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!
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
That is not ‘reporting’, then – it’s sensationalist opinionating. A serious journalist does not look merely at the obvious: s/he looks in depth at the causes of the conflict and the wider dimensions.
If you regard Al Beeb’s antisemitic broadcasts about the conflict to have been ‘reporting’, we don’t share the same definition of this term.
Some Interesting Research
Their New World Order for us Dummies.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XRLPG_HplrA
What Jaq boots Smithy is really up to with her ID card scheme.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=j7se4gFTCys
Of course we were warned about the Globalists.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
and not just once either.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_WSGwnz7XpY
Do you really believe Oswald could arrange this
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8
or this
or this
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UjaguXX3GfE&feature=channel
or this
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KfRDTADOcBo&feature=PlayList&p=A970EF034FA9BBB9&index=0
What is this non specific ‘Change’ he keeps talking about, has anybody bothered to ask him.
Who Knows, but it’s obviously not this :-
http://thebestronpaulvideos.blogspot.com/2007/10/new-hope.html
Gus Haynes | 25.01.09 – 6:26 pm |
Another reason why elected Lords might be a good idea – these appointed/hereditary lords have no accountability full stop.
But Lords aren’t even elected to being Lords in the first place. They’re appointed by political cronies or inherit their titles. I know Blair got rid of many hereditary peers, but then would you permit only appointed Lords to run for office? How would that work out?
The whole concept of Lords lacks accountability, really.
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
LOL. What’s the weather like on your planet? Spelman was attacked viciously and relentlessly regardless of any police investigation. Al Beeb decided she was guilty, full stop. But to you, no bias … you couldn’t make it up.
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?
Either you have spent the last 20 years on another planet, or you have nil concept of analysis. Even Hamas admits one day that 75% of the casualties are adults – but the next day it claims the opposite. Does that really not strike you as somewhat unlike factual truth? Or do you really believe both claims can be true?
Have you not heard of the many cases where the Arabs fabricated ‘news stories’, with and without the implicit and explicit connivance of Al Beeb? Ever heard of the Al Dura case? And have you really never compared the outright lies of Al Bowen and his predecessors to the truth as it emerged later? What about the non-existent Jenin ‘massacre’, which gave Al Been an excuse for hysterical antisemitic propaganda? They were very quiet when the truth emerged later.
this proves the BBC isnt just a pro-arab, anti-jewish organisation, like some of the conspiracy theorists here claim.
LOL. How are you today, Mr Marr?
For Gus Haynes, it appears that simply repeating the mantra ‘the BBC has not shown bias reporting this story…’ is as good as it being true.
As several here have noted, the BBC web version of this story clearly excludes the key component: that four out of the five peers in question take the Labour whip. Tories and a Lib Dem refused.
In other words, it is a story about the corruption of Labour peers.
Yet the best the BBC story could manage was a single mention of the word Labour somewhere buried within the article.
Until Mr Haynes addresses that issue instead of trying to sell a dummy by switching the subject onto the Gaza appeal, or merely making claims about what may have been broadcast on R5, any comments from him about arguments conducted in a ‘reasonable and honourable way’ are going to fall flat.
This is a classic example of the BBC spinning for its idealogical bedfellows. Yet again, the Corporation is bang to rights.
Garden Trash:
there is no irony lost on me. I never said I trust the Palestinians/Hamas/BBC. I don’t implicity trust any of them, and the same goes for the Israelis.
I never wrote that, you should read my words more carefully.
My argument is that a lot of people on here dont believe a word that Hamas says, and yet trust every single thing Israel says. Maybe they each one lie sometimes, maybe each one tells the truth sometimes.
Nearly Oxfordian – I think that to call the BBC’s reporting anti Semitic is ridiculous. That implies they feature certain stories/don’t feature stories out of an agenda against the Jewish faith. Which is nonsense. You have no evidence of this. That is the definition of a conspiracy theory.
GCooper
The word ‘Labour’ is not burried anyway – its in the first sentence of the article!
Spellman was hardly attacked viciously. Thats an exaggeration.
Nearly Oxfordian ”That is not ‘reporting’, then – it’s sensationalist opinionating”
Yes it is sensationalist, we agree. But do you also agree that the BBC/media focus on Gaza cos that is where the greatest loss of life occurred? Is that a matter of debate? More people, far more, died in Gaza, and so the media rightly focuses there. To focus on the far smaller number of Israeli deaths would be ignoring the elephant in the room.
Gus,
The elephant in the room is Hamas.
