The Sunday Times has done us all a favour in exposing the rapacious Labour whores in the Lords who are prepared to accept fees of up to £120,000 a year to amend laws on behalf of business clients. However I was curious about how the BBC has chosen to treat this expose of NuLabour corruption. It appears there is “concern” but I was amused to see that the BBC’s political correspondent Iain Watson felt able to suggest that whilst trying to influence Parliamentary legislation was outside the House of Lords code of conduct, peers not paid a salary can offer general advice to private firms as consultants. “That may be where there’s a bit of a grey area, where people can quite honestly say ‘I haven’t broken any rules’,” he said.
Sure. Thing is I don’t recall such generosity of spirit being extended to any Conservative found in such a “grey area”. Then it was sleaze. Now it is quelle surprise!
BBC (R4) just gave some self serving labour mouthpiece an uninterupted free run at making a case that this was all an innocent misunderstanding due to the out of date rules and procedures of the Lords.
Can anyone imagine for one moment that if Conservative peers were caught with their hands in the till like this the BBC would be taking an equally soft line?
So typical that the BBC is scrambling about trying to find “grey areas”, to emphasise that these are “only allegations” and to generally tone down the story.
The contrast if this had been about Conservatives would not have been more stark. All tractor production stories would have been hurridly dropped and the Beeb would have been all over this like a rash.
It took the BBC an age to get it onto their website. Bear in mind that the sunday papers hit the streets at about 8:00pm saturday night(or earlier) in London – though the Beeb’s newsroom will know much earlier if there’s a big story breaking.
But when I went to bed past midnight there was still nothing on the Pravda website – or if there was – it was well hidden away.
No doubt hand-wringing night staff were awaiting instructions from their Kommisars as to how they treat the story, who were in turn awaiting orders from BBC HQ at Number 10.
Yes, just like the BBC didn’t give Tory Caroline Spelman any ‘grey area’ over employing someone as a nanny and as an assistant.
Can we expect Newsnight’s Michael Prick to investigate? I think we know the answer.
Martin, and there was so much of a grey area there that the Standards bloke didn’t even want to investigate it. The investigation only took place because Spelman asked him to.
I particularly admire the BBC in that whenever there is any doubt about the conduct of NuLab, the BBC immediately gives Nulab the benefit of it. It’s wonderful to see the government working so closely with the country’s major broadcasting corporation.
The contrast is, indeed, stark – remember the `cash for questions’ allegations and how the Biased BC handled them?
The case for a wholly elected upper chamber should gain some traction now, the corruption of the state by labour is complete.
From the lowest levels to the highest, the stench of corruption is overwhelming, all they will do is say ‘sorry’ and all will be forgiven!
No wonder Mandlesnake wanted in, must have sniffed the sent of cash?
Does this look in any way balacend to anyone?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7849594.stm
In the greater scheme of things this troubles me more than Lords on the take (although the two might not be unrelated):
The British Parliament has cancelled the showing of a controversial film “Fitna” by the right‑win Dutch MP Geert Wilders following vociferous protest by the Muslim community.
The screening was to take place on January 29 at the House of Lords.
The decision to cancel the showing was taken on Friday when Lord Nazir Ahmed had a meeting with the Government Chief Whip of the House of Lords and Leader of the House of Lords, together with representatives from the Muslim Council of Britain, British Muslim Forum and other representatives from the British Muslim community.
http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=65842&Itemid=2
Even more troubling is the fact that as I write this comment only one news outlet – the Associated Press of Pakistan – has covered this story:
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&nolr=1&q=Lords+fitna&btnG=Search+News
nrg
Right now (15:14) the word “Labour” appears only once in your cited page – about 14 paragraphs down. The page has been edited and its reference is now
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7849990.stm
Obviously Mandy and/or Campbell have been on to “advise”.
DB
So an alleged crime in a foreign country leads directly to censorship in our legislature and the BBC doesn’t see fit to mention it. You’re right, it is more worrying than four pigs asking for more swill.
Notice how the BBC originally gave Peter Hain the benefit of the doubt as well. So why is Hain having to apologise to the House of Commons then?
nrg | 25.01.09 – 2:56 pm
Does this look in any way balacend to anyone?
