You have to hand it to the BBC, they are relentless in their opposition of our armed forces participating anywhere in the world where they might make a difference. And so this morning, the State Broadcaster is flogging a poll that IT has commissioned which suggest that the majority of people here agree with the BBC contention that we should withdraw our soldiers from Afghanistan. This is a trailer for a BBC debate this evening hosted by Eddie Mair “Should troops leave Afghanistan?”. First it was troops out of Iraq, Now it is troops out of Afghanistan. I recall the BBC cheer-leading for the troops out of Northern Ireland movement some years ago. Whatever the military question, the BBC answer is always the same; troops out.
I also am interested in the idea of the BBC determining news by commissioning loaded polls. Here are a few suggestions for some more BBC polls.
1. Should Jonathan Ross be sacked forthwith?
2. Should people have the choice whether they pay the license fee?
3. Should the Burqa be banned?
4. Should all illegal immigrants be deported?
5. Would it not be best if the UK left the EU?
Got any more to add? It would be nice to have a list of questions we can be sure the BBC will never commission a poll on!
Easy. Should hanging be reinstated as a punishment for capital offences? Always guaranteed to wind up the gaurdianistas.
Should politicians be given a voice on news segments if all they will say, without being challenged, is that ‘lessons have been learned’.
Actually we should get out of Afghanistan. The life of one soldier is worth more than every Muuslim on the planet. Why should I give a shit if girls don’t get educated in Afghanistan?
As for Bin Liner. They should have just nuked Tora Bora.
‘lessons have been learned’ will go down in history – just like ‘we were acting under orders’
proportional representation?
postal voting debacle?
Should the BBC continue advertising in the Guardian?
Should the BBC ensure that its online reports always carry the author’s by-line?
Should the BBC start to recruit at least a few conservative news journalists?
Should the BBC recognise the impact on society of its constant portrayal of negative stereotypes in its soap operas and dramas?
Should the BBC actively portray some of its soap opera characters in positive roles, such as charity volunteers and fund-raisers; church-goers; WI members; Boy Scouts; Girl Guides; St John’s Ambulance; part-time police officers; and so on?
Should the BBC stop imprisoning society’s poorest for failing to purchase TV licences?
Should the BBC cease operations?
Should capital punishment be compulsory for BBC employees ?
JBH,
The very last thing the BBC wants in its ranks are Tories, they have spent years trying to rig the game in their own favour,advertising in the Gruaniad is just one tool, early vetting of suitable candidates from media studies courses,sympathetic interviewers,party affiliation,attachment to leftist dogma are other examples.
The BBC is an elite club of like minded individuals who only socialise with others that they share common values with, the Labour party share the same value system and core beliefs therefore many have very close links both socially and professionally, a bit like the Bullingdon club or the wheel tappers and shunters club etc.
From the BBC perspective, employing people of different political beliefs and core values would force the BBC to open up to a wide variety of very uncomfortable truths which they do not want to face.
The only way to change the BBC is to scrap it completely, no amount of ‘honesty courses’ will change a persons deeply held and commited socialist world view, they will just hide the bias deeper and become even more commited than before to spread their own poitical views.
Once scrapped the BBC should be reopened on a far smaller scale with strict control on employment practices and a strict policy of non political appointments, lie detectors and ongoing scrutiny by an independent watchdog with the authority to fire staff who lie and cheat about their poitical affiliations and loyalties.
News should be reported as cold bare fact and actual events only reported, not ‘if/maybe/could/possibly/some say/annonymous sources’ etc this might appear boring when reporters cannot report heresay or rumour or partisan opinion but the end result over time would lead to a restoration of public trust, how many BBC stories that begin and end with the ‘ifs&coulds topped up with lashings of personal opinions have been proved false? Every time a false story is put out it erodes public trust just that little bit more and degrades the BBC to the point that they really couldnt care less if their reports are bald lies as long as they serve the greater set narrative, a corruption so to speak.
Jon Gaunt (www.gaunty.com) was suspended on Friday from Talksport Radio.
He was always very pro-military.
Independent radio stations have to be so much more careful than the BBC, as independent radio is vigorously monitored by Ofcom (via complaints). I do not know why Jon was suspended. Could it be connected with the interview described below?
Will Ofcom be used to silence any critics of the left-wing establishment?
I do not know if Ofcom are involved in this case.
On Friday 7.11.08 Jon called a conservative councillor a ‘fascist’ for saying you cannot be a foster parent in his council area if you smoke, even if you smoke outside, as from his experience in his council, employees who say they will not smoke inside do in fact smoke inside (this ban will apply to future applicants).
