121 Responses to OPEN THREAD…

  1. Abandon Ship! says:

    World Service: Witness

    “The story of our times told by the people who were there”

    Actually it should be “Revisionist history of recent times seen through the eyes of the average Guardian reader”

    Anybody listen to the “Witness” series? It is impeccably Guardianista (and hence Beeboid in tone). In the last few days we had hardline commie Richard Gott waxing lyrical on the life and death of comrade Che. “Christ-like in death” seemed to be the conclusion that Gott wanted us to take away. No mention of Che’s seedier side, such as the summary execution without trial of those who didn’t quite see things the way Che did. But, as Richard and your average Beeboid knows, such things are necessary for the Revolution to succeed.

    A couple of days ago we had “Asylums”, where a former manic-depressive described life in a British asylum 25 years ago. In fact what she described sounded more like the scene at the start of “Amadeus”. You know, she was kept in a locked ward and made to have lithium! Shocked I am. Indeed Lithium is still the drug of choice for this, and having visited such institutions in the past, I’m jolly glad the inmates were locked in. Fiendishly of course, the BBC made sure that the lady interviewed was very articulate and completely normal now. I bet that wasn’t the case 25 years ago, but of course the BBC don’t want to give that impression, as it would spoil their little story. To top it all, we had a generic liberal US female academic on to condemn the care of mental patients back then, in, of course, the USA and the UK.

    Other editions have lionised other liberal causes such as The Black Panthers (excused cos they is black), Rosenburg trial (obviously innocent), Scopes Monkey trial (those gun totin bible bashin redneck hillbillies again)  etc, all seen from the Guardian viewpoint, all making it clear that the US (usually) is the root cause of all.

    On the other hand, when they have Witness programmes about other issues, such as the Bali bombings (actually very moving listening to one British survivor), there was just one small mention of those to blame (the local Islamists), almost as if blame wasn’t being apportioned. Wonder why?


    • Marky says:

      The overall tone of the Che Guevara piece was to make out that Che Guevara was a freedom fighter for justice, a “Christ like figure”.

      “I felt very shocked he was an extraordinary person. A fighter who wanted the well-being of Latin America and gave his life for that. I always have him in very high esteem and I live here and think he’s very much alive here because his spirit is alive. I think he’s a martyr for justice and that is why many people around here call him saint Ernesto.”

      Welcome to the BBC, if you want to join the party, leave your brain on the doorstep.



  2. Abandon Ship! says:

    Richard Bacon. Need I say more. Just listen to this generic Beeboid wimp being sent to the cleaners by Parkinson, who actually votes labour.


    Here’s a good commentary:



    • Martin says:

      Yes we picked this up last week. However, if you really want to vomit over your computer try to dig up the interview Bacon did with Marcus Pigstock. Bacon just about performed anal sex with him in the interview.

      “Maqrcus I could talk to you all day”, yes Richard I’m sure you could. Need a big jar of Vaseline though.


  3. Abandon Ship! says:

    More right-onnery from the BBC’s version of history:

    This one’s a double-whammy; not only do you have to listen to Neil MacGregor spouting politically correct history, but you also suffer a lecture from the truly awful Helena Kennedy. Bet the defacement of the King’s head really turned them on.

    095 Suffragette-defaced penny 15 Oct 2010
    Fri, 15 Oct 10
    A defaced coin from 1903. Neil MacGregor, Director of the British Museum, explores the rise of mass political engagement in Britain and the emergence of the suffragettes by examining a penny coin, on which the image of Edward VII has been defaced with the words ‘Votes for women’. With contributions from Helena Kennedy QC and the artist Felicity Powell.


  4. Richard Dobson says:


    A great song by Mitch Benn which might help cheer everyone up from another gray afternoon.



    • Marky says:

      Looks like I’ve got some work to do on those numpty BBC lovers.


    • D B says:

      I was expecting something better than that given all the luvvie hype on Twitter. Talking of which – I see ScottM popped in to offer his support for the above comment. Didn’t he exit stage leftie, vowing never to return?

      I did like the black chicks in the Benn’s video – enticed onto camera to make it all seem a bit more diverse, but clearly disinterested.


  5. David Jones says:

    Richard Black on the IPCC meeting in Busan and an interview with the engineer:


    The review and reform process instigated earlier this year was always about much more than one person.


    It’s fundamentally about two things.


