Mid-week and a new Open thread to keep up the perpetual pick up of BBC bias. Over to you, let it rip…
OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Fedup2 Nov 15, 06:11
Midweek 13th November 2024
Have left the UK for warmer climes for a while … BBC ‘ news propaganda ‘ They seem surprised that… - Zephir Nov 15, 06:04
Midweek 13th November 2024
First comment below this video on Youtube : “I think David lammy should be Arrested for calling Donald Trump nasty… - tomo Nov 15, 06:03
Midweek 13th November 2024
He was key talent at the BBC until Tommy Robinson caught him out….. (as I understand it) [img]https://i.ibb.co/ggmgLdg/Screenshot-2024-11-15-at-06-01-47-John-Sweeney-on-X-real-Donald-Trump-has-picked-Tulsi-Gabbard-effec.png[/img] - Zephir Nov 15, 05:51
Midweek 13th November 2024
[img]https://i.postimg.cc/wTfT3Bby/Capturergfge.jpg[/img] - JohnC Nov 15, 05:21
Midweek 13th November 2024
Sri Lankan leader’s coalition headed for victory https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crr9n2w0lyzo A BBC article which is totally different in tone with what they… - JohnC Nov 15, 03:05
Midweek 13th November 2024
This sums up the Left perfectly. They are constantly watching GB News just looking for any chance to complain or… - StewGreen Nov 15, 00:27
Midweek 13th November 2024
Quick bit of info from GBnews.. “Musk has retweeted GBnews twice in the last 24 hours” One tweet was about… - StewGreen Nov 15, 00:20
Midweek 13th November 2024
The Alison Pearson case The police are now saying she was wrong to say it was a non-crime hate incident…
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
Public sector media employee posts notions on pay issues:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/09/who_are_the_public_servants.html
Seems to find notions of value assessment and accountability.. ‘absurd’.
Helen Boaden couldn’t have justified her wedge better herself.
Unique.
Great. Just posted and the system swallowed it whole.
Try again, whilst repeating wish for search function.
Can’t now locate, but previous poster linked to iPlayer of Richard Bacon digging a hole around the deteriorating Commonwealth Games situation.
Kudos to sports reporter for not slapping him at each facile statement he made.
Had to love the ‘why not stick ’em in hotels?’ >>> ‘At £300 a night they are for the media’
How many packing as we speak to scoot to T5 on the next jumbo jolly?
That was me guest, it’s in the thread about ‘Witches Coven’. Here’s the link again
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00tt774/Richard_Bacon_21_09_2010
Go an hour and eight minutes in and hear Bacon make a tw*t of himself.
These Open Threads are filling fast these days. There seems to be so much more material from the Beeb now and it’s getting noticed by more and more people.
true but not by the right people..Mr J Hunt please take note
I am increasingly fascinated by the stinking BBC’s role in undermining Christianity and for this reason watched last night’s re-run on BBC 4 (its one of their digital channels…) of The Lost Gospels.
Presented by the hugely egotistical Anglican priest Pete Owen Jones, who frequently and inexplicably wears an Aussie bush hat and immaculately flambouyant scarves, the film purports to offer a “radical” view of how the NT came to created.
So in the film we see the diminutive, hippyish JOnes doing an awful lot of earnest strutting as he wanders around Rome, Jerusalem and Egypt in search of the Beeboiud truth about the NT.
This is an excellent example of how the stinking BBC works. a) Come up with a PC message that the BBC finds acceptable and necessary, b) Get a trendy “useful idiot” presenter to articulate politically approved and dumbed down messages in a series of breathless and painstakingly obvious sound bytes, c) pay a huge amount of money to enable your team of 846452835645 luvvies to swan about in 5 countries and produce a film which is intelectually vapid but visually suymptious and d) end with the predictable, approved message (Jesus wasn’t divine, didn’t die on the cross, screwed Mary Mag – who naturally in her role as head of the Judean Wimmin’s Activist Collective was actually more important that Peter, Paul, Matthew and Luke put together-, Jesus wasn’t divine, just a nice Socialist and hey ho, doesn’r that mean we should all be more, errr inclusive and errrr chilled about Christianity? Oh yes, and (naturally) Judaism = cruelty.
The programme, for all its facile visual quality (it must have cost millions, but of course we who pay for this crap are not allowed to know) provided yet another example of the sinister way the stinking BBC controls thought.
Fortunately people are not stupid. The BBC game is up. All that’s left is to kill the licence tax (and possibly one or two of its more odious leaders…).
I actually don’t mind Christianity being challenged, organised religion should be. What I object to is that it’s ONLY Christianity that is challenged, Islam gets a free pass.
Great post, Dr A. Following in the same manner as his tedius programme, I wonder if this oh-so-courageous hippy would have the gumption to suggest that Mohammed was not really a divine prophet either, but an ordinary man that did not attain God-realization. Or that some of his work has led to evil. I won’t hold my breath.
Yes, imagine the BBC doing an in-depth factual documentary on the life and times of the Prophet Mohammed! Did he really have a nine-years-old wife? (yes) Did he really order the murder of women poets who mocked him? (yes) Did he really raid caravans, steal booty and murder prisoners? (yes). And did he really fly one night on a winged donkey call al-Buraq to Jerusalam thereby staking a claim on Jerusalem as one of Islam’s holy sites? (possibly not).
Holding Christianity and Judaism up to scrutiny is fine, but Islam is definitely out of bounds because no one at the BBC is brave enough to touch it with a barge pole (except to present it in a good light). The treatment of Islam in comparison to other religions is a concrete example of the BBC’s bias, not to mention their moral and intellectual cowardice; the same moral and intellectual cowardice that compels them to bash Israel and to dishonestly present a politican like Geert Wilders as a right-wing extremist.
Count,
Excellent !
The sad truth is that the BBC – for all its interminably self-righteous boasting about standards and independence – soil their pants every time a Mullah says boo. Remember the Danish cartoons? Hel, they didn’t even have the bottle to report is accurately.
The more serious point is possibly this: when our enemy observes this craven capitulation, surely they must feel victory is theirs?
And once again, the stinking BBC leading the field.
Too true
So much for getting the Country back on it’s feet. The BBC Comrades are now even culpable of blocking traffic with their Self righteous drivel
Anyone notice the awkward tones when Mary Midgley criticised Dawkins? Not the thing to do on the BBC, but one of the others did say that Dawkins was right about religion (you know, fairies at the bottom of the garden etc).
Also, the IRA were called terrorists! Hurrah! A first for the BBC? But what was the context? Well it was that evil Americans supported the IRA terrorists, so to paint Americans in a bad light, they felt able to call the IRA terrorists. For the BBC, the IRA are freedom fighters unless Americans are involved, when they become terrorists (for a bit).
missed the first bit of my piece – about Start the Week (with a dose of lefty-liberalism), back on with Andrew Marrx.
