Open Thread By Sue | June 7, 2009 - 3:39 pm |June 7, 2009 general thread This is where you can discuss any BBC-related issue that concerns you. Click through to read and contribute comments on this post. Bookmark the permalink.
News 24, unedited direct feed of a rally by Brown Rumba and Hatemanperson to the tune of enthusiastic labour activists feeding him ego soothing sofet questions "just how towering is your intellect?"
I can't imagine a broadcast of Cameron rallying the Young Conservatives ever appearing on the BBC.
I have my bottle of fizzy wine on ice at the moment – primed for tonights results. Not that the Euro parl is of any significance – but I will love to see the brown ship sinking
I understand that the drug users and rent boy molesters at the BBC DON'T have any Champagne on ice tonight, so Jane Garvey shouldn't be tripping over empty bottles tomorrow.
The BBC and their Beirut correspondents are playing a little hide-and-seek with the truth about the Lebanon elections.
Did you all know that Israel is currently at war with Lebanon? Natalia Antelava says so right here (@1:15 in). She's trying to explain why some Lebanese Christians will vote for the Hezbollah-led faction. Does Antelava mention that Israel never started any of it, or that they have no interest in Lebanon itself? Of course not. Hezbollah's message – for that's what this is – is presented as legitimate.
This short piece from Antelava uses a cute method of depicting the two factions competing:
Outside the polling station, on the left side of the road young men in bright orange T-shirts called on the people to vote for the Hezbollah-led coalition and their Christian ally General Michel Aoun.
Across the street from them, activists from the Christian Lebanese Forces of Mr Aoun's rival, Samir Geagea, said people should vote for the pro-Western, US-backed incumbent 14 March coalition to which it belongs.
Note that Antelava says that Hezbollah leads the coalition. But, while she points out that the "pro-Wester" faction is "US-backed", she neglects to tell you who backs Hezbollah. The former general and Christian Michel Aoun is described as an "ally".
This reportat least mentions that Hezbollah is backed by Iran and Syria. But, with input from the BBC's other Beirut propagandist, Jim Muir, they play down Hezbollah's influence.
Hezbollah is fielding only 11 candidates, though it is a powerful member of the broader opposition coalition, which includes the maverick Christian leader Michel Aoun, and the mainstream Shia movement Amal.
Here's what the BBC doesn't want you to know about Aoun:
General Michael Aoun Backs Hezbollah Worldwide
During his press release on Monday April 14, 2008, Michael Aoun replied to a
question reassuring that his alliance with Hezbollah is not a local one concerning
limited issues but rather a worldwide alliance that stretches beyond Lebanon's
Just part of a "broader coalition", eh, BBC?
observers believe that Aoun has become a puppet in the hands of Hezbollah
due to the financial support Aoun and his son in law Jibran Bassil have been
receiving from the terrorist group Hezbollah.
The BBC is trying to play down concerns over Hezbollah, deliberately misleading everyone about what's really going on. One almost gets the feeling – especially with the foolish Jimmy Carter quote – that the real danger is too much US influence over a country that just wants its own freedom and national unity. The BBC wants you to think that Hezbollah is not the real problem: lots of Christians believe Israel is the real threat, and so should you all.
Martin, perhaps B-BBC contributors should club together to courier over a few bottles of Madame Cliquots' finest to the BBC news room and current affairs teams. I am sure that they will be celebrating well into the night.
Prediction: IF (yes if) Zanu do not come fourth, this will be portrayed by our state broadcaster as a 'catastrophic failure' for the Tories, who will be 'demoralised and disheartened' with only a 'marginal chance' of winning the next election.
Even as we speak the "Lines to Take" are being shared with BBC party activists
Several times recently people have said that BBC reporters are following Labour's "Lines to Take" – ie they are "on-message", being fed by labour on what line to take. Often this has the BBC failing to push the obvious issie, instead sidetracking the core issue or playing defensively for Labour.
Can someone please post a link to the source of "Lines to Take". Ta!
BBC 20-20 Cricket coverage on radio NOW: England v. Pakistan.
It is not considered to be politically correct for BBC commentators to comment on the vociferous support of Pakistani immigrants (and first generation born in England) for the Pakistan team, and to question why such people do not support the team of their country of adoption and residence, England.
