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 also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely.
General BBC-related comment thread!
Bookmark the permalink.
Maybe the bBC does too, because they them get the reader to imbibe these not related snippets of information as why these people are actually doing better than everybody else;
MOTHERS WHO SMOKE
Bangladeshi: 4.1%
Indian: 5.2%
Pakistani: 7.5%
Black African: 7.8%
Other: 11.3%
White: 29.8%
Black Caribbean: 34%
Mixed: 38%
VERY GOOD MOTHER
White: 29.7%
Mixed: 33.6%
Indian: 39.3%
Other 42.3%
Pakistani / Bangladeshi: 47.8%
Black: 50.4%
VERY GOOD FATHER
White: 34.2%
Mixed: 36.7%
Indian: 45.2%
Pakistani / Bangladeshi: 47.7%
Other 51%
Black: 55.5%
Anybody else notice that the last two categories are views taken from the parents themselves.
I mean the parents of whom 9% of the parents say they never play with their children, of whom 12% never play sports or the 7% of mothers who never read to their children are allowed to place themselves at the top of the list of good parenting.
Maybe that is why the bBC ends their little apologetic spot with this;
“This is, I think, a warning we should heed before anyone leaps in and lectures parents from whatever ethnic background on how to bring up their children. No-one has a monopoly on wisdom.”
The bBC, why certain children do badly at school and half the story.
Now Justin Webb is saying that the McCain campaign’s latest effort to encourage voters to question The Obamessiah’s foreign policy is “sinister”.
Sinister robocalls
This is so idiotic. Every election has the Republicans doing the bit about how they’re better for national security, etc. This is nothing new, and nothing different. The “sinister” message he links to isn’t unusual at all, and actually more innocuous than similar robo-calls by Democrats in previous elections. Webb even contradicts his own point by saying that the messages “are nothing like as aggressive” as some calls used against McCain himself in past elections!
So why the nasty headline, Justin? Just trying to incite a little anger? Fan the flames? Why is this worth posting about at all, unless it’s just a desperate attempt to stick the boot in, even for no reason whatsoever?
Just how low will Webb sink before this is all over? This is someone the BBC tells British citizens to trust about US issues.
Perhaps the BBC’s LYSE DOUCET would care to lecture us again on the ‘humanity’ of the Teleban:
“No humanity for ‘evil’ Taleban”
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1602644.ece
A BBC report today from Afghanistan, not by Lyse Doucet, but by Martin Patience:
“Taleban kill many in bus attacks”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7678717.stm
GCooper: Do you think Gordon Brown cares anymore? They’ve so trashed our economy wha’ts a few billion more pissed away on pointless building projects?
Whatever happened to ‘prudence’?
“I see now Yvette Cooper is saying what I was suggesting the other week, that the banks should be stopped repossessing homes at the moment.
Why on Earth didn’t the Tories come out with this earlier instead of sucking up to the Government?”
She was actually responding to comments by Justine Greening, who raised the issue. The BBC have swung it the other way around.
David: Cameron should have come out with it much earlier, in PMQ’s for example.
Cameron could have proposed a 6 month cooling off period before ANY repossession takes place and have made it mandatory to look at other meethods first (such as reduced payments, the bank taking a share in the poperty)
That would have given the Tories something to beat the Government up with and get the public on their side (if not the BBC)
Martin:
“Sometimes I think the Tories want to lose the next election.”
If we’re in a recession soon, then the Tories will carry the ‘nasty’ can if they have to employ tough measures in sorting out NuLab’s mess.
Possibly Tory strategists are hoping for a wafer-thin Lab majority, or a minority govt with Lab the largest party.
That way, NuLab’s popularity will nosedive just like Major’s did in 1993, with the decay for us all to see.
THEN, Nulab will be annihilated in 2014 or 2015…
Who cares if the tories win the next election. I’d only like it to see the smug grin wiped off the collective faces of the BBC and watch them run for the hills.
Anyone who thinks the tories would scrap the licence fee is living in a dream world. Where would all their offspring go to get jobs? Who would do all the tory party promotion once the threat of slicing up the licence fee has had it’s effect on the BBC top brass? And what about all the guest fees, potential jobs and nepotism. A lot of tories would have gone to the same public schools as the top brass of the BBC. That kind of person, only looks out for it’s own kind.
The tories are only a few steps below labour on the ladder of political slime.
