Listening to this BBC Today segment concerning the positon of Trident, I was reminded how much the BBC wallow in debates among their ideological confreres (they are enjoying it while they still can). In this segment, the BBC presented the views of George Robertson and various leftist thinkers (the presenter calls it a “phenomenal list”), Robert Peston (the left-oriented BBC commentator), and the Labour Government minister Bill Rammell. Rammell defends the Gvt’s position in persisting with Trident by saying that Britain is at the forefront of nuclear disarmament- pointing to cutbacks in the arsenal. He does this because his critics are coming from the CND legacy left. The BBC offers no counterbalancing voice, and indeed the presenter barbs caustically “can we afford it?”- something I don’t recall hearing concerning any other item of public expenditure ever from the BBC. Biased.
Left, Left, Left
Bookmark the permalink.
I have no interest in trident as the system is under u.s control we just had to pay for it, if it is cut all the budget should be spent on upgrading weapons and equipment for all the services .
It won't,it will used it to prop up this useless/spineless bunch of sinisters supported by the bbc/cnd/brigstokey lobby gits! .
zx
This story was covered quite extensively on R4 yesterday evening as well and, once again, almost solely from a Leftist, anti-nuke perspective.
As ever, the IPPR was presented as if it were a neutral, objective body, rather than a Bliarite think-tank, and the phalanx of Europhiles wheeled out to urge the case for some sort of EU force was as dreary as it was predictable.
The BBC is no longer even capable, it would appear, of presenting an even handed case. It is broken. Almost certainly beyond repair.
The BBC seem quite happy for Iran and North Korea to have nukes, but not the UK.
Can we afford the BBC ?
Paddy Ashdown was exploring the concept of us being a small cog in a european army yesterday.
It seems the Lib dems are the BBCs new friends, what with Cable and co calling for the renationalisation of the railways, integration into europe, the cancelling of Trident etc etc.
Not bad publicity for a literally 3rd rate party– at a cost of over £3 billion to the taxpayers
Labour, Lib Dems and BBC want to spend billions of pounds on:
wind farms, mass immigration, Olympics and the BBC itself, BUT they want LESS spending on DEFENCE!
As noted by 'eureferendum', the UK National Defence Association (which may be an organisagtion the BBC has never heard of) has this:
"IPPR DEFENCE REPORT 'BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE'"
[Extract]:
"The new report on Defence & Security by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) is 'fundamentally flawed', according to the United Kingdom National Defence Association (UKNDA).
"'Shared Responsibilities: A National Security Strategy for the UK', published today by the IPPR, advocates substantial further cuts to Britain's already pared-to-the-bone Defence capabilities, including the axing of the aircraft carrier programme and the replacement Trident nuclear deterrent. The report also recommends a move away from Britain's traditional focus on the alliance with the USA, towards a Europe-centred Defence policy.
"UKNDA Chief Executive, Cdr John Muxworthy, said: 'The IPPR report is fundamentally flawed. It starts from the basic assumption that Britain can no longer afford a full-spectrum Armed Forces cabability and that we should therefore scale back our military, give up on Afghanistan, and cancel a whole tranche of Defence programmes.
"'The UKNDA's position is quite different. In our view, what Britain cannot afford to do is risk making the swingeing cuts that the IPPR proposes. If we do, our military will be more thinly stretched and our country more vulnerable to external threats than at any time since WW2. Unlike other areas of Government expenditure, funding for Defence has been continually squeezed for the past two decades, with the result that our Forces are already chronically overstretched. To cut them back further would be the height of folly." ('uknda.org'.)
( Also: 'eureferendum' and 'defence of the realm' sites recommended on all this.)
The real political priorities of the 'Left, Left, Left' brigade, which includes the BBC, are:
"Ministerial hectoring on green energy is fascism in the wind."
by JAMES LOVELOCK,
('Guardian' 29/3/09)
[Extract]:
"A campaign is being fought that uses social rejection to make us accept industrial-scale wind energy stations across the UK."
"In Prague Castle at a Forum 2000 conference hosted by President Vaclav Havel, I heard the distinguished novelist and freedom fighter Wole Soyinka say with great passion that political correctness is evil. He argued that while brute force is one way to take away our democratic rights, they can be lost as easily by the social rejection of political correctness.
"It seems we are now subject to a campaign that uses social rejection as a force to make us accept industrial-scale wind energy stations across the UK; to call them windfarms is disingenuous.
"As part of this campaign, the great and the good are hectoring on the moral need to embrace wind energy. No less a person than the environment minister, Ed Miliband, said: 'Opposition to windfarms should be as unacceptable as failing to wear a seatbelt.'
