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!
remember the key thing here is this: tory MPs got caught, and got sent to prison and properly punished, hence the media storm. as of yet, labour has been lucky/extra devious and avoided criminal prosecutions. those who have been found guilty have not been punished with the same severity of the tory 90s scandals – and hence the BBC are right not to cover the 2 cases in the same way (for now).
its simply a case of the media following the slam dunk story. allegations, however accurate they may be, are not as newsworthy as a conviction or a pair of handcuffs.
Gus Haynes | 26.01.09 – 11:17 am
No Tory MP was ever prosecuted, let alone sent to prison for cash for questions or any other form of parliamentary sleaze.
The fact you think some were shows just how effective the BBC’s propaganda has been.
Archer
Aitken
Oh, and Hamilton, I forgot
If I rember right, the BBC harrassed several Tory MPs in the 90’s for allegations well before they were convicted of anything.
The cowboy journalism so typical of the BBC cut it’s teeth on the Major administration.
Accusations about sleaze, cash in envelopes etc etc were sprayed about well before the courts actioned any penalties.
Of course my memory might be failing and in fact the BBC acted in it’s usual evenhanded way towards the Conservatives.
PS; good to see the 15% Tory lead and the end of Brown’s bounce being more or less buried in the Today programme–compare that to the constant poll ratings announcements when Brown was gaining on the Tories!!
funny how theres always some prat quick to counter NuLabour sleaze with Tory sleaze
what they paying you??
BBC wages –and a lovely unfunded pension–sounds tempting
Gus Haynes:
Archer
Aitken
Gus Haynes | 26.01.09 – 11:29 am
Oh, and Hamilton, I forgot
Gus Haynes | 26.01.09 – 11:31 am
Hamilton was never prosecuted for anything and consequently never went to jail.
Archer was jailed for perjury in a libel action against the News of the World. Seeking to avoid being exposed for sleeping with a Mayfair prostitute, he had concocted a false alibi.
Nothing to do with politics or parliament or cash for questions.
Aitken was jailed for a similar offence – perjuring himself in a libel case, this time against the Guardian. Once again, Aitken concocted a false cover story, claiming that his wife was with him in a Paris hotel, when in truth she had been in Switzerland.
Quite why Aitken lied has never been established. Some say it was because he was plotting an arms deal – but no deal appears to have actually been made.
In his own subsequent accounts, Aitken seems to say he lied in a fit of arrogant pique because he didn’t think he ought to have to answer questions from scruffs from the Guardian.
Either way, nothing to do with cash for questions.
I repeat – the fact you though these prosecutions had anything to do with that shows how effective the BBC’s propaganda has been.
The reason those guys went to prison is largely irrelevant in this case – they came to symbolise Tory sleaze, corrupt and self serving politicians. Can you deny that? The BBC and the rest of the media criticised them for their arrogant, ‘above-the-law’ ways -and they went to prison.
Have the BBC ever said ‘these guys went to prison cos of the cash-for-questions?’ No, the cash for Qs was typical of those guys at the time, part of the mentality. They could do what they wanted. Tory sleaze.
BBC propaganda? Paranoia reigns at this site sometimes…
I never said they went to prison cos of cash for questions, if you read that into it, thats up to you.
The Cash for Qs was one part of the sleaze at the time.
and dont for one minute think I am a labour chap, I want to see these guys go down if they are found guilty.
Gus Haynes | 26.01.09 – 11:56 am
..those guys… came to symbolise Tory sleaze, corrupt and self serving politicians. Can you deny that?
Yes, I can.
Tory sleaze was a phrase much used towards the end of John Major’s time in office, and may have been a factor in Tony Blair winning the 1997 General Election. People like Neil Hamilton were associated with Tory sleaze.
Jeffrey Archer was sent to jail in July 2001, that is during Labour’s SECOND TERM in government.
Aitken had been jailed during Labour’s first term, but a full 2 years after Blair came to power.
Paranoia reigns at this site
No, ignorance reigns in your otherwise empty head.
Gus Haynes | 26.01.09 – 11:56 am
The BBC ….criticised them for their arrogant, ‘above-the-law’ ways -and they went to prison.
I’ll take your word for it.
But, hang on…….
The BBC isn’t supposed to ‘criticise’ people for their arrogance. The BBC is supposed not to editorialize. The BBC is supposed to be impartial.
It’s quite instructive watching Gus Haynes twisting on the wire.
He claims: “I never said they went to prison cos of cash for questions, if you read that into it, thats up to you.”
Having only just responded to Paul S’s statement: “No Tory MP was ever prosecuted, let alone sent to prison for cash for questions or any other form of parliamentary sleaze.”
With the following: “Archer
Aitken”
and
“Oh, and Hamilton, I forgot”
Not a very strong position from which to start tossing around words like ‘paranoia’, is it?
It’s all very well reporting that Lord Snail, Lord Trustalot, Lord Tryliar and Lord MoonsaBalloon did such and so, but those mere surnames with the title “Lord” in front, lend cover, serving to obscure who these people really are.
I know that’s the first thing I wanted to know from any media reports: who are they? Who were they before the Lordship got stuck on their worthless selves? What is their background?
