Here’s a fresh new open thread
Open Thread
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- MarkyMark Nov 15, 08:44
Midweek 13th November 2024
Previously in Belgian “Minister of Health and Social Affairs” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie_De_Block [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Maggie_De_Block_2016.jpg/330px-Maggie_De_Block_2016.jpg[/img] - StewGreen Nov 15, 08:43
Midweek 13th November 2024
Boris had an 80 seat majority And look how that ended up. - MarkyMark Nov 15, 08:42
Midweek 13th November 2024
‘The answer to growth lies across the Channel’ ………… “the Channel” comes to the UK shores everyday! - StewGreen Nov 15, 08:42
Midweek 13th November 2024
Radio Humberside this morning LOCAL news bulletin had a strange bit about RFK Jr being nominated for US Health Secretary… - Doublethinker Nov 15, 08:02
Midweek 13th November 2024
I agree that he will have his supporters in all key posts and that the Globalists won’t be able to… - Fedup2 Nov 15, 08:01
Midweek 13th November 2024
I saw that Elon musk had a 1 hour meeting with the Iranian ambo to the UN … bet that… - vlad Nov 15, 07:48
Midweek 13th November 2024
The simple fact is Trump was stitched up and hobbled last time by the Swamp, the Deep State, the Blob,… - vlad Nov 15, 07:44
Midweek 13th November 2024
Clearly he’s barking mad. Tulsi a Russian spy? One of very few honest, straight down the line, patriotic politicians in… - JohnC Nov 15, 07:40
Midweek 13th November 2024
I’ve noticed the BBC are researching all his appointments for any they can throw mud at – then showing these… - vlad Nov 15, 07:39
Midweek 13th November 2024
Whatever the Stasi are calling it, it sounds like woke thought-police abusing their power to intimidate and harass a conservative…
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
Tristram Hunt – where to begin… big-hair, pretty-boy, waves his hands a lot when speaking, never in his life worked for company that had to make a profit, brand new Labour MP, absolutely on-BBC-message, safe pair of hands, (thinks he) knows all the answers when the question is ‘Cuts’: expect him to take an ever greater share of your Television Tax in the years to come
“Left-wing historian “. Snout in the trough.
LET’S HEAR IT FROM THE “DISPROPORTIONATE” SCREAMERS!
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=21363
From the article:
“Since the flotilla raid, Turkey has engaged in its own “war on terror” with little or no attention from the international community, and certainly no calls for independent commissions of inquiry.
On the same day as the flotilla raid, Kurdish rebels attacked a Turkish naval base, killing 12 soldiers. Last week, Erdogan’s government responded with air strikes on Kurdish positions in northern Iraq that killed 120 people, including a 7-year-old girl.
There were no condemnations of Turkey for using “disproportionate” force, and no UN Security Council meetings regarding the latest flare-up of a 26-year conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 40,000 people.”
The BBC has a different editorial policy for covering Turkey than it does for Israel. In addition to the things you mention, there’s no body-count Narrative, either.
Perhaps this is just one of the many real tragedies of the worlds “disproportionate” fixation on Israel. People who actually need help get ignored because everyone is too busy hating te juice!
Mailman
I think I have posted before that the BBC supported the PKK until the current Turkish government came to power. Turkey is too complicated for simple-minded Beeboids to understand.
My hope is that the current military action against the PKK is a prelude to a coup.
But, muslims killing muslims ? Surely not ?
The BBC gives very little coverage of Turkey, at all.
I would have expected the clash between the Constitutional Court and the Government over the ban on smoking in teahouses to be top BBC news !
Obama and BP.
– The following is not a question in which the BBC is interested:
“Is Obama’s BP Shakedown an Impeachable Offense?”
(‘American Thinker’)
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/is_obamas_bp_shakedown_an_impe.html
The Beeb is breathlessly promoting its BP Panorama moment this evening.
Bring on the oily pelicans and the Obama worship.
Another nail in the myth of man made climate change, even the beeboids can’t ignore
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10354118.stm
You can be sure it will never be mentioned the next time “melting Antarctic ice” is brought up. This is the kind of article that never makes the main bulletins but is used as an example of the BBC “reporting stories contrary to AGW” when they are accused of bias.
