Here you can discuss any BBC-related issue that concerns you.
Open thread
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- MarkyMark Dec 19, 10:53
Midweek 18th December 2024
“David Goldstone CBE appointed as independent Chair of the Office for Value for Money” https://www.gov.uk/government/news/david-goldstone-cbe-appointed-as-independent-chair-of-the-office-for-value-for-money David was appointed Treasury-nominated Non-Executive… - MarkyMark Dec 19, 10:50
Midweek 18th December 2024
China or Bangladesh? UK is now an international corruption HUB for the world. Minister named in Bangladesh corruption probe https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3zqen209go… - MarkyMark Dec 19, 10:40
Midweek 18th December 2024
“City minister Tulip Siddiq – who is responsible for stamping out corruption in Britain’s financial sector – is being investigated… - MarkyMark Dec 19, 10:37
Midweek 18th December 2024
“Sharaa was relaxed throughout the interview, wearing civilian clothes, and tried to offer reassurance to all those who believe his… - Lazy Cat Dec 19, 10:28
Midweek 18th December 2024
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cnv35lp14z9t Top BBC story with huge megathread today. The BBC tend to have only minor coverage on quite a few… - moggiemoo Dec 19, 10:28
Midweek 18th December 2024
Throw him into a skip with the other rubbish. Even that is more than he deserves. - MarkyMark Dec 19, 10:22
Midweek 18th December 2024
Lammy dismisses past criticism of Trump as ‘old news’ In 2019, ahead of Trump’s state visit to the UK, Lammy… - Lunchtime Loather Dec 19, 10:20
Midweek 18th December 2024
Our old friend Alan Yentob was awarded a CBE this week, apparently. Nice of him to dress up for his… - JohnC Dec 19, 10:03
Midweek 18th December 2024
Not sure if anyone linked the actual video for this so apologies if I’ve repeated it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQrvmY5s2mo&ab_channel=SirStarmerandtheGrannyHarmers What’s amusing is… - MarkyMark Dec 19, 09:59
Midweek 18th December 2024
Tread lightly on the voter …. [img]https://image.vuukle.com/0fb1f625-47b3-4788-9031-5fe43d5ad981-e5459a32-a6b0-4719-9cce-10329bdc7f60[/img]
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
The bBC, its promotion for Mullah rights and half the story.
The bBC continies to suck up to the muallahs of Tehran by actually questioning the death of a young girl. I quote from the bBC article;
"Amateur video apparently showing a young Iranian woman dying in Tehran after she was allegedly shot by pro-government militia on Saturday has caused outrage in Iran and abroad."
So when an odious religious totalitarian regime kills its own the sycophantic bBC injects the following adjectives into the article;
Apparently.
Allegedly .
In which to question the veracity of that video and the on going clampdown on the peoples of Iran.
Yet when Hamas/Hezbollah/Taliban/Terrroists have a video to air the bBC not only rushes it to the front of the queue, but never questions it, instead it will promote that video as an example of just how bad;
America
Britain
India
Israel
are towards the rights and freedoms of Islamic theology.
The bBC, its promotion for Mullah rights and half the story.
Silly me the link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8113552.stm
Only the bbc farming programme could manage to run a series of reports on the demise of DFB, one of the biggest producer owned dairy co-operatives, without mentioning the elephant in the room, the thing that drives producers prices below costs, but allows lots of jolly adverts featuring Jamie Oliver to be made.
But then the beeboids wouldn't want to draw attention to the links between nulab and the supermarkets, or lord sainsbury and shaun woodward etc would get annoyed.
Pounce_UK Yep I commented on this. Al Bowen was spouting crap that the video shot was "alleged" or that "the BBC was unable to confirm"
Yet many of us here complained formally to the BBC when it allowed The Palis in Gaza to spout lies about the attacks on them by Israel yet bum boy Bowen or the rest of the BBC never once commented that the video that was being released by the Palis was not subject to any independent verification.
A friend has been visiting me in the USA from the UK. During dinner she showed me a newspaper cutting from the Guardian and said, "I see an anti-abortion extremist is standing for Governor of Georgia". She shook her head and tut-tutted. 'Why was I living in this vile place?' was her implication..
The article is linked below.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/05/abortion-america-george-tiller
The piece is clearly meant to show that this misguided man Neal Horsley is part of the mainstream political system in the US. In the view of the left-wing UK press, America is full of stupid, deranged, unsophisticated subhuman beings who eat hamburgers, drive trucks, carry guns, go to church and kill people who disagree with them – after all, look at their politicians – men like Neal Horsley!