    One is updating the governance of an organisation conceived 22 years ago – before the internet revolution, in a less responsive era of governance, and before attacking the science of climate change became such an important political strategy.


    Attacking the science of climate change is an important part of whose political strategy? Cameron, Miliband, Clegg, Obama? No they’re all true believers.


     It’s not a “political strategy” to criticise what you believe to be a pile of b*******t. You’re really in the tank for this, aren’t you Mr Black.


    The other is making sure that its rules on issues such as dealing with critical comments and non-peer-reviewed material are followed to the letter, and improved if they are not completely fit for purpose.


    So the IPCC has rules on dealing with “critical comments”?  Presumably that is to avoid future “voodoo science” responses from Pachy. Frankly if you have to have rules to govern what the head of the organisation says, you are in a bad way. But that’s good for the sceptics; the fish rots from the head.


    Actually re-reading those two points – governance and rules, they are indeed about one person. Pachy is, after all, in charge.



  6. RGH says:

    The relic of the New Religion ,with a sermon by the High Priestesses, pronuncing from the seat  of the BBC oracle, perhaps.

    Reverence and holy hush. Lo, the defaced penny.


  7. Clameur de Haro says:

    Anyone noticed the anti-Beeb polemic rant as reported in today’s Barclaygraph by unrepentant old leftie film-maker Ken Loach?


    He’s railing that loads more high-paid BBC managerial types should be given the elbow and shown the door, not merely the 2 or 3 token ejections we’ve seen so far.


    Now our Ken has what you’d think would be impeccable pro-Beeb credentials – irrevocably anti-Israel, anti-Monarchy, socialist of many years standing (despite living most agreeably in Bath – not exactly a beacon of working-class deprivation) and prone to making accusations of political censorship when even Channel 4 declined to screen some of his more execrable offerings.


    So if even Ken feels motivated to have a pop at the Beeboids, just what does that tell you about how bad things are with them?             


    • Millie Tant says:

      They were all having a go at Beeboid Thompson and pals’ greed on Question Time last night as well. I mean even the right-on types. I mean even Tessa Jowell who was the Sec of State in charge of broadcasting and the BBC! She pretended she had been against it all along. It’s like the MPs’ expenses – nobody now wants to be seen to justify it. Well, hardly anybody apart from Thompson.

      Some small whisper of winds of change a-blowing, methinks.  


      • Clameur de Haro says:

        Thanks for reminding me, Millie.

        Tessa Jowell does have previous when it comes to getting things the wrong way round – for t’was the fragrant Tessa who’s the only minister ever to have resigned from her family to spend more time with her job………… 


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      This makes me think even more that the BBC has successfully shifted the debate from one of bias and incompetence to one of class warfare.  As long as the focus is on a few high salaries, the BBC can simply throw out a few more mandarins with golden parachutes and rein in a few more services (e.g. Newsgathering) until it all blows over.

      They’ll manage to dodge the debate about bias and uselessness and real waste entirely.


  8. Andrew Mars says:

    The BBC decided to send so many of their staff to Chile after hearing that it’s the only place where you can slide a minor up and down your shaft and not get arrested.


    • ltwf1964 says:

      the post of the week!!


      • Natsman says:

        And why has what I always pronounce (rightly or wrongly) “chilly” suddenly become “Chill-ay“?  Never noticed that before.  Perhaps it’s because it rymes with “gay”…


        • Millie Tant says:

          Maybe it was someone trying to sound posh.  Oh, I say, it’s verray verray chillay out today. 😀


    • Asuka Langley Soryu says:

      You win the internet.


  9. David Jones says:



    I’ve just come across this whilst working – honest. (I’m retired but I research new products for my wife’s company.)


    The best Friday afternoon laugh I’ve had for a long time.



  10. Millie Tant says:

    I don’t know if it’s been mentioned here, but there is a new Beeboid Controller of BBC1:


    You will not be surprised to learn that this Beeboid is ex-Channel 4 and -E4 (yoof and reality programmes, I believe) and ex-BBC3 (more yoof and reality programmes). Hm…what might we expect on BBC1 in future, then? More chav TV, as someone on another site put it?

    You may also be delighted to know that he will be paid less than the previous controller. But wait…before you get too ecstatic at a possible victory for the licence payer over the pigs in the trough, he will get the modest sum of £5,000 less. In other words, he will get £260,000 instead of £265,000.  So the Guardian says. And I expect they would know.


