Hi All.
Am going to be away from the site most of today but aim to be back for Question Time live tonight so please come along for our weekly entertainment!
On daily matters, Today was in fine form today.
Did you catch the item about Trade Unions putting forward candidates for election because the current government is morally bankrupt Obviously the Public Sector trade unions are paragons of virtue!
Then we endured Sir Richard Dalton – formerly our man in Iran – was on to ease concerns that Iran’s latest missile launch is just the Mullah’s seeking a way to find peace. Nothing to worry about, move along. Proof that Obama’s outreach programme is working.
Finally, the BBC had an item at 7.20am to make clear that whilst some of us may be a tad cross at the greed shown by our politicians, in actual fact we are all just as likely to engage in such cheating behaviour.
And we have to fund this crap….?
See you all later…
Richard Bacon (what a lightweight!), on Radio 5 live last night had some comedian (if that’s what you call it) and a guy from an economic think tank ‘discussing’ the licence fee. It eventually boiled down to the cost of a Double Decker sweetie!
The Beeb must be getting a little worried. Although naval-gazing is one of the BBC management’s more appealing attributes.
“Then we endured Sir Richard Dalton – formerly our man in Iran – was on to ease concerns that Iran’s latest missile launch is just the Mullah’s seeking a way to find peace. Nothing to worry about, move along. Proof that Obama’s outreach programme is working.”
That’s a lie. He described the developments as a cause for concern, while saying that it was as much a political show of strength as it was a military one (I’m paraphrasing – initially he said it was political rather than military, but then added a comment talking about there “also” being a military angle.)
Sorry if you think accuracy and honesty is beneath you. It’s not.
Is David Vance a billy no mates? Leaving little notes that he’ll be away, and twittering to us his swimming lessons…..
A definite billy no mates
beeboid trolls this early in the morning ? shuirly shome mishtake !
Good to see the beeboids able to defend the evil empire again, it took them a while to get their strategy sorted, but they got there in the end. So all bulletins lead with a £1600 duck house claim by an obscure backbench Tory. No mention of the cabinet minister flipers (plural, of course) who have taken the tax payer for tens and hundreds of thousands of pounds. Oh, and natch, no mention of the vile labour crooks appointed to the House of Lords and actually boasting of changing laws for payment.
Hey, anon, (Billy no name) why not put up some counter arguements or evidence rather than insults? Oh, silly me, you have not got any and are just a leftist bully who beleives no one is entitled to an alternative opinion.
Also on Today, a Green party MEP given an easy ride to criticise other parties – in the middle of the EU election. In effect a political election radio broadcast for the eco-commies.
BBC fatcats ‘risk greedy MP shame’
http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2009/05/21/bbc-fatcats-risk-greedy-mp-shame-115875-21376977/
Trouble is, they are all shameless.
Can we assume that anyone posting as “anonymous” is a BBC employee ?
ScottM – You’re right. I’m not sure David heard the piece (I did). He often posts about items he sees on Today’s itinerary, but I’m not convinced he listens to them all.
The item with Dan Ariely was actaully a fascinating insight into the expenses issue from a World renowned economist (a professor at Duke). He didn’t hold any sort of view on the rights or wrongs; merely sought to explain how, within such a system, people were able to justify to themselves behaviour that once exposed to those outside the system appears corrupt. It certainly helped my understanding of the issue, and most listeners too.
I liked the piece by the Duke professor – about the psychology of cheating. I heard it as factual comment on how we behave, not exoneration.
But the former Iran ambassador sounded really complacent – especially in his closing comment. Nowhere did we get the sense that Iran could well have medium-range nuclear capability from about 2010, there was nil sense of urgency. It is this sort of compacency especially by European diplomats that have helped Iran get so far down the line.
And of course there was no mention of the central fact that Iran wants Israel removed from the map.
All in all, far too anodyne an approach on the Today programme.
Anonymous said…
ScottM – You’re right. I’m not sure David heard the piece (I did). He often posts about items he sees on Today’s itinerary, but I’m not convinced he listens to them all.
