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.
Re: taxibookinggate
Given that Sikhs pay license fees I’d say that its entirely appropriate that the Beeb shouldn’t employ a woman whose parenting has apparently led to her daughter (at 14??!!) being “scared” of them. It’s just a shame that they don’t apply the same criteria to other employees liable to offend license fee payers…
The BBC doing more free advertising for Google:
Google Earth revives ancient Rome
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7725560.stm
Google searches track flu spread
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7724503.stm
Notice how the BBC didn’t report this story that put Google in a bad light:
Outrage as Google allows gambling adverts
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Outrage_as_Google_allows_gambling_adverts&in_article_id=361920&in_page_id=34
The influence of ex-Newsnight editor Peter Baron, now working for Google PR department, I wonder?
I don’t expect to see many negative stories about Google on the BBC for a while.
Fooled again: did you know Al BeBeeCeera’s “kidnap victim” Alan Johnston was a Muzz?
IS THIS TRUE? I wonder?
Intense | 12.11.08 – 10:49 pm Alan
I can’t answer that question. Should the BBC only send ‘neutral’ reporters to cover stories? How should they judge. Catholics or Protestants to Northern Ireland or the Vatican? What about lapsed Catholics, estranged Protestants or militant atheists? Should ignorance of the issues be the deciding factor?
Alan Johnston was a willing propagandist rather than a professionally neutral reporter, whatever his private beliefs.
Robin 8:50 am
Yes, the ‘eu referendum blogspot’ piece is very good, including this on BBC ‘Today’ and power cuts:
[Extract]:
…”the BBC Radio 4 ‘Today’ programme decided • at last • to twitter on about the prospect of power cuts, something this blog and Booker in his own little ghetto in the ‘Sunday Telegraph’ has been banging on for ages. But we are not ‘news’. Once the mighty BBC deigns to do it though, it then become news.
“The amateurishness of the piece itself was a wonder to behold. The BBC’s idea of research to is rely on their environment ‘analyst’ Roger Harrabin to carry out a vox pop of ‘experts’ in the energy field, asking them whether they think the lights might go out. It then concludes the ‘work’ by interviewing energy minister Mike O’Brien, who tells the programme that we (the government) will ‘make sure we keep the lights on.’
“Not for the BBC is there any likelihood of it doing its own research, which would lead it to the inevitable conclusion that the lights will indeed go out.”
‘It isn’t news – until we say so.’
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/11/it-isnt-news-until-we-say-so.html
BBC coverage of the baby P case last night began with Balls announcing the inquiry and then refered to Cameron’s anger. This gave the clear impression that the Government had made the announcement BEFORE Cameron raised it in Parliament.
For those who didn’t know the real sequence of events this would have blunted Cameron’s attack.
BBC have form on sequencing events in different order to project their prefered version of a story,but this was the BBCNulab pact at its worst.
The BBC was in full ‘Save Brown’ mode last night after the Clunking One’s dire performance at PMQs. They played clips of the exchange out of order, and, as David points out above, cut it so heavily that it made it look like Brown was apologising for something not making a snide point.
Of course if it had been Cameron it would have been played in full on every news broadcast, and Newsnight would have done a ‘Can Cameron Survive?’ special.
Tiny item on yesterday’s 7 am Radio 4 news. “Diplomatic sources say that David Miliband will be visiting Syria shortly. It’s another sign of warming relations between Europe and Syria”.
DM is British foreign secretary so he represents thw UK, not the EU, still less something called “Europe”.
And who says what it’s a sign of?
Sounds like just a feed from Zanulab which the BBC obediently trots out verbatim.
david – bbc news is awash with christianity, radio in
particular. we’ve had the wretched anne atkins on a lot recently doing thought for the day. I think too that the bbc have played down
the role of nkunda’s pentecostalism as a driving force behind his actions in the congo. it’s not all one way.
Deegee,
Aah, Alan johnston, the gift(to the Islamists)that keeps on giving and giving!
Aleem Maqbool the racist anti semite bigot oozing hatred and lies, not even bothering to hide his hatred of Israel!
Roger Harribin/Richard Black/David Shukman pretending to be ‘science correspondents’ when none of them would recognise the true scientific method or real science if it sat on their collective faces!
