“
Hi All, been away all day so just catching up now! Well, what about poor Georgie Porgie and that “conversation” with that Russian billionaire? A few points strike me.
1. Osbourne has been foolish in the extreme and has left himself – and his party -open to the smears of sleaze now being generously applied. For that he deserves no pity.
2. The BBC coverage has been exultant, almost hysterical. The Great Leader will be pleased.
3. The comparison between the fevered coverage afforded to this non-story contrasts with the subdued interest Al Beeb has shown in the serial corrupt dealings of Labour during the past decade. Anyone detect the hand of Mandelson in all this spinning? The Prince of Darkness is back but the BBC are throwing all the light on stupid little Osbourne. It is my view that the BBC will help Labour further narrow the opinion poll gap with the Conservatives by ignoring all decent suggestions that Cameron makes and then crucifying the Tories each time they commit an error. In this way, over the next two years, the way for four more years is being prepared and you and I, dear reader fund it.
I will vote for any party that cuts off the BBC public funding. Its gone way past a joke now.
And I’d vote for any party that would undertake to remove the peerage from ‘Lord’ Mandleson.
As for the BBC, its behaviour has been absolutely contemptible all day and Robinson, on BBC TV News a few minutes ago, was in full attack-the-Tories mode.
It’s quite fabulous. Mandelson, accused of dodgy dealing with a Russian oligarch, sets-up Osborne as a diversionary tactic and the BBC leaps to do his bidding.
Well you’re right about Osbourne being a twat in the first place David.
However, just like the Caroline Spelman nonsense the BBC just looks to over hype ANY anti Tory story.
You’d think by now the Tories would have had enough of the BBC and their anti Tory rants?
Yet again I have to say Peter Mandelson, what about that mortgage application?
Gordon Brown and Tony Blair and the £1 million donation THEY DID accept from Bernie to exclude F1 from the tobacco advertising ban (and now we know Bliar did lie – what a shock)
Peter Hain
The lies about the war in Iraq.
It just goes on and on with Labour, but the BBC isn’t interested.
Whatever happened about Labour MEP Cashman giving his boyfriend money?
The Tories really need to flush the BBC out by clearly stating that the BBC charter will NOT be renewed in its current form when it next expires.
The BBC must be made to stand on its own two feet.
While I hold no brief for Osborne, I don’t see what he has done wrong, other than do what everyone else seems to have done and accepted an invitation. So I don’t agree that Osborne did anything wrong.
The BBC however has been completely quiet about Mandelson on this same subject when he did actually have a true conflict of interest.
I actually think Labour has come out worse from this than the Tories and the inordinate amount of time and hysterical ranting given over to it has shown them to be the nasty bastards they really are.
Osborne will be shown to have done nothing wrong and the BBC will look foolish, along with Labour and everyone will believe it was a vindictive and nasty thing to do.
Vive La BEEB! Even if it was inadvertent.
I also agree that the licence fee is getting closer to being scrapped with this type of reporting on the Tories. Do you think the BBC are under the impression the Tories wouldn’t dare? What have they, now, got to lose?
Go on Dave, you know you want to, and we certainly want you to.
My goodness but Robert Peston seems to be all over this story like a bad smell. Can someone please remind me who it was that pushed for an investigation from the SFO into his “scoops”?
Oh, that’s right. It was George Osborne.
Well, it’s not like the BBC ever let a conflict of interest stop Peston from reporting on things before.
JUst watched the start of Newsnight. You can guess the No1 story. But did I hear Paxo right? According to him George Bush took America and Britain to war!!!!
Oh really BBC. Funny because I seem to remember Tony the liar Blair and a certain fat one eyed scotsman wanting ot take us to war.
Did I miss something?
Your main headline BTW should also not have Osbornes name on it but Milburns…oooops, that’s a secret, along with one other high ranking, and ministerial, wife beater.
They’ve gone too far this time. Open propagandising on behalf of Labour by that odious little creep Peston. I do hope Mr. Osbourne reaches for M’learned friends.
That vile turd burglar Lord Voldemort, whilst in charge of EU Aluminium tariffs, accepts hospitality from Russia’s richest Aluminium trader… no impropriety there, move along, nothing to see here.
It is a very lame story, as these donation stories often are. All media organisations are going for it big time though. Newsnight’s coverage pretty good.