If you want the BBC smashed, then you’ll have to it yourself.
“Who cares if the tories win the next election.”
Truth is that the BBC has more Labour friends than conservative ones – so if you are saying that it doesn’t matter if labour win the next election – then you can say goodbye to any hope of changing the BBC? It is only government that can revoke or refuse to issue a new charter. People can protest as much as they like but it will make no difference.
The Tories WILL win at the next election almost certainly with a massive majority, perhaps even a record majority!
Will they repeal ALL the damaging laws and regulations?
Will they run a cost benefit inquiry/corruption into the EU? Will they run an HONEST inquiry into the illegal wars/torture/lies/murder/corruption?
Will they instigate a real and fair scientific review of the climate change theory using ALL the new scientific data?
Will they sack all the useless jobsworths and gravytrain/quango parasites?
Will they dismantle the BBC?
Will they support fair tax laws to encourage business/industry?
Will they build real power stations that produce electricity at prices people can afford?
Will they throw away the ridiculous tax credit system/ID cards/database records?
Will they have a full public inquiry into political/EU sleaze and corruption?
Will they throw out ALL the foreign criminals/terrorists/benefit parasites?
Will they fund a proper education system designed to build character and instill discipline?
Will they rid the NHS of the choking grasp of the quangocrat target commissars and use the money to employ proper cleaning teams?
Will they bring back national service and sweep the antisocial elements from the streets?
Will they rid the nation of the foreign and racist and divisive colour based gangs that do so much damage to our society?
Will they sweep away the vile PC laws and instigate a proper ‘colour blind’ government?
The answer of course is no to most if not all of the above!
The national slide will continue, the ship of state will continue sink, the Tories will be content to simply paint the funnel a nice shiny blue and polish the brass as we all sink beneath the waves and drown!
Why don’t the Tories propose to abolish taxes altogether? I think if you are earning less than £8000 a year you should not be paying taxes at all.
Radio 5, about 7.15 this morning: Sheila Fogarty, as usual missing no opportunity for a quick sneer, on hearing John Humphries was told by the Queen that if she gave an interview, it wouldn’t be with him : “well, that would be a COMPLIMENT”…
Mark Thompson: News is not a commodity • it is a vital part of our democracy
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/article966946.ece;jsessionid=3DD00536E0EBD45B678F92A5F38F8665?postingType=posting&mode=thanks&postingId=967088
I agree with at least part of that headline.
As to the rest, well, I can see why he gets the big bucks.
For some reason I was still awake to hear the midnight news on Radio 4. Some waffle about McBean which culminated in “…SOME polls now give the Tories a lead of as LITTLE as 9%”. I presume that reporter will be censured today under the BBC “careless talk costs (Labour government) lives” policy for letting even that much out of the bag.
Cassandra
“The Tories WILL win at the next election”
You obviously weren’t listening to Cameron’s interview with Naughtie on Today this morning when Cameron put Labour back into play as serious contenders in 2010.
OK, Naughtie – stupidly – tried the usual tactic of interrupting Cameron as he responded to N’s questions. He needn’t have bothered. In his supremely vacuous response to the Brown/Darling policy of “keep on spending” all Cameron would do is to postpone “small companies'” VAT payments [1] and reduce employers’ National Insurance (temporarily) from 12.8% to 11.8%.
There was little mention that economics is a science of choice: Brown has chosen to spend £400 billion on rescuing the banking system which means there’s £400 billion which can’t be spent somewhere else – it’s a simple point to get across – Cameron failed to do this.
However, if the government chooses to keep on spending, the pound will go down the toilet since there’s no money left here (and only a little money “out there”) to finance this expenditure. It’s a simple point to get across – Cameron failed to do this.
The government has off-balance sheet liabilities of at least £1,500 billion for public sector pensions which lenders (including the IMF) know about and will bring to the negotiating table: lenders will (rightly, from their point of view) screw us into the ground. It’s a simple point to get across – Cameron failed to do this.
I could go on but, for once, this isn’t BBC bias. On the contrary, it’s the BBC doing its proper job of showing up the “opposition” for the useless crew they are. The bias comes when the BBC fails (as it consistently does) to show up the government for the useless crew they are also.