"Knowing that seatbelts are a legal requirement, those who care for freedom should beware. To reinforce the minister's warning, the Green party pleaded for wind energy in a broadcast as if it were holier than motherhood. Even that much-loved and respected charity, the RSPB, is now using our subscriptions to lobby for wind energy."
It is significant that the 'Left, left, left' brigade does not subject the above, accurately named 'industrial-scale wind energy stations' (aka 'windfarms') to real critical scrutiny.
Left left left left left – they're like a one legged soldier!
The BBC are experts at the faked up/dishonest/biased/planted/slantedreport that just happens to get the full on flogging when their ideological chums require one to support their political narrative.
The environazis have now decided that eating meat is killing the planet(yeah right!)so just like magic and hey presto up pops a faked up report claiming meat eaters are more prone to cancer, they claim much more(4%) but as usual the detail is missing and the context is missing and the report itself smacks of a bodge up whipped up to confirm a political narrative.
Not since the USSR/Nazi Germany has science been perverted to serve a political agenda and narrative, it no longer matters what the actual facts are anymore and it matters not a jot about reality, its all about starting with a political requirement and then faking up fancy sounding fake report to back it up, a prime example is the 'passive smoking' pack of lies, if the scientists involved play ball they get funding,if they dont they get nothing so the temptation to write the findings to suit the required political need is overwhelming.
Newlabour has also perverted the whole science funding regime to suit this new(old)soviet style structure, political toadies now sit on funding panels and the regime commissars/quango chair warmers sit in judgement on who gets funding, scientists desperate for cash now know whats expected of them and play the game just like they did in Stalins/Hitlers day..toe the line & play the game and funding will fall from the sky, stay true to the basic principles of science and get nothing, names taken and noted with future requests for funding mysteriously vanishing and ignored, oooh yes the game is rigged now.
Trash science/psuedo science/mumbo jumbo jibber jabber not worth the paper its written on but invaluable to the commissars to justify their looting,power games and theft.
NOt just that…
After the vile Today we had midweek. Before I could get to the Off button I heard the lefty Israel-hating "poet" Michael Rosen, some woman who took tender photos of killers on death row and some extremist lefty geezer who claimed MI6 ended his career as a Beeboid producer….
Yech!
Kill it! Now!
The BBC are the biggest liars in the western media out here. They lie on situations in every country. i refuse to watch their news. Fox news is not really available here but they are even worse. Certain blogs here are run by their agents. One is Bangkok Pundit the other is Thai Crisis. Their audience filled with other simple propaganda believing westerners who have the right answer for everything, no doubt fresh off the boat working for multinational countries. I would love to know who they would choose for prime minister, CY, SK, or the thief's younger sister. Their rhetoric is nonsense and it is apparent these greenhorns who write them are unaware of the Thai political situation and most likely are paid shills as is Jonathan Head who for all I know writes Bangkok Pundit. How come he is so scared when he gives interviews on podcasts that he has his voice disguised. Probably scared of a fate like Sondhi nearly had. I commend you for your excellent blog as you alone have the guts to speak the truth. I support the PAD and I am proud of it. I support Abhisit as well and think he is a man with a very difficult job! More please! Let's hope those two bloggers go shopping in King's Power on their next trip to Penang to renew their tourist visas!
I look forward to a BBC documentary fearlessly exposing why the following countries do not share their defence responsibilities with other countries :-
Russia
China
India
Iran
North Korea
Did anyone catch the Radio 5 phone in this morning? It was basically asking if the private sector can be trusted to run anything and is making a profit evil. This was in relation to the rail takeover announced today.
Of course the BBC has no concept of profit. Where does the BBC think Government gets money from, Trees?
What I found interesting was that the intelligent callers were pro private companies and the thickos were against. One dopey bitch called in about 'socially responsible' companies, whatever that means.
Of course safety reared its ugly head. Private companies can't be trusted to be safe. So presumably when beeboids piss of to Goa for their drug parties they only fly on nationalied airlines? Is there still a nationalised cruise line company?
No one would suggest that Ryan Air, Easyjet or BA can't operate safely. Of course companies need good regulation but so would a nationalised one.
This issue is never raised with the railways. Why can't a private company operate a railway safely?
Ladbroke Grove rail crash was caused by a driver running a red light. A light that had been reported to the HSE numerous times. The HSE (The Government enforcer) failed to act. Would anyone put their trust in a Government run project?
The BBC just don't get it. Of course they get their pocket money spoon fed to them under fear of prison.
The quicker the BBC is introduced to the real world the better.
Anonymous @3.44
Please keep us updated on BBC bias in your country. It's so shameless here in the United Kingdom, as you will have read!