But most Americans I've spoken to, from all shades of political opinion, have even heard of Neil Horsley, who is given such credence in this miserable British rag. Note the mention of Horsley standing for "Governor of Georgia", and the proof of his standing by citing a "daily web cast and a 30-minute campaign advert shown on Georgia cable television". The implication is that the people of Georgia back this man and that he is representative of a large swath of opinion. Hey – he is so popular, he has a TV show! (No-one in the UK understands public access TV in the US.)
Why is this of interest to us here on B-BBC? Because the reporter who brings us this piece of crap turns out to be a former "respected BBC journalist" – Chris McGreal. Now he is out in the real world we can see his point of view clearly. How many other "respected BBC journalists" betray their bias more clearly after they leave Auntie? It's worth keeping an eye on them – and re-evaluating their former careers in the light of their post-BBC antics.
"The Daily Politics" today, with Andrew Neil and the rather weird Anita Anand, kicked off with the news that Prince Charles' income from the taxpayer was up last year, despite the recession. Anand actually used the word !
To comment, they had Lord Puttnam, Labour supporter and Republican.
No reference to the BBC licence fee going up in a recession.
Next, a piece about the loathesome new Speaker , Bercow, and , to comment, Lord Puttnam and Bercow's manager, Martin Salter, also Labour.
The whole "show" was one long Labour lovefest with no guests or comments from other parties.
Concerning BBC coverage of the Iranian demos: before broadcasting reports from Iran the BBC is careful to note that their journalists in Iran are working under restrictions imposed by the Iranian regime (with the implication that perhaps, at best, the whole story isn't being told or, at worst, it's a pack of lies). I don't recall any such warnings issued when the BBC was broadcasting from Hamas or Hizbollah controlled territory. Obviously, the whole truth – and nothing but the truth – came from the BBC's reporters in Gaza and Lebanon.
OTOH (and it's not difficult to believe) perhaps Hamas/Hizbollah insisted that any such warning would be perceived as a slight on their "integrity" and would be followed by condign punishment for the reporters even though they continued to spout the terrorist line. After all, if even Alan Johnston – a faithful retailer of Hamas propaganda – could be kidnapped in Gaza (albeit ostensibly by competitors of Hamas) anything could happen!
As George R pointed out in the previous open thread, Mark Easton's latest blog topic is English lawns. I've posted the following comment:
With US First Lady Michelle Obama ploughing the White House lawn to plant organic vegetables, with climate change making lawn maintenance more problematic in Britain, with the fashion for the natural and with a global economic downturn, it may be that what was once a status-symbol is now a little bit naff.
The pampered lawn looks increasingly like an unsustainable relic from an era of excess.
Gratuitous mention of the Obamas – check. Climate change reference – check. Bit of leftie ideology – check. And all in the space of two sentences about English lawns. Good going, Mark. Of course, to be a perfect encapsulation of BBC journalism you needed a couple more items:
The pampered lawn looks increasingly like an unsustainable relic from an era of excess, a throwback to the dark days of George W. Bush, and as out of place in the landscape as a partition barrier in Israel.
There – a BBC full house.
Tom Gross does a demolition job on the BBC's Iran coverage see: http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/001038.html
Among the material which is hardly if at all featured on the BBC : "MOUSAVI IS NEITHER A LIBERAL NOR AN OPPONENT OF THE ISLAMIST STATE
The "opposition" candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi is one of the fathers of Iran's nuclear program, and was prime minister during the Iran-Iraq war, directing his army to send waves of teenage suicide bombers against Iraqi forces. (He is incidentally a cousin of Ayatollah Khamenei.) He is almost as much a hardliner of the regime as the "victor" President Ahmadinejad is. That is why he was one of just four candidates (out of over 4000 people who applied) allowed by the regime to stand in this stage-managed presidential election.
All four regime-approved candidates have long been involved in the regime's reign of terror. For example, Mousavi was responsible for ordering the execution of 30,000 Iraqi prisoners."
Anon,
I think this whole Iranian saga has become bigger than Mousavi. For sure he will be using this to his own ends but lets just hope that events move so quickly as to make him almost useless.
Mailman
'Economist' (print edition, 18/6):
"The Future of the BBC: Auntie stumbling?"
