Have you been following BBC coverage of Labour’s farewell conference today? If I understand what they are saying correctly the fact that The Sun has come out unambiguously in favour of Cameron is a matter of little import. I recall when the same newspaper came out in favour of Blair from 1997 to 2005 this was trailed by the BBC as having significant impact, but no longer, for some reason.
What IS important, as a representative of the NASUWT put it on the..ahem… delightful PM programme, is that the evil BNP must not under any circumstances be allowed to have members employed in the Teaching profession. Naturally the BNP were not permitted to respond to the Nulabour position espoused at conference by Mr Balls today. The BBC could have enquired of the NASUWT spokesperson why some legal political parties are more equal than others and on what legal basis was it right to discriminate against the BNP but of course that is never going to happen. To be clear; I have no time for the BNP but I do believe that it should be treated the same as every other legally constituted political party in the UK and the fact that the radical Socialists in power and the courtiers in the teaching unions think otherwise should not be adopted as the BBC default position.
The ideology of the likes of RESPECT and the SWP are just as repulsive as the BNP but they get a free pass from the BBC and are never brought into these discussions. Indeed the entire multiculti welfare loving leftist agenda of Nulabour is considered pretty obscene by many people so maybe individuals holding those political views should also be banned from holding employment in the teaching ranks?
David, you’re right to argue that the BNP should be treated as a legitimate political party, but the BBC are arguably better at doing this than the rest of the media. After all, Question time have invited Griffin on in a few weeks.
Also, I have only watched a few minutes of news 24 today, and there has been a fair amount of reference to the sun endorsement, so the story is not being ignored. What the BBC should be saying however (as should Sky) is that who gives a toss what the sun say. This is a paper that scrapes the barrel day after day, and if any media source is responsible for ‘dumbing down’. it’s The Sun. Politically, they blow the way the wind does, hence the shift to Conservative.
Gus,
the problem with the BNP being on QT isnt that the BNP is on QT but more that this is supposed to be QT’s response to having more right wing views on the show!
If anything, the BNP is a leftwing group…but thats an argument for another time.
The problem I have is how the BNP is being framed as right wing by al beeb…as in the right wing is vicious scum, like the BNP.
So in essence its al beebs way of dismissing the right as extremist, racist, hate mongers…which as we all know are the views we see every day from lefties (in the real world, not the world inhabited by al beeb and co).
Mailman
Gus
After HOW many years and one appearance? How many times has Galloway been on?
As much as I hate Galloway, he is an MP, and has been a famous name for many years (not to mention that he was in the government for a while) whereas the BNP are nowhere near a Westminster seat, and only won European Parliament representation a few months ago.
Also, ultimately, the BBC put people on to attract an audience. Galloway probably is popular in some circles, more so than Griffin anyway. Saying that, I completely agree that if the likes of Galloway get airtime, the likes of the BNP should too.
Interestingly though, do you David believe that the courtesy should extend to Sinn Fein senior members?
So what about other groups who shouldn’t be teaching children? How about religious people who think the world is only 6000 years old? How does that work with the truth that we know about the planet?
What about climate change deniers? how long before Labour ban them from schools?
What about those that object to homosexuality?
What about those that oppose the EU?
The issue here is who decides what groups can or cannot work for the Government?
I’m suspecting that the left will be happy so long as no leftists are singled out, the BBC of course will dodge that question.
Just Part of the Service
Next week, Britain’s governing Labour Party holds its last annual conference before a General Election takes place – probably next year. But it does so in the knowledge that it’s very unlikely to win against the main opposition Conservatives. Naomi Grimley asks whether there’s anything the party can still do to retrieve the situation.
I notice that the BBc are now calling Labour the “underdogs” – and we all know that the British people always want the underdog to win. Its part of the psyche.
Really?
Then what do you make of this
BBC is biased towards Tories because it expects them to win next election, hints Culture Secretary
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216243/BBC-biased-Tories-expects-win-election-hints-Culture-Secretary.html
and that’s supposed to be biased how? By focusing on how labour will try to win? yeesh, what are they meant to do – just say they’re dead and buried or deny the tories are going to win?
They won’t of course be focusing on the tories next week…
The BBC won’t be focussing on how the Tories can win and I’ll happily take a bet with you now. The BBC will instead
1. Ask what cuts the Tories have planned
2. Ask how their spending plans are to be funded
3. Allow endless Liebour politicians and union leaders on to attack the Tories
4. Suggest George Osborne isn’t up to the job
Note that the BBC didn’t once push Liebour about cuts, nor were their spending plans questioned (just what savings then?) and the BBC has been a Tory free zone all week, so I’m betting it won’t be a Liebour free zone next week.
