely before the public.’
Why does it matter if this statement is true or not? Many of us just have no need of the BBC at all. How it behaves is irrelevant to them.
John, please resign from your job. You are paid mainly by people who only cough up for your wages because they don’t want a fine and a criminal record. Please tell us about your input to Flog It and Eastenders.
“Abandon Ship!:
“0830 We speak to BBC director general Mark Thompson about ‘Public trust’.” ”
AS – I was particularly incensed by the way he tried to conflate mistrust of govt with delusion by citing that data (was it legit? was it part of the same poll he was citing as demonstrating ‘unhealthy tendencies’?) about widespread belief in govts withholding information on extra-terrestials. He clearly thinks it’s his job to help hold up the govt’s end – presumably that was part of the deal made after Hutton.
Reuters: London Games said to face 1 billion pound shortfall
Sky: Olympics 2012: Billion Pound Black Hole
Times: Revealed: £1 billion Olympics black hole
BBC: 2012 Games ‘black hole’ rejected
Why’s the BBC the only one to lead with the government’s rebuttal?
Anonymous:
So when the Balen report investigated BBC “impartiality”, why did the BBC spend a shed-load of money suppressing it?
Anonymous | 15.01.08 – 12:16 pm | #
Good luck with getting a response on this – JR always ignores questions where they are obviously squarely culpable.
Similarly our much loved public service information provider has been keeping to itself the results of all the polling on ‘public trust’ Mark Thompson mentioned this morning. When can we see those John? (Bearing in mind we paid for them in the first place?)
WoAD(UK)
So that’s a no then?
George R | 15.01.08 – 10:35 am | #
It is very odd that such a person would work at M & S. in the first place.
http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-marks-and-spencer.html
My daughter once encountered a demo outside the new M & S in Manchester, and was handed a leaflet which I found it in her pocket later.
As well of several factually incorrect bullet-pointed anti-Semitic allegations labeled ‘fact’ , it featured the al Dura pictures.
This was several years ago and I still find it disturbing.
re an earlier comment by the beeboid john reith team (by the way, Reith was probably a man of integrity & it’s entirely unfitting for a bunch of pro nulab trolls like yourselves to appropriate his name).
How come every week Sky can show every significant game of rugby that takes place world wide, Heineken, Air NZ cup, Curry Cup, Super 14 French Club Top 14 etc, while beeboids show zip.
How come Sky can have a channel devoted to the countryside, which actually shows country people doing country things, when beeboids can’t bring themselves to admit that country people still exist in their ‘inclusive’ Britain ?
How come the bbc can’t manage to do this, despite having a £3 billion tax on top of the money they make from programme sales etc ?
backwoodsman | 15.01.08 – 2:00 pm | #
BBC Wales does have a decent amount of rugby coverage but that doesn’t help us in England much.
“To prove we can all live together under universal laws and therefore promote understanding and end war forever.”
It’s a complete contradiction. Satire of the establishments demented and evidently already failed beliefs.
BBC supporting terrorists again. The headlines say it all.
When Palestinian terrorists attack, the BBC headline reads:
Gaza rockets kill two in Israel
Got that? Not Palestinian rockets but simply Gaza rockets.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3845731.stm
Then when Israel responded and defended itself from these Palestinian terror attacks, the BBC headline is:
Israeli Gaza City raid kills 14
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7188807.stm
Not simply “Gaza City raid…”
Just another example of the BBC supporting Palestinian terrorists.
Sue wrote;My daughter once encountered a demo outside the new M & S in Manchester, and was handed a leaflet which I found it in her pocket later. As well of several factually incorrect bullet-pointed anti-Semitic allegations labeled ‘fact’ , it featured the al Dura pictures.
It a well established fact that Arabs who visit London cut out the labels from their Marks clothing before returning home.(I’m sure that the majority of BBC staff do as well,not that I’m saying that Reith likes to walk around in ladies undies)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7189013.stm
Teenager accused of raping girl
A 17-year-old youth is due to appear in court accused of raping a 16-year-old schoolgirl in north London.
Officers were called to an empty terraced house in Anthill Road, Seven Sisters, last Wednesday evening where they found the girl with burn injuries.
The girl remains in hospital in a stable condition, police said.
The youth, from Tottenham, who was also charged with GBH with intent, will appear at Haringey Magistrates Court. The teenager was arrested on Friday.
