The BBC’s showcase political TV programme in Northern Ireland is called “Hearts and Minds” and it is broadcast on a Thursday night. As has been mentioned before here, I am on occasional contributor being the token right-winger and anti peace-processor. Last night it ran an item on the US election and both points of view were represented – Hillary and Obama’s!! Disgracefully, the programme could only find US students living in NI who were democrats, and so the entire discussion was about the Dem fortunes. The presenter, Noel Thompson, also approvingly quoted Dan Rather, in evident admiration. (Given Rather’s ignoble exit from his job, I would have thought it might be better to keep quiet about him) GOP candidate John McCain got one sentence. This is all part of the co-ordinated cheer-leading for the Democrats on behalf of the BBC and it without doubt unfair and unbalanced.
Meanwhile back in National BBC land, did you see the “Shami Chakrabarti show” aka Question Time? What a dismal spectacle this was – with a panel that was yet again loaded! We had the gormless Labour MP and Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Andy Burhham. (Left) We had the ubiquitous Shami Chakrabarti (Left), we had Lib-Dem Julia Goldsworthy (Left), we had Glaswegian entrepreneur (Left) and to balance, Chris Grayling, a Conservative MP and former BBC producer. The audience came from Liverpool (hard left). As ever, it was well chaired by Dimbleby – but the left wing view prevails on every issue. This programme is institutionally dysfunctional I’m afraid. The selection of panelists is bias incarnate. Can you imagine a QT programme where four of the five panelists were from a conservative background? Of course not – it would not happen. But having four out of five from a Leftist background seems so very reasonable, right?
Then to finish, Five Live – and the morning programme hosted by Nicky Campbell. I caught it just after 8am and it covered the Sharia Law news story by getting… the view of some Muslims on it. Anyone who tuned in would have heard some classic Islamic dissembling and some very meek and mild questioning from Nicky Campbell who was obviously reluctant to pursue exactly what the Muslim spokemen were claiming. Listening to the gentlemen from Peterborough mosque speak, why one would conclude Sharia law is a wise and kindly form of judgement. And naturally, he added that NO-ONE is suggesting that the criminal aspect of Sharia be implemented in the UK. Heaven forbid.
Just three snap shots of the BBC in 24 hours pumping out unbalanced opinion. And we pay a mandatory tax to facilitate this?
Hmm. 5 lite are debating this story. Well sort of. actually for some reason they are not debating it for the full phone in, instead they are mixingin other stories. They’ve never done that when there has been such a controversial topic to discuss.
Perhaps the BBC are frightened of the reaction they might get?
Very odd indead. One gets the feeling the BBC have decided to try to “cool” the subject by mixing in the football story and the under 4’s education.
Questiontime is no longer relevant. In the pre internet days yes it was, but not now.
The big monolithic news broadcasters need to understand that their ability to control our minds has long gone.
Even newspaper websites are very slow to update breaking news stories.
Oh and on Andy Burnham anyone else notice his rather odd eye lashes? It looked like he had mascara on or something. Very odd.
Ah yes. The BBC have ended the phone in early. She’s reading out textsd about the Premiership and now talking about repossessions.
So we can see the BBC’s approach here.
Ah! Sorry the BBC are talking about it again. However, it’s going aa typical way. Lots of white middle class people telling us what a good idea this is.
I noticed that no one has talked about the more violent aspects of Sharia law.
We know that these are practiced in the UK alsready.
Honour killings
Forced marriages
Female Circumcision
To name but three.
Wonder what Sharia law says about, for instance, HIV-positive homosexuals who drug and then rape people?
Just wondered.
The BBC’s presumptuous ‘multiculturalism’ has a lot to answer for, and historically seems to fit into this category, analysed by Bat Ye’or (Google her name):-
“Cultural jihad with its antisemitic, anti-American and anti-Western characteristics develops within the context of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism thus becomes the instrument for the subversion of Western thought, aimed at imposing Islamic historical and theological thinking such as the justification of Islamist terrorism • based on the Muslim self-perception of victimhood. The erroneous affirmation that it was Islamic culture that has triggered European civilization in medieval period, is an attempt to prove Islam historical, cultural and demographical legitimacy in Europe, and consequently the implementation of shari’a principles today. It also affirms Islam cultural superiority over the West.”