PS – I’ve posted links here before about the Conservative’s policy on the license fee. Right or wrong, they’re for it.
you just have to hope that people realise the BBC has extreme bias, and in fact if you read the blogs on the BBC you will see that a lot of people aren’t fooled. The BBC Peston blog coments are very critical of him –and actually abusive against Labour and the BBC
That clown Brown may well fall over Mandelson —he will make a bit of territory now but lose it again later.
The BBC are terrified of the future because a digital world will remove the need to pay a licence fee —and only Labour seem to want a tame lapdog media.
Mikewineliberal
You’re a BBC employee. Move along please.
And look at this for BBC interference:
From coffee house.
On the Today programme this morning, Robert Peston joined Nick Robinson to offer further details on the story. Considering the role Osborne’s office is playing in pushing for a Serious Fraud Office investigation into who was the source for some of Peston’s scoops over the past few weeks, a reasonable person could conclude that Peston has a conflict of interest in broadcasting on Osborne’s political difficulties. If Peston is going to continue to report on this story, it might be worth this being mentioned to the audience.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2531771/corfued.thtml
If i was, i’d be in an Islington winebar, not typing on a 5 year old laptop.
Pure vitriol from the BBC. And so so obvious. Zero marks for subtlety and will prove to be counterproductive.
That said ,so incestuous and contemptuous is the media and the political establishment that they are completely unable to realise how much they are all mistrusted and despised.
The patronised, ignored, preyed upon, and still docile middle England might just rally to a new type of leader who is of them and not at all like the current self serving parasites of all parties.
It could happen and then things would get interesting.
Not a big fan of Mr Osborne, I think he should be demoted forthwith.
Shadow Minister for Broadcasting and Internet is about his level.
it is incredile how the BBC has taken on this partisan attitude to such a huge unsubtle degree since the credit crunch. Do they think that we won’t notice? Perhaps they are too stoned on Mandelson’s private supply of showbiz sherbet
GCooper: “And I’d vote for any party that would undertake to remove the peerage from ‘Lord’ Mandleson.”
Don’t forget that creature Kinnock.
OK folks. My local MP is never going to be anything other than Labour or Respect. Writing to my MP is thus a waste of time.
Serious and practical answers please, because I’m tired of it all; who do I write to? Who do we tell – in hopefully large numbers – that any hypothetical new government MUST sort this stinking corporation out once and for all. Privatise it, dismantle it, whatever. This is beyond an anachronism now, the Licence Fee is now utterly indefensible.
What can we actually do?
Contributing here is a start, but it’s not enough.
I know theres been a few Anti BBC Vids knocking around You Tube lately, but for my money this seems the best of them.
Reading the comments on Peston’s blog hatchet job…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2008/10/rothschild_wont_back_down.html#commentsanchor
…shows that the scepticism of the BBC is growing. A lot of commenters there see the BBC as what they are – a pro-Labour supporting outfit that merely forwards Labour talking points to the outside world.
Peston is on the advisory board of the Media Standards Trust sponsors of the Orwell Prize- he must be turning in his grave- Funny thing about that body it has the same address as Common Purpose. Not that that means anything does it?
There are those who believe Common Purpose is a sinister and undemocratic body intent on subverting our democracy.
Me I think they are just a nice bunch of selfless boys and girls having fun
I’ll let you know when my door gets kicked in.
Thank you for that link DanniJamerson. Several of those points really hit the bullseye!
I began from my usual, sceptical, default position regarding Common Purpose, dave s.
I have now changed my mnd, though I wish the main anti-CP site wasn’t quite so wrapped in tinfoil.
David, with this Osborne thing – it IS big news. This isn’t the BBC blowing it out of proportion, this is front page news everywhere:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
I don’t care less about this myself, but David it seems like you are objecting to the BBC covering this at all. All the criticisms you apply to the BBC will apply equally to the publications listed above. Do you also think they are acting to aid Labour in the opinion polls too?
And the BBC (“Osborne denies Russian cash claim”) seems to have the most subdued coverage of the lot too:
“George Osborne fights for his political life”
“Osborne is forced to admit he met oligarch FIVE times after crossing Mandelson (and just look who’s smiling now)”
“Osborne on the rack over new allegations”
“Osborne at bay over Russian donation claim”
Hardly hysterical wouldn’t you say?
MisterMinit (as ever, desperate to defend his pals at the BBC) ignores the role the BBC plays in setting the agenda that the rest of the MSM follows.