Did anyone catch Andrew Marr allowing Alan Sugar – soon to be Labour Lord Sugar – to pretend that he was non-partisan, not working for the Labour Government, and approved by the BBC?
No, no, this isn't political, I'm here to help this country and help small businesses, says Sugar. He likens the recent cabinet shuffle and pressure on Mr. Brown to a game show, and says that Cameron "must feel like he's woken up and won the lottery," and says that the BBC is, in fact, working on behalf of Cameron. Marr lets it slide, because Sugar's point is that all this noise about getting rid of Mr. Brown is hurting the country, and that's what Marr's looking for. The fact that by saying such a thing Sugar is blatantly supporting Labour and Gordon Brown escapes him. Or, he hopes it escapes the viewers' notice.
Sugar continues to pretend that this is non-political, and he's not a member of the Government. Marr asks him if there's any conflict with Sugar's position as the star of a BBC show, and Sugar said he had already asked the BBC for guidance. Since he's accepted the job, it's logical to assume that, when asked if he could take a job helping Labour while still being the star of one of their top-rated shows, the BBC said, "Yes, please."
Marr then asked Sugar if, seeing as how it's a non-political deal, he would do the same job under Cameron. "Err…ahh…it's not political…I've never met David Cameron…" Marr had no interest in pressing him on the obvious "No," and let Sugar bob and weave as much as he wanted.
Your license fee hard at work.
Cannot believe that the BBC transmitted the whole of that ridiculous labour party rally today, with toadies and activists, hand picked of course, spouting grovelling questions at Komrade Brown. It really was sickening, like one of those walkabouts Mugabe used to do when people would throw themselves at him crying and thanking him for making their lives so wonderful.
Beeb should be ashamed. I do hope that Cameron's people are watching very closely, and will ask for similar air time. Though even if they get it they certainly won't get the deference.
Sky transmitted it in full as well – you do realise that Brown is the big story at the moment?
As for reverence I hardly think Labour would have been pleased to have it called a 'love-in' as Nick Robinson correctly referred to it earlier.
Incidentally, the claim made on here that the BBC are not giving the Tories excellent results credit is wrong. Take a look at the website – the heading 'Tories triumph in local elections'(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8081729.stm) couldn't be much clearer.
Just this second listened to a News24 BBC interview say to the leader of the Welsh Conservatives: "You didn't have a great election in England and Wales, did you?". It was then, more gently than it might have been, pointed out that Conservatives had wiped the floor with all others.
Then we've got another presenter saying about European predicted results "interestingly the opposition socialists, who you might have thought would do well in a recession because they can blame the market and demand better protection for workers and so on". Err….no. No. The Presenter may have thought that, but clearly none of the voters did.
Anonymous @ 8:17PM
Then we've got another presenter saying about European predicted results "interestingly the opposition socialists, who you might have thought would do well in a recession because they can blame the market and demand better protection for workers and so on".
Was that Mark Mardell? He wrote almost those exact words on his blog.
It is indeed Mark Mardell, the BBC's Europe correspondent. So when he says "You might have thought…", what he means is "We at the BBC would have thought…"
Orwell termed it "groupthink."
Labour seems to be in a close battle with UKIP for second place, the Lib Dem vote seems to be holding up and the Conservatives appear to be struggling to maintain their share on last time, although they are still likely to gain the most overall.
It would be hard for the BBC to be more Brown-nosing than this article from The Times
Lloyds Banking Group is expected to repay about £2.3 billion to the Government this week, becoming the first lender in Europe to return bailout money to the taxpayer.
The £2.3 billion cheque addressed to the Treasury could not have come at a better time for Gordon Brown.
but at least The Times does go on to let its reader know that this is a small repayment of taxpayer funds
In October, the Treasury spent £17 billion taking a 43 per cent stake in Lloyds Banking Group to prevent it from going bust.
whereas the BBC report leaves the impression that a full repayment has been made & that Gordon's timely intervention has saved the day & cost nowt.
Here's a picture of Michelle Obama which tells us far more than a thousand gushing words from Matt Frei.
Another good use of taxpayers money from the caring, sharing BBC….
Yes, the BBC denies freedom of information: BBC censors in its own interests, using BBC licencepayers' money to do so – £41,000 so far in this case:
"BBC's quarter of a million pound bill to keep pay secret"
By Emily Andrews
"A BBC battle to keep the salaries of Top Gear, EastEnders and Newsnight stars secret has helped clock up legal bills of almost £250,000.