Well I guess thats a step in the right direction. What would complete the context of this would be those evil American Democrates were the ones supporting the IRA terrorists!
But I guess the BBC calling the IRA terrorists is a start…at least!
Mailman
Dawkins well and truly stumped lol:
Does anyone think schools should provide birthing pools, family planning advice, contraception, non-English midwives and of course anti-natal classes? Ok slight exaggeration but I wouldn’t past the BBC to think all of the above are a good idea.
5 Live was championing this ridiculous idea from N.I.C.E that anti-natal classes should be provided at schools. Think I even heard a complaint that many midwives only spoke English.
I notice the BBC didn’t examine possible causes of the problem (dare I say the parents?!) and painted the teenage mums as victims many of which I think have probably planned it all along. Not only that but no mention of why on earth should this be taxpayer funded!
Where’s the balance?
Anti-natal classes? Maybe.
Ante-natal classes? Why not; they have ante-conception classes. Perhaps they could have conception classes as well or do they already do this?
That’s what you get for typing in a hurry and not checking!
Conception classes – hadn’t thought of that!
Here’s something the BBC could cover…lets see them doing a story on the country being bankrupt YET the Government still manages to find £500 million for overseas aid (in this case to fight maleria).
While I applaud efforts to fight maleria, this is a problem caused by leftist idealism when DDT was banned (but only banned after Maleria had been eradicated in North America).
Meh…expecting the BBC to cover REAL stories is a bit like expecting a bit too much!
Mailman
I always enjoyed New Tricks but am apprehensive about the coming episode on Friday. The synopsis in the Sunday Times referred to the days of “Free Palestine” demos 25 years ago which may have involved Brian Lane’s wife if I read it correctly. Cue for sympathetic treatment of left wing activists methinks. Hope I’m wrong.
I like the show too and have the same concern.
Very good. What is it? the Paedo Piper of Hamelin?
The BBC toady show always willing to pimp the global warming AKA global climate disruption(I kid you not) fraud but this time they really hit the jackpot with a revelation so stunning and incredible I nearly fainted.
This is really gonna fry your bananas people so sit down before you read any further!
Some ‘scientists’ have been studying old seed collections(as you do) and they have found that during warm cycles like the MWP(medieval warm period) an early and warm spring makes plants germinate and grow early, yeah I know its just incredible aint it? I nearly wet my panties when I found out!
Now it gets even more incredible folks, the seeds always germinate to a set pattern and rate and earlier as the springs get warmer, obviously the ‘scientists’ didnt think to include a little known trick that seeds have learned through evolution to time their appearence to coinicide with the most favourable conditions just as they have learned this over hundreds of millions of years.
Now the beeboid was desperate to know how this stunning research could be used to validate AGW, well well folks it appears that IF it gets warmer in the future the seed banks MAY help us find out when spring flowering will arrive. Now me and you would just look outside and see the daffs pop up but thats why we are ordinary know nowts and not Tefal headed boffins dont yah know!
So there we have a perfect example of trash mumbo jumbo made up crapola. Lazy ill thought out trash with the call for more research cash needed that is always attached to these reports.
So what have we learned? When spring arrives plants germinate and grow and when the seasonal cycles shift a little then so does the plants reaction, a reaction learned through evolution varies to match…WTF? We learned this stuff at college/school and I learned it at the farm where I grew up. Its been known for years.
INBBC report:
“Three policemen killed in Indonesia attack” [-by Islamic jihadists]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11390274
More information for INBBC on the Islamic Indonesia of Obama’s youth:
‘France 24’ video report:
“After the tsunami, Sharia law ”
http://www.france24.com/en/20100820-reporters-after-tsunami-sharia-law-indonesia-aceh-sumatra-islamic-police-koran-islam
Forgive the blog plug, and the tardy pick-up, but Simon Mayo last week was showing how if there is any internal policing of BBC bias (ha ha) it doesn’t extend into non-news/current affairs output.
“Playing one pro-trade union track is easily forgiveable, two seems suspicious. However, Mayo played at least five tracks with the reminder that it was “the last day of the TUC conference” so they were going to play some … “songs to send trade union delegates home with a spring in their step”.”
http://wp.me/p3Y3w-sM
Wouldn’t the Jurassic Park theme have been more appropriate?
Nice one .. maybe it was suggested but, y’know, they don’t want to be seen to take sides.
In any case the dinosaurs weren’t really responsible for their own demise were they, whereas the bruvvers ….
REM’s “The end of the world as we know it” would be most appropriate.
Have to say I’m struggling to rationalise ‘information’ and ‘free’ together…
http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/540689.php
`Barack Obama is the most anti-business president in a generation, perhaps in American history.’ – Forbes magazine, 7 Sept. 2010. Could someone please guide me to where the BBC’s extensive coverage of US affairs has been pursuing this angle?
Racist! =-O
Hi prpw
Let me give you an alternative view from a part of the BBC that I do follow which is stephanomics.
“To be clear – this would not just be bad news for supporters of the president. It could produce some worrying times for the international markets as well. Why? Because they could end up with the worst of all worlds – less support for the economy short term, but little long-term effort on the deficit either. And a lot of uncertainty into the bargain.”
So in effect look at what not supporting Obama might cause etc…
I notice that her articles attract fewer and fewer comments these days and the best one is number 6 which refers to the implications of the Federal Reserve meeting and actually wants to discuss economics rather than whatever takes Stephs whim.
Flanders is pretty sharp, but is a committed Keynesian and will not accept that reducing spending and taxes at the same time will reduce the deficit.
Meanwhile the Emerging Markets continue to surge ahead.
I agree that she does espouse some Keynesian ideas but that there are issues here with her writing. If we look at impartiality I have no problem with her giving an opinion as long as she splits opinion from news/fact and makes it clear.
As to her being sharp I am afraid that having followed her I find that she misses a lot and tends to be influenced by whatever event she has just attended like her review of the hedge fund congress she went to last week. It left the imlication that peripheral euro zone bonds were good value and since then they have been hammered.
Islam NOt BBC (INBBC) censors the nature of the security threat to Delhi Games.
Although INBBC uses the word “fears” in its headline below, it doesn’t hint as to the source of the security threat:
“Fears increase over Commonwealth Games in Delhi”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/commonwealth_games/delhi_2010/9022160.stm
For an uncensored report:
“Jihadists Threaten Commonwealth Games in India”
http://icsr.info/blog/Jihadists-Threaten-Commonwealth-Games-in-India
INBBC ‘Newsnight’ political agenda tonight:
–propaganda for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2010/09/wednesday_22_september_2010.html
Mmmmmm…..just stay away from his toot sweets, kiddies. 😉
INBBC’s Islamic Republic of Pakistan:
-and how INBBC relegates Islamic murder of Pakistani politician in London to more Islamic murders in Karachi.