We've noticed (as you will also have read) that that the BBC is no less biased in its treatment of US politics, Middle Eastern politics and in its coverage of Sri Lanka – just for starters. So that the BBC distorts the political situation in Thailand and takes sides in its reporting (against Abhisit Vejjajiva) doesn't really come as a big surprise to us.
The BBC is biased to the core.
Keep on blogging!
Martin
I texted into 5 Live this morning to complain when I heard the phone in question – it was so loaded with left-wing anti-capitalist bias it was untrue. I knew the sort of left-wing nutters who would ring in to criticise capitalism. I duly switched the radio off before the call-in started. Typical left-wing crap from 5 Live!
phh: You do wonder how many beeboids are actually capable of earning a living in the real world.
The point is this.
We are not considering nuclear disarmament. We are considering the end of a wholly British independent nuclear deterrent. Which whether the BBC are honest enough to admit it or not, is part of a globalist agenda handed down from a very high place indeed. A world of interdependence on other countries, namely the USA and/or France, for our protection and therefore prosperity.
Which is a WORLD system where national democracy will be finally seen for what it has long since been. Which is establishment controlled bullshit at the best of times, and potentially highly dangerous murderous nonsense at the worst of times. With the only advantage that our own government actually takes some kind of responsibility for its actions. While also our establishment have to pay at least lip-service to our individual and collective needs and wants.
WORLD FASCISM however, has absolutely no requirement whatsoever to even try to seek approval from ANY of the worlds ordinary citizens. Which suits the very small group of pathologically insane individuals which are utterly determined to bring us same, whether we like it or not very much. Mainly because they plan on reducing the Earths population by 50% or more within the next 10 years.
The BBC works for corporatist scientific world socialism, better known as WORLD FASCISM or WORLD COMMUNISM. So much so, and often in fact, that a far more honest and accurate name for The BBC, would be The GBC. ( THE GLOBAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION.)
Atlas shrugged
Here a list of those who spoke on the issue of Trident on Radio 4 yesterday & their position on whether it should be renewed:
Today
Lord Ashdown, former Lib Dem leader, against
World at One
Professor Richard Garwin of arms control organisation ‘Pugwash’, against
Nigel Griffiths, a Labour MP who resigned from the government over Trident, against
Malcolm Rifkind, former Conservative defence secretary, uncommitted
Ming Campbell, former Lib Dem leader, against
The World Tonight
Field Marshal Lord Bramall, against
George Robertson, former Labour defence secretary and Nato secretary general, against
A more general discussion on defence strategy followed which didn't touch on Trident specifically, but featured:
Lord Gilbert, former Labour minister of defence procurement
Rear Admiral Chris Parry, former defence specialist at the Ministry of Defence
Both made arguments for nuclear deterrence.
So that's:
6 firmly against renewing Trident (not including interviewers or Robert Peston!)
2 for (probably)
1 undecided.
The two interviewees that I assume to be pro-Trident were not asked about Trident specifically & made no specific mention of it either.
Grant wrote
11:18 AM, July 01, 2009
You took the words right out of my mouth! Nicely put.
With North Korea having developed nuclear weapons, Iran hard at work on the task and who knows who else following, what better time for the Bolshevist Broadcasting Corporation and co to push for defense cuts?
The head of the Royal Navy made an excellent point the other day that it would be foolish to imagine that the next 50 years will look like the Helmand Valley of Afghanistan from a defense point of view.
Who can predict what threats we will face? Remember that before the Falklands War many were pushing for the navy to be cut back to the point that we could not have recovered the Falklands as they could not conceive of such a threat.
Craig
Excellent analysis. In one case I thought I heard Paddy Ashdown being introduced as though he was a commenter on the report – not a co-author.
Is it me, or has Peston gotten progressively woooooorse the more he's appeeeeeeaaared on aiiiiiiiir?
When speaking about the memoooooo, his delivery is so iiiiiiiiritating that I had to listen to it three tiiiiiiiimes before I could actually understaaaaaand what the hell he was taaaaaaaalking about. The resuuuuult was that I never nooooooticed if he mentioned that this is actually a caaaaaaase where the Laaaaaaabour government's strangulaaaaaation of all spending to make up for their mistaaaaaaaakes made the beeeeeeean counters reduuuuuuuce spending in the shooooort term with the result that the costs riiiiiiiiise far higher over tiiiiiiiiiime.
Not only did he say this very clearly on his blog last week that this is a bean-counter issue and not a "we don't need Trident or whatever" issue.
And Sarah Montague took that Narrative and says that this is, in fact, an issue of whether Britain needs Trident – and by extension, let's be honest, lots of other defense spending – and wouldn't let the poor Armed Forces minister state the truth. Which the BBC f-ing business editor even admitted on his own blog. Albeit inadvertently, hoping you all were too stupid to notice.
It's a dog an pony show, no mistake.