Again, you are missing my point. I am not saying that I trust the BBC , or Hamas. I am also not saying that I distrust Israeli accounts. I just want you to understand the irony that you don’t trust a word that one side says and yet trust every word of the other. It is not that simple.
So, then what do you think the focus of the story should be?
If you say that the focus should be investigating whether Hamas deliberatley allowed innocents to be bombed then thats fair enough. But it needs to be investigated, its not good enough to just say ‘Israel is saying Hamas used humans as shelters, and that is proof enough’. We dont trust every word that Hamas say, so why should be trust every word Israel says?
Gus Haynes
Am I right in thinking you are young? About 17?
Double it and add some
Gus,
If I can make a few points here.
1. I do take the word of a democratic government such as Israel over the words of Islamic terrorists like Hamas anyday.
2. The BBC should be challenging every point Hamas makes. It seems to challenge every point Israel makes. so a little consistency might assist.
3. I am not saying you are a moral equivocator, but their endless mantra is that things are never that simple. Nonsense. Hamas are genocidal maniacs and when they makes claims, they must be impartially and professionally investigated. I cannot say that has happened during the past three weeks, just like it did not happen when Hezbollah were making the same wild claims in 2006. There is a trend and it is a very nasty one since it leads to the assumption that the BBC is unwilling or incapable of challenging anti-Israeli propaganda.
You may all very much like asks yourselves WHY your country possibly for the first time in your life, seems to be completely falling apart?
Especially as the system has always been corrupted, the BBC’s dishonest part in the play, particularly so.
This is the created disease that will inevitably lead to the death of our independent nation.
All is not just totally corrupted.
Our political system, is clearly showing itself to be so. Which is a whole new ball game.
The system is showing its corruption because our particular way of running a our nations political affairs is destined to be replaced by an Internationalist system. That has far more in common with The old or new Russian or Chinese system, then ANY of us will feel comfortable with, to say the very least.
The system will obviously be controlled by exactly the same people that currently control it very much already.
The common purpose of Common Purpose is to destroy in the minds of the public their ‘confidence’ in ALL of their own national political institutions. Including The Bank of England, our parliamentary democracy, The BBC, local government, social services, and of course our police and armed forces,among ALL of the many others.
Please understand there is FAR FAR FAR more things that happen on this planet that are very carefully planned to happen, then you have the free mind and wits to even come close to imagining.
If the BBC is spinning a line, you can be absolutely 100%, sure the ESTABLISHMENT of this country are ordering them to do the spinning, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
It is not This Labour government or any other elected government and certainly not The Labour Party that ultimately controls the BBC. The BBC is an organ of the British, and therefore the European, American, and world ESTABLISHMENT, pure and simple.
Whats more it has been for at least my lifetime.
ONLY by understanding the above can you get even close to what the BBC is. If you do not know what the BBC actually very much in reality is, you cant begin to get close to understanding why the BBC does what it does or says what it says.
Therefore if you do not know exactly why the BBC does what it does and says what it says. There is little real point in this blog. Because there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of the establishment paying any possible attention to the vast amount of highly well and intelligently observed but otherwise pointless comments on this site. IMPO.
The BBC and other establishment employees who constantly monitor this particular part of the internet. Must smile every time they read someone stating that it is our Labour government that tell the BBC what to do. When it has always been the case that the BBC has ALWAYS been more powerful then any single British political party. Therefore the people who REALLY control the BBC are more powerful then the general voting public in ALL important respects.
Put another way.
The BBC does not run this country.
However it effectively runs this countries democratic process more then any prime minister since the BBC was first set up, by a very long way. An organization as powerful as The BBC, would not be allowed to be trusted to a lowly government employee, such as the Chairman of The BBC.
I would simply love someone to come up with a single well thought out argument, that could possibly contradict or even question my last statement. I know no one can, because one does not exist.
So the Question really is.
Who exactly ultimately controls The BBC?????????????????????????
Because if you can get your tiny minds around that simple to answer straight forward question. You will then know for 100% sure WHO exactly is to blame for our current situation in ALL respects.
Here are some clues. It is not Gordon Brown, David Cameron, The Queen of England, any past or present elected parliamentary representative, or anyone that is now employed or has ever been employed at the BBC.
Still not got it??????
Oh well, at least no one can say, I did not try.
Gus Haynes writes: “The word ‘Labour’ is not burried anyway – its in the first sentence of the article!”
It does now, following a day of complaints. It appears in version 3.