‘Bat Ye’or: Europe and the Amiguities of Multiculturalism’.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/013959.php
“We had the gormless Labour MP and Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Andy Burhham. (Left) We had the ubiquitous Shami Chakrabarti (Left), we had Lib-Dem Julia Goldsworthy (Left), we had Glaswegian entrepreneur (Left) and to balance, Chris Grayling, a Conservative MP and former BBC producer. The audience came from Liverpool (hard left).”
And to balance the discussion we have David Vance (hard right over the hill)
No chance of there being any possibility that Liverpudlians could be anything other than hard left? No of course not.
This is David Vance reporting for Fox News.
There’s every possibility of Liverpudlians being anything other than hard left – I know several myself. There is however little to no possibility of them getting into the Question Time audience in any numbers – the BBC chooses this audience very carefully.
Martin | 08.02.08 – 9:43 am |
Oh and on Andy Burnham anyone else notice his rather odd eye lashes? It looked like he had mascara on or something. Very odd.
Maybe he upset the make-up artist?
David Vance
You do yourself no favours by portraying this programme as left-wing. Sure we had a Labour Minister (who was wishy-washy in extremis) and the lovely Shami. But we also had a labour supporting business-man who was less than impressed with government, a Tory (well as ex-BBC he must be a labour sleeper right?) and a Liberal who seemed quite reasonable for a Lib-Dem. Hardly Scargill and Benn was it?
As for the Liberty gal’s contribution for once she seemed fairly reasonable. Did she want Sharia Law in Britain – no she didn’t and neither did any of the others. As to the audience being left-wing I have no doubt that the left were over-represented (they always are) but left-wing? No. Muslim? No, unless you believe everyone who is less than palest white is a plumber?
BBC Breakfast Time’s item on the Sharia debate caught my eye: the in-studio ‘panel’ consisted of a moderate-seeming elder Muzzie and a real-life Vicar of Dibley whose contribution was to smile manically and say nothing.
BTW re lack of coverage of Republicans: even Peter Oborne in the Daily Mail ignored them to talk overwhelmingly about the Democrats’ own tussles, endorsing Obama as he went (“only he can renew democracy”), which surprised me given that I took PO to still be a Tory.
“There is however little to no possibility of them getting into the Question Time audience in any numbers – the BBC chooses this audience very carefully.”
Yes, it doesn’t allow David Vance in, which when you consider it, is probably out of pity.
liverpool born and bred…finding enough non leftists in liverpool to balance an audience would be an effort.
There was one woman in the audiebce who mentioned the fact that the DWP was recognising the multiple wives of Muslim men in the benefits system.The panel very quiclky moved on,the labour minister claiming he knew nothing about it.And notice the use of the term “British Law”,not English law and Scottish Law.Will this apply in Scotland?Is the term British Law used to conceal the fact we have a Scottish P M who is introducing Sharia law into England?
“Hardly Scargill and Benn was it?” which just illustrates the problem – you have to be pretty well infra-red to be called a Lefty on the Beeb nowadays – far-ish Left is regarded as being pretty well central.
Dunno about DV, I reckon David would give the programme some much-needed diversity. Might help people stay awake for one thing.
As it is, one knows pretty well what everyone’s going to say when one reads who’s going to be on. There’s very little actual debate, just people striking attitudes and milking the applause from the claque. Frankly, if global warming’s an established fact, as the BBC would have us believe, the electricity wasted on producing this programme (among several others) may well be becoming a luxury we can no longer afford.
The fact remains that most readers of this blog, and probably the silent (vast) majority of the the British public are less than sympathetic to the generally liberal outlook of QT and virtually every other programme on BBC. There never seems to be much for us, that’s all, and we pay our licence fee just like the bien pensants inside the M25.