The item with Dan Ariely was actaully a fascinating insight into the expenses issue from a World renowned economist (a professor at Duke). .. It certainly helped my understanding of the issue, and most listeners too.
No…Beeboid lying scum parasite propagandist said:
Hi all,
Just to say I’ll be away all day from the site, carry on…carry on. Keep up the good jaw jaw..zzzz
Am off now for a swim and to watch some race or other, while walking along the sandy beach getting sand in my hair if I had any.
It’s hard work , running blog sites and posting about crap in the midst of this recession, so don’t for get to drop mea few quid over at my own site.
nrg pass round the bucket. Gimmie money gimmie gimmie money or I will delete your posts.
signed.
Billy no mates. You know who I am.
Anoymouswineliberal,
You have no right to criticize David Vance’s listening habits, as you’ve already admitted that you didn’t listen to a segment, yet still posted a comment trying to contradict him. And that wasn’t the first time, either.
Of course, once again you don’t actually engage in debate, or offer a single rebuttal or any kind of argument about why DV was wrong, or why the peace wasn’t biased. At least ScottM attempted to do that. All you do – as usual – is say, “No, it isn’t.” Then – as usual – you change the subject as an attempt to distract from the fact that you actually have no argument.
In any case, both you and ScottM obviously missed what DV was talking about again. The segment starts out frowning over Iran’s rocket launch, yes. Naughtie makes sure to point out that the 1300 mile range means Israel, and the pro diplomat deftly covers by adding that this might also reach British and European targets (like what, the British embassy in Tel Aviv?). Dalton agrees that it’s “a concern,” but only if Iran should choose to develop nuclear weapons. As if they hadn’t been trying, hadn’t been going on and on about doing it.
However, eventually, Naughtie very, very obviously asked if “a show of strength” was really a gesture for peace negotiations. Essentially, he suggested (not so much asked, but suggested) that sabre-rattling is a standard display from someone hoping to enter peace negotiations. This was blatant leading of the witness, but that’s what he said.
Dalton: “Yes, undoubtedly.” When apocalyptic Muslim Iranians engage in sabre rattling, it’s always just the first part of their two-step peace dance. It’s all really only a show to impress the local proles so they can appear strong to their people when they agree to….um…something….not important. The important part is that this bit of sabre rattling is a “concern”, but not really if you think about it.
ScottM, your description of this above is not entirely accurate. They do start out with the obligatory fretting, but no interviewer worth his salt starts an interview without having the end in mind. The path from “concern” to “not really” is clear soon enough, especially when Naughtie asks his witness-leading question.
Dalton’s “two-track strategy” thing is standard diplo-boilerplate. But he’s playing down the military angle for Iran when he says that’s only to impress the locals. The implication is very clear that the show of strength is only a prelude to a peace negotiation. Of course, DV was exaggerating a bit (naughty boy), but the impression he gives is closer to the truth than what you said.
Anyone interested in deciding for themselves whether ScottM and Anonymouswineliberal are telling the truth or just don’t have a clue can listen to the segment here (@ 7:16).
I guess I don’t need to bother looking at the BBC’s news website to see if this story has been reported? I think we know the answer. I just wonder if it had been a Catholic woman if the BBC would have ignored it?
http://www.dailymail.co.UK/news/article-1185589/Muslim-mother-sent-school-age-daughters-Pakistan-marry-cousins-jailed-3-years.html
Can I suggest that people who post as anon’s should have their IP address listed?
“Richard Bacon (what a lightweight!), on Radio 5 live last night had some comedian (if that’s what you call it) and a guy from an economic think tank ‘discussing’ the licence fee. It eventually boiled down to the cost of a Double Decker sweetie!”