I suggest you take a look at Newssniffer http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/193794/diff/0/1
That is how your little friends at the BBC work – as those of us with experience in this area know only too well.
David, my response
1. True, and so we should. But should we take EVERYTHING that Israel says as fact and EVERYTHING that the BBC, or Hamas say as a lie? What about the UN? They claim kids died, they claim white phosporus (sic?) was used. Why do a lot of people who post here ONLY trust Israeli version of events?
2. Yes the BBC should challenge Hamas more, no doubt. But they should also examine them and try not to understand their motives and mentality, which I beleive they are doing. To try to understand what they believe in is not the same as agreeing with it. Maybe if we see things from their point of view we can get to a real peace settlement sooner, which is better for all.
3. Again, yes Hamas and their motives should be examined. But the BBC is a neutral broadcaster, it should be investigating things from both sides, and that includes seeing things from the POV of Hamas. It is too simple in my view to call them maniacs, or genocidal. Am I sticking up for them ? No. Am I taking their side? No. I take the side of an independent and neutral observer who sees things from both sides, and I believe that (as a whole) thats what the Beeb are doing. If they simply dismissed Hamas as baddies, as killers pure and simple, they wouldnt be doing their job as journalists. If they simply said, ‘these guys are terrorists, and there is no need to explore their motives or grievances’ then the BBC would not be doing its job of investigating and analysing the situation, and it would be taking the side of Israel. Which would still be biased wouldnt it? It would just be biased on the other side.
BBC apologist GH please note:
BBC VERSION TWO:
“Allegations that four peers were prepared to accept money to change laws will be fully investigated, the leader of the House of Lords has said.”
BBC VERSION THREE:
“The Liberal Democrats have called for a police inquiry into allegations that four Labour peers were prepared to accept money to change proposed laws.”
Mention of “Labour” withheld until v3, and then attributed to Liberal Democrats blowing the whistle (as though the BBC had’t known when writing v0 v1 and v2)
You may not be old enough to remember an old “Apache trick”, of tying brushwood to a horses tail to wipe out its footprints as it goes. Well it doesn’t work any more.Hah!
Guy, sorry, but the Spelman story was the top headline on the BBC news site for two straight days. It moved off the top stop for periods of about a hour or so, and then went back up again. The BBC huddled behind Michael Crick and his partisan muck-spreading with glee.
“I never wrote that, you should read my words more carefully.”
I did,I also cut a pasted it carefully,and look,here it is again.
“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?
Gus Haynes | 25.01.09 – 6:31 pm | # “
Garden trash
there is no point even arguing with you if you are interpreting things as you choose. my point was clear, and my point was not that I trust one side, or that I don’t trust another side. my point was – why do a lot of people on this site implicitly trust one side only? and as of yet no one has answered that point, which i repeat in a different wording:
why do you trust the isarelis 100% of the time?
why do you distrust the BBC OR the palestinians OR hamas 100% of the time?
if you do then surely you are just as biased as the BBC? and if you are biased like this, then how could you ever see things in a non-biased light?
I do not trust any source (media or goverment) 100%, so I do not believe that I look at things in a biased point of view. Surely those who take everything that Israel say at face value are just as misguided as those who take everything the BBC say as gospel?
and the spellman story was news yes, but it was not exactly an earth shattering story. it was not headline on the bbc news (the tv i am talking about) for 2 days, it was mentioned yes, but dont blow it out of proportion.
AndrewSouthLondon:
BBC apologist? No, I am not apologising for anything they do, I just want to see if accusation of bias hold up to scrutiny, and they rarely do on this site recently.
Most cases reported here seem to be barrel scraping. Its like those abstract art pieces – if you look hard enough you can see what ever you want to. The problem is, that by doing that, you miss the obvious stuff that is right in front of your eyes.
The World Tonight on R4 just now managed to get through the headlines (second item) and the entire preamble to the full report before the journalist finally mentioned the word “Labour”
I think NewsSniffer has missed an earlier version of the BBC website report. I was online before 12 noon and there definitely was a version then that mentioned ‘4 Labour peers’ about a paragraph or two into the article. That then changed to the version 0 now shown on NewsSniffer, which only mentioned Labour Ex-Whip Lord Snape. We now have version 3 which does mention Labour peers in the first sentence. Note no headline has ‘Labour Peers’ in any version.
Would that have been the case if it was ‘Tory Sleaze’ do you think, Gus Haynes?
“Again, yes Hamas and their motives should be examined. But the BBC is a neutral broadcaster, it should be investigating things from both sides, and that includes seeing things from the POV of Hamas.”