Here is a full account of the Heartland Institute conference in Chicago debunking the Warmists :
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/heartland_conference_establish.html
And here is a very interesting ongoing discussion where an eminent climate scientist, Dr Judith Curry, says that the Warmists should deal properly with sceptics on the Hockey Stick or give up by default.
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/06/18/who-started-this-ruckus-anyway/comment-page-7/#comment-8339
Black, Harrabin and the other BBC propagandists will read neither, of course. Which is funny really. We are forced to pay Harrabin a bundle to give a false impression of the Heartland conference – whereas we can get very full reports for free over the Net. Meanwhile the BBC at our expense runs blog threads stuffed full of ignorance, instead of referring people to a selection of FREE blogs giving both sides of the issue.
The bigger and costlier they are, the harder and more devastatingly they fall. What we need to know is, when? I can’t keep the champers on ice for ever…
John Humphrys introduced a segement on hunger in Nigera as the latest humanitarian crisis in Africa”usually because of drought”.
Beeboid Mike Thomson that it’s “the world’s most underdeveloped country”. Seriously? Then Thomson says it all started with the lack of rain last year.
No mention whatsoever of the thousands of people dying due to tribal warfare, or the economic shutdown caused by the strife between the Muslims in the north and the rest of the country. It’s all totally unavoidable, nobody’s fault but Mother Nature.
Thomson uses his dramatic near-whisper voice to describe in Dickensian detail the thin, hungry children brought into a clinic he’s visiting. All that’s missing is soaring organ chords. It’s pure emotional manipulation, not a single bit of journalism in evidence, because the BBC is hiding reality in order to play to base emotions.
This is just disgusting. I don’t need Thomson to whisper and force a quaver into his voice (he’s an actor here, as phony as can be, and not a journalist) in order to feel sorry for starving children. It’s an insult. It’s also not honest reporting, because Thomson never mentions the main cause of hunger in Nigeria: economic disaster due to political and religious nonsense. Decent human beings will feel sorry for starving children regardless of whether it’s a natural cause or due to crap government. But the BBC doesn’t play that way.
Here’s what the BBC doesn’t want you to know, because they care only for the superficial, emotional elements of an issue:
There was famine on the way last year, because many Nigerians abandoned farming altogether. No drought at fault at all. And there’s more the BBC forgot to tell you.
Perhaps, the greatest problem of food production in Nigeria is the fact that the agricultural sector is still bedeviled with traditional and often out-dated equipment and practices obviously inadequate for present day challenges. Such handicaps as the lack of pesticides, machinery, fertilizers, transport and storage facilities, are common knowledge while drought and some other natural disasters occasionally compound problems in this sector. That policies like Operation Feed the Nation (OFN), Green Revolution and the River Basin Development Authorities have been introduced without proper implementation shows how unserious we are in proffering solution to the food problem. Worse still is the lack of capital and other facilities necessary for agricultural production, while the identifiable difference between research findings and implementation has created a lacuna, which has made our sustainable food production a mirage.
In other words, a failure of culture and government. Ignore the BBC hand-wringing and dramatic posturing. They never blame Africans for anything, never blame Muslims for anything. In other words, this entire BBC report is based on a lie, just to play with your emotions.
It’s getting so you can’t trust the BBC on much at all these days.
Have you read this?
I don’t really read Melanie Phillips. In this case, I already know all about how foreign aid does more to prop up dictators than actually help people, and that NGOs are often pretty useless. I’m on record here several times saying as much.
My comment was about the BBC’s total dishonesty in reporting on what seems to be an actual humanitarian crisis, a dishonesty which is completely unnecessary to get the emotional reaction they intended.
Excellent article about the politics of ringfencing the international aid budget and about how the aid racket is a cause of violence, conflict and tyranny. Well worth a read. Thanks for highlighting it, sue. But how do we get Cameron to stop this ridiculous ringfencing and increasing of aid?
Great post.
The tragedy of Africa is that the BBC simply refuses to face the plain and obvious facts but rather paints a wholly dishonest and distorted picture of Africas problems.
You see if the BBC did bite the bullet and report the truth it would damage the very ideology they have peddled for years.
The very people who wore their hearts on their sleeves and agitated for imediate independence were the authors of todays Africa and they have been assisted and helped on the road to ruin by bleeding heart leftist liberals and plainly evil Marxist agitators but sooner or later the truth must emerge.