I heard that piece. His “presenter’s friend” actually said something to the effect that the licence fee was a form of socialism. He meant that in a good way of course, which reveals his mindset (as if we couldn’t have guessed), but in this I think he was right. The licence fee is a form of socialism, and it follows that the broadcaster it supports, the BBC has this “socialism” in its very DNA. That is why the BBC is institutionally unable to contemplate any cut in its licence fee, cannot understand why anyone would oppose any form of government spending, and considers anything done for the profit motive as by definition sleazy and suspect. You can’t blame the BBC for being what it is, because it could never be anything else. But the corollary is that the BBC can never be reformed, it’s just not possible. It is a publicly funded organisation, with all the left liberal world view of any publicly funded organisation. It can’t change, so it has to be ended, there cannot be a middle way.
Wow, David, that’s a lot of prose you had to type just to try and obscure the fact that David Vance lied about what was said.
Not exaggerated, lied.
David Preiser 3:18
Thanks for the link. I just listened to the Dalton interview and your take on it seems pretty fair as does David Vance’s comment on it.
Of course, what is very worrying is having such a weak man in Tehran as Dalton, but I guess he is just obeying orders from Washington, sorry I meant London, or maybe I was right in the first place.
No, Scott. You’re lying. Try again.
Am just back. Been away all day!
Just to get me dinner of pigs trotters and cabbage + an old guinness . No merlot left. The missus (bless) got it down her neck pronto, and is waltzing abot the kitchen in her undies.
Must go. It’s getting warm in here.
Scott M: Drugs damage the brain. give them up.
DP – I heard both items, while doing my ironing.
Posting about an item i had not heard was indeed a faux pas, and i repent. Have you ever opined on an issue on this site where you haven’t heard the piece in question.? Of course you have. But then we don’t write a blog on the issue. Our standards for DV must be higher. His readers need to be assured that DV actually listens or watches the items he posts about. Otherwise, the question of bias at the BBC merely becomes a vehicle for his political opinion; a pretext if you like.
Do you agree?
It is inevitable that we interpret the Dalton interview differently, because of your political viewpoint. Do you believe however that the BBC’s motivations for having him on were “to ease concerns that Iran’s latest missile launch is just the Mullah’s seeking a way to find peace (sic – that doesn’t make sense does it!?).”
Is there evidence from the interview that we are to be left with the opinion that this is “Proof that Obama’s outreach programme is working”
Of course not. DV is being disingenuous.
And do you want to comment on the Duke professor’s piece. JohnA found it interesting, as did I. Do you think DV’s summary of the argument – that “we are all just as likely to engage in such cheating behaviour” – is accurate?
You’re a clever guy, and a passionate, admirable and cogent proponent of the view that the BBC is biased. But you have a blind spot when it comes to defending DV.
DP – I heard both items, while doing my ironing.
Posting about an item i had not heard was indeed a faux pas, and i repent. Have you ever opined on an issue on this site where you haven’t heard the piece in question.? Of course you have. But then we don’t write a blog on the issue. Our standards for DV must be higher. His readers need to be assured that DV actually listens or watches the items he posts about. Otherwise, the question of bias at the BBC merely becomes a vehicle for his political opinion; a pretext if you like.
Do you agree?
It is inevitable that we interpret the Dalton interview differently, because of your political viewpoint. Do you believe however that the BBC’s motivations for having him on were “to ease concerns that Iran’s latest missile launch is just the Mullah’s seeking a way to find peace (sic – that doesn’t make sense does it!?).”
Is there evidence from the interview that we are to be left with the opinion that this is “Proof that Obama’s outreach programme is working”
Of course not. DV is being disingenuous.
And do you want to comment on the Duke professor’s piece. JohnA found it interesting, as did I. Do you think DV’s summary of the argument – that “we are all just as likely to engage in such cheating behaviour” – is accurate or fair? Of course is isn’t
You’re a clever guy, and a passionate, admirable and cogent proponent of the view that the BBC is biased. But you have a blind spot when it comes to defending DV.
Anonymouswineliberal,
Have you ever opined on an issue on this site where you haven’t heard the piece in question.? Of course you have.
That’s a serious accusation. Prove it or apologize.
Beeboids out in force on this new website, they must be getting rattled !!!