The BBC narrative is ‘any views welcome as long as they are indentical to our own’
The Somalians shot dead by the Royal navy were innocent fisherman attending a wedding party and they were only armed with AK47s/RPGs to fish in an ecologically safe way, both were peace loving holymen, of course half a dozen crack ‘yuman rites’ briefs are flying out to Somalia to council and care for the grieving warlords/families with full legal aid paid for by a grateful taxpayer eager to see social justice done and a multi million pound compensation package and free entry to the UK for life will be extended to the innocent victims families/and anyone else who would like a life on social benefits!
I can imagine that oral Grrrin will be dashing over to the scene bursting into tears as she hugs the grieving relatives and reports on the fiendish and cruel murders of two innocent fishermen by the evil warmongering navy!
Reactions mixed as Highfield heads to MSFT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/nov/10/bbc-microsoft
‘…admired by many for his political nous while disliked by others for his inability to get projects launched.’
Ah… Britain, embodied by the BBC and its merry exchange programme of ‘market rate talents’ Let’s call ’em ‘Martas’, on account of all the ‘sacrifices’ they make.
Who cares if it doesn’t work so long as you have ‘political nous’.
And I have to pay for this?
The inevitable BBC ‘multiculturalism’ advocacy at all political levels – UK, Europe, USA, and global: MATT FREI homes in on the European Union to advocate more Muslims in political power –
Frei’s misleading title:
“Washington Diary: European Obamas?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/world_news_america/7725979.stm
The BBC cannot stop itself sneering at Sarah Palin even after the election is over.
Breakfast TV- not my usual time I must admit- an item about the stage show in honour of Prince Charles.
A clip of the star turn Robin Williams who can make Brigstocke(have I spelt his name right?) sound funny.The clip shown just has to feature a very unfunny joke about Sarah Palin.
Back to the studio and the presenters and guests laughing away in cosy agreement.
Maybe there is a new clause in every Beeb job application.
“Do you promise if employed by the BBC to take every opportunity to belittle and humiliate any American the high command finds objectionable”
David and posters
Everyone should take a look at this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/11/the_role_of_citizen_journalism.html
A goldmine of the predjudices of the BBC on view. And an absolute joke too.
I quote:
“Take Robert Peston’s blog… it had 182,000 page views. And 253 comments.
This highlights the difference in the audiences between those who are happy to read what others have to say and those self selecting minority who want to join in the debate themselves…
These numbers are a also a useful warning not to set too much store by the tone of the comments. Those who join in the debate are by definition a vocal minority. they certainly have a place… but they need to be kept in perspective.”
So basically, if the vocal minority’s views differ to the BBC, the BBC will ignore them. Never for a second will the BBC consider that the ‘vocal minotiry’ are representative of those who can’t be bothered to comment, and therefore should be listened too.
Helen Boaden really doesn’t get it. She seems to think that the BBC is too impartial and objective, and needs to bring more opinion into it’s news reporting. Just adapting to the times, she says. She also seems to believe that, due to all this new-fangled technology like email and mobile phone texting, the credibility of complaints is inversely proportional to the amount received.
She should have resigned back when she announced that silliness about Stephen Fry reading Harry Potter on Boxing Day.
Sorry, thanks to Anonymous above for the link to Helen Boaden’s delusional keynote.
Everyone should take a look at this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ theed…journalism.html
Anonymous | 13.11.08 – 1:33 pm | #
If she believes what she has written, that has to be one of the most astounding and worrying things I have learned here about the ruling echelons on the BBC and their market rate talent mindsets.
Cockney – I am guessing that this Sam (can’t remember her last name) lives in complacent BBC-Cocoon World and doesn’t know that the men who wear turbans are, in the main, Sikhs and that the Sikhs have a good reputation for fitting in and for being law-abiding.
I think that, in her ignorance, she thought turban-wearers were Muslims.
Helen Boaden’s piece linked to above by Anonymous and Peter is a little inconsistent. First, as Anonymous says, we have this about Robert Peston’s blog:
“Those who join in the debate are by definition a vocal minority. They certainly have a place in a vibrant and impartial news environment but they need to be kept in perspective.”
She then contradicts herself by saying:
“But I know that 50 people bothering to ring in probably represent a lot more who were fed up or annoyed but didn’t take the trouble to tell us.”
So are those on Peston’s blog a vocal minority or do they represent a lot more who are fed up? I guess it depends upon whether Ms Boaden wants to listen to them.