  11. james1070 says:

    Good article by Dan Hannan

    Of course Murdoch TV will be biased – just like the BBC



  12. George R says:

    Hezbollah Islamic jihad news:

    “Iran’s Ahmadinejad feted by crowd in southern Lebanon”

    (by INBBC’s Wyre Davies)

    First sentence:

    “Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has received a hero’s welcome in southern Lebanon, close to the Israeli border.”


    Alternative view, relegated at INBBC:

    Pamela Geller, ‘Atlas Shrugs’:

    Ahmadinejad on the Israel/Lebanon Border:
    “Death to Israel” “Zionists are Mortal”


    • RGH says:

      As ever, the devil’s in the detail.

      Reality, he’s there.

      The paymaster general, paying a Ghazi’s visit to the troops.

      The BBC omits the vitriol and describes the whole thing as a flag-waving Carnival.

      Although there was token criticism, to reflect the deep and painful division in Lebanese society. Mona was prmitted to express her unease. Mona is a Christian, the BBC helpfully added.

      Back to the flags and bunting.

      BBC. What actually  did the man say at this extremely sensitive border.

      Tell the public. Go on.


    • Demon1001 says:

      Someone published, yeaterday, an old clip from Question Time where Francis Maude made a comment about Ahmedinajad calling for death to all Israelis and destruction of Israel, and Galloway went hysterical claiming that all A-jad had said was to destroy Zionists and nothing about destroying Israel or Israelis.  Dimboy didn’t stop his tirade and point out the truth as he would to a Conservative who lied, but just to emphasise what a dihonest war-criminal Galloway is A-jad has repeated his death threat to Israelis and to wiping them off the map.


  13. Martin says:

    Classic Radio 5. In discussing the new deal to get more jobs at Jaguar the camp male beeboid talks about it as being “just like the Chilean miners rescue” WOW. Then he talks to Jack Dromey (remember who he’s married to anyone and how he got his seat in Parliament?) and starts off the interview with “Hi Jack”.

    You know I can’t EVER remember a beeboid talking to a Tory like that, Normally it’s a sneer or they drag up something from their past.

    The BBC narrative on this was it woz the Unions wot done it. I suppose it’s got nothing to do with the new management perhaps thinking Britain is now a better bet we don’t have a useless one eyed Muppet running the Country?

    Then we got Scabby Logan doing her usual anti Tory/Lib Dem stuff by playing down the announcement today on more money for poor kids.

    We don’t just get ONE anti view from the usual lot at the CPAG but some other bint who also is from some other useless charity slagging off the Tories.

    Apparently there are now $ MILLION kids in poverty. Just where do they drag this crap up from? Scabby gives the woman a total free pass on this claim of 4 million.


    • Will says:

      Being a sad old man, I was watching a re-run of the 1970 election coverage on BBC Parliament. I was very surprised to hear Robin Day addressing TUC boss Feather as”Vic”. Lord Stokes remained Lord Stokes.


  14. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Check out Mark Mardell’s latest to see just how low he’s sinking whle still struggling to understand what’s motivating the Tea Party movement, and why the faithful are deserting his beloved Obamessiah.  I’m seriously starting to worry for his mental health.

    Seeking hope in Missouri

    He’s even admitting it in his headlines now.

    Mardell is seeking out some white country folk in Missouri, which is a swing state these days. He’s looking to talk to a couple of locals to check the status of their faith.

    In the car next to me is a poster from that 2008 election campaign, from a different sort of America, the iconic “Hope” image.

    Yes, like a monk traveling the countryside, carrying a nail from the True Cross.  But he has a purpose.

    Mardell finds a guy who lost his small business a while back and is struggling to make ends meet.

    When I roll out my “Hope” poster he’s not impressed. He’s loath to speak ill of the president but says Mr Obama must be badly advised.

    “I just don’t believe in spending your way to prosperity,” he said. “It takes hard work, not hand-outs, to create prosperity.”

    It’s one thing to hear that from a conservative think-tanker in a plush Washington office. It has rather more impact coming from Mr Keeney’s lips.

    The poor guy doesn’t dare speak ill of Him, because he knows full well he’ll be portrayed as a racist if he does.  So he says the next best thing.  The ludicrous Mardell doesn’t seem to realize – or just doesn’t want you to think about – that this is actually the main mantra of the Tea Party movement.  Has he not been listening at all?  Has he really been so focused on racism that this is only now having an impact?