[1] As a small company employer registered for VAT, VAT is no problem since my clients (almost) unfailingly pay me the VAT outstanding before I have to pay HMRC my quarterly VAT bill. Of course, small companies (and big companies) use the timing characteristic of VAT receipts and payments to create interest-free finance for their companies (as do I). But this is not the purpose of VAT. Even so, postponing payments for, what, 3 months will be a very tiny contribution to those companies’ who have financial problems. This is yet another illustration that Cameron (along with his opposite number in government) has no idea how the real world operates.
Umbongo,
Maybe you are correct, but hey, that funnel looks so pretty in shiny blue doesnt it? and the brass work is so sparkly, glug glug glug.
Gerald Brown,
As little as NINE PERCENT? Oh my good lord! with such a paltry lead as that the Prime mentalist is on course to win a stunning historical victory, thats of course if McSpendalot doesnt have a mental collapse first and isnt resident in a rubber room filled with drugs and fitted with a straight jacket!
Sigh
The UK government cannot play around with VAT payment dates. VAT is an EU competence and its rules can only be changed by a vote in the 27 Member State EU Council. We have not had significant control of VAT since we joined the EU. Either Cameron knows that, in which case he is telling porkies, or he doesn’t know in which case he is a numptie.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7679212.stm
BBC really struggling with this tragic story. They are doing their best to avoid mentioning that she was killed for being a Christian, despite having plenty of evidence proving as much. Just look:
“The Taleban are reported to have said they killed her because she was working for a Christian organisation…”
Now read what it says below, which is found at the bottom of the article. Why the need for the superflous ‘are reported’? They admit it, but the BBC want to soften the blow first.
Taleban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid told AFP that they killed Ms Williams “because she was working for an organisation which was preaching Christianity in Afghanistan”.
Umbongo:
I agree entirely. Naughtie was his usual anti-Tory self (a leopard never changes its spots), but the Tories have proved themselves absolutely useless in defining an alternative way forward, and therefore deserve all they get in the way of negative questioning.
Cameron’s VAT suggestion is ludicrous because the UK government can do nothing in this area. But the BBC is so pro-EU that it wouldn’t dare framing a question that would seek to expose this. And so it didn’t. And won’t.
Arthur Dent/Robin
Re Vat: I suspect that Cameron has no idea how VAT works and cares less about the EU competence here. His proposal was obviously a product of Soundbite Central at Conservative HQ, to be forgotten as soon as today’s papers turn into chip wrappers (much, to be fair, like Woolas’s new policy on immigration control: a U-Turn I would have missed had I relied on the BBC “news” service).
“a U-Turn I would have missed”
The U-Turn being over the two days from the 18 October to 20 October – not the spurious change in policy which was announced in the original Times interview and was given wide coverage by the BBC.
Vince Cable just got another 20 minutes uninterrupted on 5 live with Simon Mayo to spout more Lib Dem bollocks. What is it with the BBC and this man?
David | 20.10.08 – 12:55 pm
lyse doucet must be livid. the story completely fails to capture the “humanity” of the taleban.
Cassandra
A Tory lead of 9% might look good on paper, but for one BIG problem which the Opposition has so far failed to tackle.
The parliamentary constituency boundaries show a heavy pro-Labour skew, where 2 inner-city seats can have as large an electorate as 1 rural seat.
This means that the following poll %ages would result in:
LAB 40 – CON 31 ; LAB landslide
CON 40 – LAB 31 ; bare CON majority
We could have a result where Labour get a majority by polling 5% FEWER votes then Tories. If such a result were to occur, will the Left ask for a “US 2000 Hanging Chads” recount / inquiry ?
The joker in the pack could however be tactical voting, which had hurt the Tories so badly in recent years.
Maybe disillusionment with Labour might see a lot of tactical Liberal voting in the inner cities with the sole intention of getting Labour out !
I’m not convinced a Cameron victory will change anything anyway; in 1964 the Conservatives took a major kicking at the hands of Labour, lead by a grammar school “meritocrat” who was media savvy and (most importantly) could fake intimacy with the times although he had no real comprehension. In a blind panic the Conservatives found themselves a new leader who was also the product of a grammar school; who had as much merit as his opposite number; and who was also (by their standards) media savvy. Heath is a plausible candidate for the worst PM the country has ever suffered.