[Extract]:
"HOSTILE governments and resentful competitors have never managed to knock the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) off its privileged perch. The public-service broadcaster remains a behemoth with tentacles in fields as disparate as publishing and the internet, all paid for by an international anomaly: a licence fee levied on any household in Britain with a television that receives broadcasts.
[…]
"But a prospective Conservative government is not the only cloud on its horizon. Technological developments such as online television and the proliferation of channels are making it harder to defend the regressive licence fee. An Ipsos MORI poll in August showed a public no longer squarely behind the status quo: 37% said the licence fee was not the right way to fund the BBC, and 47% denied it was good value. In perhaps the grimmest omen for the corporation, its strongest support was among those aged over 65."
Six o'clock news done a bit on pensions without mentioning Browns pension grab.
What is it with the BBC and Twitter? They did a piece tonight about a house wired up to the internet via Twitter message (hardly new technology) and last week a piece about Twitter and the Iranian situation… baffling.
The BBC does seem to be very gay fro Twitter. Perhaps they own stock in it or something.
Now he is out in the real world we can see his point of view clearly.
I thought you said he worked for the Guardian. That's no closer to the real world than the BBC.
Twitter has become part of the Iran story for legitimate reason. Churnalists take the ball and run with it.
The BBC has spent the past week hammering home the message that Obama's tepid response to the Iranian protests has been a masterclass in diplomatic relations. Finally today, buffeted by events, belatedly he has spoken strong words of condemnation towards the Iranian regime. It's going to be amusing to watch the BBC's Obama-lovin' journalists work frantically to change the narrative.
DB,
He works in mysterious ways. That's all you need to know.
DP,
Amen.
The dhimmi BBC attempts to localise the criticism of the anti-social BURQA to France (and according to this BBC report to he-who-stirs-it: Sakozy):
"Sarkozy stirs French burka debate".
The BBC's first political impulse is to support and propagandise for Muslim women who wear that anti-social, insulting,frightening garb.
This is what indigenous British people have to put up with daily:
"No, madam, its you who have offended MY values" (by Allison Pearson, 'Daily Mail' last week):
[Extract]:
"On a train to London, a young woman wearing a burkha, with only her heavily made-up eyes peeping out, did not have a valid ticket.
"Challenged by the guard, the young woman gave a litany of excuses. She had left her bag at her boyfriend's, he had bought the ticket, she had no money on her…
My friend Jane, who was in the same carriage, noticed how the guard became nervous as the Muslim girl presented herself as an innocent in a society she didn't understand.
"Instead of issuing a penalty fine, the guard backed off, shrugging his helplessness at the other passengers.
"So imagine my friend's surprise when she got off at the same station as burkha girl and saw this 'penniless innocent' whip out a credit card from under the folds of her dress with which she promptly bought a Tube ticket.
Jane was so incensed she sent me a text message, explaining what she'd witnessed. It ended: 'Attack of Burkha Rage. Grrr.'
Jane is not a BNP voter. She is a university lecturer who specialises in the developing world.
"Yet Burkha Rage has become our personal shorthand for someone taking the mickey out of our country and its tolerant ways.
Despite a growing acceptance that multi-culturalism has been deeply damaging to race relations, there are still almost weekly opportunities for a fit of Burkha Rage."
The BBC won't like this: the 'Daily Express' is running a national campaign to 'BAN THE BURQA' – see its frontpage tomorrow.
BBC Newsnight. A Tory free zone again.
I see Iran has thrown the permanent BBC correspondent in Tehran out of the country and have blamed the BBC for inciting the rioting there.
So, it seems David Vance and Ahmadinejad have quite a bit in common afterall.
Muppets.
Iran threw Leyne out because he and the BBC Farsi stringers were hanging out with Mousavi supporters too much, and openly stirring excitement over the possibilities of the situation.
Not that there's anything wrong with wanting the mad mullahs to get bent, and not that I approve of suppression or anything, but it's not surprising considering the tone and source of some of the coverage.
On the topic of running stories as news…allegedly …
Must either be a very slow news day today, or the word has gone out that the BBC, at least, must be seen to be a voice of challenge here in the West, now that the various Satans have gone a tad off-message on the diplomatic front.
Because the lead 'story' this morning seems to be wall-to-wall on that great ME tensions-soother: prisoner abuses by the Americans.
Thing is, as far as I can make out, it has been rushed out based on no more than 'what the BBC investigators have been told'. Make that what a bunch of less than credible at best, aggrieved and prone to hyperbole at worst folk have managed to cram into BBC's new 'press releases as news' system.