    I pull into Fortel’s Pizza Den to find Keith Kornfeld hard at work feeding the lunchtime trade. He’s owned the franchise for 10 years but business is down 20% and he’s struggling.

    He says he voted for Mr Obama because of his opposition to the the Iraq war but always had doubts about his economic policies. He’ll be voting straight Republican in the mid-term elections, hoping a different Congress will put the president back on track. Mr Kornfeld did not oppose the stimulus spending in principle but thinks it has been wasted, spent on shoring up state budgets, not creating real jobs.

    An apostate!

    You can tell from the rest of his piece that Mardell is getting seriously discouraged.  So, like the Chilean miners clung to their Bibles in moments of weakness, Mardell clings to his White House talking points:

    It’s a common enough cry and easy to understand. Many projects provide very few jobs at a huge cost. I leave St Louis and cross the Mississippi River into Illinois on the Eads Bridge, a road, rail and pedestrian span dating from the 19th Century. Some $25m in stimulus money is being spent on doing it up, providing nearly 900 new jobs. But work doesn’t even start until next spring. No wonder Americans don’t see the evidence the stimulus is working.

    You shall not have believed in vain, etc.

    Not completely satisfied, Mardell moves on to find one more sign of hope to restore his faith.  He does, in an Illinois steelworker (straight from central casting).

    He admits that many workers are still hurting and don’t like the idea that Mr Obama stepped in to help Wall Street and the banks but not their industries. But he says Mr Obama had no choice – if the president hadn’t acted, things would have turned out much worse. I show him that Obama “Hope” poster. He, at any rate, says there is still hope.

    “I think there is,” he said. “This was the worst downturn since the Great Recession. It was President Obama’s actions that kept it from being much, much worse.”

    Notice how Mardell portrays all these people as being salt-of-the-earth, quite reasonable, and trustworthy:  the exact opposite of how he handles things when he talks to Tea Party supporters.

    In his next post, Mardell plays the race card.


    • Martin says:

      Mardell was on the news last night. I’m sure Mardell sleeps with that poster of Barry Obama. Me, it was a poster of Samantha Fox I liked, not a black American politician.


  15. prpw says:

    `It’s one thing to hear that from a conservative think-tanker in a plush Washington office. It has rather more impact coming from Mr Keeney’s lips.’

    Precisely why does this statement have more impact coming from the speaker than the notional figure Mardell’s biased mind invents ?

    Interesting admission from Mardell that his prejudiced mind reacts differently to the same statement of economic reality depending on who says it. BIASED HALFWIT


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Exactly.  Yet, if you click on the link to his latest post, in which he plays the race card, you’ll see him expressing his admiration for a puff piece in the New York Times and the opinion of a JournoLista at the Washington Post.  As if those aren’t the same thing as a think-tanker in a plush office.


  16. George R says:

    INBBC :

     “Woman dies in Bradford after being found on fire”


    UK: Muslim woman dies after being found on fire


  17. David Preiser (USA) says:

    The BBC is still carrying water for The Obamessiah, playing defense for Him to the bitter end.  This time it’s about the homsexuals in the military.

    US asks judge to delay gay policy ruling

    A federal court judge has ruled that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law is no good.  This law was originally passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by Democrat President Clinton as a means of kicking the issue into the long grass.  Now we’re there, and a Democrat-controlled Congress and a Democrat President still can’t get it right.

    The problem is that Candidate Obamessiah promised He’d repeal the law.  He also promised in His first State of the Union address that He would end the law “on My watch”.

    He hasn’t done a damn thing, and has in fact used the Justice Dept. to fight to keep the law.  Even the BBC admits that.  But they defend the indefensible:

    Although the Obama administration favours scrapping the policy, it would prefer it be done in Congress rather than through the court system.

    Pathetic.  The President and the Democrats were able to slam through ObamaCare, so why can’t they get this simple thing done?  The BBC would rather you didn’t think about that.

    Here’s some other things relevant to the issue of homosexual rights the BBC doesn’t want you to know:

    White House Adviser Valerie Jarrett Apologizes for Calling Homosexuality ‘Lifestyle Choice’

    The Obama confidante made the off-hand comment in an interview Wednesday  with The Washington Post. She was talking about a speech she delivered Saturday to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, on teens who’ve killed themselves after being bullied over their sexual orientation.