Andrew Neil generally gives a more balanced view on his programme after QT, but you also have to put up with the awful pair on the sofa as well.
Fat Contractor,
Question Time IS institutionally leftist and I would take issue your portrayal of last night’s panellists. You accept the Labour MP was left. You suggest Shami is “lovely”. Well, she may be cute but she is LEFT. Duncan Ballentyne has funded the Labour Party and his gripe is that it’s not LEFT enough. The Lid-Dem did give decent answers but c’mon, surely you’re not suggesting her Party is not of the LEFT? I make no comment on Grayling other than to just observe he is ex-BBC.
I resent your comment about skin colour, btw. I have no issues as to what coloua person is – they could be from Mars for all I care. I merely observe that audiences for THIS programme tend to be stuffed to the gills with lefties. I’m only stating it as I see it but I do not agree that in attacking the composition of the QT panel I am doing myself a disservice. It’s the BBC that does that.
Aussie-bystander,
Over the hill? You gotta be kidding, I’m just warming up.
LMO | 08.02.08 – 11:46 am |
The panel very quiclky moved on,the labour minister claiming he knew nothing about it.
To be fair he knew nothing about most subjects. The panel didn’t move on any quicker than on any other issue raised by the audience. In fact the Tory expressed his opinion and informed the Minister that it involved the auspices of 4 government departments. The rest of the panel seemd pretty ignorant too! Sharmi was just pretty …
Do Mormons or other cultural groups that recognise polygamy get the same treatment as Muslims?
Abandon Ship! | 08.02.08 – 12:24 pm
The fact remains that most readers of this blog, and probably the silent (vast) majority of the the British public …
I don’t know about readers of this blog, but I think regular commenters on this blog would be kidding themselves if they thought they were representative of majority or even mainstream opinion in Britain.
The views expressed here on most of the big issues tend to be those of a tiny minority.
That doesn’t mean they’re wrong.. people who espouse maverick views are sometimes proved right.
And it certainly doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be represented from time to time on the BBC.
But to imagine that the lines most commonly taken here on issues like climate change, Moslems, the place of religion in society (see Martin’s recent hardline atheist rant), economics, welfare, the UN, Europe and public service broadcasting.. to cite just a few… are anything other than ‘fringe’ would be delusional.
John Reith
Did you just write that? Can you be so inside your bubble that you really believe that?
John Reith – Your last post demonstrates just how far out of touch you and the BBC are with the views of the people of this country.
You really should get out more.
David Vance | 08.02.08 – 12:25 pm |
I resent your comment about skin colour, btw
Resent away. At times it’s very difficult to tell with your output as to whether you are just getting carried away or you really do believe that muslims are evil. Only some of them are – agreed?
JR,
I don’t think we are so unusual in our veiws on the environment, economics and welfare. You obviously disagree because ‘you think you are on the middle ground’.
You are especially wrong regarding the publics feelings about Sharia and Islam. Last time I looked there were 14000 comments in the HYS moderation queue on your website. Only about one in twenty was not massively anti Williams’ comments.
No doubt this is causing a bit of a headache in your editorial meetings I imagine.
By the way, Martin is intitled to his athiest opinions although I happen to think he is dead wrong. Differences in veiws between non BBC posters on here are allowed and you are wrong to group us all in together.
Rockall | 08.02.08 – 1:07 pm
On the environment I think you are in a decidedly small minority – though I have a niggling feeling you may be proved more right than wrong in the longer run.
On Muslims – you are in a tiny minority because you are so extreme. Sure, people in Britain don’t want sharia; aren’t keen on all sorts of multi culti and many are fed up with their way their towns have changed – but they don’t regard all Muslims as vile scum and don’t deny there’s any such thing as a moderate Muslim – typical of the sentiments frequently posted here.
Most are against further european integration – but they don’t take the conspiracy theory line on the EU so often taken here.
