It’s a little tiring to have to keep pointing out the allegations the Beeb seems happy to ignore when left-wing politicians are in the frame, such as the Mail‘s against Labour MP Keith Vaz, also reported here, here, here, here and here, but sadly not as yet picked up by the BBC’s website. A challenge therefore for the corporation’s defenders: a copy of the Morning Star to the first who can point out any allegation against a Tory – ever – that the BBC has so comprehensively ignored.
UPDATE: The Vaz story is also now reported here, meaning that you are more likely to hear about these corruption allegations against a British Labour MP from the media in Argentina than from the BBC.
and just before 7am it was all about a low carb economy
Propaganda 24/7 – and we are forced to pay for this drivel.
The TOADY propagandists are running a blatant anti McCain ‘report’, I mean they are going over the top! McCain “rightly” down in the “POLLS” (what, all of them?)Obama in touch with the mood of the people etc.
On comes a Clinton advisor to trash Bush and the US bailout plan, on comes Webb to explain McCains shortcomings and how Obama “rightly” is leading in the polls, McCain backtracking/getting it wrong/out of touch/owns 13 cars so how can he feel the pain of ‘ordinary people’ and McCain getting it all wrong all the time etc!
Earlier we were treated to comrade Naughtie going mental trying to lick Darlings arse, We We We etc and isnt it true that everyone else is to blame? Brown is the best man etc. Brown finds his scapegoats(like a true National socialist)and will punish them, instead of taking any blame of course, all dutifully reported by the BBC, like the pet NuLab mouthpiece it is.
Can you imagine the Tory conference coverage by the BBC?
We all suspected that the BBC would support NuLabour and the Prime Mentalist during the conference but the scale of the bullshit’N’propaganda offensive is sick making! Worse still is that the BBC are free do act as they please with no controls or limits, I never thought it possible that I could hate them more, but I do!
Cameron won’t do anything about them.
I wonder if they’re going to cover Sarah Palin’s speech in Florida, where she drew a crowd of 60,000. Ya think?
This is actually a more interesting story than it appears on the surface, although a crowd of 60,000 is a remarkable story in itself. But Florida is a big retirement state, and the majority of the retirees that choose Florida are Jewish.
Now, typically, Jews vote Democrat. I never could figure out why, but they do (by and large). So Sarah Palin drew a crowd of 60,000 in what should have been hostile territory.
I expect the BBC will be highlighting this feat.
I think the BBC are totally out of control now and they don’t even care how blatant their bias is. Any pretence at impartiality has been pretty much dropped.
I guess they have calculated that Cameron will not have the guts to scrap the licence fee when he becomes PM. I think the Conservatives should boycott the BBC totally at the next election, or would that just make things worse ?
The Tories should simply scrap the TV tax. Problem solved.
Martin,
Absolutely agree with you , but I just don’t think the Tories have the nerve to scrap it. I really don’t know why, when the BBC is so openly hostile to them. Maybe they could hold a referendum on it !
Grant: I don’t know now. The Bias from the BBC is getting so blatant that the Tories have nothing to lose.
I think people are more willing to think of a non funded BBC as well as millions now pay for Sky & Virgin.
All that has to happen is the BBC to encrypt it’s digital signal. If you want to access it, you pay an extra £13 a month or whatever to Sky, Virgin etc and the signal is unscrambled.
Radio is a bit of an issue. But the BBC has far too many radio stations anyway.
They could use some small about of public funding perhaps but I think radio should stand on it’s own two feet.
David Cameron is not going to make an enemy of the BBC. End of story. It doesn’t matter what common sense dictates; or that the BBC is grossly disloyal to the people whose wages and salaries pay own grossly inflated salaries and biased news programmes.
Cassandra – Did someone really say that Obama was “rightly” leading in the polls? They certainly are getting bold. That means they feel very safe.
David Cameron is not going to make an enemy of the BBC. End of story.
I am glad someone has a direct line to the future.
Is it even any of your business? We are told that you have left this country once it fell upon hard times. Any truth in that?
The BBC is already an enemy of the Tory party, what has Cameron got to lose?
Nearly Oxonian – No. It’s all vicious lies.
BTW – It didn’t “fall on hard times”. That’s like “falling pregnant”. You have to work at it. The destruction of the underpinnings of Britain, and the economy, was 11 years in the making.
Martin, there are bound to be a few OEs floating around; perhaps a Bullingdon Boy or two. May as well stay unconfrontational.
He’s not going to tackle anti-Conservative bias because he’s posh. How’s that work?
Let me guess. (I haven’t looked at the BBC link.) They showed the candidate with the closest ties to those government sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Am I right?
And the BBC didn’t tell you about those ties. Am I right about that, too?
(For those who rely on the BBC for their news. One of Obama’s close advisors, Jim Johnson, was head of Fannie Mae. And Obama received more contributions from them than any other senator, except Chris Dodd, another Democrat.)
So, Verity, you are actually in the UK?