    In praising the parents of one teenager who killed himself in Minnesota, she said: “These are good people. They were aware that their son was gay. They embraced him, they loved him, they supported his lifestyle choice. But yet when he left the home and went to school, he was tortured by his classmates.”

    The blogosphere seized on the “lifestyle choice” remark, a no-no among those who argue homosexuality is not learned behavior. Gay rights blogger Michael Petrelis slammed Jarrett for using the “obnoxious phrase,” calling her choice of words an “outrage.”

    Of course, The Obamessiah has form on the issue.  He is against Gay Marriage.  The BBC never told you that, did they?  He’s also letting the Justice Dept. fight to keep in place the Defense of Marriage Act, an anti-homosexual marriage deal, which was also signed by Clinton.  Even though He claims to be against it.

    The BBC simply cannot ever admit that He’s wrong, or has made a mistake.  They shift blame at every turn, working tirelessly to support the leader of a foreign country, misleading you, failing to inform you the entire time.  All at your expense.


    • Martin says:

      “with one sweep of his pen Guantanamo was closed…..”

      I still can’t stop laughing at that one.


    • james1070 says:

      Funny how the BBC aren’t interested about gay rights issues in say Saudi Arabia.


  18. Martin says:

    The BBC seem very keen to emphasise that Hick and Gillette were “Americans” in their reports. Does their nationality play a part in the reporting?


  19. Martin says:

    Oh how the BBC has changed. Regarding the govs pupil premium announcement, we get one negative comment after anothe starting with Ian Watson himself, then some bloke from the IFS, then some right on students then Andy Burnham. You know I swaer we never got an endless list of opponements on the BBC when Nu Liebour were in power. Often we got no dissenting voices at all.  
    Then the BBC run yet another story about ‘cuts’ this time from that economic pygmy John Swinney in Scotland. Funny that when the IMF said they were happy with the current Governments economic plans the BBC went around finding plenty of dissenting voices, yet not a single voice against Swinney.


  20. George R says:

    For more details of Geert Wilders’ acqittal, suggest see the four or so latest threads at ‘Gates of Vienna’ blogspot:



  21. Guest Who says:

    Apologies for another ‘complaint’ share (doubtless with all sorts of code BS again to split post again -tried saving as text only in Word… nothing budges it. Why does the BBC need to write an email in a way that just adds a raft more stuff… apt really)), but this is a case I have an interest in, and before giving advice I would value some cooler-headed views to make sure I should be as gob-smacked at the reply as I am.


    • Guest Who says:



      The paragraph [quoted] seems to us a perfectly reasonable assessment by a highly experienced diplomatic correspondent. She is simply suggesting that this would raise questions over the possibility there was an attempt to cover up events. This report went through a number of rewrites, and in the next version, these paragraphs were included:

      But Foreign Office Minister Jeremy Browne said there had been no attempt to cover up the truth about the rescue operation.

      He said: “That was us acting at all stages on the best information that we had supplied to us. But we will have an investigation and we will try and establish as far as is possible, in what sound like completely chaotic circumstances, precisely what happened.”



      • Guest Who says:


        As a story moves on, things get left out and new information is addedThe date stamp changes when significant additions are made, as happened on this occasion – which we believe could not be described as “stealth editing“. Bridget Kendall’s comment remained on the story for several hours and was not “replaced retroactively, without acknowledgement”, as [suggested].

        The final version of that report contains input from BBC correspondents Nicholas Witchell, Frank Gardner and Bilal Sarwary.It is very likely that Bridget Kendall’s view, now getting quite old, was considered one BBC voice too many.However, similar points are raised in Frank Gardner’s analysis, when he says:



        • Guest Who says:


          But this still leaves at least two uncomfortable questions hanging in the air: 1) Why were fragmentation grenades apparently used by her would-be rescuers when there was clearly a high risk she could be injured by them?

          2) Why were US forces initially so adamant that Ms Norgrove was killed by her abductors, only to now change their minds, causing profound embarrassment to Britain’s PM and foreign secretary?

          We understand the concern that you raise, but we believe that in this instance nothing has been done that breaches the editorial guidelines.

          Best wishes, 
          BBC News website 



          ‘BBC diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall said the latest developments would raise questions over UK and US relations and the possibility there was an attempt to cover up the circumstances of Ms Norgrove’s death.’