Police are continuing inquiries into the incident.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article688118.ece
Rapists throw acid on girl
A SCHOOLGIRL was raped by a gang who poured caustic soda over her body to destroy DNA evidence.
The 16-year-old was left fighting for life with terrible burns from the drain-clearing chemical.
She was under heavy sedation at a specialist burns unit last night as sickened police called the attack by five youths a new low.
The gang beat the teenager before taking turns to rape her in an empty house in Tottenham, North London.
One detective said: “After they had finished raping her, the gang poured caustic soda over the girl to try and get rid of DNA evidence. It was the most horrific thing imaginable and the girl sustained serious burns. This is about as low as it gets.”
A woman cop living next door was alerted by the victim’s cries — and the officer treated her until medical help arrived.
Another neighbour said: “I heard a woman screaming, ‘Help, I’ve been raped’ and saying she had been burned. She sounded in a lot of pain.”
One resident, who did not want to be named, said: “The gang get up to no good.
They told me they took the girl and broke into the house and that one of them threw water over her — but I have heard it was acid.”
Doctors feared the girl would die but she pulled through and is now stable in a burns unit in Billericay, Essex. She is still not well enough to speak to officers.
A police source said: “She has appalling injuries from which she will never fully recover. We believe it will be another two weeks before we can interview her.”
A 17-year-old was arrested over last Wednesday’s attack.
But he was taken to hospital claiming to have swallowed a 10p coin.
Cops are waiting to talk to him.
Anyone with information on the attack, said to have been by five black youths, should call Crimestoppers on 0800 555111.
Anonymous:
So when the Balen report investigated BBC “impartiality”, why did the BBC spend a shed-load of money suppressing it?
Anonymous | 15.01.08 – 12:16 pm | #
————–
Here’s why
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/bbc-is-turn-off-its-official.html
Heron | 15.01.08 – 12:29 pm
Do you agree with my synopsis?
Broadly, yes. But with the caveat that both cases have been referred to an appropriate authority for examination and adjudication.
Do you feel that the BBC’s coverage reflects the difference between Hain’s and Osborne’s cases effectively enough?
Absolutely, yes. The scale of the BBC’s coverage of the Hain story has been much greater than its coverage of the Osborne/Cameron allegations. Not simply in terms of overall volume, but also in terms of how it’s been covered. E.g. a number of special films on Hain commissioned by Newsnight and the extent of the ‘grilling’ Labour spokesmen have had • especially over Hain’s iffy think-tank.
Also presenters have been scrupulous in not drawing any equivalence between the stories. For instance James Naughtie on Today moving from the Hain story to the Osborne story, used a phrase like…..’a very different sort of story’; while Paxo, in an interview with Labour MP Ian Lucas said something along the lines of ‘…compared to what’s alleged against Peter Hain, this is very small beer, isn’t it?’
As for your remark that •
Labour politicians and stooges have been invited by the BBC to comment on George Osborne. Nothing wrong with that. Predictably much mud has been slung…
I simply don’t recognize that characterization of the BBC’s coverage. I watched/heard the two ‘flagship’ BBC programmes Newsnight and Today. Their approach to this story was nothing like what you describe. Listen to the Ann Begg/George Osborne segment on Today and then watch the first fifteen minutes of Newsnight and ask yourself if the BBC were being soft on Hain while allowing Labour to badmouth Osborne/Cameron. It was simply nothing of the sort.
Nor do I accept that the BBC was NuLab’s conduit of choice for airing the Osborne issues in order to deflect attention from Hain.
Labour’s spin people didn’t, you’ll note, feed the story to the BBC, but to the Mail on Sunday.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/monday.shtml
Beeboid pest sent down…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/isle_of_man/7189222.stm
Will his dismissal from al-Beeb’s service be following?
John Reith seems to have moved from defending the BBC standpoint to defending the Labour Party line
Proxy donations through a front company is money laundering.Try that on with HMRC and watch your arse get sent to a free smoking zone.
JR,
Thanks for you answers.
My point was not that you shouldn’t report the matters concerning Osborne and Cameron – but that an impatial person would not treat them as equivalent.
You acknowledge that the Osborne story is probably Labour spin but say that you couldn’t censor it out of the debate. No one has asked you to censor it. What impartiality would seem to demand is that you do not use it to spike the Hain story as labour’s spin machine would want you to do. Every BBC report on Hain finished with the Osborne story being used to imply all politicians are as dodgy as he is. This is an obvious tactic to play down the story and the BBC happily carried out this function for Labour. This is NOT an Impartial way to behave – do you understand what impartial means?