Yes, the story was littered with caveats and disclaimers, so why not wait until there is actual substantive proof? And how about trying to get the headlines and duration of the story to actually reflect its substantive heft?
I don't say such things are not news and don't need investigating and, if true, reporting, but in its current form this seems little more than media space for propaganda. Irresponsibly so, as I can foresee but one outcome.
Imagine if the airwaves were full on a regular basis with lead stories headlined 'OUT OF CONTROL CAPITA THUGS HARASS ANOTHER PENSIONER…….. says his daughter, who wasn't there at the time, but reckons her Dad was pretty shaken up (possibly he meant physically, so we'll go with that) when they knocked at the door'.
Thing is, while both 'stories' are pretty much sh*t-stirring to suit pre-conceived notions and agendas, in the absence of objective reporting it's a tad too late.
It will be interesting to see what the other news outlets deem worthy of note today.
Yesterday BBC showed Gordon Brown giving his full speech in Parliament. Then came Camerons reply. BBC gave him about 30 seconds and cut him off. Disgusting.
All norning the BBC's main item of news is the set of allegations maltreatment at the US jail at Bagram.
And how, pray, is this more important than all the other news ? What kind of BBC editor puts this type of story at the top ?
And where in the long story – top billing at the BBC website – any statement that it is part of Al Qaeda training to allege torture and maltreatment ? That it is there in blck and white in their training manual ?
And what is all this bollox trotted out by the BBC that the Bagaram allegations have been "uncovered" by the BBC ?
The whole thing stinks of a put-up job promoted by some human rights outfit or pro-terrorist lawyers.
This Have Your Say on climate change doesn't seem to be going the BBC's way. Perhaps that's why, at the time of writing, nothing's been added since 4:54 am
P.S. a plea: can the Open Thread be kept near the top when adding new posts: I think many people won't comment when the thread is too far down, on the basis nobody will see it otherwise, and comment off topic instead on a higher thread.
Very briefly (it now seems to have been removed) the BBC's 'News' website was running a headline proclaiming that the OECD had said Britain's debt will be 'no worse than other developed countries'.
When one reads the following, from the Times, one can see why it was hastily excised: "Britain’s economy will shrink 4.3 per cent this year, its fastest pace of decline since Second World War, OECD warns "
Or maybe this from the Telegraph: "UK to sink further into red than any major country, warns OECD "
How had the BBC got it so wrong? Could it be that it had simply regurgitated a press release from the Corporation's usual favourite source: The Labour press office?
PS: May I back Mr Deschain? Please try to keep the general thread at the top. If it's awkward given the pressure of time, could not the power to do that alone be given to a few regulars? Without its constant updating by commenters, the blog can otherwise look a little static.
Yep, I agree that HYS on Global Warming is showing a true public opinion on the subject.
Just how little do the BBC know about finance and economics?
And how willing are they to just accept nonsense verbatim and reporduce it as fact, not even giving it the usual scare quotes?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8116407.stm
Ford raised prices by 4.7% in Feb 3.75% in Apr and now another 4%.
The reason? the fall of sterling against the euro "sterling had been stable at about 1.43 euros for about 10 years up until the end of 2007, but that the pound had recently fallen to about 1.16 euros."
The very simplest of analysis of the pound and the euro would tell you this is a blatant lie.
In the euros first year or two the pound rose from 1.42 to 1.69.
With some variance it wandered back to 1.42 by 2003.
It fluctuated between 1.40 and 1.50 for the next 4 years.
it then declined rapidly for about 18 months to around 1.05 before its steady rise over the last quarter to 1.18.
It was not steady for 10 years at 1.43. No currency in a free market would do that and the amount is imaginary. The exchange rate at the start of 2008 was 1.34 not 1.43, it is now 1.18 not 1.16
Funny thing is even the BBC know this see their earlier article on the previous rise
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7866884.stm
Typical BBC, no understanding of the market, no ability to challenge business figures (in no small way related to the lack of market understanding).
I'm not certain if its bias or ignorance, probably both.
JohnA @ 10:05 AM
And where in the long story – top billing at the BBC website – any statement that it is part of Al Qaeda training to allege torture and maltreatment ? That it is there in blck and white in their training manual ?
That's irrelevant. The idea here is that if even one innocent is harmed, the entire operation can be discredited. That's what this outcry is about, and what it's all about, really. No need to discuss the larger geopolitical issues or anything else. If one human right is violated, the rest of it can be dismissed as evil.
