Independent MEP Ashley Mote has written to the President of the European Investment Bank questioning that organisation’s issuing of soft loans to the BBC. He claims this has led the BBC to breach their charter and gives a few examples. Read the whole thing, but here is Mr Mote’s selection:
1. Listeners were invited to nominate the one piece of legislation they would most like to be repealed. The European Communities Act 1972, which took the UK in to what was then the European Community, was far ahead of all other nominations. The result of the poll was never broadcast.
2. The BBC’s director general Mark Thompson admitted to the Daily Mail a lack of objective coverage and “serious flaws” in BBC coverage of EU matters. Nothing noticeable has since been done to improve the situation.
3. The BBC Trust tells me in writing it has nothing to do with the EU, later publishes an annual report entitled “Forging the Union” directly contradicting the fact, and has only last month been quoted on the BBC itself as “representing licence-payers”! Opaque, if not downright deceitful.
4. Within days of the first EIB loan the BBC’s then Economics Editor broadcast a series of interviews and news items from around the EU about the prospects for the euro. Balanced and objective they were not. They were so embarrassingly deferential that any news editor worthy of the name would have binned them without a second thought.
5. During the signing of the Nice Treaty, within the hearing of many potential interviewees from the UK, the BBC producer on site instructed his crew not to record or report the significant demonstrations against the treaty going on all around them. Opposition was quite literally whitewashed from the screens of British viewers, whose money funds the EU and your bank in the first place.
6. Jonathon Chapman, described at the time as a senior BBC World News Reporter, told the Malta Press Club in March 2004 that “The BBC’s job is to reflect the European perspective…and make the news less sceptical. That is why the BBC has such a large bureau in Brussels”.
On the other hand, I would just add one of my favourite little lyrics:
“You cannot hope to bribe or twist, Thank God! the British journalist But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there’s no occasion to”
Presumably this is not the same Ashley Mote MEP who was described by Judge Price as a truly dishonest man who had executed a carefully-planned scheme of dishonesty?
Nor the same MEP described by his own QC as a Walter Mitty character who had undergone a massive fall from grace.
And surely not the same Ashley Mote of whom Nigel Farage, his erstwhile leader at UKIP, said if he had a shred of integrity left, he would resign (from the European Parliament).
We can only pray that this is not the same Ashley Mote convicted of 21 charges of deception from social security funds, totalling £65,506, money which was spent funding a luxury lifestyle holidaying across the world.
Please God that this is not the same Mr Mote who wailed his way through the law courts trying to use his status as a member of the hated European Parliament to claim immunity from prosecution from fraud in the UK.
If it turns out that it is the same Mr Mote….
1. Why should we take a single thing he says seriously?
2. Is he not the most idiotic voice to be held up for approval by Biased BBC since, oooooh, the disastrous Andrew McCann?
3. Why should anyone take anything on Biased BBC seriously?
.
Good to see our BBC trolls upholding that fine old tradition of playing the man, not the ball.
It does appear that Ashley Mote is somewhat unreliable about the facts. His point 1. claims –
Listeners were invited to nominate the one piece of legislation they would most like to be repealed. The European Communities Act 1972, which took the UK in to what was then the European Community, was far ahead of all other nominations. The result of the poll was never broadcast.
I know this is utter bollocks as I voted in this poll and greeted the results with unbridled joy:
A total of 52.8 per cent of the telephone and internet votes went to repealing the hunting ban. It was well ahead of the 29.7 per cent of the voters who wanted to scrap the 1972 European Communities Act
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/row-as-today-programmes-poll-is-won-by-foxhunting-alliance-430515.html
motes n beams
hello hillhunt
interesting new moniker, you gonna stick to it?
it was quite a decent blasting of the article till you let yourself down with the usual bs at the end
why should i take anything you write seriously?
You can’t possibly take seriously who writes:
“Opposition was quite literally whitewashed from the screens of British viewers…”
Unless, of course, there really were people going round applying whitewash to our screens.
Anyone any idea what Ashley Mote is talking about in para 3?
The BBC Trust tells me in writing it has nothing to do with the EU, later publishes an annual report entitled “Forging the Union” directly contradicting the fact
I’ve checked out the reports section of the BBC Trust website and its annual report seems to be called BBC Annual Report and Accounts 2006/7 and not Forging the Union – which would be a very odd title for a BBC annual report.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/research/index.html
The only ‘Forging the Union” I can find connected to the BBC is a documentary about the EU, not a BBC Trust thing at all.