G Cooper
If you had ever seen me you would know that I never ware tin anything. I normally dress in what some people would see as a masonic uniform.
Telling people the truth when they have been fed on propaganda all their lives is never a popular task. Fortunately for yourself I dont give a flying f..k what people think of me. The truth is far more important then my personal ego.
When the evidence does not fit my own personal viewpoint, I change my viewpoint. What do you do?
You do not have to be Alex Jones or David Icke to know for sure that the media/BBC is telling the worst type of porkies.
Thats the type that hide the real reasons for wars in the middle east. The real chances of an economic meltdown until it is far to late for the majority to do anything about it. And on and on and on and on and on etc etc etc. ( may I refer you to this sites entire archive and your own common sense )
What will it take for people such as yourself to finally throw off your mental chains?
You have a PC so for gods sake use it properly while you are still allowed to. You owe it to your children, to at least come up with a rational explanation as to why daddy lost his job, marriage and home. Never mind why he pontificated why Rome was burning right in front of his face.
Non academic HISTORIANS such as myself often asked ourselves in the past why it was that the German people during the 30’s could not see what was coming. Why did they vote for Hitler and why did they sit about eating sausage while millions of their fellow citizens were taking the early shower so to speak?
At least we should understand why now a little better. Even if, like then, it is far too late to do anything about it again.
Please understand this about the alternative media, and please dont start to think I am only saying this because I AM PARANOID. As any sensible well read person should be when their own government and media is clearly lying 24/7 to them.
Not only is the MSM filled to the brim with propaganda and disinformation so is the alternative media, and more so everyday.
This is done to throw people of the correct path and also to confuse people to such an extent that people like yourself think people like myself are mad. The truth becomes so confusing that many simply give up and switch the 9 o’clock news on for what seems to be a bit of normality. There is a degree of safety and reassurance in numbers.
However you can only lose your virginity once. Once you understand what the BBC actually is and who really controls its obvious agendas, whats worse what these people really want for us. All you want to do with your TV is put your foot straight through the diabolically rotten screen.
If you want to understand what the common purpose of Common Purpose is, hear is a clue.
Simply replace the word Common with the word BROWN and the word Purpose with the word SHIRT and all becomes perfectly ILLUMINATED.
MisterMinit | 22.10.08 – 12:38 am |
Scold DV all you want, but there’s no denying the big picture, which GCooper brought up here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/8672907781067023549/#426439
This becomes all the more salient when viewed in the context of the following fact, as Sebastian Weetabix pointed out here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/8672907781067023549/#426450
Consider all that in the context of my comment here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/8672907781067023549/#426442
And who is it that sets the BBC’s agenda for reporting on the business-politics mix? The scowling Pestilence himself, of course.
This is way beyond what David Vance likes or doesn’t like.
I can’t remember the last time I have heard the BBC sound so cheery about a news story. At last they have a good old fashioned Tory sleaze story to run with and they are going to squeeze every last drop out of it. Odd how they pay so much attention to this story and that of Caroline Spelman but so little to the original Peter Mandelson story, Peter Hain, Keith Vaz or the Tony Blair/Bernie Ecclestone revelations.
Preston’s blog is still overwhelmed with anti Preston comments asking why he is aing things that have nowt to do with him……wonder when Nick Robinson is going to slap him down?
GCooper | 22.10.08 – 12:58 am
MisterMinit (as ever, desperate to defend his pals at the BBC) ignores the role the BBC plays in setting the agenda that the rest of the MSM follows.
Quite right. There’s further insight on the workings of the U.K. media here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/459982689412854778/#426491
Leaving aside the bias, the linked BBC report is not even factually correct on basic stuff:
Mr Rothschild alleged he had discussed the idea of a donation – first brought to a light in a letter to the Times on Tuesday – via Mr Deripaska’s UK firm, Leyland DAF
I think the Beeb actually meant LDV, the light van manufacturer.
Jonathan Boyd Hunt | Homepage | 22.10.08 – 8:26 am
LDV stands for Leyland Daf Vans.
Anonymous | 22.10.08 – 9:37 am:
Exactly. Which is sod-all to do with Leyland Daf the heavy truck maker, (which, in any case, doesn’t exist any more.)
I think the reason that the BBC and other media are pursuing this is that they just don’t believe that funding was not discussed. Reading between the lines I think this scenario is reasonable:
Oligarch, politician, fundraiser and hangers-on sit down to tea.