Africa needed western colonial governance in order to allow it space and time to mature an allow its native people time to be educated and instilled with western civilisation, it could have been so different if the leftist anti colonial agitators had been ignored.
Modern agriculture and industrial development with roads and schools and hospitals but alas it was not to be.
The media portrayed the stone age subsitance farming and stone age poverty as a valid lifestyle equivolent to our own, they praised tribal culture and the ideal of the happy noble savage living in mud huts as one with nature blah blah and demonized those who tried so hard to instil modern western civilisation into Africans. The 60s/70s were awsh with documentary films lamenting at the loss of tribal life. As a whole continent slid into starvation and war the leftists pinned the blame(as they do)onto the very people who could have saved Africa so much heartache.
Africans by nature are eager to learn and very good at learning yet the enduring tragedy of Africa is that they were taught the wrong lessons by the wrong people at the wrong time, if only common sense had prevailed.
Humphrys should spend a rainy season in W. Africa and use his immense knowledge to teach the Africans how to use water.
My well connected Nigerian friend told me that as a direct result of the oil industry offering better paid jobs the once famous Nigerian coffee industry has collapsed.
I am not too familiar with Nigeria, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
Double-plus-good example of crime-stop on the Radio 4 “Infinite Monkey Cage” popular science program. Today they were discussing evidence based science, for instance how it’s missing for homeopathy, and how people cling to unsustainable positions despite the lack of evidence.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00srjdj
Anyone else got trampled by the elephant in the room?
In the same programme – the chance to knock the “bible belt” in the US with strroetypical “yankee” faith healers.
I particulary liked the way Cox put forward the idea that “evidence based science” could be used in criminal justice. All of it presupposed that all people acted alike in similar situations. Utter tripe. Who were the brainless double act stooges? Was this more BBC “talent” in action?
Can someone explain “non-evidence based science ” to me ?
By the way, am I the only person who finds Brian Cox a little
creepy ?
Grant – Me to ! There is something about him that reminds me of an English teacher I used to have. Its the trying to hard to be trendy and be “with the kids”. He thought he was the most popular teacher in the school but in reality was having the piss ripped out of him by 30 school kids all day.
I tried watching the Solar System programme he did but it just seemed to consist of flashy graphics and annoying music. I find Prof Jim Al-Khalili a far better presenter although he seems to be pigeon holed by the Beeb into doing Islam and Science type documentaries despite appearing to be an Atheist/Agnostic.
1327
Just realised your post could be read as your english teacher doing the Solar System programme ! Mind you I wouldn’t put it past the BBC. After all Roger Harrabin is one of their climate change experts.
It’s the constant grinning. It’s very offputting. I can’t bear any programme with him in it.
“. . . am I the only person who finds Brian Cox a little creepy?”
Grant – I thought I was alone on this one. Cox’s over-enthusiasm, his “wonder” at it all, the endless paean to . . what exactly? He might do excellent work, toiling in the mines of science, but “creepy” is exactly what he is. Compare his presentation to, say, that of Dr Bronowsky. Dr B managed to convey the wonders of the universe without any of the computer-aided graphics which hinder rather than expand our understanding. Cox is the kind of teacher who would insist on being called “Brian” and being down “wiv de kidz”. God forbid that he’ll let on that he actually knows more than we do about his subject. I don’t expect a de haut en bas explanation of complicated science but, if anything, his approach is patronising at its most irritating.
We are not alone ! And I am not talking about aliens, just one in particular.
There is something about his voice and way of speaking which I find so irritating.
But, yes ,1327, I think we all had at least one teacher like that !
Umbongo, yes, patronising is the word. We know how Brian Cox stands in the BBC’s estimation, but can anyone say how he stands with his peers in his field. I am not qualified to say, but , if John Anderson is reading this, I think he has a hard science background.
Grant this is Brian’s managements web page on him ..
http://www.sueridermanagement.co.uk/presenters/BrianCox/briancox.htm
I love the cheesy posed photos.
BBC strategic review is ‘defensive’ and ‘self-harming’ says NUJ in Trust submission
http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/539263.php
Rather one for the ‘so what’s new?’ files, really.
Liked this bit…
‘..handing control of BBC magazines to a private company risks disastrous “editorial errors”.’
As opposed to the deliberate slick misinformation we get now, then?