          • Guest Who says:


            Are they really trying to claim that ‘a highly experienced correspondent’, knowing sod-all at the time, was entitled to make stuff up and interpret the worst possible scenario she could, for both individuals and country relations, and when this all turned out to be just so much BS, it’s all tickedy boo to ‘correct’ later (with a tweak to a time stamp to a*se-cover!!!) in case anyone goes back to check – when surely one imagines an evolving news story simply gets new pages. All with a ton of weasels and semantics to try and make out what ‘they believe was just about right’ actually is?


            Is this as grotesque as I think it is, or simply a sad example of legitimate ‘views as news’ reporting in the 24/7 quagmire we now are subject to? Plus a ‘print cr*p now, change if caught’ later attitude to what goes out at the time vs, what they own up to?


            Other news outfits, some of whom were keen to think the worst, are now conceding that they were a bit hasty, and that while it may (still unconfirmed) be that a tragic cock-up was made, with a very poor bit of SOP by a grunt, there does not seem much evidence of any UK/US relationship friction here, or cover-up attempt.


            Which was what Ms. Kendall tried to claim with no basis in fact at the time, or indeed subsequently.


            Maybe explaining why the BBC hoiked her comment asap, when called out on it.


            I am… vexed. Sorry.


            • John Horne Tooke says:

              Bridget Kendall’s comment remained on the story for several hours and was not “replaced retroactively, without acknowledgement”, as [suggested].     
              So the comment was pulled and the BBC made this plain on the web page?    
              You are right to be vexed. Kendalls’ comment was wrong pure and simple, It had no basis in fact. She should get a “warning” at least for sloppy reporting as the BBC would see it. It was quite clearly her opinion (or wishful thinking).    
              Seems when there is an anti-western ‘story’ to be put out asap, all the BBCs “training” goes out of the window.


              • Guest Who says:

                Thank you for that. And the link.

                If ‘tweaking’ a time stamp made any changes evident, save for ‘something having happened’ – such as a wild claim made being dropped – then yes, it was made plain. Plain devious.

                The BBC seems to be having a problem with the most damning material of all… their own.


  22. John Horne Tooke says:

    Another ‘canned reply’ from the BBC


  23. Nick Heath says:

    Nice to see that the BBC have the story of Geert Wilders’ case being dropped on the front news page… In their – clearly unhappy – piece about the charges probably being acquitted, they point out that he was “Sowing Hatred” and “Enjoyed 24-hour state protection” – who the hell would “enjoy” that?! Oh that’s right a mean nasty right-winger who does not regard islam as the religion of peace and love.


  24. London Calling says:

    Now ask yourselves, why would this picture command BBC attention? Of all the freak events in nature, possibly just this one resonates with the narrative:


    Showtime – what more could you want? “Even nature abhors Liberty”.


  25. Samantha Vickers says:

    Did anybody notice the way that Konnie Huq was introduced as a ex-Blue Peter presenter on This Week last night, before she laid into the Lib-Dems?

    It must have missed the fairness DNA at the BBC as many might have though Labour party activist could have been used as a title as she co-fronted a rally for Labour during the election…


  26. james1070 says:

    Not on BBC  
    Geert Wilders found not guilty on all counts.



  27. Millie Tant says:

    Now that the prosecutors appear to have wised up to the implications for freedom to discuss, debate and form opinion in the political arena, they would all look pretty damn foolish if the judges were to take a contrary line.


  28. George R says:

    Another reason for INBBC to hate Rupert Murdoch: he supports Israel-

    “The War for Civilisation”

    (by Melanie Phillips)



    • John Anderson says:

      George R

      Murdoch has now made more than one clear-sighted and tough speech about Israel.  To the point where some have even accused him of being Jewish.

      We have reached a pretty pass when the BBC,  supposedly the custodian of our values,  is anti-Israel, often verging on anti-semitic,  and the “ruthless media baron” is on the side of reality and proper reporting.


  29. Guest Who says:

    Some BBC reporting (well about them) claims one can credit, even though it’s hard to:


    I bet he eat it, too. Marie Antoinette would be proud of them.

    Maybe it was in lieu of salary, and hence a very big cake.

    ‘Throw another licence fee on the fire Damian, basking in my sense of entitlement is starting to ebb’.



