You know if they got rid of the human rights commission or what ever the hell its called…think of the millions that could be saved and invested back in to crime prevention?
The reality is that as long as the vast majority of crimes are committed by black young men then the majority of people stopped by stop and search should be black young men!
As for that rubbish about sexism in how you order names? What a load of cods wallop!
OFF SUBJECT: PROBABLY BEEN MENTIONED BEFORE? just seen the Beeb midday news, on it was political corresponent Ben Wright. This is the son of Labour MP Tony Wright. I expect he has been working for the Beeb for many years, but I had not noticed. However, being made political correspondent again shows the beeb’s lack of ethics. To show their lack of bias they should have got someone who is neutral, but oh, not the Beeb.
Rape was all over Today this morning. However, just to highlight the crap journalism of BBC “journalists”, the Telegraph noted (from the Stern – another Stern! – Report) that droning on about the conviction rate as a percentage of reported rapes is unhelpful; not only because a common statistic for crime (conviction rate as a percentage of prosecutions) is over 60% in the case of rape but that rape is apparently the only crime where the conviction/report rate is taken (by activists and Harman) as the only measure of police “success”. This may or may not be so but a journalist worth her salt, when the matter of the statistics came up on Today, would have asked the assembled rent-a-gobs what the conviction/report percentage is for similarly serious crimes. Then we – the punters – could have worked out how much credence concerning police success or otherwise to give to the statistic commonly used. Did Montague (I think it was Montague) ask the question? Of course not – she just went off on a tut-tutting riff about the uncaring police. So, forget about her other failings, she and Today fell at the first hurdle of journalistic ability and credibility.
Sarah Montague revealed her preconceived bias on the issue when she tried to play devil’s advocate by stating what she thought was the case in favor of stop-and-search. She tried to make this about profiling for Islamic terrorists, and the guy from the EHRC had to correct her. He was talking about ordinary street crime, not racial profiling in airports or whatever. But the biased Montague already had her Narrative in place. I can’t imagine that she simply was not informed about her guest’s entire reason for being there.
No, I think she was just showing that she was emotionally affected by the story about the very white “Jihad Jane”. That’s what she was thinking about, and not the actual issue her guest was there to discuss.
One could also hear the bias against racial profiling in stop-and-search when she asked if there was evidence that the tactic helped at all. Yes, that’s my inference about the tone in her voice, but it was obvious to anyone.
Montague had her straw man worked out well in advance and possibly worked out with the EHRC toad.
Notice the evidence that stop and search tactics actually works was never actually aired but belittled as very unimportant, this is where the narrative shines through clearly, had toady been interested in the facts they would have provided actual evidence that stopping black and asian suspects actually works, black and asians are in fact more likely to have commited crimes and of those stopped and searched many more than the average have been arrested as a result.
The aim of hamstringing the police in this way has more to do with weakening an already innefectual and timid police further, the police have been a target of those itching to politisise the police force and turn it into an obedient servent of the political narrative.
I thought I heard the EHRC guy say that the evidence is that the tactic of stop-and-search doesn’t work, and that areas that try other tactics instead show a reduction in crime. That’s fair enough, if true. He’s got a position, he’s entitled to bring up something that backs it up. I would assume that the producers had prepared Montague with that information beforehand, seeing as that’s how these things are done, enabling her to ask that leading question about it.
So really there’s no excuse for Montague starting off as if this was about catching Islamic terrorists. It’s pretty clear that she was all ready to make the case that stop-and-search wouldn’t have caught Jihad Jane. The EHRC guy actually had to remind her that has nothing to do with it.
Such is the BBC enthusiasm for Labour-Harman anti-men discrimination, that it is becomeing impossible to criticise a woman’s comments on the BBC.
This is very apparent in BBC Mr. Silver’s mild (largely Tory-free) radio profile of Barrenness ASHTON; the profile ends with Labour’s McShane and Labour’s Harman saying that she’s being
unfairly criticised because she’s a woman. End of BBC profile. (‘Ashtonophobia’?!) BBC-Labour: don’t criticise Islam: it’s ‘Islamophobic’ or ‘racist’ or both; don’t criticise Ashton: it’s misogynist. No it’s
BBC-Labour trying to defend the undefendable -Ashton, in this case; and being MISANDRIC in the process. Vote Labour: Vote against Men.
That Prof. Quiggin bloke down under is a very unpleasant character. Accuses Steve McIntyre of instigating the Climategate whistle blow. I thought you should be able to recognise him, should he visit here, so please keep an eye out for him. Thanks.
<img style=”width: 83px; height: 96px; cursor: pointer;” src=”http://js-kit.com/blob/obqEojgABFJxIMcozXUgQp.jpg”/>
0 likes
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
Fedup2Jul 27, 12:05 Weekend 26th July 2025 Excellent news The IDF has announced airdrops to Hamas – 10 000 special pagers to replace the last lot ……
Fedup2Jul 27, 11:42 Weekend 26th July 2025 Flotsam The hung parliament in 2029 might be the best that can be honestly hoped for . I cannot see…
FlotsamJul 27, 11:24 Weekend 26th July 2025 The formation of the new Corbyn Soviet Commieseriat and the clear support it’s receiving opens new interesting electoral possibilities. Next…
Mrs KittyJul 27, 10:46 Weekend 26th July 2025 We’ll have to relearn old methods of communication to outfox them “listen very carefully I shall say this only once…
diggJul 27, 10:00 Weekend 26th July 2025 Even more Government shamble scrambling happening than I thought… Two adjacent BBC articles this morning…. 2nd April…. “Met to cut…
Fedup2Jul 27, 09:41 Weekend 26th July 2025 Is that a combined 22000 wobbles or 5.500 each one ? And what of the boys pretending to be chicks?