Whatever your views on what politicians should or should not disclose there are still a large number of unanswered questions attaching to Hains behaviour not least the making of payments via a think tank, which appears to have been set up for the purpose.
I note that although BBC always preface any conservative story with a reminder of past embarrassments (vide Redwood and welsh national Anthem) No connection is made with Hain and Harman or Alexander.
Incidentally I read Harman promised to repay some of her campaign donations to Janet Kidd on 27 November – have any BBC journalists followed up on this story in view of the Hain story?
Thought not – it would be too embarrassiong for Labour …..
The BBC were reporting the Osbourne story (he’s been reported by some Labour MP’s) BEFORE the story that Hain might now be reported to the Police.
Talk about bias!!!
Hugh: Your comment about the BBC giving the Governmetns side of the Olypic games black hole can be easily summed up.
Which major broadcaster will have the rights to screen the games in the UK?
ITV? Channel 4? Channel 5? Sky?
Er the BBC
Says it all
Ewan Wauchope | 15.01.08 – 2:35 pm |
My point was not that you shouldn’t report the matters concerning Osborne and Cameron – but that an impatial person would not treat them as equivalent.
Quite so. The BBC has not treated them as equivalent. See my reply to Heron above.
there are still a large number of unanswered questions attaching to Hains behaviour not least the making of payments via a think tank, which appears to have been set up for the purpose.
Indeed, that has been the focus of BBC inquiries.
I take it you did not see Paul Mason’s film last night. There’s still time to catch it by following the link in my last comment.
“Reuters: London Games said to face 1 billion pound shortfall
Sky: Olympics 2012: Billion Pound Black Hole
Times: Revealed: £1 billion Olympics black hole
BBC: 2012 Games ‘black hole’ rejected
Why’s the BBC the only one to lead with the government’s rebuttal?
Hugh | 15.01.08 – 1:32 pm”
The London olympics were obtained on the basis of costs that were not merely massaged and optimistic but knowingly understated by such a factor that an enquiry is needed to see if this was in fact criminal.
Its not as if its the first time, the same trail of untruth as the New Wembley.
But we do not see the BBC revealing the true figures or unearthing the shoddy facts.
To be fooled twice is unacceptable and you would expect the BBC to be at the front of the clamour.
Only its not, its at the back of the queue.
Perhaps it is too much cosiness to the current administration, but I doubt it, after all its a chance to exonnerate their beloved Brown and pile all the blame onto the hated Blair.
More likely its just that too many BBC executives and big names get too many freebies from these events and they dont want to endanger them.
Its all rather sordid and pathetic.
pounce | 15.01.08 – 12:07 am |
Do the British Public even give a damn about capital punishment in the US? Or anywhere else, for that matter? Is this an important world affairs issue? Why is the BBC even bothering to discuss it at all?
I say it’s because Beeboids are against it, so they think they need to educate the masses. And it gives them an easy excuse to bash the US, and Bush, if they twist it enough. The BBC hasn’t painted China as the enemy, so they get a pass because it only helps the anti-capital punishment cause when you show the bad guys (Americans) doing it.
I believe this is an issue that is important only to BBC employees and their ilk, and not worth reporting to the British Public.
Hannah M | 15.01.08 – 3:06 pm
But hang on a minute, Hannah…the whole Olympic bid wasn’t run by NuLab. It was run by a Conservative peer.
more green propaganda this time from Richard Black
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7187361.stm
How many anti bio fuel stories can they do in one week…one would think they have an agenda
🙂
David Preiser (USA) | 15.01.08 – 3:18 pm
There’s been quite a lot of interest lately sparked by the case of Kenny Richey, a Brit, who’s just been released after 20 years or more on death row for a crime it appears he didn’t commit.
Re: Osbourne and Hain.
There is a huge difference.
Osbourne is alleged to have broken an internal parlimentary procedure rule.
Hain is alleged to have broken the law.