The insufferably smug Matt Frei, after a year of telling everyone that the US is probably too racist to elect a black man, is now using the Obamessiah Presidency to scold Europe for not handling immigration properly.
Washington diary: European Obamas?
It’s pretty typical BBC stuff. But his opening line is just too much:
Imagine if John McCain had beaten Barack Obama. Apart from disbelief among Democrats and bullet-dodging relief among Republicans, the world’s public opinion would probably have come to the conclusion that America was too racist to elect a black President.
Which is exactly what Frei Boy has been saying for the last year. He’s stated that as his own suspicion, on air. Hiding behind “the world’s public opinion” is lame, although that hasn’t stopped him from doing it for the last year, either.
And just in case anyone might get the idea that Frei no longer thinks we’re so racist, he claims that we elected the black man only because he’s half black. That’s the reason white people like Tiger Woods and Lewis Hamilton, he says. WTF? Those guys could be purple Martians and everybody would love them just the same.
Remember, the biggest hurdle at the beginning of his campaign was not that he was black but that he was not black enough.
Wrong again. Not being black enough was “the biggest hurdle” for African American pundits and voters, not the rest of us. Why does Frei even have his position? He understands absolutely nothing about his beat.
He knows what he’s done, I’m sure. He’s heard the complaints by now, or somebody higher up said something. That’s probably why he stuck in the parenthetical qualifier here:
George Bush welcomed his arrival in the White House as a milestone of history – despite the fact that Mr Obama may very well never have got his hands on the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue if it had not been for the crashing failures (as most Americans perceive it) of the outgoing administration.
He’s so full of it. Even if “most Americans” feel that way, Matt Frei has repeatedly referred on air to the Bush Administration as a disaster, and “the grim last eight years.” He usually doesn’t bother qualifying those statements as “most Americans think”, either. I guess he can get away with it on his BBC World News America broadcast, because nobody’s paying attention.
Keep pretending you’re an objective analytical journalist, Frei, and I’ll keep laughing at you. Also, please ditch that new side camera angle you’re using: it makes your slouching posture even less appealing.
Britain’s political leaders are naturally keen to be seen as Barack Obama’s political soulmate – but can any of them truly compare to the US President-elect?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7724152.stm
Pass the bucket.
I should’ve put “naturally keen” in bold too.
‘…but can any of them truly compare to the US President-elect?’
Like I’ve said before, the only person who comes close is Galloway. Unfortunately for him (and fortunately for us), he’s not best liked and we’re all very aware of his associates and his past seditious shenanigans. So, he can’t really pull an Obama.
Anyone else notice how numbers of readers of this blog are growing?
Good.
Beeboids, your days are numbered.
– Ears burning at BBC?: –
“Political correctness is hampering battle againmst extremism”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3444674/Political-correctness-is-hampering-battle-against-extremism.html
ALSO:
Melanie Phillips –
‘Britain through the looking glass’
“A report for the Home Office and Department for Communities and Local Government has concluded that the government’s counter-terrorism communications strategy has not been communicating that well. As the ‘Telegraph’ reminds us, the government’s brilliant idea is to refuse to call Islamic extremism Islamic extremism, or indeed to use the I or M words in association with ‘extremism’, ‘terrorism’ or any other word with a negative association, and instead to take their cue from the Home Secretary and, as she herself did, call I****** terrorism
‘anti-Islamic activity’
in order not to exacerbate ‘community tensions’.
“Now it turns out that blaming I****** terrorism upon its victims and using language designed to obfuscate and invert what is actually happening has merely caused confusion.
Fancy! ”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2626781/britain-through-the-looking-glass.thtml
David Preiser (USA): David, off thread but relevant – I remember some years ago reading a piece in Forbes Mag, together with a survey, of the major networks news readers / anchors
and their political allegiances ie registered Dem, Rep etc. (75% Dem as it happens). Can’t remember whether just pre-election or annual.Do they still publish? Wonder what Beeb survey would show?Also remember furore when Nigel Lawson ‘accused’ his interviewer, the late Brian Redhead of being a Lab supporter on ‘Today’ Can’t imagine much has changed re present attitudes if it happened again!