It's a very simple logic, for simple minds.
GCooper,
The BBC move from one incompetance on economics to another.
As you say it originally failed to report Britain's debt (for the year) will be worse than most other countries, in fact it actually claimed otherwise.
Now it trumpets that the UK will have terrible growth this year, so will the whole world economy and points out figures from various places, but magestically manages to avoid the fact that its actually worse in its beloved euroland this year and set to stay as bad next year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8117013.stm
The more you read it, the more you realise the verbal gymnastics required to cover up the eurozone failure.
But the euro is good and would have saved us from his credit crunch and recession right – NOT!
Isn't BBC DG, Mark Thompson, describing himself and fellow exploitative BBC bosses here?:
(-from 'Telegraph' report)-
"Mr Thompson said: 'There is a suspicion that for some years now there has been a small group of people who have been ideologically focused more on the principle of getting a wedge into the licence fee and trying to prove a point about the principle of top-slicing, rather than having a particular urgent need'. "
'Telegraph'article:
"Mark Thompson accuses 'clique' of undermining BBC by 'top-slicing' licence fee "
[ Opening Extract]:
"Mark Thompson, the BBC director general, has accused ITV, Channel 4 and Ofcom of trying to undermine the Corporation by 'top-slicing' the television licence fee."
I just caught a bit on Radio 4 at about 4.30 pm.
Roma/Romany University lecturer ( whose english was better than most Beeboids) about the history, culture and language of Roma people.
She made the point that it is a linguistic coincidence that the words "Roma" and " Romanian" are similar.
Anyway, I wonder if the Beeboids generally will listen to that broadcast or continue to wallow in their ignorance and prejudice ?
Somehow, I have my doubts.
Grant,
The Beeboids aren't doing it out of ignorance. They're doing it because you're a racist.
Tonight's PM on Radio 4 actually had the nerve to run a straight-faced item about fawning media coverage of Obama. Only American broadcasters were mentioned.
Washington correspondent Jonathan Beale concluded his report thus: When the media seems to be just as interested in his fly swatting abilities it's fair to ask the question, "Is there a cult of personality that's giving the president a free ride?"
And here was presenter Eddie Mair on last Thursday's PM: That video [of Obama swatting a fly] has been shown around the world with the president being widely applauded. But consider for a moment the fly. I'm joined by Simon Blackburn, the professor of philosophy at the University of Cambridge...
Wish I was kidding.
Someone was quick off the mark in the comments at the PM blog:
A BBC news report about news services that 'cosy up' to Obama.
Really? Are you serious? Did someone disconnect the irony meter in your office today?
BBC's Paul Reynolds provides a largely anti-British, pro-Islamic view of Britain-Iran history:
"Britain and Iran's fraught history" ('UK' page.)
He mentions the importance (to him) of setting up of the BBC Persian TV channel", but he doesn't mention the impact of the Iran-Iraq war on other countries, such as Britain.
The only possible slight he makes against the Islamic Republic is expressed in such a bizarre way as to suggest that the Iranian navy did not really capture in the Gulf a British Royal Navy patrol, that Iran did not keep the British personnel captive,etc, because, in Reynolds' words:
"More recently, Iran released 15 Royal Navy personnel after seizing them in the Gulf."
Reynolds achieves the masterly political effect in the above sentence of making it appear that the Iranian regime had almost released the British before arresting them!
Reynolds makes no reference to the negative impact on the interest of the British people of the installation of a vicious Islamic regime in Iran since 1979; no reference to the Islamic Republic's military, logistical and propaganda support for the Islamic jihadists of Afghanistan, Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq, and how this is in conflict with British interest.
For an alternative, non-BBC version of aspects of modern Iranian history, suggest see article by Hugh Fitzgerald (available at New English Review, 'Iconoclast' archive, under title: "Securalist Turkey and the Example of Iran".)
[Extract]:
"Iran — the Iran of the Shah, who did what he could to emphasize the non-Islamic and pre-Islamic history of Iran (including that gala at Persepolis), who allowed Christians and Jews to be treated decently, who had a court which, however corrupt (and what was Savak compared to what followed?), allowed for the development of a class — many now in exile, from Los Angeles to Paris and London — that was Iran's great hope.