We shall soon see, Martin – labour have buried their cuts amid a lot of other ‘initiatives’, and the sun has overshadowed a lot of the coverage – none of the media have paid huge attention to the spending, presumably they are all pro-labour too – if cameron chooses to play the cuts card then I would fully expect more weight on them, if the BBC start saying they are unworkable then maybe there’s a case, but I’d say they did a good job by making news out of the sun decision
there would be little point in asking how the tories can win. when they’ve been ahead in the polls for over 2 years, the equivalent question would be how can they capitalise on their lead
As for labour people being on – possibly, but there should be more tories next week (I can rely on you for a comprehensive check of that?) – this week it’s pretty clear they have, as usual, kept their mouths shut until their own conference next week, where they’ll have a huge platform and their own dedicated BBC webpage
BBC is biased towards Tories because it expects them to win next election, hints Culture Secretary
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216243/BBC-biased-Tories-expects-win-election-hints-Culture-Secretary.html#ixzz0SgpCbVQN
You tried this unsuccessfully on another thread. A member of the Labour Government complaing that the BBC is reporting things he doesn’t like is not evidence of pro-Tory bias. This is, in fact, the exact same thing you say that David Vance and others do here.
A double standard on your part.
It’s not a double standard at all; you missed my point, or I made it poorly, too nuanced perhaps. Whichever. To be clear, my point is that if Labour types think the BBC is biased against them, and you lot think it’s biased against your views, then basically everyone thinks it’s biased against them. Isn’t that actually the mark of a good media organisation?
Too nuanced? Oh, dear. Let’s clear the nonsense out, shall we? The article to which you link has a member of the Labour Government complaining that the BBC is biased because Michael Lyons publicly opposed Labour’s plan to take some of the taxpayers’ money from him, but has not made as much noise about any Tory plans.
That is not BBC bias at all. It’s the chairman of the BBC Trust – not the on-air talent or a website article – saying something that a Labour Cabinet member doesn’t like. This is exactly what you accuse DV and others of doing, but you say they are wrong about BBC bias when they do.
Further, if the Beeboids start saying that the Tories are ahead in the polls, and that they are the strongest horse at the moment, that is also a case of the BBC reporting something that a Labour Cabinet member doesn’t like.
It’s rather silly for you to compare a member of the Labour Government to civilian individuals here, but let’s continue playing your game for a moment longer.
If the situation were reversed – and it has been many times – and someone here was complaining that the BBC was biased in Labour’s favor because they said that Labour might win, you would be the first one to say that it isn’t biased at all because Labour are ahead in the polls, etc., and that this is just a case of people here complaining that the BBC is reporting things we don’t like.
No nuance, just cold reality.
A subtle dog whistle for a liblab pact is hidden in there.
The BBCs corporate shyness of polls has been a reliable feature since labour started trailing the Tories, for months the BBC simply refused to report on the polls that showed a healthy Tory lead and yet when the polls show a possible combined liblab vote greater than the Tory share its all over the news like a rash.
The BBC line on everything is ALWAYS well thought out in advance, to think that the BBC doesnt have a detailed editorial strategy is naive and the evidence is beginning to show a BBC policy of pointing the viewer/listener in the direction a liblab pact to keep the Tories out of power, this line would make perfect sense when you consider that labour has no chance of winning the election on its own.
Yes whatever happened to the BBC’s Pollwatch?
lib-lab?
right…
Bob
whats your problem with lib-lab.
I remember the lib lab pact in the seventies.
A cobbled together marriage between 2 leftwing parties.
It was unsuccessful and a bit daft as your average trot is a power hungry soul and will usually not share power with anybody
The BBC has been in full protect Brown mode all week and today has been the funniest.
Only the simple of mind or completely deluded would be unable to see the cover up that was mounted today especially by toenails and Naughtie.
What is really interesting is what Cameron may have to do with the BBC now that Murdoch the younger is running the show – remember his speech a couple of weeks ago?
If this is a favour for support from the Sun, then bring it on and I want a front row seat.
Personally I object to teachers being employed who support, or even worse belong to, a political party responsible for an illegal war and whose leader is a war-criminal. The BNP has consistently opposed the illegal wars in Iraq and Afganistan. The Labour and Tory parties have steadfastly supported them. I do not want children brought up to believe it is acceptable to drop bombs on men, women and children just to please the Americans as has happened in Serbia, Iraq and Afganistan.
I’m interested in the mechanics of the proposal. How could any political screening of teachers work? A question on the application form perhaps? Are you or have you ever been a member of the BNP? Sounds familiar. No British court would allow that. How about; Are you or have you ever been a member of any political party? Yes, Guv. I’m a card-carrying member of the Labor Party. Well you’re in!
What about supporters? What does that mean? Have you ever voted BNP? Have you ever attended a demonstration organised by the BNP or one where BNP members are present? How about indirect questions? Will your political activities infringe on your Home Economics teaching, Miss Griffin? What are your feelings about Mass Immigration or the European Union in relation to the French syllabus?