An error with this web site is it keeps talking about bias.
BBC is no longer biased but has its own left wing agenda that it follows irrespective of the truth. Bias is an opinion but lying is far worse and will eventually lead to the death of the BBC we know and hate
Al Beebs coverage of the EUCCP is better than what it was a few years ago. At least they’ve stopped calling us all “little englanders”
The russkies will be made up if this EUCCP army takes off, the french cheese eating surrender monkies dont even know the difference between live and blank rounds
Why does the BBC need these loans from the EU?
Can’t the BBC fund its worldwide services (actually why is the BBC doing anything worldwide in the first place?) from the 3.5 billion it robs from people under threat of prison?
What are these loans for? More rent boys and drugs presumably.
I have long maintained that the BBC has visions of being the EBC (European Broadcasting Corporation) an EU wide boradcaster. It would extract money from the British tax payer and then money in backhanders from the EU and its corrupt mates to fund pro EU shite.
The time has come to take the BBC out and like a pig slit its throat in public and let it bleed to death slowly.
Motes and Beams (Hillhunt):
Since when was 65,000 funding for a life of luxury for an MEP or even an MP?
Not that I excuse Mote, but he’s no more dishonest than dozens of his fellow MEPs and MPs, and they don’t get the backdated book thrown at them (eg.’93-96).
Count me not as someone who absolves Mote but one who sees no reason to discount him, basing that stance on current public morals.
The question is,has the commenter formerly known as Hillhunt taken the BBC’s shilling?
The BBC’s Euro, surely?
Martin askes: ‘What are these loans for? More rent boys and drugs presumably”
Yes Martin, but you got them in the wrong order.
Ed:
Since when was 65,000 funding for a life of luxury for an MEP or even an MP?
Are you sure your moral compass is set to decent at this point?
Since when was 65,000 funding for a life of luxury for an MEP or even an MP?
Depends how it was spent. According to prosecution it was blown in 6 years on top of his other earnings. The court heard of the “extravagant lifestyle” it funded.
he’s no more dishonest than dozens of his fellow MEPs and MPs…
But he’s the one convicted of 20 counts of fraud.
(I thought moral relativism was the sin of Libtards, not the B-BBC commentariat…)
…and they don’t get the backdated book thrown at them (eg.’93-96).
Actually, it was 1996 – 2002.
Count me not as someone who absolves Mote but one who sees no reason to discount him, basing that stance on current public morals.
Count me as someone who sees no reason to pay any heed to a man who committed gross fraud against the taxpayer and was described as truly dishonest by a judge, a Walter Mitty by his own lawyer and lacking any shred of integrity by his party leader.
How often, do you think, the BBC (or anyone else) should take lessons in morality from a figure described as truly dishonest, lacking in any hred of integrity….a Walter Mitty?
.
Peter:
The question is, has the commenter formerly known as Hillhunt taken the BBC’s shilling?
I gather Hillhunt was clear that he’d never worked for the BBC.
The same is true for both Motes and Beams….
MnB asks: “How often, do you think, the BBC (or anyone else) should take lessons in morality from a figure described as truly dishonest, lacking in any hred of integrity….a Walter Mitty?”
Aren’t you forgetting Kofi Annan?
GCooper:
Aren’t you forgetting Kofi Annan?
Is it Moral Relativism Day on Biased BBC?
The utterly disgraced MEP Mote is wheeled out as a man of good faith to bash the BBC and…
First Ed claims all other Parliamentarians are at it (Oh no, they’re not)…
And now Kofi Annan, who has no convictions either, is dragged out as a kind of human shield.
I’d give up if I were you.
.
“Are you sure your moral compass is set to decent at this point?”
In the context of the BBC.
“I gather Hillhunt was clear that he’d never worked for the BBC.
The same is true for both Motes and Beams….”
So it is just a personality disorder?
Peter:
“Are you sure your moral compass is set to decent at this point?”
In the context of the BBC.
Why, yes.
If you have to roll out a thoroughly dishonest Walter Mitty without a single shred of integrity as the day’s weapon of choice against the BBC, then things are looking pretty desperate.
If you have a moral compass, that is.
.
MnM writes: “I’d give up if I were you.”
You’re not having a very good day with logic, are you?