Verity
Yes, that was a HUGE crowd (60,000) in Florida for Palin. I read that the oldies all had to stand in sweltering heat for about four hours for the full event.
The sheer size of the crowds for Palin should have warranted some sort of story from the BBC. Biden’s biggest crowd so far has been 2,000. Plus the angle you point out = that is an area of many Jewish retirees who would notmally vote Democrat.
Last week when Mccain was slightly ahead in th polls – I saw that Obama’s huge lead in New York State (with all its elctoral college seats) had been cut very sharply.
I don’t want Mccain to just beat Obama. I want Obama to lose by a huge margin – to kick the dem party back towards the centre. And Obama being thrashed in Florida, possibly losing states like New Jersey, and scraping by in NY would be good.
I don’t want an appeaser in the White House.
(And it is disgraceful that Hillary and Biden pulled out of today’s rally against Ahmendidjad at the UN. Party before country. I don’t know how that will play with Jewish voters in NY, about 12% I think ?
Martin
You are exactly right about encrytion. Everyone will soon be receiving their signal by some sort of set-top box – Sky, Virgin, Freeview. If it was bundled with Sky or Virgin – all the cable or satellite operator has to do is charge the custmer £X for the BBC channels (or Y or Z for different mixes of BBC channels) withing the overall satellite or cable service fee. And pass on the revs to the BBC, just like they have a per-consuner agreement to pass revs to eg MTV, Discovery etc etc.
If a user does not pay Sky – he can’t get an unencrypted signal. (Or ANY signal at all from Virgin.) If you want the BBC – pay for it, it would be a matter of free choice, and not hard to devise some sort of sliding tariff depending on which channels you want.
John A – You say you don’t want an appeaser in the White House, but Obama is more than that. He is actively for the destruction of the existing norms and mores of the way America lives, does business and interacts with the rest of the world. This is change the Americans will believe in – or else.
I keep asking, what happened to this “citizens’ militia” programme that Obama was going to institute? It sounds more bonkers than Hitler. It is to be armed, and the spending on it is to match US military spending (I guess including the cost of battleships, fighter planes, helicopters, what have you …). What is it for?
Who is going to run it? Is Obama going to shut the police forces down? What is this hugely funded “citizens’ militia” for, actually? Are they going to wear uniforms and stride about the streets with rifles?
We haven’t heard any more about it, but Obama popped up with it around two months ago. A citizens’ militia. In God’s name, why? Has the BBC carried it or is it too bonkers even for them?
Martin 12:29
Agree with you again. Subscription or pay-per-view is the way to go for the BBC.
I would even be willing to pay for Radio 4, unless they drop “Test Match Special”, of course.
David Vance | Homepage | 22.09.08 – 8:10 am |
Propaganda 24/7 – and we are forced to pay for this drivel.
It’s more than that. The BBC is your Official State Broadcaster, the voice the British Public is supposed to trust above all others. There is a legacy of four generations of trust, which was originally the reason the license fee was created.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: If the license fee is abolished tomorrow, the government will step in and subsidize the whole thing out of your taxes anyway, similar to what happened in Canada, and the way they do it in most of the rest of the world. You’ll still be forced to pay for it. The only difference is that you won’t get an annual demand from the shire reeve for it.
If anything, the recent proposal to spread the telly-tax cash around to C4 is just a precursor to the government subsidizing (and possibly controlling through the current incestuous ties) all British media.
Even then, the BBC will remain your Official State Broadcaster (even if you live in NI), and the same problem will remain. Killing the license fee isn’t the answer. The only possible solution is privatizing the news division, and removing the mantle of Official State Broadcaster with the accompanying legacy.
Then they can be as biased as The Guardian or The Spectator, but it won’t have the same effect.
even if you live in NI
Which still happens to be the same country.
David Preiser: I think you will find that there would be a big change in the BBC if it had to feed itself.
Leftists are generally useless at running organisations, the Guardian newspaper for example, whould have gone down the toilet years ago without the state funding it gets.
I wobder if Frei and Webb will be commenting on this poll?
“…A third of white Democrat voters in the United States think black people are unproductive and prone to violence, according to a poll…”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1059214/Racism-rife-voters-United-States-says-poll.html
but of course as I posted elsewhere, in the world of the BBC only white rednecks are racists.
Verity,
What on earth did you do to upset the Dreary Oxfordian?
Verity
As far as I know his chilling statement about a citizen’s militia
is still a policy objective. Don’t worry though, I’m sure it’ll be gentler and kinder than the Hitler Youth.
Verity,
It’s very easy to explain why Jews vote Democrat. Jews have long been associated with various European Leftist movements. Hell, they even started some of them, no? It’s a no-brainer that an eternally oppressed people will agitate for equality and equal rights. When a people hasn’t had the right to vote or own property for centuries, or were forced to live in ghettos as recently as the beginning of the 19th Century, they tend to build up a resentment. It’s the same reason black people in the US vote Democrat. Yet, nobody ever wonders why that is. Of course, it’s because people always forget (or never really knew) that Jews have a history of almost two millenia of mistreatment at the hands of civic leaders. Indeed, most of the “Pioneers” who began to settle in Israel during the early stages of the Zionist movement were Socialists and Collectivists, or similar. This isn’t anything new.