"But it was all undone, by Khomeini and the troglodytes who supported Khomeini, and the opponents of the Shah, from bazaris in Teheran to illiterate villagers, unhinged by the very development plans, the 'modernization,' that oil money allowed the Shah to implement.
"In Iran the leftists had their own view of history. They had very little in common with, and would soon be destroyed by, the followers of Khomeini. But they thought that they would use Khomeini, enroll the power of the bazaris in Teheran, and the humble illiterate villagers who, nonetheless, could be whipped up to embrace anti-Shah attitudes and acts, by the audiocassettes that Khomeini made in his French exile at Neauphle-le-chateau, which audiocassettes were then copied, and distributed all over Iran.
"These leftist opponents of the Shah, these mainly Mossadeghites, who traced the distempers of the Shah's regime, and blamed for the very existence of the Shah's regime, to the coup against Mossadegh, were allied with, and thought they were using, those who saw Islam as the True Path and salvation. In societies suffused with Islam, even those who are not intent on more Islam, who may even be 'Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only' Muslims, can nonetheless be affected by the conspiracy-theory attitudes that Islam, which discourages or prevents the exercise of skeptical inquiry. It was that way in Iran. Mossadeghites kept their narrative simple: the coup against Mossadegh in 1953, one they blamed not so much on the C.I.A. and Kermit Roosevelt, but on the traditional enemy, for conspiracy-theory purposes, Great Britain, and they saw the Shah as having remained in power, with his corrupt court (but how corrupt, compared to the general level in Iran or other Muslim lands?) and Savak (but how brutal was Savak compared to what was to follow?), because Mossadegh, and those in the line of Mossadegh, were foiled.
"They never took seriously, until it was too late, the power of Khomeini. But he had the numbers — demography is destiny, everywhere you look." (Hugh Fitzgerald.)
One recurrent complaint on these threads is that the BBC treats Liberal Democrat treasury spokesman Vince Cable more like an impartial commentator than as a partisan politician.
This morning (on ‘Today’) Evan Davies went so far as to introduce Cable as an “eminent commentator” on the economy. Would any BBC interviewer introduce, say, George Osborne in this way?
Anyone else just catch BBC news at around 19:20?
I doubt it will get many repeats in full, just highly edited bits now.
Despite my warnings in this thread about the BBC's misinformed ignorant economics they proceeded with the same line.
They were interviewing the OECD chief economist asking about their new growth projection being lower for the UK and why he thought it was so bad for the UK.
He pointed out that the OECD had recorded lower than expected actual figures for the first two quarters for the UK but it had actually upped its growth forecast for growth.
You could sense the BBC firing around in the dark as he pointed out that the OECD were not downbeat on the UK and if anything the UK is set to do better than most of the other OECD countries.
Flabbergasted the BBC then tried to go on to the dire deficit figures it was projecting for next year. The OECD man agreed they were grim. The BBC attempted to steer it into saying it would mean spending cuts. The OECD man pointed out the obvious, the deficit could be addressed by spending cuts or tax rises and that it was likely as usual in these circumstances that there would be a combination of the two.
Of course that split between the need for spending cuts or tax rises and in either case what is cut or what taxes will rise is the real crux of the next general election for the solution that the country adopts for the next five years.
Sadly the BBC misses the boat again.
How much are these people paid? My four year old daughter doesn't make elementary errors like these. It is shocking.
Thanks for flagging that report from the USA, DB. I heard it too but hadn't got round to commenting here.
It was astounding to hear the BBC daring to criticise the USA media when it has taken sycophancy to a new level with its nauseating worship of the Obamessiah.
Good news from Down Under – it is beginning to look as though the disrespectful Aussies are chucking out the whole enviro-fascist notion of man-made global warming.
With the Aussies maybe going to Copenhagen to blow a rasberry at the false "science".
tinyurl.com/nceckl
…..
Meanwhile Radio 4 this evening is running a boring half-hour on how global warming will lead not to more deserts but to more rain on the deserts. Tosh as per usual.
Good news – the boring Radio 4 half-hour on climate change and more rain in the deserts (???) by an Islamic woman has just ended.
Bad news – she is back next week for a second programme on exactly the same bloody nonsense.
And this afternoon's Radio 4 boring play was about some idiot who had converted to Islam.
Do the bloody Mohammedans run big chunks of the BBC ? Handing out OUR money to their friends to make utterly boring and biased programmes ? It is getting to look like local government in the East End – housing office staff becoming Islamic long before they were in a majority, stuff the indigenous locals, bring in more Bangladeshis.