“14 killed in Pakistan violence linked to London murder”
One has to go to quaintly named ‘South Asia’ web page to get this. For INBBC, the security threat to British people which this London murder caused is forgotten by INBBC, as it concentrates on its core Islamic audience in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, whom we British licencepayers are subsidising with this Pakistan/Islamic centric reporting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11380727
Compare and contrast INBBC’s reporting of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with its reporting of another Commonwealth country, e.g. CANADA. How many people of Pakistan connections are employed by INBBC, and how many Canadians? (Apart from the Canadian Lyse Doucet, who, for all I know, by now may have become a Pakistani.) How many reporters does INBBC have based in Pakistan, and how many in Canada?
Public sector employees and pay. Seems they can’t stop talking about it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11391959
Works on all sorts of levels.
Though, with luck, he may soon not be…. if already unpaid. Which would be a rare mercy.
Right, BBC 1 news runs a pice on the Home Secretay wanting to do away with the body that controls private security groups.
The beeboids tell us that “we’ve seen a document”
But hang on would this be a ‘leaked’ document by chance? Shouldn’t the BBC we demanding that the ‘leaker’ be outed? Where did the BBC get the document from.
I just wonder what the beeboid reaction would be if May had the plods come and round up the beeboids on the grounds that leaks from the Home Office could be a national security issue?
Remember how the BBC totally backed 5 bellies smiff not only when she had some junior Home Office official arrested but also Damien Green rounded up like some 3rd world black dictator.
The BBC stating that Damien Green was trying to ‘humiliate Jackie Smith’
Oh how the BBC have double standards.
Aaaah there is a clear difference between a stolen document and a leaked document in the hive mind of the BBC asshole collective.
A leaked document comes from a political enemy and a stolen document comes from a political ally and friend.
You could leak a shed load of documents to the BBC and only those that advance the BBC narrative and serve to attack its enemies would get through to air, you can forget about any other leaked document making it to the airwaves because the BBC wil sit on it and keep it secret and even conspire with the source of the leak to make sure the damage is limited.
Its why the BBC sat on the climategate LEAKS for months while the wikileaks stuff went straight out primetime no limits maximum exposure.
A fine day for the Beeb.
1. NICE(the clue`s in the title innit!) want birthing pools etc for “vulnerable” young women who somehow do not know how to “access” ante-natal provision by the usual suspects.
2. Parents of …er..ADHD kiddies are to be “invited” into Scottish schools for “training” in regard of “behaviour management”. The bulleting mrepeats at least two or three times that “no criticism” is made of the parents at all…just an act of Dawkins eh?
3. “Black carbon” eh?…pray(no don`t you dare!) tell us the science behind this wonderful new and exciting concept! Coal-graphite?…black…whatever next? Night starvation?…bobbling?
Yes-these days now we can be whatever we wanna be in Beebland…we are all Mister Benns now if a Harrabin gets the scince gig to tell us of “black” carbon-racist surely Lord Trevor Phillips!
“Down with this sort of thing!”
Have a good laugh at Chris Moyles rant about not being paid, I like the way he mentions the Licence Fee – obviously has a tax demand.
Did Moyles just tell miners that they don’t get to hold the moral high ground for having to do such hard manual labor, and that working class people have no more right to anything than the wealthy? Someone needs to be sent to re-education camp.
I think everyone here living in the UK should take Moyles up on his offer to pay your license fees so you can turn the BBC off and listen to something else.
Beeboids genuinely see themselves as something special. Their arrogance defies belief.
Looks like somebody at BBC News Online isn’t impressed with Moyles.
Chris Moyles launces on-air tirade over pay
They quote nearly every whining line, including his unfortunate failure to bow to the working class.
They just can’t help themselves. Michael Woods’ “Story of England” was a fairly pleasant – if unchallenging – way to pass an hour before the red meat of “Mad Men” appeared on the screen. “Story of England” is the microcosmic version of our history concentrated in a village – or collection of villages – in Leicestershire. Unfortunately, Woods, the BBC’s pin-up historian (I must admit he is a more attractive proposition than Schama but, then again, who isn’t?) put in his bit for the favourite BBC themes.
Apparently the fall of Rome – and the consequent dumping of Britain as part of the Roman Empire – was caused by “climate change”. Perhaps also – as Michael suggested – the ruin of post-Roman Britain is just a foretaste of the world after the oil runs out. The Anglo-Saxons – or as Michael called them Anglo-Saxon migrants – lived contentedly alongside the native Welsh (yes, “Welsh” not Celts or Britons) of the ancient Midlands. Then those naughty Vikings appeared – not stopped by the UK Immigration Service at the borders apparently – and shoved the A-S’s west and south. However, the Viking settlers (or invaders as they were called until 1997) then introduced their weaker brethren and families from back home into their settlements in the Danelaw. Remind you of anything? In a startling admission a lady interviewee informed us that this was natural and was just like modern-day migrants from the Asian sub-continent bringing over their family members and marrying their own kind (or, in the case of modern-day immigrants, actually marrying their family members). The further parallel – of an actual conquest of parts of England – was left hanging in the air although it’s manifestly a parallel the BBC wouldn’t want you to draw.
So, in the “story of England” we’ve been told that there’s nothing new under the sun: England has already experienced climate change, peak oil, beneficial immigration, peaceful settlement presaging a complete (although originally multi-culti) happy uni-cultural kingdom – and the Normans haven’t arrived yet! It’s a story alright but you couldn’t make it up: luckily for you the BBC has.
History in the hands of the BBC is a vital tool to be used to re educate and indoctrinate the English so that they no longer know who they are and where they come from.
Woods is a particularly egregrious example of a telegenic indoctrinator posing as a serious academic .
And so it is that about half the primary school children of Leicester do not speak English:
“English-speaking pupils are a minority in inner-city London primary schools” [see figures for Leicester too].
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205937/English-speaking-pupils-minority-inner-city-London-primary-schools.html#ixzz10IrrzDxf
Did Wood point out that the Vikings were muslims ?
All the little people (the “ordinary” people – the “real heroes” of this saga according to Michael) appearing in the programme were hideously white and – horror of horrors – DNA samples on two of the local inhabitants pointed to their Northern European origin. This was (almost) a first since the usual BBC narrative does not allow that all those invaders of what became England and who came here over a period of hundreds of years were basically North Germans or Scandinavians (certainly the Normans had the same ancestry). In other words, the great invasions which made England and the English comprised related peoples and not complete aliens from the Orient dumped in a vacant lot on an island off the coast of Europe. The narrative generally reiterates that England and the English (not the Scots, Welsh or Irish of course) are the product of constant (and welcome) immigration. Grant, I know, will weep 😉 but it seems that the Vikings weren’t Moslem after all but, on the plus side for the BBC, they weren’t Christian either.