The man said, when called a fascist, ‘that is actionable’. Then Jon called him a ‘health fascist’. The man said in a gloating voice ‘Ah, you’re changing it now’. The conservative councillor was given ample opportunity to reply to Jon, but just shouted and screamed, and would not answer the question: ‘Is a child better off in residential care or in a loving home where someone smokes outside?’. After the call, Jon apologised on air for calling him a fascist.
So why has he been suspended?
Don’t bother tuning into Talksport because they have not mentioned it, just replaced the presenter of his talk show.
They used to have an advert that said “…a wine.. as rounded as Jon Gaunt’s man boobs” and now it just says “as rounded as man boobs”, so he has been ‘deleted’ from the advert.
I am going to email a complaint to Talksport about the suspension. See the link on Gaunty’s web site.
The latest MOD poll indicates that most people do not want a withdrawal. Given that the BBC poll is a one-off, and the MOD one (conducted independently, of course) is the latest in a consistent series, I would this time believe the MOD. And, if you read the extracts on the BBC website, all commentators (apart from the Guardian) are behind our staying there and doing the job in one form or another. The BBC – once again, it is correct, and the UN, NATO, and everyone else in the world is wrong. Yes, even the UN – they passed a resolution ofsupport on Afghanistan earlier this week, with no-one voting against, and 108 sovereign Nations co-sponsoring it – more than ever before. So, the BBC v The World?
But then again what they think must be correct, by definition.
Re the comment above by ‘down like the bismark’:
The last time there was a vote on capital punishment, ALL of the Question Time panel were against, and ALL of the Any Questions panel on Radio 4 were against.
John Gaunt is a much missed presenter on London Live 94.9 fm a festering sore of multicultural moral relativism.
Their reporting of the London 7/7 suicide bombings made me acutely aware of the social engineering aspects of the BBC.
In all reports they included the perpetrators amongst the total number of the dead! A logical fallacy, granted the bombers were dead but they chose to die, and kill others in the process.
This was a heinous aspect of doublethink newspeak which infects our socialised media.
On a more personal note, anyone who has listened to John Gaunt is aware that he himself was placed in care after the death of his mother. His father a serving police officer was unable to cope following his loss.
Regarding the death penalty, the corporate death penalty would be a start. Closely followed by social workers…..
The scum in Haringey, who tortured and killed that 17 month old boy ( A broken back, missing fingernails, severed finger tips, 80 social worker visits over a six month period) should do 3 years solitary confinement, be sterilized and then executed , just in case there are any mitigating circumstances.
no political party will bring in capital punishment as the first person executed wrongly will bring that government down —once you ban things you can rarely bring them back –gun clubs, cigarettes, our rights to privacy etc etc
Robinson’s comments this morning might have come directly from Mandelson:-
I disagree with the above
“The scum in Haringey, who tortured and killed that 17 month old boy ( A broken back, missing fingernails, severed finger tips, 80 social worker visits over a six month period) should do 3 years solitary confinement, be sterilized and then executed , just in case there are any mitigating circumstances.”
No solitary confinement. Tell the other inmates who they are, what they did and then leave them alone. Send the prison officers off on a tea break. They can sweep the mess up afterwards
Should “loaded” questions such as the following be banned on the BBC and elsewhere?
Should a law be passed in Parliament that allows policemen to use a “stun gun” (Tasor) on children?
Should a Commissioner for Public Safety be removed from his post and reassigned to a different post because he refused to sack a policeman who used a Tasor on his 11 year old stepson?
Should the Governor of the State of Alaska (Sarah Palin) be censured because she reassigned the Commissioner for Public Safety for not doing his job?
Should the BBC be censured for Palin Derangement Syndrome?
Should ALL employees of the British Brainwashing Corporation be required to pass a stiff and thorough written exam on the book “1984” by the socialist whistleblower George Orwell?
Should the stiff and thorough exam on the book “1984” by the socialist whistleblower George Orwell be marked by non-socialists?
Should the BBC rewrite history, (like Winston Smith in the book “1984”) and call George Orwell a Conservative?
Should the book “1984” be required reading for school children?
Should the BBC mention that, according to NASA, the poles of the planet Mars have melted to some degree in recent years and that the said melting is entirely caused by the carbon dioxide that is being released into the atmosphere by non-socialist criminal industries and cars etc. etc.?
Should the BBC mention that carbon dioxide is plant food and that we would not be here without it?
Should the BBC mention that the vast majority of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour and not carbon dioxide and that the information in websites such as http://wattsupwiththat.com/ should be read and thoroughly absorbed?