Private magazine publishers have worse editorial errors than those working in the public sector? There’s no factual basis for that. Why would a private company running Top Gear or BBC Music magazines be more prone to editorial errors than the current editors?
(No offense meant to BBC Music Magazine, which I’ve been reading regularly for many years. I haven’t noticed any editorial disasters there at all or anything like that, but I just don’t see any logical basis to assume that private sector editors would behave any worse. It’s not like these are political or vitally important news organs that wiill fall under undue influence or something.)
Public sector good, private sector bad !
BBC’s Hewitt re-Spain’s ‘socialist’ Zapatero;
Hewitt omits to mention that PM Zapatero is of the ‘Spanish Socialist Worker’s Party’ in connection with this piece:
“The leaders who prefer not to lead”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/
Zapatero, an EU enthusiast, seems to have given up on providing any national economic iniatiatives for Spain, apparently accepting that the European Union has taken over Spain’s past economic sovereignty.
“Zapatero’s State of Denial Will Be Felt Far Beyond Spain as Pain Spreads ”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050804575318513710519580.html?mod=WSJEUROPE_hps_MIDDLETopStories
While the BBC is busy reporting on the latest non-happenings in fixing the oil spill, and hiding any news about the clean-up failures, here’s what they don’t want you to know:
Obama’s Gulf Panel Short on Scientific Expertise, Long on Environmentalism
The panel appointed by President Barack Obama to investigate the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is short on technical expertise but long on talking publicly about “America’s addiction to oil.” One member has blogged about it regularly.
Only one of the seven commissioners, the dean of Harvard’s engineering and applied sciences school, has a prominent engineering background — but it’s in optics and physics. Another is an environmental scientist with expertise in coastal areas and the after-effects of oil spills. Both are praised by other scientists.
The five other commissioners are experts in policy and management.
The President views this disaster through political agenda goggles, instead of practical intelligence. The BBC has decided to hide this from you.
Prescott.
BBC’s Labour chum Prescott will presumably now get even more BBC airtime because the BBC favours this sort of denouncement:
BBC report:
“John Prescott accuses Hutton of being ‘collaborator'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10360510.stm
Also:
‘Spectator’:
“Arise Lord Prescott”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6044083/arise-lord-prescott.thtml
Isn’t it marvelous that all these class warriors become Lords? Never any mention of the hypocracy of it all.
Ian Hislop gave Prescott a hard time about it on Have I Got News For You. The audience – clearly educated by the BBC – seemed mostly unaware of what Hislop was even talking about.
Even without Ian Hislop’s help, Prescott was dying on his… well leave it there. Paul Merton spent the entire show wishing he was somewhere else and managed to make James Corden look like he was well engaged with Patrick Stewart.
Yet I read, from an account by another guest now not so favoured by our objective national news broadcaster’s invitation panel, that the market rate talents in charge thought it a real ‘coup’ to get the self-promoting boor on.
Unique.
BBC plays its ‘Asian Network’ imperial role in United States, and propagandises there for Pakistanis:
“Shahzad case puts Pakistani-Americans in spotlight”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/10315243.stm
Another, non-BBC analysis:
“Why Pakistan produces Jihadists”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703866704575223832888768098.html
Will the BBC remind us of Prescott’s shagging of fat slappers? The BBC like to remind us of john Major’s shagging of Edwina oh and David Mellor and any other Tory caught shagging on the side.
BBC don’t seem to mention that Paddy Ashdown was called Paddy Pantsdown for a good reason.
How have the BBC been reporting Chris Huhne ? On the one hand he is a Lib Dem and climate change nutter ( he thinks windfarms are “beautiful” ), so it is a “private matter”. On the other hand he is in bed, so to speak, with the evil Tories.
Difficult one for the Beeboids to get their twisted little minds round !
I see the drug addicts ran another climate change story today on Radio 5. What the one about the ice shelf in Antarctica not melting because of climate change? Er no, but some made up story claiming that all climate change scientists believe in climate change.
That story was also mentioned on Today this morning, although I can’t find any mention on the BBC website.
And in breaking news, most turkey farmers believe turkey is the best food to eat on Christmas Day.
As a result of some sanctimonious rabble rousing over at the Guardian regarding ‘ethical investing’ and the low-lifes ‘propping’ up BP, I popped back to a link I think first shared here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/en/sites/scheme/pages/investments.shtml
Oddly it seems to have gone, or moved.