Seeing things from the point of view of Hamas – but the BBC do see things from their point of view except for the bit where Hamas wants to wipe Israel off the map.
Gus Haynes: Utter nonsense. The Spelman story ran and ran and ran on the BBC. It was the top story for at least two nights on Newnight and had Michael Prick foaming at the mouth in a way we NEVER see from him over any Labour stories. Peter Hain was ignored by the BBC as was the allegations behind the Labour MP in Scotland that stood down, well right up until about the last day when Prick gave it a passing mention.
The Spelman story would have had no traction if she’d been a Labour MP that is a clear fact as Labour MPs that have done far worse have been ignored.
did you miss the nick Robinson comment over Mandelson that they [the BBC] didn’t want to bring up his links to the Russian billionaire in the same way as they did with George Osborne? THAT IS ON RECORD.
Then we had the BBC ignoring the scandal of Livingdead and Lee Jasper that the BBC HAD for a year before Jasper had to resign. The BBC considered the story ‘unimportant’. Funny they don’t seem to consider any of Boris Johnson’s staff unimportant do they?
Gus Haynes,
“there is no point even arguing with you if you are interpreting things as you choose”.
You should learn to write more coherently and concisely.
You really are an irony free zone are you not ? You write this then continue to blether on.
Gus Haynes,
“The problem is, that by doing that, you miss the obvious stuff that is right in front of your eyes.”
So you admit the BBC is biased? B-BBC points are here,let us have your’s.
why do you trust the isarelis 100% of the time?
why do you distrust the BBC OR the palestinians OR hamas 100% of the time?
Gus Haynes | 25.01.09 – 10:05 pm | #
I can’t speak for all on the site, but I don’t trust anyone’s word one way or another 100%. I do however consider past behaviour and that has suggested that Hamas will tell any lie that they think may help (e.g. Qana) whilst Israel generally admit to their mistakes. The BBC seems to make no such distinction.
Listening to Radio 5 this afternoon, during a discussion on Cardiff City’s cup game with Arsenal they lurched into a revolting (no other word for it) toungue-fest of Obama.
That political colossus, Neil Kinnock, spoke for about three minutes non-stop and liberally spread words such as ‘wonder’, ‘genius’, etc. The consensus was that Obama’s election was the greatest thing ever to happen to the world.
There was a also a program about Leicester on later, and how it was going to be the first city in Britain (Europe) with a white minority. During the thirty minutes of the programme, they interviewed one white person and immediately smeared him as a racist. Everything else was standard multi-culti loveliness.
“The Liberal Democrats have called for a police inquiry into allegations that four Labour peers were prepared to accept money to change proposed laws.”
Ah so thats why its in the news the lib dems have called for an inquiry.
But they don’t mention this
“Last night former Tory cabinet minister Lord Tebbit told the Daily Mail: ‘The lobbyists have recognised that the Commons is now full of bovine, careerist placemen so utterly under the thumbs of the control freaks that they seldom go into the chamber to listen to the arguments, and will almost certainly roll over and vote as commanded by their whips.
‘It is hardly worth trying to corrupt most MPs as they have no influence worth buying, so the only place where argument and persuasion can still see off the power of the whips is the House of Lords.
‘Tony Blair, lauded by many as the master politician of his time, has become enormously rich as Britain has tumbled into debt.
‘It was he who wrecked all the great institutions created over the last 200 years: an honest, impartial civil service; the English law courts; the finest police force in the world; and a House of Commons which represented the people, not the politicians.
‘And it was also he who set out to destroy the House of Lords, once so admired for its probity – interestingly, all of those embroiled in these allegations were invested with their peerages by Labour.'”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1127420/Police-probe-Labour-peers-Lords-Hire-inquiry.html?ITO=1490
“BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said trying to influence Parliamentary legislation was outside the House of Lords code of conduct, but 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. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7849990.stm
So the BBC see “grey areas” while
“Lord Strathclyde, the Shadow Leader of the Lords, said: ‘The rules are clear. There are no grey areas. Paid advocacy is banned.'”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1127420/Police-probe-Labour-peers-Lords-Hire-inquiry.html?ITO=1490
Dont the BBC want the oppositions opinion – I don’t seem to find any quote from one in the BBCs piece.
Sorry the last sentence should read
“I can’t seem to find any quote from one in the BBCs piece.”