Any sensible comparison of public attitudes with B-BBC attitudes will stand up my assertion.
Abandon Ship!: Andrew Neil generally gives a more balanced view on his programme after QT
Yes, but he still openly supported the most left-wing presidential candidate (Obama) on last weeks show and his constant use of “middle-aged white males” as a derogatory term makes him an acceptable face on the BBC.
The twosome on the couch represent a standard BBC tactic of “balance”. 1 tory and 1 Labour, yet both at the left-wing fringes of their particular party. This happens on QT an awful lot too, the likes of Ken Clarke and Steven Norris are often the token “right”-winger.
“but they don’t regard all Muslims as vile scum and don’t deny there’s any such thing as a moderate Muslim”
Be careful John Reith – this is a nasty assertion, and one I don’t sign up to.
If John Reith thinks that the BBC worldview is in line with ordinary peoples opinions then he’s nuts. Most folks of my acquaintance wouldn’t know what a blog was if it snuck up and bit them on the arse, but they do know when they are being lied to.
“Fringe” my aunt fanny.
John Reith:
On Muslims – you are in a tiny minority because you are so extreme.
John Reith | 08.02.08 – 1:19 pm | #
That’s just nonsense. The fact is that for lefties like you and the BBC ANY criticism or comments against/of Muslims and Islam is considered to be extremism.
So the panel and audience of Question Time were all to the left of David Vance? Now there’s a surprise!
Is there anyone in the country who ISN’T to the left of David Vance?
Fat Contractor,
As it happens, I am proud to have several Muslim friends. It’s the sort who detonate on the London Underground I have an issue with. My position is clear and I am sorry if you think otherwise.
.
Anonymous | 08.02.08 – 1:34 pm |
That’s just nonsense. The fact is that for lefties like you and the BBC ANY criticism or comments against/of Muslims and Islam is considered to be extremism
You are of course correct and I would think, though I have only a little proof of this, that the majority of people in this country, irrespective of colour, are getting fed up with muslims and thier demands.
Unfortunately it is people like the BBC that have created the mistaken belief that muslim = terrorist by deliberately defending all muslims as if it were they who were the problem. They are not, only some of them are.
As to this site, and I have said this many times before, that it matters not one jot what the underlying sentiment is. If people post anti-muslim rather than anti-Islamo-fascist sentiments they come across as simply racist. (And yes I know Islam isn’t a race but in the eyes of the people under discussion it is oftenequivalent to Asian.)
If we want what we post to be taken notice of we need to make the outside world understand that this blog is not a blind for the BNP or whatever. That we are against BBC-bias towards muslim terrorists and not muslims as a whole.
JR,
I agree with Abandon Ship – you are out of order with your ‘vile scum’ slur.
What do you consider the prevailing public veiw on welfare to be then?
I’ll tell you my veiw. I am not saying I speak for everyone on here either:
Social security budgets should be cut across the board and the bar raised on all means testing for all except pensioners who get a rubbish deal from this government after paying in all their lives.
Those out of work should be incentivised into work by reduction in benefits. Maybe they would not be able to get a good job to begin with but they would have a start and could trade up as they get more experiance. They would then be on their way.
What is currently happening does not actually help anyone as it creates a culture of dependency. Walfare is killing whole communities with kindness. It also costs the rest of us a load of money.
This is not a veiw you are likely to hear on ‘You and Yours’ or ‘The Moral Maze’. If you do hear something similar, listen for the accompanying sneer.
David Vance | 08.02.08 – 1:50 pm |
So we agree then? In which case apologise for misunderstanding your views because of your style – any chance you’ll change it?
“… but they don’t regard all Muslims as vile scum and don’t deny there’s any such thing as a moderate Muslim – typical of the sentiments frequently posted here.”
Casting aspersions again Reith. Only the most twisted mindset could make such a huge generalization.
I have Muslim friends and colleagues and I am not anti-Muslim.
Now on yer bike.
Can I just say I don’t have any muslim friends and I still not anti-muslim?