BTW why does Michael Woods, like Brian Cox to whom he bears an uncanny resemblance, find it impossible to wipe that creepy smile off his face? I can only guess but it seems to me that it’s the smile of constant wonder at what his work reveals to us ordinary mortals on whom he and Cox bestow the gift of their infinite wisdom.
Umbongo,
Great post ! How dare these pesky Vikings not be muslim ?
PS Michael Wood, Brian Cox. It is the sheer smugness of these overpaid creeps which makes me vomit. And they think they are teaching me !
We all knew that Matt Frei’s new blog would be a treasure trove of bias, and he does not disappoint. Even before Bob Woodward’s new book has been released, he’s had a look and reveals both his bias against the war in Afghanistan and his undying devotion to his beloved Obamesiah.
Bob Woodward scores in Obama book
Frei is right about not being surprised by the clash of egos and infighting, as this is normal and happens in every Adminsitration. But he does say this:
It wasn’t even such a shock to hear that President Obama was looking first and foremost for an exit strategy, which the Pentagon was reluctant to deliver. It confirmed a suspicion. If his head is already preparing for departure, his heart is hardly likely to be in the fight.
Barack Obama is a reluctant warrior, who didn’t want to fall into the trap that gobbled up Lyndon Johnson’s presidency: trying to reshape America at home while fighting a costly and futile war abroad.
It wasn’t such a schock that the President was looking to retreat from Afghanistan? Remember that this is the same Candidate Obamessiah who was constantly reminding us that Iraq was a mistake because it distracted from the mission in Afghanistan. He even promised to send in two more brigades, and that we had a real purpose there:
That is a cause that could not be more just.
He said that in March of 2009, barely two months after His anointment. Woodward was already hitting up officials for interviews for this book by then, which means that everything The Obamessiah has ever said about wanting to be successful in Afghanistan was a lie. He wanted a way out from the beginning, and has been lying about it the entire time.
And Matt Frei swallows it whole.
These days Bob doesn’t need Deep Throats when he can have song birds. The administration clearly thinks it is better to work with him than against him. They realize that he would dig up the dirt anyway. So they have come to the conclusion that it is better to embrace your potential foe than to alienate him.
Apparently this may have worked because Obama comes across as thoughtful and serious in the book as he draws up his own Afghanistan exit strategy.
But will the nuance of his finely-tuned brain be lost amongst the bold print of the headlines?
Of course what Frei boy fails to point out is that what message does this send to the soldiers and Afghans who either work for NATO or who are asked to co-operate with NATO?
Come 2015 your head will be hacked off (if you’re lucky quickly with a sharp knife if unlucky with a rusty blunt one) if you’ve been co-operating with the infidels and how many soldiers in NATO really want now to put up a fight knowing that they will soon start to draw down forces?
Tell me you made up that question at the end. I know Frei Boy is given to the hero worship and the purple prose but I didn’t think he was into parodying himself as well. =-O
Matt Frei may have lost the plot, he sure is staying with the Narrative.
“nuance of his finely-tuned brain “. Pass the sick bag.
Matty Boy went into orbit just there. I wonder when he’s due back on earth.
Though that one is particularly funny, it’s not Matt Frei’s first use of such a phrase. In his old diary he talked of Obama’s “elegant intellect”.
Pass the sick bag again !
Programmes like this really annoy me. The whole current establishment is terrified of English nationalism. Really terrified. So the BBC is playing it’s part in what is almost a campaign to distort and re create our history. Alter the past control the future. It won’t work not in a nation as ancient and stubborn as ours. The pendulum will swing. The celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain must have really caused a good many beeboids sleepless nights and bad dreams.
“Anti-social Behaviour Cuts Feared”. That’s the headline story greeting BBC News viewers/listeners/readers this morning.
This selective thrust from Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary completely disregards his main finding that 13 years of Labour left people at the mercy of yobs.
PEOPLE DIED AS A RESULT…FACT.
And they say they aren’t biased… 😉
Quite right. Never once did they examine some of the causes of these problems such as the benefits culture (made worse under Labour), the ‘sue them culture’ which mean the police are afraid to even grab kids by the arm (made worse under Labour), crap parenting (which has become worse under Labour), top down state control of the police which has increased bureaucracy to the point that police spend more time filling in paperwork than out on the street (made worse under Labour) to name but a few.
They also fail to mention Labour have been pumping money into policing like nobody’s business over the past decade and the problem HAS GOT WORSE. Surely the BBC should look at why this is the case and whether better use of money spent is more important than the amount of money spent. Why do the BBC not report the cuts in a positive way, for example how public services can be improved with less but better directed money and thus providing greater value to the taxpayer?
It’s always the same though, cuts = less money = worse public services = bad for all of us.
Listening to the big announcement on Five Live this morning regarding the proposal to build Europe’s biggest wind farm off the coast in Kent. They had a chap on from the firm responsible for building it. I’ve included some of the questions and answers below:
Q: How much it would cost?
A: £800,000.
(No follow up question as to whether this was inclusive or exclusive of a subsidy)
Q: Length of payback?
A: Around 8-10 years.
(Again no follow up question)
Q: What was the level of subsidy.
A: I can’t answer that/don’t know
(Yet again this was just accepted)
There was another question as to how often wind farms run at full capacity (25% of the time I think) to which the answer was yes but they are providing power 95% of the time. Well that’s great but providing 2 watts to thousands of homes 95% of the time is flipping useless! Suffice to say this point wasn’t made either and they moved on.
Now I thought the questions above were legitimate however they were not followed up so it was almost pointless asking them. The only reason I believe they asked them is to pay lip service to those who think wind farms are a complete waste of time and money and a blot on our landscape. The fact that the answers weren’t followed up supports this point. As for the answers, having read many of Robin’s excellent posts on this subject they were at best evasive and at worst down right dishonest.
Then just before the 8am news out of the blue an email was read out from an angry listener/environmentalist who complained about the damaging/sceptical questioning that was asked earlier and how that sort of thinking would prevent more wind farms being built and would hold us back etc etc. No other points of view were read out.
Fair and balanced?
Thanks Olly for pointing this out. I used to listen to the breakfast show but the Nicky and Shelagh love-in became too much for me!
Wind farms were on my mind as I was just reading a post on another blog which posed the question,How useful are wind farms? What we need is a proper debate from both sides of the argument…
That’s exactly right Amy but we won’t get it from the BBC!
Again you see the BBC in action, the real questions are missing that would make the report whole and understandable to most people.
Windmills are the most expensive electricity generator ever devised and they are also the most unreliable and they will produce NO carbon dioxide savings whatsover during their whole limited useful life cycle because convetional power stations will have to be on line to cover the huge spikes and troughs in wnindmill output. You may see tham spinning but they have to spin while off line which is most of the time and use eletricity while they do it so the blades do not warp and crack so too much wind and too little and they are actually using electricity NOT generating it.