Information: three DAYS before Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, President Bush telephoned the governor of the state and requested that the city be evacuated.
“Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding.”
Should President Bush be censured for his temerity to ask Governor Blanco (Democrat) to evacuate the City of New Orleans three DAYS before the hurricane Katrina hit the city?
Should the BBC be congratulated or censured for Bush Derangement Syndrome?
Should the BBC be congratulated or censured for its constant drip, drip, drip of poisonous, often-slanderous (in my opinion), morale-sapping, left-bias vindictivenous? (I’m not an ardent fan of the BBC by the way.)
Should BBC output be accompanied by a Government health warning?
For example, at the beginning of every programme: “Experts say that
constant exposure to this odious drivel will seriously scramble your brain.”
Should BBC output be accompanied by a Government health warning?
For example, at the beginning of every so-called News programme:
“Scientists say that the News that you about to see and hear is looked at (figuratively)
with red-coloured spectacles. All socialist opinion and speculation will
be presented as Facts and “the Truth”, and all non-socialist actual Facts
will be presented as simply the meanderings and paranoid delusions of
right-wing fascist pigs and bigots.”
Should the BBC at least look at the evidence presented on Jonathan Boyd Hunt’s website http://www.guardianlies.com/Contents.html
that the former Conservative minister, Neil Hamilton might actually be innocent of the allegations of “Tory sleaze” of the hated and hateful Conservative party?
Given that BBC television is likely to go digital in the future and that
it is an easy matter to restrict the reception of its output to subscribers only,
should the mandatory BBC license fee be revoked?
Here’s one the BBC will never commission:
Is man made Global Warming a load of bollocks?
David
Your comments are very witty eg:
“Should ALL employees of the British Brainwashing Corporation be required to pass a stiff and thorough written exam on the book “1984” by the socialist whistleblower George Orwell?”
Another one which has been used a few times is:
“‘1984’ was meant to be a warning, not an instruction manual”
Apologies link was wrong last time. Nick Robinson taking instructions from Mandelson?
http://cassiuswrites.blogspot.com/2008/11/nick-robinson-plays-to-very-special.html
Question:
If temperatures continue to fall each year, do you think the BBC position should be:
a) CO2 must be causing global cooling, not warming so we still must not burn coal.
b) CO2 does cause warming so we must all burn off lots of coal to try and raise the earth’s temperature
c) Sorry we were wrong
————–
The government advisor David King said about a week ago on BBC daytime news that he was optimistic now that Obama has got elected, as Bush was obstructing the climate change legislation and he (D.King) does not think Obama will do so. (paraphrase)
—————-
To Mr Caveman
If memory serves, they also say that Eric Blair (George Orwell) wrote the script and Anthony Blair put it into practice! I think that assessment is a bit Over The Top, however. Perhaps, doubting every left-winger’s motives becomes pernicious. There are a lot of well-meaning individuals on the Left. Unfortunately, well-meaning individuals can cause immense damage, in my view.
StephenB: “The last time there was a vote on capital punishment, ALL of the Question Time panel were against, and ALL of the Any Questions panel on Radio 4 were against.”
That’s the point isn’t it – that the elites who populate these panels are completely at odds with most ordinary people? Or is that what you meant to highlight?
Incidentally, the TV lunchtime news just now also launched into hushed adoration of this ludicrous poll …
lets face it we are just a bunch of square pegs which refuse to fit into New Labours round holes–
Isn’t it amazing that an organisation mainly concerned with the mass manufacture of down market trash like Eastenders, Casualty and noddy TV news shows thinks it is capable of hosting debates about serious political subjects?
Bingo halls, theme parks, cinema chains and discos don’t break off from their usual business to hold such debates, so why does the BBC? It should stick to what it does best – making rubbish TV.
cassius | Homepage | 13.11.08 – 1:28 pm |
Nick Robinson getting the nod from Mandelson to go on the attack? Interesting. I’m not sure I buy into it, but it does make sense. Was he actually there in the balcony with Mandelson or did he just watch it from the studio like the rest of them?
Robinson’s post is from yesterday, though. He wrote it to back up his slimy behavior on Daily Politics. He even lied about what Cruddas actually said. No accountability.
The level of fanaticism, 9/11 denial and anti-Semitism among Muslims is very high, and that is another survey the BBC won’t be carrying out any time soon. They prefer to play it down.
Not that I agree with Martin’s comment “Why should I give a shit if girls don’t get educated in Afghanistan?”
You should give a shit through common humanity, IMHO. The way you put the question as a tradeoff of Muslim lives against our soldiers’ lives is doubly wrong. The work they are doing in the long run saves Muslim lives AND our lives.