Atlas shrugged
I have read your posts now for at least 18 months. I have read Ayn Rands works and have decided that I am a classical liberal/libertarian. The BBC is beyond reform, it never was impartial. Short of murdering prominent BBC personalities and boasting about it online, in a sort of Jihadist styleee, what can the individual do to resolve the situation.
BTW I asked a question of you when you mentioned that Soros studied communist economics at the LSE.
You didn’t answer. The question involved Karl Poppers relationship with him.
Mind you,Gus did a good job getting the subject off SLEAZY LABOUR PEERS.The ones making the BBC’s arse pucker.
GCooper | 25.01.09 – 7:37 pm | #
Radio 5 news at 7 didn’t mention the political hue of the peers; the news item at 7-30 started “four labour peers”. The website changed throughout the day, primarily to reflect a changing story. I’m afarid this one cannot easily be shoe-horned into the b-bbc narrative.
Mike: is Verity correct in accusing you of working for the BBC?
mikewineliberal: Sorry but you are talking nonsense. Check out my post in the thread above re Spelman and the Labour Peers.
Note how the world TORY appears in the headline and in the first paragraph. Then look at the Labour Peers story.
Robert – Verity as ever is talking cobblers. I have no connection with the BBC other than as a customer.
Martin – Couldn’t see where term “Tory” was used.
Gus Haynes,
At no point has the BBC reported on hamas in a negative light or investigated its record of lying/banditry/murder/torture/theft of aid/perscution/blackmail/war crimes
and that is the key isnt it?
It isnt a question of percentage balance with one side given more critical examination than the other, the balance is non existent, hamas is given a free uncritical ride whereas Israel is the target of every unverified hamas/UNRWA accusation.
What most of us here object to is the obvious pro hamas stance and the inate anti Israel bias, there are dozens of examples of hamas crimes agianst its own people and yet the BBC are silent, some of the accusations against hamas eminate from Palestinians and are too well documented to be just rumour and yet the BBC are silent.One prime example is the death of a palestinian trucker early in the conflict, the BBC has always made it clear that the IDF were to blame, yet it turns out that it was a hamas sniper who killed the driver, at no tie has the BBC acknowledged this or tried to correct its mistake.
Like many others here I have no problem with the BBC examining IDF blunders or crimes that have good evidential footings but I do have a big problem with the BBC actively conniving with hamas to hide and cover up hamas crimes and employing obvious hamas sympathisers and Islamist appologists who bear a racist hatred of Israel.
mikewineliberal: You can’t see Tory here?????????? Are you blind?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7441360.stm
mikewineliberal: I love that. A ‘customer’
We’re not customers. Were prisoners. We have NO choice but to pay for the BBC. A customer assumes ‘choice’.
Mikewineliberal is spot on here with the phrase ”I’m afarid this one cannot easily be shoe-horned into the b-bbc narrative.”
people are just looking for a story that isnt there when it comes to bias. yes of course this would be reported the same way if it were tory peers. watch new 24, watch the politics show, watch any political show on bbc, and it isnt easy to spot any pro-labour or anti-tory bias. I just think this story is being used here to supposedly prove bias where there is none.
did the posters here complain for most of last year when the BBC seemed to be trying to force Brown out? there were daily discussions about a leadership challenge, or his dwindiling poll numbers – what bias is there about that?
Gus Haynes: Nonsense. The BBC are continually saying that ‘the peers deny any wrong doing’ which they always do for allegations of Labour sleaze (when they even bother to report it)
In the case of Tories it’s always assumed the Tories are up to no good.
As I posted previously the fact that Nick the prick Robinson openly admitted that the BBC didn’t want to go after Mandelson over his links to the Russian billionaire with the yacht yet slaughtered Osborne even though there was NO evidence he did anything wrong and the story over Ken Livingdead and Lee Jasper which the BBC totally ignored despite having been tipped off for a year about it shows the BBC is biased.
martin | 26.01.09 – 10:06 am | #
Sorry – I’d not seen your link. when I searched on the website, I found only mention of her being “Conservative Chair”. Not sure what it show however given that the “labourness” of the peers has been clear in the coverage I’ve seen and heard.
martin:
they are denying wrongdoing; wrongdoers always deny wrongdoing, goes with the territory. that doesnt show bias in any way. I think you are reading too much into the BBCs coverage – I remember the 90s sleaze, but they really went after the tories when the MPs got covicted and started going to prison. no-one has even been arrested yet, not the word yet, and if and when they are, then I’m sure this will be news on the scale of the early 90s sleaze. martin, i know its tempting, but we can’t sentence these guys before theyve been sent to trial…