The maintenance costs are huge and some farms around the world are barely working a ten percent capacity, the site of the new white elephant money wasting bird manglers is perfect for highly variable wind levels so it will not be long before the bloody things are using more juice to keep the blades turning than they are producing electricity that the grid cannot use anyway. This is the part that is so ridiculous though, not one watt of conventional electricity can be reduced and no savings in coal or gas will be made and not one gramme of carbon dioxide will be saved.
It cost hundreds of millions to place the things there and by the fifth year of operation that cost will skyrocket, the regime may as well just make a big bonfire of five pound notes and have us all round for a barby and a beer.
A wind turbine also needs the real estate of an elephant in order to function at anywhere near optimum efficiency. There isn’t enough land mass in Britain to hold a fraction of the wind farms needed to do anything more than provide seasonal power to a few villages. I doubt the NIMBYs or fishermen will allow the British Isles to be completely surrounded by wind turbines in the sea, either.
Would anyone care to hazard a guess as to how much this survey for the BBC cost the licence fee-payer?
“Safety Concerns Over Choice of Driving Shoes”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11387195
Why is the BBC commissioning such surveys? If the AA or ROSPA wish to express concerns about an aspect of road safety they should do the research and offer it to the media.
I look forward to the BBC commissioning Jimmy Choo to do a survey about how many of our inebriated fellow citizens fall over in British town centres on a Friday night as a result of poor footwear selection.
Are Muslim shoes best by chance!
There is always and elephant in the room when the BBC examine any issue, they seem unable to perform a full spectrum examination of the facts.
This time the BBC toady freak show attempt to examine the issue of science and its limits yet they cannot draw the obvious conclusion that BIG government controlled and directed science and vested interest control are a poisonous cocktail that actually inhibits real scientific endeavour and lavish funding channelled via groupthink government controlled grant bodies freezes out real individual talent and instead gives preference to insiders and in crowd string pullers and those able to speak the language of the establishment.
The BBC cannot see the link between the demise of real breakthrough outsider science, independent maverick scientists pushing the unknown and the rise of what could be known as the ‘USSR disease’ the central control and stagnation of big top down traditionalist establishment science that rewards the cautious/politically correct and punishes the outsider cutting edge scientist.
State control and central planning and insider establishment group think does not work and science is suffering as a result, its not funding that is the key it is scientific freedom to push boundaries and to challenge the orthodoxy and the consensus, that is how breakthroughs are made. The rewarding of consensus establishment traditional science is leading science into a blind alley.
The BBC believes in the big state, the overbearing top down establishment control of all aspects of society, they believe that the bigger the state the better our lives will be and they believe the more strict and central control the big state has then the happier we will become. This belief is leading to stagnation and degeneration and the stiffling of the human spirit, that is the elephant in the room that the BBC is unable to see!
Anyone else see this on Guido’s blog?
http://order-order.com/2010/09/23/robinsons-10-oclock-hiccup/#comments
Poor Toenails, he just simply used to read out Gordon Brown’s press releases, he never had to prepare anything in advance (Sheena is the same) but now their beloved Liebour are not in power, they have to work again.
As I’ve pointed out since Liebour have gone, Peston, Easton and Toenails look lost.
So the taxpayer funded a lavish dinner and drinks and in return got a Beeboid spouting drunken biased nonsense!
Great value from the BBC as usual!
Laura Kuenssberg has replaced him as the village gossip. Either she or Lansdale is going to take over at some point as BBC politicial editor, freeing Robinson up to go work for ITV or something. Maybe someone up top got fed up with his failure to completely support Gordon Brown before the election, and decided to make a change. Either that or the BBC bosses are worried that too many of their fellow travelers (such as certain defenders of the indefensible) think Robinson is biased in favor of the Tories because he was in the Young Conservatives back in school. While still claiming that all those ex-student Communists aren’t biased at all, of course.
Robinson hasn’t been visible much since the summer, while Laura’s bobbing head is all over the air waves. It’s no surprise she had to fill him in on what’s going on.
Of course, true to its own empire-building, anti-cuts instincts, BBC-NUJ doesn’t abolish ‘Woman’s Hour’, but extends to ‘Men’s Hour’.
“Men’s Hour to become fixture in BBC Radio 5 Live schedule”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/23/mens-hour-bbc-radio-5-live
That’s discrimination!
What about gay/lesbian/bi/transgender hour? Black, white, ethnic miniority and of course muslim’s hour?
Having thought about it probably no need for the last one – should be non-muslims hour.
Hour? They get their own station. Haven’t you heard about the
complaints that the BBC “Asian” radio station was Muslim dominated and discriminating against other “Asian” groups?
“Station” ? They’ve got their own Broacasting Corporation !
Banning the burqa.
Islam Not BBC (INBBC) censors this online:
“Burnley College ‘bans visitors from wearing veil'”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/29800
Will INBBC apply this rule at Broadcasting House in e.g. London (inc. Arab TV, Mecca-facing East wing there) for necessary security reasons?
BBC – very gently – questioned the wind farm off Kent this morning (the equivalent for them of giving it both barrels big time) and made some pretence of some resemblance of balance.
they interviewed locals and got opposing views from residents, which for such long distant off shore wind farms opinion really is divided.
I can’t see it lasting, but nonetheless pleasingly surprising.
Damian Green was questioned and he only really defended the windfarms on the basis that it was securing a British domestic energy source (which at least was true and probably the best argument for wind farms).
The BBC failed to push him further for the cost, the subsidy, the birds and the eyesore, but then my hopes weren’t set very high.
When it comes to expecting balanced journalism from the BBC I suggest you don’t hold any hopes!
Noticed that the wind wasn’t blowing again of the coast of Kent, rendering the massive sea-based ‘industrial estate’ ridiculously expensive and useless.
BBC-Greenpeace interviews the manufacturers ofthe equipment to see if they are in favour of it!
“The Scam Spreads”
[Extract, from ‘EU Referendum’]:
“As always, the BBC sprays out figures, but no information. We get told that there are 100 turbines in the £780m wind farm, and that these ‘are expected to generate enough electricity to power 240,000 homes’ – perhaps the most dishonest way going of describing the capacity of these machines.
“In fact, getting proper statistics from the media is a losing battle, but Vattenfall, the project owner, has it on its website that there are 100 Vestas V90 wind turbines, with a total capacity of 300 MW. This is sufficient, it says, to supply more than 200,000 homes per year with clean energy.
“By the time you take in the load factors (about 26 percent), however, and apply the rather understated government-inspired domestic consumption factor, you actually get 131,000 homes – but even then the figure is fiction. On cold, windless days, the number is zero. On a breezy summer night, when the power isn’t needed anyway and the National Grid is having to pay suppliers not to produce electricity, it could be a lot more. Such are the games they play.