"The broadcaster called in highly-paid lawyers to find a loophole to avoid answering the questions under the Freedom of Information Act.
"It has already spent £41,530 on barristers to keep the costs of the programmes secret and its lawyers have spent 55 days preparing cases to avoid releasing such information."
Anonymous @10:50 PM
It is indeed Mark Mardell, the BBC's Europe correspondent. So when he says "You might have thought…", what he means is "We at the BBC would have thought…"
Mardell was saying the exact same thing when doing his bit from the EU headquarters last night. He was continuously astonished that everyone hadn't turned to Socialism. No reasons give why that would be; it was just a no-brainer to him. That's not analysis, that's personal bias.
Here are a few good pals having a get together on the subject of Procuring public sector ICT.
No doubt giving a great insight into "Public Sector" cash, and how to maximise your take of it, direct from those who know.
The BBC eh, so impartial…..
If Alan Sugar isn't allowed to present on BBC because of this business adviser thing how come Diane Abbott isn't being made to stand down as an MP when she is a BBC regular.
Shocking double standards.
I just listened to about fifteen minutes of open and unstinting pro-EU bias on the World Service. Our Beeboid host – Dobbie – was in the EU headquarters interviewing various EU mouthpieces about why the far-right did so well in various places. How awful, what a black day for democracy, etc.
It seems that a lot of people stayed home, so that's why the nasty nationalists got elected. Why the voter apathy? The EU hasn't gotten the word out enough, apparently.
They then found some Spanish civilian to ask him what's up. He says that he didn't vote this time because for the last two weeks everyone was talking about domestic issues and nobody was talking about Europe. "That's not your fault, is it," the Beeboid tells – not asks – the EU mouthpiece. Assents all round, naturally.
You all had the wrong focus. It really was the domestic issues, such as the expenses scandal, that got in the way of voting in the approved fashion.
Right now they're having a segment where the guests and phone-in civilian are making it clear that the BNP made gains from disillusioned Labour voters who think the Party no longer represents them. "But will you vote Labour next time?" the Beeboid asks anxiously. "We're going to have a general election in the next few months." Oh, no!
What's most ridiculous to me is that it takes the BNP or innocent white people to say tell the astute Beeboid analysts that it is in fact the whole EU deal that's caused the immigration and, indirectly, the employment and welfare and reverse discrimination problems that everyone's upset about. The Beeboids simply don't get it because they're focused on the wrong end of the stick. They can't admit it because the BBC's pro-EU bias is endemic.
Some Beeboid named after a Harry Potter animal – Dobbie – is continuing the assault against anyone not Left. He has three guests. One is a Leftoid blogger, whom Martin would describe as camp, named Sunny, who is about as intellectually fascist as one can be. Dobbie's other guest is a Frenchman who is practically channeling Sartre. The third is a BNP mouthpiece.
They're beating up on some poor female Dutch civilian who said she didn't vote because she felt that the other parties didn't address her concerns over non-integration (her words) but couldn't bring herself to vote for Geert Wilders. Dobbie was distraught because it's people like her who cause racists to get elected. Except for the BNP guy, Dobbie and his guests are beating up on this poor woman who thinks maybe immigrants – read: Mohammedans – ought to at least make a gesture towards some of the values of the countries in which they now live.
Don't say there's anything wrong with the growth of fundamentalist Islam-only zones in Europe or you're a racist, want to "start putting people on trains", "as bad as Saudi Arabia", and all sorts of things.
On Radio 3 right now: Wagner's (a racist!) Götterdämmerung – "Twilight of the Gods", in which they all die and Valhalla burns. Sounds familiar somehow, except that Wotan recognizes his flaws in Wagner's tale.
The sloppy website sub-editor spelled it wrong – no umlauts and no extra "e" to replace them.
What's this? A BBC article with the usual scare quotes missing. Must be an absolute unquestioned cert eh?
Not even a 'divisive'.