In 1997 the Conservatives took a major kicking at the hands of Labour, with a private school educated “charismatic” leader who was media savvy and (most importantly) could fake intimacy with the times although he had no real comprehension. In a blind panic the Conservatives found themselves a new leader who was also the product of a private school; who had as much charisma as his opposite number (they thought); and who was also media savvy.
History may not repeat itself, but it rhymes.
Please remember that Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg and the spiv Cameron are vying for the trappings of office, not real power. That resides with the EU
I’m no fan of Cameron, but I want the fat one eyed jock gone.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7680449.stm
Another puff piece. 40% of the text is just Brown quotes. Cameron and Clegg are afforded a few lines between them. The clip at the top only shows Brown’s statement, and not either of the responses.
At least one of the multitude of Beeboids tooling around the US is done with his journey of exploration.
End of the road
He even learned something:
If I’d learned anything on this trip, it’s that preconceived notions won’t get you very far here.
What a fatuous statement. Like that works anywhere except at Broadcasting House.
I’d met conservative Texans who were green energy pioneers and gun enthusiasts who turned out to be cheerful, homely moms. Likewise, there were the gay activists who espoused family values and religious faith, and the evangelical Christians who believed the church ought to stay out of politics.
Gosh. Evangelical Christians who believed that the church ought to stay out of politics? Who’d have thought? Gay activists espousing religious faith? Unheard of. Gun enthusiasts who aren’t nasty, kill ’em all neanderthal males? Wonders never cease. And I hope “homely” means something different in the UK than it does here.
I also hope this will convince a few defenders of the indefensible that the BBC most certainly does have a pretty pathetic opinion of United Statesians. And we’re the ones who are supposed to be ignorant of the outside world.
And then there’s this:
Yes, race was still a sensitive issue here. There was the (very) occasional ugly remark. And one politician’s comments landed him in hot water. But I don’t think any comparable nation has made so much progress in so little time.
What the hell is a “comparable nation”? And what other country has made more progress in this area? Ever?
Go back home and spread the word, Jon Kelly. The BBC simply hasn’t got a clue when it comes to the US.
Mark
I understand where you are coming from , however I believe things have moved on a little. If “Bottler” Brown had gone to the country this time last year I think it would have been on the same constituency boundaries as 2005, but the boundaries are changing (soon?) such that about 30 Labour “rotten” seats are being redistributed including a reduction of several in Scotland. Certainly Norfolk is gaining an extra seat.
Look out for some intriguing Labour in fighting for constituency placings, possibly including the lovely Mr Balls and his wife/partner
“The main effect will be to make the boundaries more favourable to the Conservative party. If the 2005 election had been fought on the new boundaries the Conservatives would have won 214 seats, rather than the 197 they actually won, and Labour would have had a majority of 36, rather than 64. It also slightly reduces the swing the Conservatives need to get an overall majority – down from 7.4% to 7.1%.”
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/878
BBC report:
“Disarray in Turkish terror trial”
I suppose it would be totally out of place for the BBC to remind British people in this report that the UK Labour government campaigns for the entry of the 75 million Muslim Turks to join the European Union as soon as possible, meaning that as many of them who want to come, will be able to come to reside in the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7679158.stm
Don’t forget Martin Labour has to win in Scotland – and things are looking pretty bleak there.
SNP: 35% (+17%)
Lab: 26% (-14%)
Tory: 20% (+4%)
LibDem: 14% (-9%)
Other: 5% (1%)
Expect the BBC to attack their friends in the SNP during the next election.
http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/
You have to admire Peter Mandelson for shifting the allegations, over his staying on ships with Russian millionaires, onto the Conservatives and of course the BBC are happy to oblige in the key after the 8 o’clock news section on the Today programme.
Anon
If George Osborne was stupid enough to discuss donations with a Russian at a party where Peter Mandelson was present, he deserves all he gets.
For me, the real eye-opener was to see how these politicians all move in the same circles, which are so far removed from the ordinary voter. These politicians have no interest in us, merely the trappings of power, and view it as no more than a game.
I will agree however that the BBC were very quick to put this story into the most important slot of the Today programme. I don’t necessarily criticise them for that; I just can’t imagine them doing the same for a similar Labour story. And I wonder who this “other” witness to the story was who would back up the claims in court: Mandelson himself? There is no way he could be seen to involve himself in a court case after his previous, ahem, difficulties.
Moderators – any chance of a new open thread? This one’s so far down I don’t suppose anyone’s reading it.