Did the BBC carry that helpful information? I didn’t look at the BBC for this. I Googled and found it in the Telegraph, along with the info that an Ulster Lord gave clear and cogent reasons for refusing to have anything to do with this undercover scam, including that he had something called integrity which wouldn’t allow him to do such a thing. Good for him. Wish the Labourites weren’t such enthusiastic boarders of any and every gravy train going.
These ermined Labour sleazeballs should be given the full Neil Hamilton treatment: thrown out of Parliament and condemned to appear only on Have I Got News for You and Louis Theroux.
That’ll serve ’em right.
remember the key thing here is this: tory MPs got caught, and got sent to prison and properly punished, hence the media storm
Your desperate wriggling just gets funnier by the minute, Andy M.
Nearly Oxfordian – I think that to call the BBC’s reporting anti Semitic is ridiculous
Yes, I know that facts supported by evidence are ‘ridiculous’ to an absurd beeboid like you.
That implies they feature certain stories/don’t feature stories out of an agenda against the Jewish faith.
Err … you do know that the Jews are a nation, right? No? Quelle surprise …
Which is nonsense. You have no evidence of this. That is the definition of a conspiracy theory.
I have posted tons and tone of evidence here over the last 18 months, and so have many others. You are ignorant and silly.
Roland Deschain | 25.01.09 – 11:10 pm |
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.
Substitute certain politicians or pundits for “Hamas”, and your statement still holds up quite well.
the bbc hates jews full stop. we must stop its anti semitic bullshit right now.
all the problems in the mid east are caused by muslims pure and simple. today at tesco, all i could see was bloody muslims in headscarves, theyre colonising this country too.
Gus Haynes | 26.01.09 – 10:07 am |
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 dwindling poll numbers – what bias is there about that?
Plenty. I think you’re misrepresenting the BBC’s reporting on Mr. Brown’s situation. It’s part of their remit to report Brown’s difficulties, and they have either their own people or favorite guests on to speculate about everything under the sun, including Labour leadership struggles. No bias so far.
However, I was certainly commenting here at the time about what I see as a pretty obvious struggle amongst factions at the BBC. There are Friends of Gordon, and there are those who fight for Labour At Any Cost. The former spin away, sweep things under the rug, give helpful interviews, or just plain talk out their ass to support Mr. Brown. I’m sure almost anyone here can supply names for you. The latter faction just wants Labour to remain in power no matter what, and will throw Brown under the bus if necessary. They’re the ones who give a platform to people like Polly Toynbee, who was quite vocal about getting rid of Mr. Brown to save Labour.
That’s bias, and that’s how the BBC behaved.
The thing is, once the Beeboids figured out that they were just giving the public the impression of a dangerous Labour Split, suddenly “unity” became the theme of the day. Poll numbers were either twisted or suppressed, they pumped up the “Brown Bounce”, and fibbed about how he was leading the world during a financial crisis, They sometimes even used Mr. Brown’s language of “fairness” and “Do-Nothing Tories” in their own reports. The result of all of this is that no BBC effort was spared to support Labour, full stop.
That’s bias, and people here have been complaining about it all along.
David, don’t confuse Gus with facts. His head might explode.
David, your entire post about the supposed bias in favour of brown is all based on your own opinion. There aren’t any facts in your entire post at 4.31.
And I’m assuming you didnt like Brown too much to begin with, so that would make your view biased wouldn’t it?
More drivel from Gus.
Yes, David has opinions. That does not imply that he is biased.
Also, he is not the statutory broadcaster. He is entitled to be biased if he wants to.
The BBC are not.
Go and get some education. Logic 101 and Intro. to the Middle East 001 might be useful.
Gus Haynes | 26.01.09 – 8:17 pm |
David, your entire post about the supposed bias in favour of brown is all based on your own opinion. There aren’t any facts in your entire post at 4.31.
And I’m assuming you didn’t like Brown too much to begin with, so that would make your view biased wouldn’t it?
That’s pretty funny coming from someone who was talking about how the BBC “seemed to be trying to force Brown out”.
There are a ton of blog posts and comments in these pages outlining what I was talking about. My comment was a summary of that. You claim to have been watching this blog, so you should know what I’m talking about. Whether or not you agree that those blog posts and comments were correct in their assessments is a different matter.
My opinion of Gordon Brown is irrelevant here. You claimed that the BBC “seemed to be trying to force Brown out”, and I was suggesting why that may be, and how it wasn’t the kind of bias you thought it was.
If you can’t find any of those blog posts or comments I’m talking about, I’ll be happy to start digging some up.
Don’t feed the troll.
Yes the BBC coverage is biased.
Not only were the 4 peers Labour, which can’t be denied. The Sunday Times undercover journos approached 10 peers, the 3 Tories ignored them, the Liberal Democrat and the Ulster Unionist turned them down, as did 1 Labour peer. A stark party contrast you might think that merited some comment?
The BBC have done a terrible job as Labour’s mouthpiece given how this story has been headline news for a couple of days.
Anyone see ‘This Week’ last night, it ended with mention of the story followed by a clip of pigs eating from troughs, they even had ‘Lord’s’ robes.
Those damn BBCers and their confusing tricks. Oh my head hurts just thinking about it, perhaps David Vance can just tell me the answer and then I won’t even need to think for myself.