On top of this history, there is the more recent experience of the last three generations of Jews in the US. Very real anti-Semitism from the Protestant white establishment continued to reinforce those Leftoid feelings. When the Republican WASPs wouldn’t let the next generation of more successful Jews into the country clubs, Jews went even more Democrat. Combine all that with the Leftoid nonsense being taught to the third generation in universities, and you can do the math from there.
The funny thing is, you’re probably wondering why Jews vote Democrat when that’s the party which will send Israel down the river. The fact that Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat kind of puts the lie to the “Israel First” accusations hurled at us from both sides, doesn’t it?
I doubt too many retiree Jews flocked to see Gov. Palin. It would be nice if that happened, but I doubt it. More likely it wuz all them Florida rednecks.
Martin | 22.09.08 – 5:45 pm |
I think you will find that there would be a big change in the BBC if it had to feed itself.
I’m saying it won’t have to. If the license fee is abolished, the government will simply step in and pay for all of it straight out of your regular taxes.
David Presier
No – there are now straightforward ways that users could be charged an add-on to their cable or satellite service for whatever quantity of BBC stuff they chose.
All TV trabsmiisions over the air rather than by cable or satellite also have to go through set-top boxes capable of decrypting signals. So again – people would have to pay to decrypt whatever BBC output they wanted.
What WILL still be an imposition on the taxpayer will be the BBC Wrrld Service, funded by the Foreign Office.
Blacks are more likely than whites to commit “hate crimes” in the US:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48898
JohnA | 23.09.08 – 12:54 am |
Then the problem of State Broadcaster will remain, even if you can opt out of subscribing to it.
David Preiser
If the BBC had to pay its own way – at least here in the UK – it would no longer be the State broadcaster here.
I don’t think it can be abolished in one fell swoop. Any more than you could abolish PBS.
It will simply wither on the vine.
David Preiser, yes. I knew all that, but as it was irrelevant to the Governor’s success, I decided not to sideline my own post by trudging through it.
“I doubt too many retiree Jews flocked to see Gov. Palin. It would be nice if that happened, but I doubt it. More likely it wuz all them Florida rednecks.”
No, if you read the reports, it was all elderly folk who had waited outside in the swampy heat for over an hour to hear her speak. And they seemed well-heeled. I guess the car park had some nice cars in it.
David Preiser – Apologies if I came across as a bit snappy – which, actually, I did. It’s just that many people have addressed the issue of why Jews, such an achieving people, would vote Democrat (and Labour) and I just couldn’t be bothered to revisit it. But I shouldn’t have been so short.
JohnA | 23.09.08 – 12:43 pm |
I don’t think it can be abolished in one fell swoop. Any more than you could abolish PBS.
Well, that’s why I keep saying that ending the license fee won’t privatize or end the BBC. It will still be funded by taxes, just in a different way.
Although it would probably be a vast improvement if the BBC had its funding somewhat limited, like PBS. In the US, every PBS local affiliate is technically an independent station. Each station has to do its own annual fundraising drive, which in large cities can seem never-ending.
They have to get money on top of the government subsidy, because that alone won’t sustain them. So they do these big campaigns with phone-ins and special broadcasts to raise money from individuals. It seems like they do it three times a year in New York, but it’s probably only twice a year. There are two different PBS stations in the area, so the effect can be cumulative. Endless repeats of André Rieu, Celtic Thunder, Paul Anka, and Are You Being Served until they reach their target. Then the same thing again a few months later.
I can’t even imagine the BBC going through something like that, but I bet it would be both amusing and painful to watch.
Verity,
No worries. I hear that question a lot, especially lately. It’s a legitimate question, one which I wish more Jews would ask themselves. They’re mostly afraid to think about it because of the dual-loyalty problem.
Thanks, David.
Has anyone else noticed how Obama’s looks are changing? When he first came to everyone’s attention, he was a handsome man, and elegant. A monomaniac with a sense of entitlement, but nice looking.
But as the realisation has crept over him that the Presidence of the United States is not his by divine right, and that other candidates have a huge base – in other words, essentially, since his giant rally in Denver – he has begun to morph into a coarser and thuggish version. And he looks worse every day.
Has anyone else noticed this?
I am sorry for the quality of my typing. My keyboard went splat and I bought a new one from – gag – Microsoft and it is so badly designed it’s almost impossible to use. All the peripheral keys, like commas, quotes, dashes etc are not where God commanded they should be. Sometimes, obviously having hit some key that I would normally use for some purpose, the whole thing turns into Italics and one cannot turn them off.
Note the name, in case it is not familiar to you: Microsoft. (It looked quite nice in the store.)