Oligarch to fundraiser: “Nice to meet you Mr Fundraiser, Mr Politician tells me that you work for his party. What exactly is that you do?”
“I persuade wealthy individuals to give money to the party so that Mr Politician can keep his job.”
“And how many wealthy individuals support you? Any of my Oligarch friends in England?”
“Not many at the moment as they don’t want to be seen as backing us just yet but there are ways of keeping their names away from the donations.”
“Oh, how do you do that? Say I wanted to give £X but didn’t want to be associated directly with it?”
“Well as a non-UK resident you couldn’t donate unfortunately.”
“Ah but I do own several British companies. For example Acme Vans.”
“Well that would be how you would do it, the donation would come from the company and then everything would be above board and legal.”
Politican to fundraiser: “Enough work talk”. Turns to Oligarch “I like your new art installation; I haven’t seen anything like it before.”
Oligarch: “It is quite stunning. Mr Talentless made it from the bones of the fish he served at a large dinner party and added left over gravy from a subsequent Sunday lunch he invited me to. All my Oligarch friends are very envious.”
Jonathan Boyd Hunt | Homepage | 22.10.08 – 10:32 am
Which is sod-all to do with Leyland Daf the heavy truck maker, (which, in any case, doesn’t exist any more.)
Sod-all. Really?
So it’s an astonishing fluke that the names are so similar?
Yes, really. They are two quite different companies and have been unconnected since LDV was sold off in 1993 and its then parent Leyland Daf went into receivership, to re-emerge as Daf.
That they were once entwined explains the similarity of the names – rather like Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd (cars) and Rolls-Royce plc (aero engines, marine diesels etc) also have nothing whatsoever to do with each other, though they once did.
It’s worth paying the License fee for this! Thank you BBC for covering this story so well and exposing the Tories. Also thank you for showing Mr Cameron and Mr. Osbourne’s faces and reactions in parliament they were terribly funny (for the first time in ages they didn’t have that smug arrogant look, instead they look embarrassed and disgraced!!!) and made my morning even better!
Better than that was last night when Nick Robinson asked Mr Osbourne about the allegations and he was constantly trying to dodge the question!!!
I’m loving it!
Stephen Glover, ‘Daily Mail’ has:
“While the BBC’s knives are out for Osborne, Mandy is getting away with murder”
[Concluding extract]:
” There are many in the BBC who do not wish even David Cameron’s ‘decontaminated’ and refashioned Conservative party well.
And perhaps the ‘Prince of Darkness’ even now instills fear in some quarters of the BBC. Here is a man who, in the heyday of New Labour, was considered so important by the Corporation that its ‘political adviser’ decreed that no mention could ever be made of his private life. When resignation loomed a second time in 2001, the BBC was slow to grasp the gravity of his situation, presumably because it was wary of offending him.
Whatever the explanation for its present indulgence, the wretched Mr Osborne is being tortured to death while the new Business Secretary is spared. The Shadow Chancellor has certainly acted foolishly and naively. Lord Mandelson, I suspect, may have behaved much, much worse.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1079854/STEPHEN-GLOVER-While-BBCs-knives-Osborne-Mandy-getting-away-murder.html
Anonymous was me: 9:16 am.
Daily mail = very Pro-Conservative.
Maybe so, Jack. But we don’t have to pay for it if we don’t like its views.
To be honest the license fee is hardly expensive. The BBC operates many radio stations, a number of TV channels and when you think about it your not really paying that much..
It’s not a question of price. The main objection of this site is the lack of choice. If we want to watch television at all we have to buy a licence, which funds an organisation with a particular and biased point of view. It would be like every time you wanted to buy a copy of the Mirror you had to give an extra 40p to the Daily Mail.
Well I can tell you when I was watching the BBC News channel this morning and they were interviewing the home secretary the interviewer was far from biased.
I can’t actually see that the BBC is that biased. Yes in some ways I can see your points, I’m not denying that at all but think about it they employ thousands of people all of which will have their won opinions. To us it may seem like reporting from a totally neutral point of view as a journalist can’t be that hard but I reckon it must be.
Let’s be honest you’d be mad to employ me as a journalist for a pro conservative organization – I simply couldn’t do it and in some circumstances I would find it impossible to report in a 100% neutral way.
I don’t think the BBC does that bad of a job at reporting fairly but it depends on the reporter.