On the environment I think you are in a decidedly small minority – though I have a niggling feeling you may be proved more right than wrong in the longer run.
A decidedly small minority that may be right, darn, wonder if that is down to a propagandising media only telling one side of the story?
Hate to use the word “institutional” but when media organisations, including the Beeb, hire specific “environmental reporters” there will be institutional bias. It is in the self-interest of an environmental reporter to promote the global warming narrative. Promoting the idea weather patterns are usually abnormal is not going to help an environmentalists career.
Statist self-interest is normal. What makes the BBC’s reporting on eco-matters especially galling, hypocritical and effective is how companies – who promote their green rhetoric – aren’t scrutinised.
The likes of BP* go “Beyond Petroleum” because of money made from carbon offsets. Utility companies only promote renewable energy because taxpayers money make it profitable. Scottish and Southern made a £1bn purchase of a windfarm company recently – it was only feasible because of subsidies, subsidies that are directly put onto energy bills without the knowledge of the consumer.
None of this has been pointed out by the BBC. When a beeboid emotes about “energy poverty” I laugh. It is the BBC that promotes energy poverty by being part of the green mafia.
*I’m a BP shareholder!
Rockall:
JR,
I agree ……………….
Social security budgets should be cut across the board.
I agree – Child Benefit alone costs £10,000,000,000 per year!!!!!
No chance of there being any possibility that Liverpudlians could be anything other than hard left? No of course not. Aussie Bystander | 08.02.08 – 11:04 am | #
Not only is QT an instutionally leftist programme at the best of times, staging it in Liverpool skews the audience even further leftwards than normal.
Question: how many Conservatives are on Liverpool Council? Go on, take a wild guess.
http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/mgMemberIndex.asp?FN=PARTY&VW=LIST&PIC=0&J=2
I don’t have any Muslim friends, aquaintances or colleagues and the only Muslims I’ve met in my life was this one chap at university and taxi drivers, shopkeepers and kebab sellers. I’m not anti-Muslim. But maybe I should go out of my way to make friend with a Muslim so that when I’m critical of Islamic Fundamentalism, I can wheel him out and hold him in front of me like a human shield and say, ‘Look, I’m not a racist! I’m not a racist! This guy’s a Muslim! You’re a Muslim aren’t you? Say something Islmaic so that I qualify to criticise Islamic Terror…uh, I mean Murderous Extremism of No Discernible Ethnic Group or Religion®!’
I talk to a lot of Europeans – online admittedly – from all over Europe, but mostly limited to Germany, France, Netherlands and Spain and none of them has anything positive to say about Europe.
And surely, if we B-BBC posters were such a fringe group, it’d be reflected more in newspaper readership, i.e. the Sun and the Daily Mail wouldn’t be so popular and the Guardian and Independent would have more than 150 readers between them.
Speaking of the Independent (or the ‘Indy’ as the people on Newsnight fawningly refer to it as), I used to read that paper (yes, yes, I used to be a handwringing Leftist, but praise be! I’m cured now), and I’m not sure if it’s the same as it was around three years ago, but if you think Shami Chakrabarti gets too much of a platform to spout her trecherous propaganda on Aunty, then you should read the Independent. Pretty much every column has her opinion in it.
Fat Contractor,
No apology for the way I write. Like it or loath it, I’m not bothered
On the sustance of me being “anti-Muslim” that is implied by in your comments, the FACT is that I oppose the self-detonating kind. The sort that delight in killing their fellow Muslims, y’know. The sort that Muslims in Iraq are fighting against. The sort that delight in decapitating journalists, peace workers. How you see this as me being anti-Muslim is like the peace of god – it passes all understanding.
David – how about your frequent generalisations about “the Religion of Peace”?
Are you going to add the caveat above to that statement every time you use it?
Or did you not mean it to come across that way? 😉
Sarah-Jane: The great “religion of peace” doesn’t do itself many favours does it?