But wait what do the following have in common…
Birmingham: Al-Hijrah Secondary (voluntary aided) 17.7
Blackburn and Darwent: St Winifrid's Church of England High, 3.8
Bolton: Bolton Muslim Girls School, 2.1 FP
Bromley: St Olave's and St Saviour's Grammar, 6.6
Cumbria: Trinity School (voluntary aided), 3.4
Derbyshire: St John Houghton Catholic School, 1.3 (FP)
East Sussex: Bishop Bell Church of England, 2.5
Gateshead: Cardinal Hume Catholic School, 1.5
Hammersmith and Fulham: Lady Margaret Church of England, 8.3
Herefordshire: Bishop of Hereford's Bluecoat School (voluntary aided), 1.1 (FP)
Hull: Hull Trinity House (voluntary aided), 6.5
Islington: St Mary Magdalene Academy, 4.8
Kensington and Chelsea: St Thomas More (voluntary aided), 5
Lancashire: Ripley St Thomas Church of England High, Lancaster, 3.1
Leicestershire: Loughborough De Lisle Catholic School , 1.3 (FP)
Liverpool: St Edward's College (voluntary aided), 1 (FP)
Norfolk: Notre Dame Catholic (voluntary aided), Norwich, 1.5
North Yorkshire: St Aidan's Church of England, Harrogate, 4.2
Nottingham: Bluecoat Church of England School (voluntary aided), 3.7
Oldham: Blue Coat Church of England Secondary, 5.7
Peterborough: The King's Cathedral School (voluntary aided), 5.1
Stockport: St James Catholic High, 1.4 (FP)
Suffolk: Debenham Church of England School, Stowmarket, 1.4 (FP)
Sunderland: St Anthony's Roman Catholic Girls, 1.2 (FP)
Tower Hamlets: Sir John Cass Foundaton and Church of England, 5.4
Warrington: St Thomas Boteler Church of England, 1.2 (FP)
West Berkshire: St Bartholomew's (foundation), Newbury, 2.4
Westminster: St Marylebone Church of England, 8.3
Wigan: Deanery Church of England High, 4
Wiltshire: St Joseph's Roman Catholic School, 3.2
Windsor and Maidenhead: St Edwards Royal Free (voluntary aided), 3.2
OK its only England not the UK.
But its the most oversubscribed schools (and popular) in those boroughs.
They seem to have something else in common.
I guess the parents in those places don't agree with the BBC.
Don't use scare quotes on this but do on UN proven evidence of nuclear material in Syria.
No BBC bias.
Don't make me laugh.
Here's one for Martin. A bit of navel gazing for the BBC?
Got to love the scruffy, public schoolboy wannabe beeboid presenter hosting it. Mummy and Daddy landced him a plum role at the BBC and the first thing he's going to examine is the mainstay of the Beeboid's daily diet.
We have all seen how these savages treat their own people so just imagine those mad mullers with a nuclear bomb and what they could do with it in the name of their religion, heaven here we come.
Iran stokes up for the Big bang The Telegraph
OK, so a majority people view faith schools as divisive (presumably a bad thing, at least in the minds of BBC wallahs), but would the same majority publicly decry the actual source (mass immigration) of that divisiveness, rather than its symptom?
And the bBC wonders why the hateful BNP is on the rise;
Panorama: anti-Islamic terrorist group whose leaders are based in Europe and America accused of Iranian bombing,
An anti-Islamic Iranian terrorist group whose leaders are based in Europe and America is accused of carrying out attacks inside Iran, BBC One's Panorama has learned.
While the West considers Iran a sponsor of terror, what is less well understood is that Iranians see themselves as victims of terrorism.
Last March, as thousands of people gathered in a centre in the city of Shiraz to pray, a bomb went off during prayers – killing 12 and injuring 202.
Mahmoud Salarkia, the Deputy Prosecutor of Tehran who deals with Iran's terror cases, tells Panorama's Jane Corbin that the leaders of this terrorist group are based in Europe and America. He produces Interpol warrants for the arrest of the people behind the bombing.
"These are the people in England and the US who have committed terrorist activities here," he says.
One of the documents contains details about a woman and states that one of the countries she is likely to visit is the United Kingdom.
It is an axiom of both BBC and Labour government practice: 'don't let democracy get in our political way'. So,e.g., the BBC spends licencepayers' money on legal costs to stop freedom of information claims for information about the BBC; and, e.g. Brown's government apoints record numbers of non-elected Ministers to the Cabinet.