Martin, I have absolutely no desire to engage in a fruitless argument, and please understand that I absolutely respect your right to hold and express your opinions, but it’s my right to say I disagree 100% with your comments on the worth of muslim lives – though not on the bravery of our soldiers and the way they are being criminally let down by politicians.
As for John Gaunt, he’s the kind of ranting, illogical loudmouth who makes me slightly embarrassed to be right of centre, and it’s not exactly an unpleasant surprise that his big stupid mouth has landed him in trouble. I have always turned off Talksport between 10 and 1, unable to stand his high-pitched sanctimonious ignorance.
That’s just my opinion, folks. If we disagree, we disagree 🙂
Nick Robinson is an honorable man. He would not allow himself to be used by Mandelson.
John Bosworth | 13.11.08 – 3:29 pm |
Well, there’s nothing honorable about Robinson’s behavior yesterday.
Should the hypocrites on here stop paying their TV licenses?
Wasn’t Robinson a YC?
And if the BBC is so cravenly pro-Government, why is it trying to push a line on Iraq and Afghanistan that is the antithesis of the Government policy?
mikewineliberal:
I think he was actually the chairman of the YCs: they called him “Pink Robbo” (?)
David Preisser (USA):
I respect your opinions and will look at the evidence again. Thanks.
John Bosworth | 13.11.08 – 4:24 pm | #
Nah it was blue robbo
whiteshiteliberal…..
‘Wasn’t Robinson a YC?’
Yes he was.Not now though.Now piss off back to your bbc office.
How about a BBC poll to see if the licence payers want to see the Balen report that they’ve paid for and which the BBC is eager to keep secret?
Cassius, David Preisser, mikewineliberal:
I’m sorry. I just looked again at the TV show in question and I agree that Nick Robinson displayed as deaf an ear to sentiment and genuine public anger as Gordon Brown did at PMQs. Perhaps Nick R. – like members of all political elites – sees life as an abstract, theoretical affair in which genuine emotion is precluded. They have grown into believing there’s always a political motive for everything.
But in such a (another) terrible case of child abuse and murder, why did Nick R. have to question the motives of a politician doing what he is elected to do and then being appalled by the answer he received. I think I give DC the benefit of the doubt.
The Mandelson link? Still not sure about that one. Mandy is a devious little s*** and not to be trusted. I’m sure his tentacles stretch into the Beeb. I’m also sure his indestructibility scares people in the media. They don’t want to take him on. Is there any Van Helsing out there?
Bottom line: Brown is going down the pan. He is not a leader. But remember he is the Beeb’s candidate: the moment the BBC decides to turn against him is the moment I’ll know he’s a gonna. Shouldn’t be long now. There’ll be a Labour MP sitting on the benches yesterday who witnessed the scene and was emboldened to oppose Brown.
Once again – sorry.
Here’s an excerpt from Paul Reynolds on the 10 changes Obama might make to Bush’s foreign policies:-
>from that of George W Bush.
The change might be characterised as a move from unilateralism to multilateralism – and less talk about the United States as the “world’s only superpower”< Talk about believing one's own propaganda. Would love Mr Reynolds to provide proof of his contentions. Bush always sought agreement, he just didn't let himself be hamstrung if not everyone agreed with him. This 'unilateralism' nonsense is the propaganda line against Bush peddled by Al Qa'eda and their surrogates .. such as the BBC. Basically what Reynolds is saying is under Obama the US will only act if all of Europe agrees with his actions. He goes on to say >He has also promised to attack al-Qaeda figures, especially Osama Bin Laden, wherever they might be
[What happened to the last bit above??]
… ‘Attacking them wherever they might be’. What, without seeking everyone’s approval first. So no change from Bush’s “unilateralism” then?
Maybe the BBC can tell us of one incident in human history wherein a population or culture DIDN’T want their boys back from war.
It’s an idiotic question.
If Bush had relied on the UN to defend the USA after 9/11, there’d probably be only one skyscraper still standing on Manhattan – the large green midtown one near the East River.
The membership of the european union pretty much forbids us from reinstating the death penalty. There is only one country which still has capital punishment (Lithuania).
mikewhineyliberal:-
“And if the BBC is so cravenly pro-Government, why is it trying to push a line on Iraq and Afghanistan that is the antithesis of the Government policy?”
Because they can’t serve two masters at the same time can they you lefty nob end. Haven’t you figured the order of worship yet.
Muslims
Gays
Global Warming Theories
THEN it’s labour party doctrine.