Remember Teddy gate? Or the woman in Saudi Arabia sentanced to lashing for BEING RAPED?
What I find interesting about you Beeboids is that you say that there is no need for balanced debate about Climate change as the evidence is clear (in the view of Beeboids) YET the BBC insists on balanced debate when talking about extremist Islam, even though there is plenty of evidence to show that there is a massive problem with extremism not just here in the UK but around the world.
Can you justify that?
On 5 lite this morning, the BBC allowed almost NO negative comments about Sharia law despite there clearly being an overwhelming number of people opposing it.
Change to Talksport and Jon Gaunt and that feeling was very evident.
The BBC trying to distort public feeling does no one any good.
Sarah Jane,
I was only quoting Condi Rice. Is she too extreme for you. Mind you, she added it was the religion of peace AND love – something i am sure those that survived 7/7 would appreciate.
Maybe because I am the new kid in town here you are not familiar with my style of writing, which is fair enough. But don’t worry, if you stick around, you’ll become accustomed to my ways.
Sarah-Jane and John Reith, I think you are fundamentally misleading yourselves about the views of many of the commenters on this site, myself included, about Muslims.
The ire is not specifically addressed at Muslims but at the apologetics of the BBC, that almost never admits that some Muslims (the term Islamists may be helpful)wish to see a Muslim world established by violence. Thus the infamous BBC description of the 7/7 terrorists as “misguided criminals”.
The BBC presents a one sided view of Islam as the ‘Religion of Peace’ and is not therefore surprising that the reaction on this blog is a more or less constant response pointing out the opposite viewpoint. It is simply not true that all Muslims are innocent followers of a religion that we all be better of following ourselves. This does not mean that any of us are anti muslim per se. Of course we recognise that, at least in the UK the majority of our muslim community is indeed peaceloving.
What we are against is the refusal of the BBC to reflect the reality, i.e. some aspects of current Islamic practice are offensive (decapitation, stoning etc) and that some Muslims really are out to get us BECAUSE of their faith. The current BBC output in this area, in contrast to Channel 4 is little more than propaganda
Arthur Dent | 08.02.08 – 3:19 pm
Well explain this then – some time back there was a BBC report of a pregnant Palestinian woman being killed at a checkpoint.
Referring to the death of the unborn child, one poster here said something along the lines of:
good… that’s one less Pally baby who could grow up to be a suicide bomber.
Though this (eventually) drew a rebuke from Andrew/Natalie, most other commenters evinced no objection whatsoever.
My view is that most sensible people in this country would be aghast at such a sentiment and only a tiny minority would condone it.
The reverse was true here.
Just one example of how unpleasantly extreme attitudes are here compared with those of the general population.
Reith : The views expressed here on most of the big issues tend to be those of a tiny minority.
Oh the smug satisfaction of the liberal elite. If you would get out of London and talk to the rest of the country a bit more you might understand that what might be a ‘tiny minority’ at the Beeb are in fact the ‘large majority’ in much of the UK…. just keep an eye on the HYS most recommended, that rarely goes according to plan, duzzit?
I am also at a loss as to why Shami Chak gets on the programme so much. Her organisation is tiny – someone said 2000 members. The chairman of many Parish Councils represent more people. Does anyone have a better justification (apart from she usually matches the Beeb’s agenda perfectly)
John Reith
Mr Burbage raises a very valid point. Why is the ghastly and tiresomely predictable Ms Chakrabati given such prominence on the vile BBC?
Is it being extremist to want a licence fee rebate?
Give me a rebate and you will never hear another peep out of me.
Dr R | 08.02.08 – 3:37 pm
Because she’s the mouthpiece of what used to be called ‘the National Council for Civil Liberties – in its way as much part of the warp and weft of national life as the Women’s Institute or Oxfam – whose declared mission is:
to protect civil liberties and promote human rights for everyone
– despite the careless omission of any references to either motherhood or apple pie, it would seem almost churlish to object, don’t you think?
Chakrabati is only interested in human rights for her people – whatever she says.