No doubt both these democratically deficient public organisations will applaud the likely decision of the undemocratic European Union to change the E.U. voting rules as the results of the election are not to be E.U's liking:
"European elections 2009: EU voting system could axe political parties"
"Voters could be asked to cast their ballot for European 'groupings' rather than political parties under plans to shake up the electoral system."
(By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels)
"Proposals to change the way EU voting works will be tabled next year to counter the low turnout and big gains for fringe parties.
"The elections have fragmented the European Parliament as never before after voters across the continent elected large numbers of non-aligned MEPs outside the traditional pro-EU Christian Democrats, Socialists and Liberals. In Britain, the BNP, UKIP, and the Greens, made gains at the expense of Labour and Lib Dem votes."
Just seen Nick Robinson on the 10pm News saying that he bumped into Gordon Brown on the way out of his meeting and the first thing he said that struck me "He had a big smile on his face". Now I have to say this could be the most useless bit of information ever offered from a Beeb hack, but I loved the way he said this with the sing song inanity that I am sure he and the talent on Teletubbies are trained to project. I think we all know what a Gordon brown smile looks like, the only time it ever looks genuine is when he thinks he scored points of his idiot acolytes 🙂
Whoops ! The Supreme Court is holding up the reorganisation of Chrysler, following claims by creditors who allege that TeamObama broke bankruptcy law in dumping on first-in-line creditors while giving a huge chunk of the new company to the trade union.
The case has been brought by Indiana pension funds that are being robbed by TeamObama – not by fatcats from Wall Street.
If this goes to the full Supreme Court – they could overturn the whole deal, to protect basic elements of US commercial law that date back to the Founders. If this happens, the Chrysler deal with Fiat could lapse, and Chrysler would likely be liquidated.
And the General Motors carve-up by TeamObama would also be blocked. Egg all over Obama's face.
Of course the BBC has never reported on the serious legal challenges that have been brewing on the car firms for many weeks. There has been plenty of coverage of Chrysler and GM – but all with the gloss of "Obama saving the US car industry".
Once again, the BBC displays its self-proclaimed 'impartiality'.
On R4's midnight news a brief comment on the BNP's success and a scattering of comments from voters in the North West who helped elect Nick Griffin, is followed by a segment from some 'ant-fascist' group dedicated to the BNP's downfall.
Once again, one must ask the question – how many votes did these anti-BNP campaigners gather in the election? And what are their backgrounds in unsavoury politics?
However bad the BNP may or may not be, if the state broadcaster pretends to be unbiased, then unbiased it must be.
Or it should go.
It is not the BBC's job to tell people how to vote.
"Once again, one must ask the question – how many votes did these anti-BNP campaigners gather in the election? "
We must also ask the question "How many where there?" 10, 20, 30? and did they have banners with SWP all over them?
John Horne Tooke – yes, indeed, that's precisely what I was getting at.
However offensive the BNP may be, why are they deemed more offensive than people who defend the policies of psychotic mass murders like Stalin and Mao?
Why dos the BBC give an easy ride to supporters of the IRA and Islamic death cults and yet refuses to give an elected MEP airtime without countering it with the outpourings of some superannuated Trot?
Ah, the dulcet tones of Matt Frei and his BBC World News America. Our top stories tonight:
Two female US journalists captured after sneaking across the border into North Korea are sentenced to 12 years hard labor, because North Korea "likes to up the ante". Fair enough; it's a very serious story, NK is no joke, even if one is an accidental pawn in these games, and no harm will really come. But its NK's obstreperousness, entirely on its own, which has led to this.
No word about any events concerning Europe or elections or anything.
The pro-Western faction won the elections in Lebanon. We knew that President Obamessiah would face several major tests regarding foreign policy at some point, says Frei Boy. With this win by the pro-Western faction, "He's just passed his first one." No explanation why; it's just stated as some kind of factual observation. Apparently North Korea's little hostage game isn't part of this won-loss discussion.
The Obamessiah is passing a new spending….sorry….investment bill which will pour billions of dollars into green jobs which will create – not "He says will create", or "supporters say will create" – thousands and thousands of new jobs.