Bryan | 15.01.08 – 9:06 am |
I bet there were complaints about the pro-Dem bias, but we’ll never know. It is clear, though, that they were swamped with complaints about the BBC’s apparent obsession with the US elections. Surely it was vastly more than a handful of emails. I wonder if those complaints Snoddy read out – all from nice, white, Anglo-Saxon names – are an accurate representation of the demographics of viewers who wrote in? And I guess only Young Mr. Grace bothered to phone them up. Curious. Okay, I’m probably reading too much into that, but still….
Barron did not give a satisfactory answer as to why there was so much coverage. In fact, I found his position to be highly questionable. At least Snoddy got him to say they would back down once they got past the primaries. I wonder just how many complaints did it take in order for the BBC to get Barron in at the top of the show to do his apologia? Usually this would be worthy only of a brief “Many viewers have written to complain….but we at the BBC feel that….” letter posted online somewhere.
The sneaky bastards did get in four clips of Obama love, though, while pretending to show a quick recap of their election coverage so far. I guess the editor didn’t have time to track down footage about any other candidate before going to air. (NB any BBC techies lurking about: You might want to make some improvements to the Jupiter search function, or at least give your editors and producers a refresher course on using the server.)
The other thing left unspoken is the key question: Why is this particular election so important? Matt Frei has had no qualms in stating the reason, nor have any of his guests. It’s because this election is – to BBC reporters and producers and other Leftoids – the chance to undo the nightmare of the last eight years of the BusHitler administration.
John Reith
Thanks for your response. My mudslinging word applied specifically to the words of the Labour MPs and stooges rather than to the BBC’s coverage – I thought I made that clear.
I have seen very little of the coverage of this on the BBC, so I attempt to make no judgement on its coverage. I have read about it on the website, and there has been a depressing tendency to lump Osborne and Hain together, which gives the impression of their cases being similar, which I see you agree they’re not.
I have made the point before that there has been some improvement recently in the BBC’s televisual news broadcasts, but I still feel that the radio and web-based content is hopelessly lopsided at times.
John Reith: Don’t be a plonker mate. Lord Coe might be the figurehead (wasn’t it some yank bird before him that ran an airline) but the whole thing is being done to boost the ego of fat useless Nu Labour politicians (including Ken Livingstone)
You lot at the BBC being bottom sniffers to Labour will happily go along with it.
Will we see an “undercover” Panorama looking into the whole mess? I think not.
Looks like covering the Olympics might be a good excuse for all you overweight BBC droids to ask for a fat licence fee increase.
Beirut murders: US Embassy car attacked today, several dead.
Compare and contrast, the BBC and Sky News reports in terms of discussion of possible perpetrators. (The BBC, voyeur-like, seems more interested in whether you saw the murders. Why? – So that the BBC Arabic service can pass on information so as to convict possible jihadists?)
1.) BBC:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7189778.stm
2.) Sky News:-
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1300757,00.html
Will we see an “undercover” Panorama looking into the whole mess? I think not
Err No, but Channel 4 (with no snout in the trough), has already done so
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2414685.ece
John Reith wrote;
“There’s been quite a lot of interest lately sparked by the case of Kenny Richey, a Brit, who’s just been released after 20 years or more on death row for a crime it appears he didn’t commit.”
Really John.Trying to proclaim Kenny Richey is just another so called victim of a carriage of mis-justice.
Have a butchers at the story before you post tripe.
I mean, lets be honest here Kenny only became a Brit in 2003.
He was released on a technicality.
What next from your pen?
J. Reith, erm , no, suspect you will find Ken Richey’s connection to Britain , is as tenuous as that of the assorted middle eastern gentlemen who the bbc claimed were ‘British’ whilst agitating for their release from Guantanamo.
By the way,is it too much to expect that with the odd £3 billion of public funds, one of your highly trained (and paid) ‘journalists’, might have been able to check the link between Hain’s fraudulent think tank and mr. morgan’s PR company, you know, the ones with the same address ! Remember, the link mr. morgan didn’t know anything about!!
Or is checking Companies House records not worthy of their journalistic abilities ?
Yet more BBC bias. News 24 just had an interview with Alistair Darling (about 5 minutes)
Then at the end of the interview I was expecting an opposing view on what Darling had just said.
Oh silly me. We got a Nu Labour Peer just parroting what a brilliant man Darling is and what a good job Nu Labour is making of the whole thing (about another 5 minutes). I could imagine all the Labour droids in the BBC control room nodding in agreement.
THEN???? On to another news story.
No doubt our resident idiot from the BBC will tell us that it’s not bias.