Tom 1:00 am, Cassandra 11:40 am
Yes, the mealy-mouthed BBC has:-
“Navy shoots pirate suspects dead”
(by BBC Defence correspondent, Caroline Wyatt).
In contrast, ‘Wired blog network’ has:
“Royal Navy Kills Two Pirates in First Fatal Shoot-Out in Living Memory'”
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/11/royal-navy-kill.html
The ‘Times’ has:
[Extract]:
“Pirates caught redhanded by one of Her Majesty’s warships after trying to hijack a cargo ship off Somalia made the grave mistake of opening fire on two Royal Navy assault craft packed with commandos armed with machineguns and SA80 rifles.
“In the ensuing gunfight, two Somali pirates in a Yemeni-registered fishing dhow were killed, and a third pirate, believed to be a Yemeni, suffered injuries and subsequently died. It was the first time the Royal Navy had been engaged in a fatal shoot-out on the high seas in living memory.
“By the time the Royal Marines boarded the pirates’ vessel, the enemy had lost the will to fight and surrendered quietly. The Royal Navy described the boarding as ‘compliant’.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article5141745.ece
‘…but can any of them truly compare to the US President-elect?’
Like I’ve said before, the only person who comes close is Galloway.
Robert S. McNamara | 13.11.08 – 4:08 pm
You should post something to that effect via the form at the bottom of the article. Here’s what I sent in:
No, none of the British politicians can “truly compare” to Barack Obama. Nobody can. He’s the most wonderful person in the whole wide world. I know this because I get my news exclusively from the BBC. Obama is the best person who ever lived, and he will be bring a new era of peace and love and cuddly puppies and candy floss dreams.
And I put as my address Cloud Cuckoo Land c/o The Licence Fee.
An interesting insight into the mechanisms of some co-funders the BBC does seem to pay attention to beyond, and one might suggest instead of the licence fee payers:
Ireland’s anti-EU Treaty campaign compared to paedophiles
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/bruno_waterfield/blog/2008/11/13/irelands_antieu_treaty_campaign_compared_to_paedophiles
Now, where I have I heard this before…:
‘…the policy of giving equal airtime to both sides in a referendum debate could result in a group such as ‘a paedophile association’ being given 50 per cent coverage..’
Not being an expert politician/media market rate talent ‘n all, but a father of two, it is my experience that if you start trying to juggle a multiplicity of standards, especially when trying to get (rig) to just the result you think right and/or want, the result is seldom satisfactory in the long run.
Of course, if the BBC wanted, it could make the educational and historical connection here between Muslim piracy today, and the historical enslavement of European (and other) Christians by Muslims:
[Extract]: from ‘The Scourge of Slavery’ (‘Christian Action’)-
‘CHRISTIAN SLAVES – MUSLIM MASTERS”
“Muslim slave raiders kidnapped women from Europe for harems in the Middle East. Historian Robert Davis in his book ‘Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters – White Slavery In the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy’, estimates that North African Muslim pirates abducted and enslaved more than 1 million Europeans between 1530 and 1780. These white Christians were seized in a series of raids which depopulated coastal towns from Sicily to Cornwall. Thousands of white Christians in coastal areas were seized every year to work as galley slaves, labourers and concubines for Muslim slave masters in what is today Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Libya. Villages and towns on the coast of Italy, Spain, Portugal and France were the hardest hit, but the Muslim slave raiders also seized people as far afield as Britain, Ireland and Iceland. They even captured 130 American seamen from ships they boarded in the Atlantic between 1785 and 1793.
“According to one report, 7000 English people were abducted between 1622 to 1644, many of them ship crews and passengers. But the Corsairs also landed on unguarded beaches, often at night, to snatch the unwary. Almost all the inhabitants of the village of Baltimore, in Ireland, were captured in 1631, and there were other raids in Devon and Cornwall. Many of these white, Christian slaves were put to work in quarries, building sites and galleys and endured malnutrition, disease and mistreatment at the hands of their Muslim slave masters. Many of them were used for public works such as building harbours.
“Female captives were sexually abused in palace harems and others were held as hostages and bargained for ransom. “The most unlucky ended up stuck and forgotten out in the desert, in some sleepy town such as Suez, or in Turkish Sultanate galleys, where some slaves rowed for decades without ever setting foot on shore.” Professor Davis estimates that up to 1,25 million Europeans were enslaved by Muslim slave raiders between 1500 to 1800.”
http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles_ca/2004-4-TheScourgeofSlavery.htm
Also: ‘Arab Slave Trade’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade
Ireland’s anti-EU Treaty campaign compared to paedophiles
Peter | Homepage | 13.11.08 – 6:00 pm
Looks like this could be the work of pro-Obama Sarah Palin smear-merchant Ethan S Winner.