Nope. Here’s a few reasons why not •
The leader of the House of Lords says she is “deeply concerned”
Why is this previously unheard-of woman’s “concern” so important that it gets the headline and intro para? Surely the substantive allegations of corruption are more important?
The Sunday Times claims they offered to help make amendments to legislation
Why use ‘claims’ here? Does the BBC mean to signal there is doubt about the Sunday Times version of events? Why not ‘says’ • the impartial and non-emotive alternative?
in return for up to £120,000.
Here the BBC is implying • or at least leaving it ambiguous • whether the £120,000 was to be shared between all four. In fact £120,000 was what one of the peers asked for himself. The others were prepared to do it for les…..allegedly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7849594.stm
Why is the BBC trying to minimize the damage/sanitize the story?
What is also interesting about this story is that it took the Sunday Times to investigate the allegations that Labour peers were on the take.
Thinking back a few months, the Corporation didn’t seem quite so slow off the mark against Caroline Spelman, did it?
And, now that the ST has broken the story, the BBC is doing everything in its power to obscure the party political aspect (Conservative and Lib Dem peers both turned the ST’s offers down, the paper reports) and pretend it is a small affair, rather than yet more evidence of stinking corruption from this rotten government.
Earlier today (11 am, Sunday 25th Jan) the story was lead item on the BBC news website, and the fact that all the peers involved were Labour ones was reported, even if about a paragraph or two in to the article. Now (4pm) the Corus steel job losses are lead item, and the ‘Cash for Laws’ story has been edited to remove the fact that all the peers were Labour. Only Lord Snape is specifically identified as ‘Ex Labour Whip’. The other are either called ‘Ex Ministers’ (no party mentioned) or not identified by party at all.
Perhaps The Dark Lord has been on the blower to the Beeb and had a word?
Oh, and I meant to add: any comparison with the coverage of this story and that of George Osborne and the Russian billionaire? That was lead item on all news channels for days/weeks. What chance that this gets the same amount of follow-up? I think we all know the answer to that……..
The other thing that the BBC has suppressed is the allegation in the Sunday Times that two of the noble Labour Lords have ADMITTED bribery in previous cases:
“Lord Truscott, the former energy minister, said he had helped to ensure the Energy Bill was favourable to a client selling “smart” electricity meters. Lord Taylor of Blackburn claimed he had changed the law to help his client Experian, the credit check company.”
This is the sort of open door which any investigative journalist would find inviting.. you would think.
It would only take super-sleuth Peston or Nick Robinson 5 minutes to call their Labour contacts and get some very embarrassing (for Labour) facts out in the open straight away. And if the story is untrue they are covered, because it’s already appeared so the Labour Lords could (and no doubt will, ha, ha) sue the pants off the Sunday Times for damages.
So this is not bias, it’s straightforward suppression of facts inimical to Labour.
And to think they made such a song and dance about hereditary peers, remarkable when you look at the cronyism that’s been involved in replacing them for services rendered.
Good to see conspiracy and paranoia reigning on
b-bbc. The news I just heard – radio 5 – included the words “labour peers” in the first sentence of the first item on the bulletin.
Ctesibius | 25.01.09 – 5:09 pm
It would only take super-sleuth Peston or Nick Robinson 5 minutes to call their Labour contacts and get some very embarrassing (for Labour) facts out in the open straight away.
Isn’t Peston’s dad a Labour peer?
I wonder if he charges his son for gossip.
… and good to know that Labour Muslim peers can call upon their own private enforcers to impede scheduled events at the House of Lords:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/024571.php
The BBC are reporting it pretty straight; Labour Lords paid to change laws. What exactly is wrong with the BBC coverage of this story?
Just because one reporter referred to ‘a grey area’ it doesn’t mean they are going soft on Labour, nor that they are justifying the behaviour in any way. The law is dodgy in this respect (it is grey for the very purpose that politicians aren’t very good at regulating their own corrupt behaviour).
mikewineliberal: If you bothered to read my post you will notice I commented on this as well. For some reason the Radio 5 did mention Labour in the headlines last night then stopped doing it this morning.
They’ve probably started doing it again because of complaints from people like me emailing and demanding them to put LABOUR back in.