“But there are no games when it comes to the subsidies. On top of the £40 million in electricity sales, Vattenfall will collect at least £60 million a year in Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) top-sliced from our electricity bills so that we do not notice the theft. And theft it is, an undisclosed tax paid to these rip-off merchants for producing unsustainable electricity.
“Over term for the 20 years these turbines are suppose to last, we are looking at a public subsidy of £1.2 billion – enough to build a 1GW nuclear power station – a plant with a deliverable capacity more than 13 times this wind array. That is the extent of the rip-off to which we are being subjected.
“And for that, it appears, we get 21 full-time green jobs.”
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/09/scam-spreads.html
Note: BBC-Greenpeace’s negative political attitude to Kingsnorth coal-fired power station in Kent, with its positve attitude to becalmed, colossally expensive industial estate off the coast of Kent.
When the windfarm was sited it appears they tried to save some money on the tidal currents and it looks like the instalation mirrors the entire AGW fraud itself, its built literally built on shifting sands!
One look at an ariel view or google earth shows that the same forces that erode coastal land by shifting subsea sand is acting already to undermine the the foundations of the wind turbines.
Sand plumes are visible in the direction of the prevailing tidal and sea currents and when the centrifugal action of the turbines blades come into play, even the most finely balanced blades will set up a pendulum type shudder through the turbine shaft into the sea bed and this action combined with the tidal flow is going to tip those structures over in just a few years. You see the base of the turbines are not fixed into rock they are buried and rely on a suction effect much like the pylons on a pier but unlike pier pylons the windmill pylon is subject to a particular vibration and is not attached to other pylons.
Sand is a funny thing, I have seen the srecks on the skeleton coast and sand and tides shift the wrecks some way, the Goodwin sands suck down wrecks and then deliver them back and then suck them back down in just a few weeks.
I predict a fiasco of blame shifting and excuses when the turbines start falling over 😀 !
Sorry that should read ‘saved money on a subsea current tidal forces survey’.
We are seeing a billion pound spruce goose/Bristol Brabazon fiasco of epic proportions and when the windmills start falling over its going to be a laugh a minute, but before that happens the subsidies are going to be cut meaning that the plug will be pulled anyway.
The subsidies will become so bloated and unaffordable that they will have to be scrapped and the windfarms will beome uneconomic to run.
In just a few years boats will run loads of gawpers out to see the wrecks of windmills and they will wonder at the utter stupidity of government assholes.
The farm is supposed to last twenty years, in fact it will last as long as the current muppet regime we have in power now.
The dishonest and misleading way they introduce the supposed capacity of the windfarm is typical of the BBC.
The BBC claims the farm is expected to produce enough clean energy to supply 240.000 homes. That is a complete lie of course, the farm will never ever reach its maximum generating capacity, only a fraction of that capacity will be delivered and even that tiny amount will depend on the wind, too much and too little wind and nothing is produced and it gets even worse, at peak demand when all the power stations are spinning there is no need for the windfarm and when demand is low there is also no need for the windfarm. In actual fact the highly variable power from the windfarm is more of a liabillity because planners do not know if and when the farm will produce anything to add to the national grid.
Lets say you have a windy day and the farm is running, there is no gaurantee the grid can use the extra load so the farm will be working but contributing no actual real load to the national grid and chances are good that when the wind does blow the grid will say no thanks and here is why the windfarm fraud is attracting organised crime, even if the windfarm is not contributing to the national grid the investors get paid for NOT generating useable electricity, the feed in tarrif keeps paying out like a rigged fruit machine.
Its all a question of IF, IF its windy and IF the grid can handle the unreliable extra load and IF the demand is there when the wind blows not too hard or too gusty.
The farm is supposed to last twenty years and its costing over a billion pounds over its life, that could buy us a shiny big nuclear station producing a reliable and cheap supply of electricity or two big Drax coal fired stations producing even cheaper electricity 24/7 no matter what the wind does.
But the worst part is that this massive billion pound fraud is creating under two dozen green jobs, all that money for so few jobs! At that rate the green jobs bonanaza we were promised would need a trillion pounds to reduce unmployment by a fraction in just one city, it would have been cheaper to give a thousand random people one million pounds each and it would be more beneficial to the economy.
The bBC, those nasty Texans who love nothing more than executing innocent prisoners and not even half the story.
bBC version (it’s a film at over 11 minutes)
According to the bBC she is innocent, that she was framed and she wouldn’t harm a fly. According to the so called defense lawyer there were no facts. Really?
And here is the court document which tells a completely different story.
1. The appellant lived two apartment numbers down from the victim in the same complex.
2. One of the accomplices answered a cell phone during the commission of the offense and stated that “she” was outside and asked her if she wanted “it.”
3. The appellant’s cell phone records reflect seven calls made between the appellant’s phone and a phone that may have been used by accomplice Anderson between 12:50 a.m. and 1:14 a.m on May 16, 2001. Cabrera testified that the intruders broke in around 1 a.m., and police testified they were dispatched to the scene around 1:15 a.m.
4. The appellant was obsessed with having a baby and lied about being pregnant to many people, including her daughter and husband. In the days before the offense, the appellant told many people that she was pregnant and that her baby was due in the next couple of days. The appellant told many people that she expected to deliver a baby boy on the day before the kidnapping. On the evening of May 15, 2001, about 5 hours before the kidnapping, the appellant told the manager at her storage unit that she had already delivered the baby and that he was at home with his father.
5. The appellant retrieved a baby blanket and two sets of baby clothes from her storage unit on the evening of May 15, 2001. She was driving the Pontiac Sunfire rental car in which the victim’s body was found the next evening.
6. Hours before the kidnapping, the appellant was sitting outside of the apartment complex in the Pontiac Sunfire and there was an infant’s car seat in the back.
7. The appellant arrived at her mother’s house in a taxi around 8 or 9:00 a.m. on May 16, and borrowed her daughter’s black Cavalier.
8. The appellant told police that she might have loaned cars to people involved in the instant offense.
9. On the evening of May 16, the appellant led police to the house where the Cavalier and the Sunfire were located. The baby was found in the Cavalier and the victim was found in the trunk of the Sunfire. The appellant had driven both of these cars in the days and hours before and after the kidnapping.
10. The appellant was seen in possession of a gun similar in appearance to the gun found at the house on Van Zandt. Ammunition fitting such gun was found in the diaper bag which was found in the Cavalier with the baby.
11. The appellant asked a fellow inmate to write a letter which represented that it had been written by someone else and stated that the appellant had been set up.
Of course to the bBC as she is black a woman and British she can only be innocent.
Gotta love the sympathetic opening of the poor dear singing the most famous hymn written by an Abolitionist. No editorial agenda there, then.
funny that the BBC don’t sohw the same interest when gays are strung up in Iran or women are to be put to death by stoning.
Why not beeboids?
Martin,
I read your post as why shouldn’t Beeboids be put to death by stoning. Errr….. That’s not what you meant was it ?