Mr Lancaster:
“I’m sorry, could you be more specific? What do you want me to say, that Somalis are failing in society by most measures and probably doing even worse than Bangladeshis? Don’t get in a somali taxi?”
You make up your own mind. But if you’re going to bat off evidence there’s little or no point in engaging with you is there?
You responded PRECISELY as predicted (I even posted it in my question).
I bet you consider yourself very open minded too…
Q. If McCain had won the election and the Dow Jones then lost 14% of its value in the following week, would there have been a few stories on the BBC linking the two events, with reporters ramming home the point at every opportunity?
A. Without a fucking doubt.
DB
This is why it’s such a nightmare to get sensitive liberals even to understand what BBC bias is.
They need to concentrate which is very hard for them in the first place. Even more challenging is the concept of “understanding another’s point of view” and NOT citing the Daily Mail as a possible source for that view.
Bless ’em, their intentions are good but it’s a damn shame about absolutely everything else.
ALL of my friends are lefties 🙁
I notice that, this morning, Five Live solicited the opinion of Alistair Campbell about Burnley’s Carling Cup victory over Chelsea. While he is a well known fan of the club, after the Late Review discussed his new tome the other day, I think he might have have some sort of sinister hold over the beeb.
/did anyone catch BBC Breakfast this morning on BBC 1, with the story about Prince Charles turning 60? Well he had some show for it, and the BBC showed a clip of John Cleese, and then one of Robin Williams. Guess which part of Williams’ act it showed? Him ripping the piss out of Sarah Palin. It had that Sian drone on the sofa in fits of hysterics – even though it wasn’t even funny. It was just another nasty attack. They didn’t show any other part of Willaims’ stand up act. Figures.
You should post something to that effect via the form at the bottom of the article. Here’s what I sent in:
No, none of the British politicians can “truly compare” to Barack Obama. Nobody can. He’s the most wonderful person in the whole wide world. I know this because I get my news exclusively from the BBC. Obama is the best person who ever lived, and he will be bring a new era of peace and love and cuddly puppies and candy floss dreams.
And I put as my address Cloud Cuckoo Land c/o The Licence Fee.
Thats not bad. Not bad at all. It could’ve done with a bit about unicorns and rainbows in the ‘cuddly puppies and candy floss dreams’ part. But really, I’m just nitpicking.
Did it get published? Or is it ‘awaiting moderation’ i.e. it doesn’t specifically break any forum rules, but is not on message and therefore will be kept back until the article is no longer relevant?
anonymous:
The clever silly people in the BBC know Sarah Palin is dangerous. She is a successful, conservative woman who connects with ordinary people in an extraordinary way.
This time round she was ill-prepared for what awaited her on the national scene. But in four years? Who knows. Those of us old enough, will remember how Maggie Thatcher changed from the high-pitched politician who appeared on Blue Peter into a formidable woman who took on the world.
I don’t know if Sarah Palin is a Maggie Thatcher, but sure as hell, the left can’t wait around to find out – just in case she is. Hence the Palin jokes, the choice of news clips, and the continued attempts to undermine her. If they can snip her in the bud before she blooms, they will have served their cause.
But the jokes on them. If Sarah Palin turns out to be a dud, the next conservative standard bearer will have prepared him/herself away from the glare of publicity, while the guns were facing the wrong way.
Sarah Palin is important to the conservative movement in the USA whether she succeeds or fails.
The British BBC licencepayers and taxpayers: paying for Somalia.
The BBC (licencepayer funded) is keen to give the impression that it is separate from BBC World Service (UK taxpayer funded); but this isn’t so. The two are politically and organisationally intertwined.
Take the example of SOMALIA. On the BBC news website there are e.g., these two reports from apparently ‘different’ organisation, but all merged into one BBC news website:
1.) ‘Somalia pirates’: a mealy-mouthed report by Christine Wyatt, (BBC licencepayer funded)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7725771.stm
2.)”Somalis grow fearful of Islamists”, report by Mohamed Mohamed (as in New York, New York, so good they named it twice..).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7722701.stm
He is a BBC taxpayer funded reporter of BBC World Service, operating in the ‘Somali Service’ (operating from Bush House, The Strand, London still) but his reports go out with no clarification of his status on the BBC news website!