First, you try to demolish a man’s arguments by resorting to an ad hominem attack, then you accuse others of moral relativism when answering a question you, yourself, posed.
Why don’t you go and have a snooze, then come back when you’re feeling a litt;le brighter?
GCopper:
you try to demolish a man’s arguments by resorting to an ad hominem attack
A convicted thief whose own lawyer calls him a Walter Mitty and whose party leader says he lacks any shred of integrity is beyond ad hominem attack. He has no moral standing to make any criticism of anyone’s behaviour.
Fronting him up as today’s hero in the fight against BBC dishonesty is moral relativism with a turbo-charged engine
As I suspect you already know.
.
Intersting how whenever B-BBC is contradicted, personal insults ensue. If you dealt with the point in hand (for example, attempt to defend Mote – difficult I know), maybe you might just get more respect. As it is this just another example of the woeful ‘throw your toys out the pram’ logic that exists on ‘Biased BBC’.
LFJ : “A convicted thief whose own lawyer calls him a Walter Mitty and whose party leader says he lacks any shred of integrity is beyond ad hominem attack. He has no moral standing to make any criticism of anyone’s behaviour.”
I’m afraid that is simply arrant nonsense – as I’m sure you know.
Mote’s personal failings have absolutely no bearing on the veracity of his accusations.
Incidentally, isn’t that one of the moral lessons you sanctimonious Beeboids are always trying to teach us?
korova writes: “Intersting how whenever B-BBC is contradicted, personal insults ensue. ”
But surely, the first personal attacks were on Mote himself?
However flawed the man may be, in true Stalinist fashion, what he actually had to say was ignored, in favour of a cheap shot.
But do carry on, korova. The British summer seems to have come to a sudden end, so a laugh is always welcome.
“If you have to roll out a thoroughly dishonest Walter Mitty without a single shred of integrity as the day’s weapon of choice against the BBC,”
The BBC has been burying a few moral compasses recently.
GCooper:
Mote’s personal failings have absolutely no bearing on the veracity of his accusations.
I’d have thought 20 counts of fraud would have a large bearing on anyone’s veracity. As indeed would Nigel Farage saying he had no integrity left.
But, hey, let’s look at some of his points, courtesy of your fellow B-BBC posters.
Foxhunter says he’s talking cobblers on the very first point about burying unwelcome polls. Paul S points out that he’s quoting from a non-existent BBC report. Chuffer asks whether he makes any sense at all talking about opposition being literally whitewashed from our screens. Even Pot Kettle etc concedes that Mote looks bad.
In true Stalinist fashion, what he actually had to say was ignored, in favour of a cheap shot.
Dismissing your interlocutor as Stalinist because he points out the bankruptcy of your argument is, um, Stalinist in itself.
I’d have thought.
Still, what’s next: Biased BBC recruiting Joey Barton to criticise violence on the telly?
.
I’m sorry, MnM, you just failed the course.
Let me try one last time.
You defeat an argument with a counter argument. You do not defeat it by saying your opponent smells or has big ears.
If you cannot do that, you shut up.
I wish you would,
Someone who claims to have no involvement with the BBC,but who always stands up for the BBC,someone who accuses others of being Walter Mitty whilst using multiple aliases,that someone is going to get challenged.
Mote may be all the things he is accused of,but he may also be right.
GCooper:
Let me try one last time.
Good idea.
You defeat an argument with a counter argument. You do not defeat it by saying your opponent smells or has big ears.
You do defeat an argument about honesty by pointing out its proponent has a truly atrocious record of dishonesty, I am afraid.
Peter – Mote and his kin love nothing more than to breeze in here telling us how we are all Right-wing nuts, who can never justify our points about the BBC’s profound and profuse biases.
To then seek to demolish an argument by nothing more than a series of ad hominem attacks, is the most breathtaking hypocrisy.
Mote may, or may not, be wrong. If he is, prove it.
Mote: “You do defeat an argument about honesty by pointing out its proponent has a truly atrocious record of dishonesty, I am afraid.”
No, you really need to patch-up those gaps in the “bog standard comprehensive” education, Mote.
You defeat an argument with facts. Otherwise you just look like exactly what you accuse us of being – a bigot.
If you can come here and show us where Mote is wrong, and why, then you have an argument.
If not.. then.. not.
Sorry.
“You do defeat an argument about honesty by pointing out its proponent has a truly atrocious record of dishonesty, ”
But so do you O creature of many parts,your name changes are in themselves dishonest.