“Went the day well”.
Well it was, I’d prepared for the evening meal and was listening to the re-run of the Archers on BBC R4 when, as expected, there was a knock on the door.
Eager to impress I escorted the charming woman I’d recently met into my front room.
What could possibly go wrong ?
Well I will tell you, I’d left BBC R4 on. Caroline was met in super stereo that Steve Richards will shortly be explaining on R4 how Gordon Brown saved the world from economic collapse.
I think this romance is now doomed.
So Steve Richards’ snotty nasal voice actually scares off women! Apparently John Humphrys’ “abrasive voice” is being used to scare off deer from allotments. The BBC works in mysterious ways.
Will the BBC report this news item on the World Service or World news networks? It’s news, but do they want to fan the flames? I guess they wait to see how the news is taken up in America? What does Pastor Terry Jones think of this?
Six arrested after burning of Koran on 9/11 ‘for the boys in Afghanistan’ is posted online
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314534/Arrests-burning-Koran-9-11-posted-online.html
I can’t find my comment about it now (Google’s “Instant” feature seems to have skewed site search results), but this was all foretold on Newsnight a couple weeks ago. Paxman had on Peter Tatchell and some womean from a Catholic bleeding hearts group to say that laws should be changed so that people can be arrested for doing exactly this. The Catholic woman called it “mindless extremism”, which can be defined as “something she doesn’t like”.
Paxman lapped it all up, and gave Tatchell leading questions to allow him to opine about arresting people like this.
Firstly since when in Koran burning inciting racial hatred? Islam is a religion not a race, white Muslims are just as barking mad as the non whites.
I bet if a couple of the local Taliban were seen burning a few Bibles the plods would not be keen to arrest them.
Clearly the Police have solved all other crime so have nothing else to do, perhaps we should be cutting the Police budgets if this is all they have to do.
Since when did Shariah Law apply to Britain?
Read more:http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/204037.php
Nobody wants to admit it, but the racial hatred that will be incited by burning the Koran is non-white Mohammedans hating everyone else and trying to kill them. Just like how Geert Wilders’s film was supposed to “incite hatred” and possibly violence.
The cavemen are training the government and the media very well.
Found it. This was foretold on the Sept. 9 broadcast of Newsnight, which doesn’t seem to be available anymore. The conclusion of all guests was that laws should be changed so that people doing things like this can be arrested.
Ahmadinejad in New York.
Compare and contrast:
1.) FOX NEWS-
John Bolton video
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4345441/
2. Islam Not BBC (INBBC)-
“Iran ready for ‘fair’ talks on its nuclear programme”
(Yes, the thing which impresses INBBC about Ahmadinejad is how ‘fair’ he is.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11396835
Non-INBBC report:
“Protesters at U.N. call Ahmadinejad a ‘murderer'”
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/09/23/un.ahmadinejad.protest/index.html
I see the uk is less gay than we had been told. Eevry news outlet bar one makes comment on there being fewer gays than previously thought, even the Guardian mentions it.
Can you guess who doesn’t?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11398629
Very true.
And it seems they don’t want to believe it either, given that they turn straight to Ben Summerskill of ‘gay equality charity’ Stonewall, who says “We’d expect to see these figures increase over time as people’s confidence in the survey grows and sexual orientation becomes a routine part of data collection.”
One that doesn’t just report the news but has an agenda to promote? 😉
DCP,
Oh come on, put us out of our misery and tell us ? Is it the Daily Mail ?
Katie Connolly’s latest report analyses Why healthcare reform has been a tough sell for Barack Obama. And ‘for Barack Obama’ pretty much sums up the spirit of her article.
It turns out that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the bill itself (which has ‘logic’ behind it), so it’s puzzling to Katie and her pundits as why it’s so unpopular with the American public. It seems that the reason, according to both of Katie’s pundits, seems to be that those who oppose Obama’s reforms are confusing them with “bigger things they are angry at Washington for”. They are also “wary of change”.
Her pundits are “Karen Davenport, Director of Health Policy at left-leaning think tank the Center for American Progress” (an organisation, properly labeled by Katie as ‘left-leaning’ and strongly supportive of the health reforms) and ‘independent expert’ “Drew Altman, President of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a healthcare research and advocacy organization”, who a little googling reveals to be a Democrat/Obama donor, so another Obama supporter (which Katie chooses not to tell us, though it could be guessed from what he says).
The high-spending “anti-reform” groups are merely “Republicans and their allies”. Katie knocks down a few of their “false charges” but doesn’t use any pundits from their side or the argument in her article. She doesn’t even quote any opponents at all. She avoids balance.
The final word goes to regular Democrat donor Drew Altman:
“This is by any standard is a middle of the road, centrist legislation that builds on our existing system,” Mr Altman says. “It must look awfully strange to people in other countries to see it be debated as though it’s radical legislation.”
Katie Connolly doesn’t dare allow any voice from the other side through lest they reveal a few things about ObamaCare that the BBC doesn’t want you to know.
Like how senior citizens are unhappy that the rationing is going to prevent them from getting certain drugs they like, or that it’s actually un-Constitutional to make a law requiring citizens to buy a specific product (even if their betters think it’s good for them), or that the Secretary for Health and Human Services has threatened to cut off any insurance company that says anything negative about ObamaCare, or that some insurance companies have stopped offering new child-only policies because they don’t want to get screwed by ObamaCare’s draconian regulations, or that in this time of economic crisis and a drastic need to cut spending, ObamaCare is going to cost at least $2 trillion.
I could go on. This is classic Liberal arrogance. If you don’t agree with me it can only be because you don’t understand, as I simply cannot conceive of a different opinion. The President’s problem isn’t that we don’t even understand ObamaCare as well as the Irish understood that Lisbon thing they voted against: the problem is that we get it. And we get that it’s a problem.
I see the bBC hasn’t got round to the story of the flashing (but respectable) Mullah down there in Bristol. I wonder why?
Flashing Iman
He flashed a 12 yr old girl
read more:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314611/Leading-Libyan-imam-exposed-12-year-old-girl-Bristol-park.html
Not on BBC, however they never mentioned their flashing
producer
read more:http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/08/28/ex-bbc-radio-producer-sex-pest-is-jailed-115875-22519923/
‘Newsnight’, Comrades Crick and Maitlis, and the Marxist Miliband family.
Comrade Crick goes bananas for the Miliband bros’ Marxist parents in his blog today. And Comrade Crick takes to Marxist interpolator Comrade Blackburn too:
Ralph Miliband’s far reaching influence
And not to outdone, Comrade Maitlis puts her ‘feminist’ political bias on the Marxist Miliband family:
“Tonight, Michael Crick will be looking at the upbringing the Miliband brothers had – the legacy their father – radical Marxist Ralph Miliband – left upon them. And how their mother, Marion, another left-wing socialist, may actually have been the greater influence.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2010/09/thursday_23_september_2010.html
And ‘Newsnight’ promises even more on the boring bros. on Friday!