And if the BBC is so cravenly pro-Government, why is it trying to push a line on Iraq and Afghanistan that is the antithesis of the Government policy?
No-one says the BBC doesn’t ever disagree with the Labour Party, just that when they do attack it is always from the left.
Seeing as the modern left’s default position on terrorism and foreign policy is always cowardice and appeasment ( leavened with a big dollop of loathing for the military ) then the BBC is just acting according to it’s nature.
mikewhineliberal
Being a beeboid perhaps you can explain to us why the BBC is “trying to push a line on Iraq / Afghanistan that is the antithesis of Government policy”. In saying this you are confirming that the BBC is not impartial on those subjects , and of course many others as plainly shown on this website. Case proven thank you very much!
The BBC were so far up Tony Blair’s darker crevices until he had the balls to actually take a stand on Iraq it defied belief. But now faced with an unpopular socialist administration it is now undoubtedly doing its best to support it for dislike and/or hopefully fear for its own survival of the alternative.
The question I would like put to the people is ” should law abiding citizens pay any taxes to fund the criminal justice system?”
John Bosworth | 13.11.08 – 5:10 pm |
I’m not saying I buy into the idea that Nick Robinson got a talking point from Lord Mandelson. If true, it would explain a few things, but that’s as far as I’ll go. I don’t think Robinson was there at all, so I’m doubtful. He certainly had his angle prepared, though.
I seem to recall that Robinson was supposedly brought into the BBC political news department as a quasi-Conservative viewpoint, but I can’t say I’ve seen him behave as such for a very long time, if at all. I just haven’t been able to figure out quite what to make of him.
I’ve been of the opinion that he’s pro-Labour, but not pro-Gordon. He hasn’t exactly been calling for the Prime Minister’s head, but he was, for example, much more negative in his assessment of Mr. Brown’s situation until the last month or so than the rest of the BBC. He was more honest about it than the rest of his colleagues, in my view.
I still can’t tell if he has changed his opinion of the Dear Leader, or if he’s just in “Pro-Labour at any cost” mode, which requires the occasional licking of Brown boots.
I’m just a bit surprised that Robinson would actually make the effort not only to lie on the Daily Politics, but to reaffirm that lie on his blog later in the afternoon. It’s one thing to claim that Call Me Dave was deliberately ruining things by making a partisan attack (he can try, even if he’s wrong), but it’s quite another to actually lie about what happened, and then lie on his blog about what John Cruddas actually said.
I’m trying to ignore the fact that his demeanor yesterday brought to mind a word I never use: oleaginous. That may just be some unconscious negative reaction I get from his appearance, which isn’t fair. But his own words are enough to make a bad impression. And the lying is clear.
Jonathan Boyd Hunt:
Should the BBC recognise the impact on society of its constant portrayal of negative stereotypes in its soap operas and dramas?
———————————
Could not agree more.
Sadly there are people who watch dross like Eastenders – sorry – gritty dramas like Eastenders and become educated in the belief that if your girlfriend/ wife annoys you in some way you ‘give ‘er a slap’.
Too well I remember Huw Edwards reading the news when the troops first went into Iraq. There was never a bulletin mentioning the allied advances without finishing off with a ‘but’ (eg) ‘a convoy was attacked and several soldiers injured.’
He might just as well have said ‘but for all of you out there waiting for the good news, here it is.’
Would I have loved to have taken the clowns that wrote these bulletins and sent them out to Iraq for mine-clearing duties, without mine-detectors.
David Preisser
I think you make some good points. Thinking about Robinson for the last few hours I come back to a point I originally made on this forum many months ago:
It is the culture of the BBC, it’s corporate mindset, the liberal mafia that is its staff, that leads people away even from their core-beliefs. Why would a right-ish sort of person turn into a Beeboid? Never underestimate peer-pressure or, for those who hold the Mandelson conspiracy theory, Peer-pressure.
The reason I think reform of the BBC is impossible, is that the unspoken ingrained attitudes they hold are systemic. The views have not simply infected the blood supply, they ARE the blood supply.
Beeboids do not know they are biased, never question it, can’t believe it, won’t even contemplate it. We, who humbly point out the facts day after day, are demonized as nutters.
Maybe Nick Robinson has simply “gone native”. It happens. Believe me.
Or maybe he needs to steer a careful course to get promotion. He is a high flyer and a political animal. Watch him rise.
Wasn’t Robinson a YC?’
I don’t see the point of putting this forward as an argument – implying that this makes him unlikely to toe the New Labour line.
This bloke too was a “conservative”
http://www.shaunwoodward.com/
So what does “Wasn’t Robinson a YC?'” prove?