My apologies to B=BBC readers for all the little trolls that have followed me here because I’ve banned them elsewhere! All those Anon and Anons are begone from ATW and soon, even though they play their little multiple IP games, they will find B-BBC less accepting of their trash.
I WISH I could confirm that I spend my time writing about Today items that I do not listen to -as poor little Scott, age 13 3/4’s alleges. Alas, I have to confess I do hear the BBC nonsense and so unlike Scott, I am encumbered with facts.
Finally, just remember QT is on early at 9pm!!!
“I WISH I could confirm that I spend my time writing about Today items that I do not listen to -as poor little Scott, age 13 3/4’s alleges.”
Quite the gentleman aren’t you? Demanding no abuse from others, yet not afraid to dish out your own, rather pathetic, attempts to belittle and patronise those who disagree with you.
Anyway, you’ve (perhaps inadvertently) lied again. I’m sure it’s just sloppiness on your part – I wouldn’t expect anything else, really – but I did not suggest you hadn’t listened to this article: one of the anonymous posters did.
I realise you may have difficulty telling two discrete elements apart. You have form in that area, after all. For example, when you watch two different comedy panel shows from two different broadcasters yet somehow fail to remember that you’ve changed channels in between.
And you wonder why people have trouble trusting your version of events…
Surely it IS past your bed-time Scott?
Keep digging, David.
DV – I’m not at all sure you listened to all, if any, of the Today items you posted about on 15 May. You could certainly have written what you did by checking out the itinerary for that day. And the timings of your posts are suspicious, as well as the content.
On another issue, I don’t think you can assume “anon”s are trolls. If one adopts a personality on this site, you do tend to become the focus for some pretty vicious personal attacks from Martin and others. Boo hoo, I know, but not pleasant to be on the receiving end.
Do you welcome people on this site who challenge the prevailing view btw? Or do you consider any contrary view “trolling”? It’s a genuine question. I’ll happily not post again if you would rather that all comments support the central thesis of this site. Genuinely.
DP
A quick (cough) Google, reveals that while you have a noble commitment and indeed record in commenting only on things you’ve experienced, you have at times joined the rest of us in erring.
Here you are linking from Samizdata to a DV post on an item I don’t think you could have heard..
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2008/08/that_old_uk_bug.html
Here you are commenting on Martin’s 10-37 comment, on something a good friend of mine heard, and which you and Martin had not
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/8487785858782806535/
And here we are commenting on something neither of us have heard.
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2009/05/three-card-trick.html
My contrition will only stretch so far. And while this post is a pedantic defence of my comment, it is sufficient ground to avoid issuing another apology. Sorry.
Anonymouswineliberal,
Now you’re lying again. You really have a problem here.
First, you link to something on samizdata, nothing to do with me. No evidence of anything there, except that your emotions are making you even sloppier than usual. You’ll have to provide the link to my own comment.
Your latest lie…no, let’s charitably call it a gross misrepresentation, like what the BBC does so often – Martin’s comment was this:
WWL wrote “…10 o clock news featured the religious aspect too. Quoted the Taleban in full. Correspondent live from Kabul said how dangerous it was to be a christian in Afghanistan…”
Wow, more in depth reporting from the BBC.He was making a sarcastic remark about your comment on a BBC report. My comment was this:
Come now, Martin. You know that more care needs to be taken with Muslims because they’re a religious minority.That’s not a comment on a report which I didn’t hear. How pathetic can you get? Yet another lie from you, and now slander against me. You’ve also now slandered Martin. Nice move.
As for your last feeble attempt to show me up as a liar like yourself, I certainly did hear that, which is why I made the comment I did. Anyone can listen to it for themselves and decide.
Looks like you struck out again, whitewineliberalAnonymousflapjackdavey (I may have missed one of your aliases). You failed just as miserably as when you went down in flames trying to prove me wrong about Justin Webb’s display of religious bigotry, never mind all your other failures here.
Except this time, you’re slandering me. You called me a liar, I asked you to prove it, and you provide more lies instead.