What should be done about existing teachers who are supporters/members of the BNP? Should students be encouraged to monitor their teachers for politically incorrect teaching? Check their letter boxes for supicious political literature? (Actually, I’m in favour of that one. One of teaching’s major frustrations is lack of attention).
It’s also worth remembering that July 7 ringleader Mohammed Siddiq Khan was employed as a teaching assistant right up until the day in question. Apparently, there’s extremists and there’s extremists…
After we get rid of Labour next year, the Tories need to break up the BBC and root out people like Mark Thompson. Oh, wait a minute…..that would mean getting rid of all of them!
And, personally, I wouldn’t let Ed Balls or anyone in his rotten party near any children.
Funny thing about Gordon Brown is that he appears to be a genuine and warm friend of Israel. I’ve heard speeches of his re Israel that really seem to come from the heart. The latest was his uncompromising support for Ehud Barak as the jackals tried to get him arrested in the UK.
Point is, how does this impact on BBC hacks? Surely it dampens their enthusiasm for Brown?
Remember the BBC prime directive. “To maintain the licence fee”, they’d happily shag 5 year old kids if it meant keeping the TV tax so cosying up to McDoom is no problem regardless of their hatred of Jews.
Respect, SWP, various European communists, even nationalists as long as they are Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru or SNP. So it’s not the racism (SWP, Respect and the commies are racist), it’s not the nationalism. It’s the fact that they support Britain!
I wonder if yesterdays BBC breakfast will be mentioned here – he got slaughtered – Guido’s words, not mine
Yes isn’t it interesting that for once McCoward actually gets a hard time? But the hardest one came from Sky NOT the BBC.
I believe that Labour is making a big thing about banning the BNP from teaching because they know they are going to be booted out at the coming election. By bashing the Marxists’ and Marxoids’ bogeyman BNP they are playing to the gallery, rallying the far-left for opposition. Many of these Marxists have become dissatified with Labour but Labour will need their activist and agitational skills in opposition and there’s nothing like the prospect of the Tories or even better the BNP to get them running back to Labour.
I find it profoundly disturbing and illiberal that someone can be banned from employment simply for their political beliefs and for being a member of a legal organisation. It’s totalitarian in spirit.
The radio 5 phone in is a real hoot this morning, anti Sky and anti the sun with plenty of callers bigging up “the impartial BBC” and the “impartial Today show”. They sound like the typical rent boy using Guardian reading Islington set.
I sent in 10 emails and texts with an anti Labour anti BBC view, not a single one read out yet the BBC managed to find plenty of pro ones.
Can’t wait for Norman Tebbit to take this scum apart next year.
Martin
I sent in 10 emails and texts with an anti Labour anti BBC view, not a single one read out
If they were anything like your postings here, the BBC will be obliged to equip their moderators with biohazard suits before they are even allowed to press the delete button.
the typical rent boy using Guardian reading Islington set.
Can’t wait for Norman Tebbit to take this scum apart next year
And you wonder why they won’t read out your emails with language like that….?
You’ll be reading your P45 next year turd boy.
You’ll be reading your P45 next year turd boy.
Only if I sack myself. Can I say what a pleasure it is to be personally insulted by the Bobby Sands of Biased BBC? How is the cell re-decoration coming on?
Me thinks you’re the one in the padded cell sonny boy.
Homosexuality in our society and Judaism, Neturei Karta
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKk3griwkpw
Is the Gay Agenda an imperialist NeoCon one?
This is irrelevant both to this thread and to BBC analysis in general.
How about this for blatant bbc bias.If you log onto the bbc news political page you will see the ‘POLLTRACKER’.A quick glimpse at the colourful chart shows the Tories and Labour almost neck and neck with the Tories popularity appearing to plummet!This poll…’YOUGOVE’ gives the Tories 37% and Labour 30%.I then noticed that there are other pollsters to choose from including POPULOUS,MORI,ICM and COMRES.If you click on these they give a completely different picture with the Tories at 40%-43% and Labour at 24%-27%.This is ludicrous!
Its easy to sceen out the bnp from teaching afterall auntie successfully screens out tory staff and its amazing how Dr David Bellamy has dissappeared since going off message.
As well as that they screen each question time for tories and normal people and replace them with saddos who have to clap even when some liebour clone breaths in or out.
They restrict comedians to solely members of Liebour and SWP.
They have a sniffing device which can detect a torygraph reader which they use during induction courses.
But the cleverest way of screening is only advertise in a leftwing propaganda sheet like the grauniad.
So the best wasy to ensure against BNP voting teachers is to only advertise teaching posts in the Guardian. Oh they already do that dont they and a few non lefties get through Those sneaky free thinkers we must send them to the Gulag for reeducation.