Fedup2Jul 27, 09:40 Weekend 26th July 2025 Speaking of playgrounds-x has been having great fun with the names who have signed up to the fruit and nut…
StewGreenJul 27, 09:32 Weekend 26th July 2025 New government unit to poice social media FFS half of the strange tweets must come from mental health people and…
diggJul 27, 09:31 Weekend 26th July 2025 Just when I think that Starmers shambles of a government can’t find an even smaller straw to clutch at….. bingo,…
GJul 27, 09:12 Weekend 26th July 2025 According to Sumption, the only entity that will correct everything, finally, will be British Law / courts…….. If you focus…
You know if they got rid of the human rights commission or what ever the hell its called…think of the millions that could be saved and invested back in to crime prevention?
The reality is that as long as the vast majority of crimes are committed by black young men then the majority of people stopped by stop and search should be black young men!
As for that rubbish about sexism in how you order names? What a load of cods wallop!
Mailman
OFF SUBJECT: PROBABLY BEEN MENTIONED BEFORE? just seen the Beeb midday news, on it was political corresponent Ben Wright. This is the son of Labour MP Tony Wright. I expect he has been working for the Beeb for many years, but I had not noticed. However, being made political correspondent again shows the beeb’s lack of ethics. To show their lack of bias they should have got someone who is neutral, but oh, not the Beeb.
Rape was all over Today this morning. However, just to highlight the crap journalism of BBC “journalists”, the Telegraph noted (from the Stern – another Stern! – Report) that droning on about the conviction rate as a percentage of reported rapes is unhelpful; not only because a common statistic for crime (conviction rate as a percentage of prosecutions) is over 60% in the case of rape but that rape is apparently the only crime where the conviction/report rate is taken (by activists and Harman) as the only measure of police “success”. This may or may not be so but a journalist worth her salt, when the matter of the statistics came up on Today, would have asked the assembled rent-a-gobs what the conviction/report percentage is for similarly serious crimes. Then we – the punters – could have worked out how much credence concerning police success or otherwise to give to the statistic commonly used. Did Montague (I think it was Montague) ask the question? Of course not – she just went off on a tut-tutting riff about the uncaring police. So, forget about her other failings, she and Today fell at the first hurdle of journalistic ability and credibility.
When do they ever get beyond that first hurdle?
Sarah Montague revealed her preconceived bias on the issue when she tried to play devil’s advocate by stating what she thought was the case in favor of stop-and-search. She tried to make this about profiling for Islamic terrorists, and the guy from the EHRC had to correct her. He was talking about ordinary street crime, not racial profiling in airports or whatever. But the biased Montague already had her Narrative in place. I can’t imagine that she simply was not informed about her guest’s entire reason for being there.
No, I think she was just showing that she was emotionally affected by the story about the very white “Jihad Jane”. That’s what she was thinking about, and not the actual issue her guest was there to discuss.
One could also hear the bias against racial profiling in stop-and-search when she asked if there was evidence that the tactic helped at all. Yes, that’s my inference about the tone in her voice, but it was obvious to anyone.
Montague had her straw man worked out well in advance and possibly worked out with the EHRC toad.
Notice the evidence that stop and search tactics actually works was never actually aired but belittled as very unimportant, this is where the narrative shines through clearly, had toady been interested in the facts they would have provided actual evidence that stopping black and asian suspects actually works, black and asians are in fact more likely to have commited crimes and of those stopped and searched many more than the average have been arrested as a result.
The aim of hamstringing the police in this way has more to do with weakening an already innefectual and timid police further, the police have been a target of those itching to politisise the police force and turn it into an obedient servent of the political narrative.
I thought I heard the EHRC guy say that the evidence is that the tactic of stop-and-search doesn’t work, and that areas that try other tactics instead show a reduction in crime. That’s fair enough, if true. He’s got a position, he’s entitled to bring up something that backs it up. I would assume that the producers had prepared Montague with that information beforehand, seeing as that’s how these things are done, enabling her to ask that leading question about it.
So really there’s no excuse for Montague starting off as if this was about catching Islamic terrorists. It’s pretty clear that she was all ready to make the case that stop-and-search wouldn’t have caught Jihad Jane. The EHRC guy actually had to remind her that has nothing to do with it.
David
I heard that too and you are quite right.
Such is the BBC enthusiasm for Labour-Harman anti-men discrimination, that it is becomeing impossible to criticise a woman’s comments on the BBC.
This is very apparent in BBC Mr. Silver’s mild (largely Tory-free) radio profile of Barrenness ASHTON; the profile ends with Labour’s McShane and Labour’s Harman saying that she’s being
unfairly criticised because she’s a woman. End of BBC profile. (‘Ashtonophobia’?!) BBC-Labour: don’t criticise Islam: it’s ‘Islamophobic’ or ‘racist’ or both; don’t criticise Ashton: it’s misogynist. No it’s
BBC-Labour trying to defend the undefendable -Ashton, in this case; and being MISANDRIC in the process. Vote Labour: Vote against Men.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8568129.stm
That Prof. Quiggin bloke down under is a very unpleasant character. Accuses Steve McIntyre of instigating the Climategate whistle blow. I thought you should be able to recognise him, should he visit here, so please keep an eye out for him. Thanks.
<img style=”width: 83px; height: 96px; cursor: pointer;” src=”http://js-kit.com/blob/obqEojgABFJxIMcozXUgQp.jpg”/>