We do not know if you are a myrmidon of the BBC or their bitch.Certainly we don’t know any of your bona fides,you could be posting from Bush House or Rampton for all we know.
Peter writes: “you could be posting from Bush House or Rampton for all we know.”
Good point. I do, sometimes, wonder how much of a difference there is.
I thought filthy*unt had been banned.
As I said a few weeks back when I was last here, his whole world would crumble if he was denied access.
He really does need to get out more.
The point here is that it does not matter if Mote has misled in the past if, in this instance, he is right.
But then again it is a matter of public record that the BBC receives the EU Euro, of course their coverage of the EU is going to be weighted in its favour.
One only has to look at the preposterous Mark Mardell and his inability to act as a proper journalist, relying on EU press releases for his entire output.
I’ve no opinion either way about the worthiness of Mote’s opinion in the circumstances. However;
1) I thought the survey was ‘won’ by the anti-foxhunting legislation amidst much publicity so unless he’s talking about something else this is a flat out untruth.
2) I remember the BBC report that admitted serious flaws in its EU coverage. I think this was a couple of years ago(?) and since then I’ve personally noticed some significant improvements in willingness to report on internal EU disagreements and beaurocratic shambles. Mind you, the overall understanding of how the EU works and how that interacts with the British legal system is still appalling.
3) The bloke talks about ‘deferential’ coverage of the Euro – dunno if he’s noticed but the Euro has actually been doing pretty well recently. He can’t expect that an ‘impartial’ broadcaster will share his ideological opposition with anything EU related and completely ignore positive news.
4) But yeah, the blatant conflict of interest with what looks like an uncommercial loan being extended by the EU to a broadcaster covering it has never been remotely satisfactorally addressed.
5) And there is precisely zero respectful coverage given to the point of view that we’re too fundamentally different to continental Europe for an ‘ever closer’ union to work and that we should therefore get out. Anyone advancing this on BBC programmes is still treated as an extremist wierdo. It’s not a view I share and I think its still (just) a minority view but it’s far far too mainstream to be dismissed out of hand.
I think that the BBC should ignore Ashley Mote because he is a criminal.
Then they should ignore the Prison Reform Trust (who dont charge criminals to be in their organisation) and other do gooders.Also theyshould ignore people who complain about conditions or their treatment while they were in jail.
So the next time they speed dial the PRT about an issue they should speed dial Ashley Mote about their funding.
Cockney | 02.07.08 – 9:49 am
4) But yeah, the blatant conflict of interest with what looks like an uncommercial loan being extended by the EU to a broadcaster covering it has never been remotely satisfactorally addressed.
It has been explained time and again.
These were commercial loans on commercial terms. The phrase ‘most preferential terms’ Mote makes such a meal of is simply banker-speak for a recognition that the BBC is in the very lowest category of credit risk – and therefore borrows money on less stringent terms than clients who are asking the bank to carry risk.
Anyway, there is surely no more of a conflict of interest in the BBC doing business with state/supranational institutions than with commercial banks which they also have to report on (more often in fact).
Ashley Mote may or may not be right in his accusations, irrespective of his record over expenses. Either way, they deserve proper consideration because the EU funding smells wrong. Such financial links should be crystal clear and provably not corrupting.
What is certain is that the BBC would never deign to investigate Mr Motes’ allegations properly; it either ignores such criticisms or appoints ‘independent’ advisors to look into claims who are routinely ex-BBC lackeys.
In their most recent ruling on a complaint about EU bias, for example, published about three months ago, I noted that the BBC Trustees ‘independent advisor was Keith Bowers, who before becoming magically ‘independent’ had been a BBC news exec for almost 30 years.
His conclusion was broadly – despite the methiculous evidence presented – that because BBC executives said coverage was fair, it was therefore fair. He was so blinkered in his approach that he failed to even begin to consider the substance of the complaint properly.
bbc doesnt employ any journalists, exceping Greg Palast who is almost never called on.
BBC employs Bristol Uni Media Studies grads who see it as a fancy job for life
and think they have now made it in the world.
“The EIB has described itself as “an autonomous body set up to finance capital investment furthering European integration by promoting EU policies”
The BBC gets bunced up by the European Investment Bank
Makes one wonder why the EIB should want to give the British Broadcasting Corporation “soft loans.