I have no idea why you think you’re accomplishing anything here, other than proving that you’re dishonest, disingenuous, and a little vicious. No wonder you work in the world of PR and media. But I guess that’s also why you keep changing your alias, in the hopes that nobody will remember your serial acts of humiliation. How can you look yourself in the mirror? Time for you to take another couple of weeks off again before coming back here after a few drinks looking for a fight.
DP
Don’t waste your time
Damn you’re good
I must defend myself, difficult though that will be.
I see now I wrongly attributed the Samizdata comment to DP. I cannot believe there is another DP, with a quarrel with the Beeb. But there is. And it isn’t you. for this I am truly sorry.
So my defence must hang on the last two admittedly thin examples.
I haven’t accused you of being a liar, nor would I, so must take your word word on the vox pop point. Damn.
So that leaves me with the thinnest of examples: your comment on a comment on a comment, when the second commenter clearly had not seen what the first commeneter had seen. It’s all I have at the moment, so – hurrah! My accusation holds: you’ve commented (albeit indirectly) on something you’d not heard.
I realise this is a weak defence, but it’s the best I have at the moment if I am to avoid further humiliation, and it will have to do.
But hang on a minute: it seems you have slighted me in your latest post. “disingenous” and “vicious” I can handle. But saying I work in the world of PR and media is untrue (why do you think that?)and an appalling slur, And one for which I demand an apology.
I think you owe DV an apology too, becuase he works in PR and the media.
PS – casting my mind back, I seem to remember that an old friend of this site rather provided this link as an example of Webb havoing a crack at another religion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/02/debate_fatigue.html
Anonymous said…
I’ll happily not post again if you would rather that all comments support the central thesis of this site.
10:27 PM, May 21, 2009
If you won’t use a name, how will will know you’re not posting amongst all the other anonymice?
David Vance,
Is it possible to have a discussion on the next open thread about this whole “anonymous” question ?
Grant,
Yes – if you would like to kick off I have posted new open post. I want to see all “Anon@s” turned into some sort of ID only insofar we know who to address. Once haloscan returns this should be the case.
No one’s had a go at Wossy for a while. Here you go:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8063092.stm
becuase he works in PR and the media.
someone is havin a larfff… he posts on blogs mate and sez he got kicked off his show, so I’ve googled ole vancey pants and found him here
http://www.am-ni.com/
seems like he’s some sort of second rate grocer
Anonymouswhite/mikewineliberalflapjackdavey,
So that leaves me with the thinnest of examples: your comment on a comment on a comment, when the second commenter clearly had not seen what the first commeneter had seen.
It’s all I have at the moment, so – hurrah! My accusation holds: you’ve commented (albeit indirectly) on something you’d not heard.
You’re slandering Martin now in your desperate attempt to smear me. Not cool. In any case, a humorous comment on the general attitude of the BBC towards Islam is not the same thing as commenting about a specific BBC item. It’s not. You have nothing.
I realise this is a weak defence, but it’s the best I have at the moment if I am to avoid further humiliation, and it will have to do.
Or not.
But hang on a minute: it seems you have slighted me in your latest post. “disingenous” and “vicious” I can handle. But saying I work in the world of PR and media is untrue (why do you think that?)and an appalling slur, And one for which I demand an apology.
No, you’ve said before that your work involved dealing with media and PR types. I can’t find the comment, but I know you’ve said something along those lines.
As for your latest flop defending Justin Webb (or just trying to prove me wrong), we’ve done this one before, haven’t we? Stating that Farrahkhan and his group are anti-semitic is not the same thing as criticizing a specific religious belief. You really don’t seem to be capable of much critical thinking at all.
As for your last bit of nonsense:
I’ll happily not post again if you would rather that all comments support the central thesis of this site. Genuinely.
You know perfectly well this is about hiding amongst all the Anonymous comments and making false accusations and playing The Argument Room game. Never mind the lameness of running away with your tail between your legs and then returning under a new alias. You also know perfectly well that this site is happy to engage in real debate with serious individuals. That leaves you out. Genuinely.