Anyway, many Somalis end up coming to the UK as immigrants:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5029390.stm
It’s all part of the UK government’s and the BBC’s multiculturalist service to Somalia.
BBC rapped by its own watchdog over ‘biased’ Thatcher show
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1085421/BBC-rapped-watchdog-biased-Thatcher-show.html
george whyte | Homepage | 13.11.08 – 8:59 pm |
Nice find. Looks like the BBC is happy to engage in “fake but accurate” tactics. The footage of the miners’ strike wasn’t from Wales, but, as there must have been some unhappy miners there, they saw no problem with using footage of another incident to create the atmosphere they wanted.
It’s just a little thing, and I’m sure the Beeboids just roll their eyes at these complaints, thinking that what they’re doing is just part of telling the story, no big deal.
BBC news or propoganda?
http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/11/13/bbc-news-or-propoganda/
You make up your own mind. But if you’re going to bat off evidence there’s little or no point in engaging with you is there?
You responded PRECISELY as predicted (I even posted it in my question).
I bet you consider yourself very open minded too…
Ross | 13.11.08 – 6:29 pm | #
Er, evidence to what? I can hardly bat something off if I have no idea what you are on about. Be more specific and it can be debated. I’m afraid just posting a seemingly unrelated article and saying ‘figure it out’ isn’t really enough.
All ‘important’ events that are either planned or predicted to happen or not, are given a list of solutions by the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
The solution that is ALWAYS selected will be one that removes or reduces freedom and enforces government repression and surveillance, payed for by ever higher taxation. Or the establishment will move in, quicker then you can say ‘George Soros’ or ‘unexpected heart attack.’
Therefore the system always wins, every time we lose. The more incompetent the system is shown to be, the more money we are forced to give it, and freedoms we give up to it. It could be argued that if babies for example did not get murdered on a fairly regular basis by their guardians, ‘child care’ social services could be largely closed down. Like wise if crime virtually stopped, we would not require much if any of a police force, or judicial system. The state would be without its payed by us ENFORCERS, and that ‘will not do at all.’
The system does not WORK well for many reasons, but the primary one is that the system is CLEARLY not designed to work well, in the first place.
It never has been, and it seems it never will be. But you can be absolutely SURE that if they wanted a system of utter and obvious repression to work, it would work extremely well indeed, and quicker then you could possibly imagine.
This country along with its co-conspirators organized in two years the D-Day landings and then drove Hitler out of most of Western Europe within one year, BECAUSE IT PLANNED TO DO SO. But it seems it can not organize under any circumstances or any cost, effective and efficient social services etc, without resorting to Nazi type control, with hundreds or so years of practice and experience at apparently trying to.
Ditto; all and every other public service that we personally fund through a form of increasing slavery, namely ever more taxation.
The system is corrupt and also can not be reformed or even replaced, other then with an even more corrupt and authoritarian one.
However it would be at least help a bit if the people themselves stopped watching the establishments very own mind control TV channel, The BBC, ( better still throw the devilish device in a skip ASAP ) and starting thinking for themselves.
If the powers that be cared about you or your children, you would feel cared for by now. You do not, or do not often, because they do not ever give a fuck whether you or your children, live in shit or die in agony, as long as most of you suckers keep paying interest over to the banksters. Those self same banksters that lend your government as many billions as our incompetent, greedy, and passionately authoritarian criminals in government, can quickly throw down the proverbial toilet. Simply so they will forever need more billions, to throw down the toilet next year.
Of course the hopeless addict needs to go periodically ‘Cold Turkey’ to help straighten the accounts out every twenty or more so years. This is usually where the Conservative Party comes in handy, when the establishments cash flow starts running out, and the systems almost perfect ‘piss take’ starts becoming obvious to even some Guardian readers.
Our only hope is by some miracle of collective conscience, we as a whole starting wising up big time. It does not need civil unrest or violence to get our message across. All it takes is us to say a collective fuck you and simply start doing whats best for ourselves and our families, just like the establishment have always done for themselves and their families.