She is describing what Crick says about the influence of their mother.
A win win for the BBC. By reporting on the paresnts of both of the leading contenders they can claim to be fair but as they share the same parents they can also start the deification of the new Labour leader before he is elected by the faithful before being formally annointed by the BBC.
Well, the BBC’s left-wing contingent in Washington is out in force today it seems.
That anonymous ‘Host’ is at it again, quoting plenty of JournOListas in See Also: US media on the Republican ‘Pledge’ – namely “Washington Post scribe and policy wonk Ezra Klein“, “Jonathan Chait of the left-leaning New Republic magazine” and “left-leaning blogger and author Matt Yglesias“.
He/she also quotes “the editors of conservative magazine National Review” and “conservative pundit Kevin Glass“, but they get shorter – and fewer – quotes.
Why quote more Democrat-supporting pundits than Republican supporters in an article about the Republican ‘Pledge’? Why is Ezra Klein (founder of the JournOList) not labeled as ‘left-leaning’? Who is this JournOList-obsessed beeboid?
Well here i am ordering a couple of books and blue rays off of Amazon (The Scarab Path and Series 1 Mad men ) When the bBC news in the front room catches my ear. Its a story about the Am-a-nut-job at the UN and how he claims that 9/11 was instigated by the US. As i missed most of it I gravitate to the bBC website and read a load of crap which the bBC tries to pass off as the news. Now I’m no mastermind (I do have a degree in drinking coffee) and wanted another opinion (other than my own) in which to try and work out why the leader of Iran came out with such a bellicose speech. The bBC which usually has no problem in reading between the lines when it concerns the US/UK or the Jews for some reason is unable to pick up the thread on this one. Thankfully in this day and age I can fall back onto the internet in which to find alternative sources of news which breaks the bBCs biased monopoly which is single handedly responsible for the raise in antisemitism in the Uk over the past few years.
So what do other reputable news-agencies have to say about why Am-a-nut-job speech at the UN. Well CNN has this to say:
“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s appearances in New York this week are part of a shrewd strategy that is aimed at enhancing his standing in Iran and the Middle East, the issue that gets the most attention is almost always the comments he makes on the Palestinian issue. His goal clearly seems to be to appropriate that issue from the moderate Arab states — Egypt and Saudi Arabia — who are of course his key rivals for leadership of the Middle East. He goes much further than they can in his zealous defense of the Palestinian cause, in attacks on Israel and yet is almost always just short of saying something that is truly belligerent.
He may have said a few things in the early years that could be interpreted as threatening to attack Israel, but now he’s very careful.
It makes it impossible for the Egyptian president, say, to make an anti-Iranian speech or an anti-Ahmadinejad speech because on the streets of Egypt, people regard Ahmadinejad as a friend of the great Arab cause.
While I accept the fact that the above mirrors my thoughts exactly I didn’t gravitate to a news article which substantiates my mindset because it does so. I did so because when somebody goes out of his way in which to piss off the people who are offering a hand of friendship at the UN, then that person has an agenda. An agenda the bBC doesn’t want you to know. So that begs me to ask the question..Why?
Following on from my last the bBC web article on Am-a-nut-jobs speech not only doesn’t explain why, but the video is very confusing sorry did I say confusing bloody irritating. Usually when the bBC does a voice over they lower the volume of the speaker. But in this case they haven’t.
So why does the bBC try to mask what Am-a-nut-job is saying?
Listen carefully (If you can work out what the woman is saying without getting irritated that is) and you can see why the bBC doesn’t want you to hear exactly what that odious man has to say.
He’s a bloody trufer who’s taking tripe and if the British public get to hear what he is saying then they will realize that the bBCs clones wank mag pin up is mullah short of a mosque.
Of course it also means that Iran will ban the bBC from its borders.
BBC America has a sort of balanced (by BBC standards) report on ObamaCare. The majority of the piece is, of course, an advertisement for it. On the plus side, they did feature one opposing voice: a woman who owns a small business says – correctly – that ObamaCare will make the health care costs for her 80 employees rise by almost one third. Then it’s back to the promotion.
However, the sob story the BBC shows to demonstrate how wonderful ObamaCare is for those most in need leaves out the fact that, unlike their claim that insurance companies now must cover everything including pre-existing conditions, insurance companies can opt out if they want to. If not, they just raise the rates for everyone. So the whole song and dance about free or affordable health care to everyone is a myth. The BBC isn’t going to allow that part onto the air waves, though.
But at least the BBC for once had on a coherent opposing view by someone who didn’t have strong southern drawl and was actually presented as a contribution member of society.
Just saw the segment on that big off-shore wind farm via BBC World News America. All very positive right up until the end when they showed the wide view of them all. None were moving. Beeboid said that there’s a snag in that they don’t work when there’s no wind, and there’s no way to store the power. Which really ought to have been the main point of the report rather than a three-sentence coda.
Then he signed off while we were left with the image of a petrified forest.
How predictable that Matt Frei just said that the fact that Bill Gates and the FaceBook guy are super, super rich somehow means that “income inequality” harms people. Only their egos, Matt.
This is a false premise of a zero-sum game. Which it isn’t, of course, unless one is a Socialist or further to the Left. Now Frei Boy is talking to a writer from Slate. He’s not an economist or financial exepert or sociologist or anything other than a writer. Yet we’re supposed to take his opinion more seriously than mine or yours. Why? Because he holds the correct thoughts, of course.
Frei speaks of the fact that some rich people are even richer somehow harms poor people? How? He doesn’t say, just states it as fact. Now they’re both agreeing with each other about how rich people control everything and what not, without a single acknowledgment that wealth can be created and real life isn’t a game of Monopoly.
I’m switching off now to watch Japanese animation. If I’m going to suspend my belief for an hour, I’d rather watch something more coherent, like high school students fighting zombies and surreal Edo-period samurai drama.
BBC World Service (inc. Arabic TV) is a quango which should be abolished.
BBC-NUJ is annoyed about this, and gets in a Labour Party ‘spokesman’ to defend wasteful quangos.
“Some 177 quangos ‘to be scrapped’ by the government”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11403044
The ‘Daily Telegraph’ list:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8021780/Quango-cuts-full-list-of-bodies-under-review.html
The BBC World Service is partially a political organisation which propagandises notably for Islam in the Middle East. It propagandises alongside Al Jazeera, with which it has a ‘technical’ agreement (to show Bin Laden jihad videos early), to provide its Islamic audiences with the political message they want to hear through expensive 24/7 propagandist offshoots such as Arabic TV, based at London INBBC Broadcasting House (Mecca-facing, East wing), and all paid for by British taxpayers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Arabic_Television
Close down the quango of BBC World Service (and Arabic TV) NOW.