Martin – undoubtedly.
I’m with whiney mike whatshis name, this aint a story about bias. BBC arent presenting this any differently to the other news stations.
Q: Which ‘straight kind of a guy’ put three of these alleged criminals into the House of Lords?.
Gus,
The Law is not “dodgy in this respect (it is grey for the very purpose that politicians aren’t very good at regulating their own corrupt behaviour).”
It is crystal clear. If it were not then Rupert Murdoch is employing some very bad lawyers – not somethign he is known for.
Ctesibius
Ctesibius:
Tell me the law then. Fill me in with the legal details. I am ready to be corrected if I am wrong, but show me some facts.
Gus Haynes | 25.01.09 – 5:35 pm |
The BBC are reporting it pretty straight
No – they led on the rebuttal – an old BBC trick that devalues any scandal.
And also, I haven’t seen much mention here of the BBC’s decision not to broadcast this Gaza appeal? I would say that deserves a place doesn’t it? Surely if the creators of this site wish it to gain greater legitimacy, it needs to cover all stories, not just certain ones that fit an easy pattern.
Gus Haynes | 25.01.09 – 5:57 pm
I haven’t seen much mention here of the BBC’s decision not to broadcast this Gaza appeal? I would say that deserves a place doesn’t it? Surely if the creators of this site wish it to gain greater legitimacy….blah….blah
There’s a whole thread on it lower down – with, currently – 110 comments.
Gus:
“Lords rules categorically prevent payment to peers as a reward for exerting parliamentary influence – the “no paid advocacy” rule.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5586109.ece
Ctesibius
mikewineliberal: Your leftist sneering is why the BBC is finished.
Ok, but the article does say
‘No contract was signed and no money changed hands, he said.’
For what its worth, I do believe what they did was wrong, but there has to be proof for it to be illegal behaviour. Do the reporters have enough proof? I think we all knew that Blair and co DID give honours for cash but there was no proof, and hence no prosecutions.
And yes I did see the 100 comment thread bout the Gaza appeal, only it was actually a load of bickering about pro-jewish and anti-jewish. Off topic for me, I’d rather see someone influential here (Vance) come out and say, yes its good the BBC isn’t biased in this case by the fact that it isn’t broadcasting an appeal. either that or come out and say that this proves the BBC isnt just a pro-arab, anti-jewish organisation, like some of the conspiracy theorists here claim.
mikewineliberal | 25.01.09 – 5:19 pm
Good to see conspiracy and paranoia reigning onb-bbc. The news I just heard – radio 5 – included the words “labour peers” …
Funny, innit, how in the here one second, gone the next, fugitive world of radio, the BBC makes these details (ever so briefly) crystal clear.
But on the permanent record, e.g. web pages, they come over all coy about it.
Why’s that, then?
Gus Haynes | 25.01.09 – 6:05 pm
I expect DV is so gobsmacked by the total gall of the BBC, which after weeks of solidly biased reporting, now pretends it really cares about impartiality.
Where was all the handwringing about its precious reputation while it screened interviews with Dr Mads Gilbert, without telling us who he really was?
What thought was given to impartiality as frame after frame they showed no other causualties in Gaza hospitals except children….. planting the false idea firmly in the public mind that most casualties were kids?
Where was their anxiety to not only be fair, but be seen to be fair while they happily parroted Hamas’s inflated (by 100% according to Corriere della Serra) casreps?
It’s such breathtaking hypocrisy on the BBC’s part……
First honours for sale, now honour for sale.
Forgotten Bernie Ecclestones million Labour donation and the F1 tobacco advertising ban exemption? Its like the joke “Chicago has the best police force money can buy”.
Since when were our lawmakers for sale? This is outrageous. What else have these four dodgy Lords been up to, pimping for clients. At least an MP is answerable to his constituents, who can boot him out. These Labour cronies aren’t answerable to anyone.
Not far from House of Lords to the Tower of London, to be hanged, disemboweled, and hacked into quarters. That should discourage other peers!
Another reason why elected Lords might be a good idea – these appointed/hereditary lords have no acccountability full stop.
Tom it seems to me that you blame the BBC for whatever they do. Even here, when they are behaving in a way that suggests they are not taking sides, and being mindful of appearing biased, you are criticising them for previous examples.