Anyone know why, or where?
Ah, here we are…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/sites/helpadvice/pages/top-100-investments.shtml
Drugs, Oil, Fags, Mining, Banks… the usual.
But, one is sure for ‘balance’, even the odd renewable.
Unique.
Aren’t most of the oil companies involved in “alternative” energy as well ?
Martin spotted the ‘its worse than we thought’ bullshit from the ever ready beeboid bullshit dept.
OoooH NOooo!
It seems that according to a new poll that most scientists who believe in man made global warming believe that global warming is real? Oh yeah right that makes sense dunnit?
The usual limited BBC angle had it that 90% of scientists when polled thought that human activity had an effect of raising global temperatures.
Hmmmm there is something missing from the BBC report though, it seems that the BBC dont want give us the bigger picture for some strange reason(I wonder why that could be?).
The REAL question should be added and this question makes all the difference in the world(and then some),
HOW MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE IN TEMPERATURES DO THOSE SCIENTISTS BELIEVE HUMANS CONTRIBUTE OVER AND ABOVE NATURAL VARIATION, IS IT HIGH OR IS IT NEGLIGABLE????
You see the BBC will not bring you the real figures because it would shatter the so called consensus narrative, if the above question was tagged onto the original question it would show that far from the pimped narrative there is and always has been far more differences than has been advertised.
The actual differences between sceptics and alarmists has always been about how great the contribution to warming is and what role positive and negative feedbacks will affect the warming.
You see how the BBC works folks? They set out to mislead by omission of certain facts, they build a picture that they want you to see by painting an essentially false reality and hope that most people will trust the headline and not look deeper.
Is the highly damaging and mega expensive cuts to carbon emissions and the highly suspect switch to so called green energy really necassary and cost effective if the anthropogenic effect is minimal and will be further helped by the earths negative feedback systems?
The BBC scum are trying to paint a false reality to con us into believing something that is not true and never has been true and never will be true. Science does not work like a British Leyland strike meeting, its the minority of truth seekers that has always blown away the consensus bult by ignorant rent seeking buffers/chancers/camp following droids and the AGW consensus will suffer the same fate, the question is how much of our wealth will these shitheads waste in the mean time?
sorry for the bluff language folks, I do get frustrated at times 😉
You missed an important question, Cassandra.
“How much of your funding depends upon you continuing to think that human activity contributes to dangerous climate change?”
The story has made the website now.
“Some 98% of climate scientists that publish research on the subject support the view that human activities are warming the planet, a study suggests.”
To be fair, the article contains a reasonable amount of rebuttal from sceptics.
But it only needs one Albert Einstein………
Exactly!
Big funding by big government and big business with a vested interest in buying the right kind of research by rent seeking toadies desperate for their next funding cheque.
Its the old ‘I believe what I am told to believe because my livlihood depends on it’ syndrome and it mainly effects those with a tenuous grasp of moral rectitude.
Just now…
r4today Are you a public servant who believes you’re delivering good efficient services? Email today@bbc.co.uk with subject PUBLIC SECTOR SAVINGS
One is sure this will be sensibly used inform an objective, balanced discussion, not at all using Labour press releases direct to producers’ iPhones as ‘XX from Brighton says…’, on the relative merits of cuts vs. tax rises.
Not sure I saw any ‘Are you an already crippled by tax-payer who will be working into your dotage to keep BBC diversity advisors in index-linked comfort for ever… or else?’.
Just a quick thought: other than those on ‘stress leave’, why would any public servant be surfing twitter about now, other than the evident raft of them tasked and paid to ‘manage’ media?
Apols… it was ‘about 2hrs ago’. All just hitting the 8pm for Victoria.
Have you seen this load of dross?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10373060.stm
Budget: What would you cut?
The emotive language is particularly grating, but its interesting to note that the things that joe public would want to cut do not appear on the list – housing for the work-shy, uncontrolled immigration, tv-licence fees etc. Why do I have to use my slider to cut old-age-pensions? Only a hard bastard tory would do that? Surely if I was kindly liebour chancellor I would boost the pension and find the money from somewhere else… like they did for 12 years. There werent any problems with that, were there? oh wait…
Also, all the sliders (except VAT) are about cutting things from the budget. Cuts are bad. Increasing tax on beer, cigs, plonk, rent-boys and coke is strangely missing. Why?