I hate the BNP but politically vetting teachers would even be a step too far for Chavez
Democracy throws up its answer and the BBC as well as other “smash the ******* insert popular hate group here” merchants just don’t understand so demolish it.
Why is it that those that preach understanding of others become so aggressive when confronted with an opinion different to their own?
These people are the problem, they are the quiet fundamentalists and often in positions of power.
This is why the BBC must be taken apart – brick by brick.
We must be careful. The Beeb and its political arm the Liebour party want to restrict thought.
I believe in Darwinian principles and yet I would defend creationists with my last breath.
Te beeb has spun against them so often you would have thought they were a bunch of kiddy fiddlers.
You get the feeling that auntie would ban the teaching of creatinism as an alternative even from religious studies classes and send any teacher that may postulate an alternative theory to jail.
I think creatonism is nonsensical and deluded but I am not deluded enough to believe I have the monopoly of thought.
If people want to put forward the theory then put it up and let the young scrutinise it. They would probably come to the same conclusion as me.
This dogmatic ban on alternative thought is retrograde and smacks of the spanish inquisition (perpetrated by my religion before you have a dig) (Oh no not the comfy chair).
The same shutting off of alternative thought can be seen in aunties treatment of climate change.
Even if they think deniers like me are deluded they should at least hold both theories up to scrutiny.
Imagine if the tories had postulated banning hippys tree huggers and trots from being teachers. For a start there would be a distinct shortage of candidates for teaching posts and secondly the whole country would be justifiably up in arms.
How can a main stream party suggest something as grotesque as banning free thought?
Orwell might have been a fellow traveller with the beeb as regards his politics but he predicted the mind control they are attempting on our population.
Actually ‘Climate change deniers’ are the most targeted group on the BBC these days. Every time anyone has their political views outed on the BBC they always get in if they are ‘climate change deniers’, if it were not so funny (the BBC are acting like a bad Monty Python script) it would be dangerous.
I wonder if the BBC would employ someone who was openly a climate change denier?
As I have no clue what a ‘climate change denier’ is, or could possibly be, as I task those who lob it around as a pejorative in (mistaken, in my issue-weighing case) ‘support’ of their advocacy, to explain the term might I ask as you use (embrace?) it, if you would suggest how it is meant to apply?
I realise that everyone is looking for a snappy description to hang (usually tribal) hats on, but in something as complex and nuanced as ‘climate change’ (and all its consequences, from politics to economics to media coverage, etc) this really seems to less than clear or helpful, other than to be used in a warmist (another term, though perhaps a fraction more descriptively accurate – the main thrust seems to be that the globe is warming, albeit further, to some, exclusively at the hands of man)/denier slanging match.
In the circumstances, ironically, a triumph of heat over illumination, and not serving my kids’ futures well at all.
Some school subjects lend themselves to political commentary, such as History, Geography and Economics. Others are harder to imagine, such as languages. Still others, Mathematics, Chemistry, Wood and Metalwork and Sport require the imagination of the Monty Python team to design a ‘political’ lesson.
I suspect this move is electoral jingoism from a politico who sees his job disappearing. A party dedicated to ‘anti-racism’ finds it difficult to target the traditional foreign threat. Communism is effectively dead, antisemitism does not seem to have the legs and Militant Islam is off limits so the BNP will do as a scapegoat.
We could be surprised by the Smith Report in January. Acording to the Beeb, In a letter to Mr Smith, the minister asked for recommendations on whether existing safeguards were adequate “to maintain trust in the teaching profession and protect children and young people from indoctrination and discrimination”.
I would love to see an investigation of whether people still trust the teaching profession and indoctrination from all sides including the Left. The BBC may be quite surprised by the results.
Bellamy is a global warming sceptic and you never see him now.
In the past you couldnt get him off the telly now its as if he’s moved to Mars
Is Mr. Bellamy a ‘global warming’ sceptic, a ‘climate change’ sceptic, a ‘negative climate change sceptic’, a ‘man made negative climate change’ sceptic or a ‘possibly man worsened negative climate change sceptic’?
It’s important to me. If he is saying there is no negative climate change then he has lost me. If he is being misrepresented for questioning the extent of man’s contribution, especially exclusively, to the various climatic trends, then he, and we, are being poorly served by those who have sidelined him.
It is the manmade aspect to global warming he seems to question not that warming has happened.
He also is strongly opposed to wind farms as he sees them as a con which will not serve our energy crisis as they are like atttacking a tank with a pea shooter. He feels that they are an unnescessary blot on the landscape which are greenwashing like the toyota Prius. He contends that they will take many years to offset the energy used in their production.
And importantly he feels the windturbines will harm the environment by disturbing birdlife.
The above is as much as I can remember from a very interesting article he wrote about 2 years ago. TRy googling it. Its a fascinating view point.