Lord Haw-Haw criticised over Baroness Thatcher documentary:
The committee upheld a complaint that Lady Thatcher was not treated “fairly or unbiasedly” in the programme, in view of the fact that hardly any of the contributors chosen to take part in the documentary spoke about her in a positive light.
The committee added that the lack of balance was accentuated at the end of the documentary when the Conservatives were seen in “an unnecessarily negative light”.
It is not the first time that the BBC has been accused of treating Lady Thatcher unfavourably.
Earlier this year it emerged that the corporation was actively seeking critics of the former Prime Minister to contribute to a film to be broadcast after she dies.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3453514/BBC-criticised-over-Baroness-Thatcher-documentary.html
.
There are very good reasons why scientists with scientific qualifications and experience should be employed by the BBC to cover and report on the world of science.
I have just been following a story over at ‘Watts up with that’/’climate audit’/’real climate’ about NASA GISS and their apparent inability to check their temperature figures before sending them out in the form of the fancy computer cartoons so beloved of MSM/NGOs/governments etc!
The BBC threw away all its inhouse boffins presumably because they wouldnt be ‘politically reliable’ and replaced them with more reliable/more pliable reporters with no qualifications in science.
The BBC reporters simply copy their reports from ‘approved’ sources only, never questioning the science behind the NGO/QUANGO/AGW alarmist/ecomentalist handouts or researching or investigating their validity or even trying to find a contrary view.
Now call me cynical but does the BBC employ non scientists because they are much more likely to regurgitate the AGW/MMCC lies without question?
I urge anyone with an interest in these matters to visit the above sites, it will give you an insight into the complex world of ‘climate science’.
Quote of the day (so far) on Breakfast News:
After a segment about a ‘man’ who was a ‘woman’ being pregnant again and hence of vast interest to any suffering a slow news day, the bouffant goes on to solemnly intone:
“Well, those are the major stories..’
Perhaps, BBC, when there are some things that might benefit from more in-depth reporting (if not convenient to the team narrative) but get curtailed because… ‘that’s all we have time for’.
From Boaden’s blog…
We were better prepared for the Glasgow airport bombing. Here too, the mobile phone images captured the drama long before conventional news crews could arrive. I was actually at Glasgow and became part of that newsgathering process. Using only my mobile, I was able to get on air immediately.
Later, I actually found one of the men who had wrestled the burning man to the ground and got him on air at once.
“burning man”? He was a terrorist for god’s sake.
Dumb beeboid bitch
OK, it’s not bias, but does go to competence, especially when banging on about how the public needs to do better with the sciences.
Actually a rather nice story, with a mathematics lecturer who uses juggling as a visual aid.
Then, at the end of the story, the bouffant and blonde unveil a puzzle for viewers to solve.
Trouble is, it has been posed incorrectly, with a missing numeral in the sequence, fortunately caught live by our numbers expert.
Thing is, and this goes to almost all output by the BBC with its vast resources, before going to air don’t they get anyone to check first? And if so (and evidently not the mathematician present), by whom?
After the Cenotaph spelling triumph, maybe this subject should be renamed New “Maffs” and, like apostrophes, if people can’t cope then it shouldn’t matter if incorrect so as not to hurt feelings?
‘Demos’ is just the sort of tiny multiculturalist think-tank which appeals to the BBC; so we are fed a very prominent friendly report from the BBC on the Demos lobbying for more Muslims in the UK police force:
“Anti-terror police ‘need Muslims'”
(by BBC multiculturalist reporter, Dominic Casciani)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7728577.stm
The counter-arguments are not aired by the BBC:
1.)for someone to declare himself/herself as a Muslim does not necessarily mean that such a person is an anti-Islamic jihadist; such a person MAY be a special potential security risk.
2,)the key determining factor as to whether a person is suitable for police anti-terrorist work is NOT whether that person is a Muslim, but whether that person has the ability, commitment and close security clearance to undertake such work.
If few Muslims meet such strict criteria, then ‘positive discrimination’ should not trump security, and it may well be in the interests of British people to have a low percentage of Muslim police engaged in such work, literally to be on the safe side.
3.) the present whinging attitudes of some pro-Muslim organisations against the UK police force, rather than in opposition to Islamic jihad threats, does not auger well for Muslim recruitment into anti-terrorist work.