Natalia Antilava reports on the election in Lebanon. As I commented yesterday near the top of this thread @ 5:28 PM, Antelavahas also reported that Israel is at war with Lebanon. She finds a couple of Lebanese voters who say they don't think anything will change even though the pro-Western faction won the election and Hezbollah's influence over the country was curbed. People still really like Hezbollah, though, as they are brave resistance fighters. No mention that this is a fantasy world, and that Israel is not actually at war with Lebanon, and wasn't even two years ago. But the BBC can't seem to find anyone even slightly encouraged about the election results.
Then it's back to the studio, and Frei has on a Mr. MacFarquhar, a UN envoy of some kind and author of The Media Relations Department of Hizbollah Wishes You a Happy Birthday: Unexpected Encounters n the Changing Middle East
Matt Frei's first question to him is about any possible negative meddling in the election from the West. The topic of Iran's or Syria's influence was never raised. Frei Boy's best question: "But Hezbollah are more than just the terrorist organization the US says they are…."
Speaking of elections, there's one coming up in Iran. There's some Beeboid in Tehran who is way, way too happy to be jostled around by swarthy, mustachioed young men. He keeps leaning into them, and the more physical contact he gets, the bigger his smile. Sarcasm aside, he's so obviously leaning into them on purpose trying to enhance the viewers' perception that the crowd is going crazy and he's caught up in the stampede.
Apparently lots of people love Ahmadimjihadi. Yes, this is the young generation of voters who are internet and cell phone savvy. No mention that their Ahmadimjihadi-fronted Government censors their internet and cellphones. They're just really hip anyway, so if they vote for Ahmadimjihadi and the nuke-mad mullahs, they're still cool, and something else is to blame. Who knows what will happen, but gosh, it's all very exciting, and these swarthy young men are getting in very close to me…..
Oh, wait, in the second half of the broadcast, BBC America's propaganda show does have something on the European elections. Mark Mardell is doing the same doom and gloom he's been doing for the last couple of days. When these Beeboids find a Narrative, they stick to it. The center-right parties, including those in charge of France and Germany, won because voters "didn't bite" and stayed home. The non-Left won, so it must not be a real testament to the voters' true desires.
Mardell is baffled that the voters weren't interested in the Social Democrat's policies of "tighter financial controls" and multi-culti inclusiveness. Mardell, typical Beeboid, is utterly astonished that the public didn't stampede towards Socialism in times of economic crisis. Any chance of listening to the thoughts of people who actually voted, rather than disaffected Socialists and Leftoid politicians, Mark? No? Then you'll continue to be baffled.
And this fool is going to take over for Justin Webb as BBC North America editor?
Aside from that, at least one major part of the Narrative is clear across the spectrum of BBC broadcasting: The voters didn't actually vote "for" the nasty right-wingers and BNP. They stayed home because of the expenses scandal and…well.. because they were disaffected about something else we can't figure out in those countries where the ruling non-Left parties won. Oh yes, and at least Geert Wilders and those guys in Hungary are racist and the Poles are homophobes or something. Other than that, the non-Left (plus the BNP) won because voters didn't vote for them.
If that seems like twisted logic, that's because it is.
I can't understand how the BBC is getting its pants in a knot about the BNP when we have a party represented in the house of commons and the EU right now that has used the killing of men women and children as an explicit political strategy.
The BNP may be distasteful nutters but at least, as far as I know, they don't use murder and bombing as a 'way to peace', but the BBC has an ideological objection to the BNP. That sort of nationalism is not allowed
Toady just did a piece on the Taliban at 7.15am
no prizes for guessing correctly that throughout the report not a single mention was made of Islam.
which is equivalent to reporting on Stalin and the USSR and never once mentioning communism.
the bbc – lying by omission.
"that has used the killing of men women and children as an explicit political strategy."
6:44 AM, June 09, 2009
barely reported on over here is the fact that Fine Gael and the Irish Labour Party have both explicitly ruled out ever going into coalition with Sinn Fein in the south. (they polled roughly 10%)
which says an awful lot.
I caught the end of Newsnight last night (Monday). Paxman, Polly Toynbee and Andrew Rawnsley (?) of the Observer were sitting round discussing the woeful state of Labour. One said that Tory votes were very low, too, and that had to be a good omen for the next election. Polly disagreed, saying "I don't think we should get to exited about that." Much murmering agreement.
Is this really what passes for current affairs journalism at the BBC? Three dedicated left wingers navel gazing about Labour's prospects?
Can BBC bias get any worse?