Pointing out cases of bias is fine, but pursuing a vendetta against them ,and ignoring any evidence to the contrary, is hardly fair is it?
Gus,
I am not in the least impressed by the BBC faux attempt to convey neutrality. Coming after weeks of blood libel, detailed here, it leaves me cold. In fact it’s worse than that because this very day I have heard the BBC running more of their Gaza stories and ne’er a word about Israel. I am not one for conspiracy theories (Mind you, I am an Oxfordian in matters Shakespearean, but that is for another day!) however I think we can acknowledge the BBC is right not to show this ad for Hamastan whilst still questioning its motives? Is that fair? I am of course revolted that the likes of ITN and C4 have agreed to show it, but they do not force me to fund their output – Al Beeb does and therein lies the rub.
”What thought was given to impartiality as frame after frame they showed no other causualties in Gaza hospitals except children….. planting the false idea firmly in the public mind that most casualties were kids?”
Ok, the BBC (and hamas) tell you that most of the victims are kids, and you declare it a lie? And yet when Israel claims most of the victims are terrorists, thats the truth? What sense it that?
Why would you implicity trust one side (in this case, Israel) to always tell the truth, and likewise always expect that the other side( in this case the Beeb or the palestinians) to always be liars?
If you read the Sunday Times print story (rather than the website) there’s no doubt that evidence exists – taped conversations – of the clear intent to take a payment in exchange for covert influence. Whether this is proof of an offence is not for me to say, nor anyone else.
The place to establish whether the law has been broken is just that: a court of law. That’s what they are for.
This is PRECISELY the same as an entrapment case, say where a jealous wife is caught discussing paying £50,000 to an undercover reporter or policeman, thinking him a hitman who will kill her husband. No one gets killed, but the Court establishes whether an offence of intent took place.
If these Labour Peers believe they are innocent, they should be clamouring for a trial so they can clear their names.
I stress, one of these turkeys actually bragged about doing this for other ‘clients’. That is a prima facie admission of guilt. It is THAT which has been suppressed by the Beeb. I don’t pay my licence fee for THAT level of bias.
I agree, and these Labour peers should be investigated by the police. But my points are as follows: the BBC has not shown bias reporting this story, and we have to remember that it is up to the police to declare these guys guilty. We cannot have trial by media – be it against Labour, Cons whoever. The police will hopefully pursue this, and take legal action.
Thanks for the reply David, you and I may disagree here but you at least respond to arguments in a reasonable and logical way.
I would still point out that the reason they report more on Gaza is that the area has been devastated on a scale far greater than the devastation on Israel. Were is the other way round (that is to say, 1000ish Israelis had died, and as many buidlings/houses destroyed) then I am sure they would be focusing on the destruction in Israel.
If 13 Israelis died, and 1000 or so Palestinians died, its natural that the media will focus on the greater death toll. Its simply more newsworthy. And I don’t believe that to be evidence of biased reporting.
I can’t wait for Nick Robinson to do a blog post about this. He hasn’t done an entry on anything for five days, now. I guess he hasn’t gotten his briefing from No. 10 yet.
Gus,
I guess my issue is that reporting the 1000 or so Palestinian deaths is fine by me but ignoring the massive Hamas dimension is the scandal. I am sure innocents did die but the fact is they died because Hamas used them, sheltered amongst them, and exploited their corpses even. It’s a sad business when terrorists can use the media for their own wicked ends, but in this guess the BBC seem willing to believe every lie Hamas presented. Therein lies the issue!
“The news I just heard – radio 5”
Gee,Radio FIVE!! “e” list radio.
You’re right, it is more worrying than four pigs asking for more swill
I wouldn’t dismiss so lightly the fact that our laws can now be bought outright for cash. What price the idiots who berated me a couple of years ago for saying that we don’t have a parliament, we have a bought-and-sold mafia?
“Why would you implicity trust one side (in this case, Israel) to always tell the truth, and likewise always expect that the other side( in this case the Beeb or the palestinians) to always be liars?”
The irony of this,
“likewise always expect that the other side( in this case the Beeb or the palestinians) to always be liars?”
is obviously lost on you.