What we really need is an equivilent web-page for the license fee. Slide that to zero.
Good spot, Ray. You are not a friend of Martin’s by any chance ? !
Will we get this on the bBC? – http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/138195
If so, it will of course all be Israel’s fault.
Perhaps even now they are working out how to blame the Jews.
I would have thought the ideal presenter for the Budget today would be Andrew Neil. He is unbiased and understands economics. Instead we get the utterly lightweight Huw Edwards who is neither.
Comments from the usual suspects, Nick Robinson, Robert Peston, and Stephanie Flanders. I shall be monitoring it for bias !
PS. When Labour were in power, the BBC always cut off during the opposition reply. I wonder what will happen today ?
I have just been warned that…’There is some language which might now give offence’.
Not a re-run of The Jonathan Ross Show where he asks Gwyneth Paltrow if he can ‘fuck’ her. No, a programme where Arthur Rimbaud utters the word ‘nigger’.
You see, when you’re from the ‘liberal left’ some big bad swearie words are ‘cutting edge’ and ‘pushing the boundaries’, whereas other big bad swearie words are guaranteed to put you into such a swoon you have to lie down while your assistant producer dabs your temples with water of Cologne and gives you a strong peppermint while fanning you with a copy of The Guardian.
Funnily enough, because I’m from the rabid pitbull right I find Jonathan Ross a lot more offensive than Arthur Rimbaud.
Now you’ll never hear this on BBC radio!
Hilarious! Glenn Beck mocks Adam Gadahn (gay sounding American al Kaida shitbag)
Posted by therightscoop in Politics on Jun 21st,
Adam Gadahn has released a new message to the west, specifically Obama, and Beck not only mocks it but he mocks the first one too. Really funny!
http://www.therightscoop.com/hilarous-glenn-beck-mocks-adam-gadahn
I might have misheard Osbourne but i thought he announced the abolition of the broadband tax and it’s replacement with money from the TV tax. They, the beeboids, won’t like this at all but it is a start and could signal the beginning of the end for the tax. No doubt real rage now from the massed ranks of Beeboid commentators.
Less money for Cocaine and 8 year old rent boys. Ye god’s what’s a camp beeboid to do now for a good night out?
Yes he announced stopping the broadband tax before it starts – and also taking money (not sure how much) from unspent BBC money allocated for the digital change
Some people may like to answer this bBC survey asking questions.
Inevitably, BBC Radio 5 (about 2:10 pm) had Robert Peston’s Dad, Labour Lord Peston on the airwaves to speak (unconvincingly, and in generalities) for Labour.
Pater Peston is one of the most unpleasant creeps I have ever met.
Sopel was just now talking to some “Save the Children” (or similar) mouthpiece about the Budget results. She was happy for the £2 billion child allowance, but wasn’t optimistic about the rest. Sopel correctly asked her if NGOs weren’t duty-bound to be negative on things like this. She went on and on – and has come back in now to babble more – about throwing money at poor people to end “child poverty”. Her number one concern is that “child poverty” requires an annual amount of cash given to welfare families to stop child poverty.
Why does no Beeboid ever ask these people what they never use all that money they ask for to actually end the cycel of poverty? Instead, they just want to perpetuate it by subsidizing its existence. This woman’s ideas won’t end child poverty. People like her only perpetuate it. But then, I guess she’d be out of a job if child poverty was actually eradicated.
Too bad no Beeboid ever has the intelligence or courage to actually ask them about it. No, the editorial bias at the BBC which lionizes poverty and condemns any discussion about breaking the cycle won’t allow it.
Compare and contrast this BBC report about Wikileaks making contact with the US Government over some videos with, well, any BBC report ever made about the CRU emails. Notice how here the videos were “leaked” or were “passed” to Wikileaks, while the BBC always took care to call the emails “stolen”. Magically, the word “stolen” never appears here.
When it’s something the Beeboids approve of – anything that makes the US military during Bush’s time look bad – the editorial policy is different than when it’s something they don’t like – making Warmism look bad.
Spot on David. Remember how the BBC hounded Damien Green for the way he got hold of information that embarrassed the Government but always stuck up for the one eyed mong when he got regular leaks when in opposition.
I notice all the BP documents come from ‘whistle blowers’ and not people who have betrayed the trust of their employer.