I've just heard a party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour party given by Messrs Milliband and Naughtie on Today. Milliband asserted that most people (90% of the electorate) want Labour to "finish the job". Naughtie didn't demur and, with the aid of soft "questions", guided the PPB to a triumphant conclusion; that all's right with the world, Gordon's in control and the vast majority of the electorate will be "allowed" to vote Labour at the next election – hooray!!.
There was not one incisive, let alone embarrassing, question for Milliband who was allowed to make a vastly contentious opening statement for over a minute, uninterrupted and, of course, completely unchallenged. Contrast this with Humphrys' interview with Osborne yesterday where Osborne was continually interrupted because the Conservatives had the effrontery to win two elections.
A disgrace – but there's f*** all I (or anybody else) can do about it.
i heard it too.
a f**king disgrace.
Mr Osborne – theres your reason for abolishing the BBC once you get into office. It cannot be more apparent.
This morning Today at around 8.40am.
Spain has awarded citizenship to 6 British citizens who fought in the Spanish civil war, can you guess yet on which side? Yes it was the Republican and the veteran who was there Tom Lessers (I think it was) went to fight with the communists for freedom & democracy. The Spanish ambassador was there too, not a word about the Franco side except to fight Fascism. No interuptions or comments from one Sarah Montague
The Spanish Civil War – another example of a conflict where both sides should have lost (read this masterly history).
Re Milliband/Naughtie PPB – at one point Milliband hesitated fearing an interruption to his flow (Naughtie perhaps twitched with the producer's voice in his headphones congratulating him on his incisiveness), but Naughtie instead urged Millband on, saying "Nearly there", implying "Don't worry you can say what you like, at any length").
Earlier Milliband had stated tht he was determined to "battle" through the interview – the least contested battle since Liverpool beat Besiktas 8-0.
Best thing was however that Milliband's unchallenged propaganda still didn't produce anything to recover voter support.
that most people (90% of the electorate) want Labour to "finish the job"
I think that 90% of the British electorate have something slightly different in mind in terms of 'finishing the job' than that which Milliband is suggesting 😉
Not a subject for the BBC to pursue: GLENYS KINNOCK. But 'Mail' has:
"Farce over Glenys Kinnock, the makeshift minister"
"Glenys Kinnock's appointment as Europe minister descended into farce yesterday after it emerged that she could not do the job because she was still an MEP.
Under EU Parliament rules, Mrs Kinnock is not allowed to serve as a minister in a national Government until she steps down as an MEP on July 14.
"Days after accepting Gordon Brown's surprise invitation to join his Government, Mrs Kinnock was forced to admit she was a mere 'acting minister'.
"There was speculation in Westminster last night that Mrs Kinnock was reluctant to quit her job as an MEP as she would have to forgo some of her gold-plated pension and golden-goodbye.
"The absurd situation is set to cause further embarrassment for Mr Brown as he fights for his political survival."
And the pattern of Brown's appointments of Labour Ministers continues unchanged:
"Cleared Shahid Malik made Communities Minister"
OR, in the BBC's headline:
"Minister cleared in expenses row"
(BBC 'politics' page.)
"MP frustrated by cagey BBC"
"An MP has described the BBC's refusal to reveal the salaries of its superstars as 'ironic' given the corporation's pursuit of MPs over their expenses.
Leicester South MP Sir Peter Soulsby claimed he was concerned the public's interest in openness and transparency was not being helped by the Beeb's reluctance to reveal its stars' pay packets.
"'I think it's ironic, given the recent media interest and very legitimate interest in way in which we as MPs are paid, that the BBC itself shouldn't also be open about what it's paying to those who are superstars and in some cases perhaps those who are presenters of news and current affairs programmes,' he told politics.co.uk."
The Sunday Times June 7, 2009
"We can't make BBC salaries public"
"If we knew what Auntie paid, it would kill her" Rod Liddle:
"That’s enough transparency and openness, don’t you think? We’ve had enough of it. It is about time the genie was clubbed to death and put back in the bottle – because now they are talking about making the salaries of BBC employees public.
"Please God, no – anything but that. You think you were upset about the moat? You felt a bit irritated by those second homes? Wait until you read how much the bloody newsreaders get every year simply for reading from an autocue, looking censorious whenever the words 'Israel' or 'racism' or 'UKIP' are mentioned and not belching too often. "