Beeboid Giles in Gateshead right now letting a UNISON rep state that 1 out of 3 public sector jobs will be cut, even though nobody actually knows anything of the sort. She also said that it’s not true that the private sector creates jobs because they haven’t been doing it recently. Nodding head, more leading questions from the Beeboid.
Giles also tried to push the narrative that the private sector is unwilling ot hire public sector workers because “they don’t understand” how things work in the private sector. Recruiter from Catalyst allows how he’s seen employers actually hire based on experience in a given field. What a novel concept! But not good, apparently, as the Beeboid turns back to the small business owner who’s pleased with the Budget and asks here what she thinks about the fact that public sector workers won’t have the same opportunities as those in the private sector.
Once again, the BBC gives the public sector pride of place, unwilling to discuss how this public sector is unsustainable. Funny how the Beeboids can grasp the concept of sustainability when it comes to “green energy”, but not when it comes to the real world.
Speaking of people who are fully capable of grasping the concept of “sustainability” when it comes to energy but not when it comes to the economy, why does the BBC think watermelon Caroline Lucas’s opinion about the Budget is worth a damn?
All she can talk about is “investing in the economy” and how more money needs to be thrown at the public sector. Clearly unable to grasp the concept of “sustainability” here. No wonder the BBC sought out her opinion on the economy.
She’s the BBC’s ‘go to nutter’ now Tony Benn is gone.
BBC bleating on about how public sector pensions will be worth less, so what about MY private pension that will be worth jack shit thanks to the one eyed mental jock twat robbing it blind to find useless fat twats to breed?
The BBC is openly implying that oil industry lobbying is connected to a federal judges decision to block the President’s 6-month ban on offshore drilling.
US Gulf oil drilling ban overturned by federal judge
First, there’s a brief summary and quote from the judge’s decision. Then the BBC immediately says this:
The decision to overturn the ban follows heavy lobbying by the oil industry.
This non sequitur is followed (sorry) by quotes from BP and Transocean about how important it is to continue drilling, the world needs the oil, etc. By doing this, the BBC deliberately creates the false impression that the lobbying is somehow directly connected to a federal judge’s decision. Lobbying in Washington is unrelated to federal courts, but the BBC can’t help but add this extraneous stuff to reinforce the Evil Oil Narrative.
Attention BBC: Lobbyists affect the decisions of politicians, not federal judges. BBC bias against evil oil and slavish support for The Obamessiah once again causing them to fiddle the news.
How many programs has the BBC made trying to entrap ethnic minority racism, Islamic prejudices (undercover mosque naturally wasn’t a Panorama program) and no-go areas for whites?
“Two yobs who hurled a string of racist abuse at undercover reporters during a BBC documentary have been jailed for a total of nearly four years.
Sean Ganderton and Martin Durnell systematically ‘bullied and threatened’ Asian journalists Amil Khan and Tamanna Rahman whilst being secretly filmed on Panorama.”
I’m glad these two have been imprisoned but would they be so willing to go undercover to expose racist black against white crimes for instance? The BBC specialises in whitey did it reporting.
Sorry missed out the link.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1288551/Racist-thugs-threatened-cut-throats-undercover-BBC-reporters-locked-up.html
QUOTE FROM MAIL ARTICLE: In that time, the reporters claimed they were victims of attempted muggings, racial insults and had waterbombs, glass and rocks thrown at them.
It used to be that yobs like these threw stones and bottles and the like. These days, I notice from BBC reports as much as from the Mail, nobody throws stones any more. It is always rocks. Where do they get all these rocks and the strength to lift and throw them?
I feel pretty sure that we haven’t suddenly run out of stones and replaced them with an abundance of rocks lying around for the convenience of strong hefty neighbourhood louts. I can’t remember the last time I saw a rock. I know American vocabulary is different but shouldn’t these journalists know the difference, especially when they work for the world’s greatest broadcaster?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1288551/Racist-thugs-threatened-cut-throats-undercover-BBC-reporters-locked-up.html#ixzz0rg06MJS4
Since the BBC is so enthusiastic about supporting England in the World Cup, and going around the country showing the public’s support, I was wondering when they were going to send a correspondent to Birmingham or something to show a room full of Mohammedans cheering on the team. One would have thought the BBC would be going out of their way to show that Mohammedans are just as British and English as anyone.
Seems like a prime opportunity, BBC. What’s holding you up?