  30. TrueToo says:

    Tried the following on two BBC Editors blogs:



    Both comments were referred for further consideration, i.e. put in limbo:

    A parish in north London has complained over the way in which the BBC carried out an interview in their church. They say that although they were approached by a BBC reporter who asked to speak with parishioners about their views on the Pope’s visit – in fact a service at the church was just used as a backdrop to an interview with someone from a campaigning group not based in the parish.


    That’s the introduction to a letter of complaint written by parisioner Barbara O’Driscoll to the BBC.

    Here’s what happened:

    *BBC Religious Affairs Correspondent, Robert Pigott, keen to back those pushing for reform of the Catholic Church, disguises his campaign as genuine canvassing of the beliefs of ordinary Catholics as part of the BBC poll of Catholics in the UK ahead of the Pope’s visit.

    *He scouts around for a Catholic who shares his campaigning zeal and finds her in one Penelope Middelboe of the newly-created Catholic Voices for Reform.

    *But he needs a suitable place to plonk her in for the purposes of his propaganda clip so he picks on the parish of St John Vianney’s in South Tottenham, North London – almost certainly unknown to the aforementioned Penelope, since nobody there knows her.

    *He then plonks her in a pew in a prominent position at the front of the church so that the cameraman can film her as apparently part of the congregation and takes her outside for an extensive interview.

    *He brushes Barbara off when she tries to find out whether Penelope is representing the parish by misleading her that he has OK’d her presence with parish priest, father Joe Ryan.

    *He then sits in his car with Penelope for some time before leaving with her. He interviews no other member of the congregation.

    *The cameraman stays behind to ask the parishioners a few questions, I guess as a ploy to make them think their views were being taken seriously by the BBC.

    Now Barbara O’Driscoll strikes me as an honest, concerned and upright individual and I believe her account of events. This story is huge and it will be interesting to see how the BBC reacts to it. As she said:

    I was shocked and very disappointed with the report. I feel that the BBC has misrepresented my parish of St John Vianney’s in South Tottenham, North London. I am also very disturbed at the devious way in which Robert Pigott, the BBC Religious Correspondent and his department has deceived the parish, the public and the BBC management.

    The story gets a little more complicated. It appears that Penelope Middelboe was also misled by the BBC into thinking that the parish had agreed to her presence:


    I find it remarkable that Robert Piggot thought he could get away with this. It speaks volumes about the culture of impunity at the BBC. Does the BBC have specific guidelines regarding this sort of deception?

    (This is a rhetorical question since nobody from the BBC is coming back to us in the spirit of free and fair debate.)


    • Guest Who says:

      Tried the following on two BBC Editors blogs:  

      Don’t know about losing the plot, I think they have decided to misplace the entire play and theatre.

      It’s like some kind of irony-free scorched earth.

      It’s bad enough they have unleashed the trolls of hell, and given them free rein, but to indulge a referral on a clearly relevant posting… on blogs about editorial… that have asked for feedback… on sites/threads ‘we’ all co-fund… in favour of the the narrative, and that alone… is beyond parody.


  31. Guest Who says:


    Well, the fun soon stopped.

    The various labyrinthine BBC Complaints tools are simply a parody of a bad joke.

    Having used their own po-faced system to ‘appeal’ for being modded for ‘provocation’ merely by replying to a one of their pet ‘close the thread’ trolls, I first get a screens saying they may not read it, followed by an email from them saying that my email to their appeals system has gone into a big black hole and… if I wish to complain, use the self same system I just did.

    They are like Vogons, only a lot less attractive.


  32. Dazed-and-Confused says:

    BBC stop press headline news…..Dog bites cat.

    Wonder if it was somehow the Tories fault?


  33. George R says:

    INBBC’s politically biased ‘Question Time’ appears to have gone global with World Service ‘debate’ in Qatar (partly financed by British taxpayers) on France’s burqa ban, before a largely pro-Islamic audience.

    “Britain is losing its battle against Islamic extremists… says French MP who banned the burqa”

    Read more: http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1320757/Jacques-Myard-Burqa-ban-French-MP-says-Britain-losing-battle-Islamic-extremists.html#ixzz12W2xC2Vp


  34. Guest Who says:

    Not perhaps the Rupert story you’d see tweeted by the Beeberati..



    • John Anderson says:

      That is a very true account of how Murdoch got where he is in UK press and TV.  I was involved in the planning for satellite TV in the mid-1980s – Murdoch was being frozen out by the BBC and by the ITV companies, Virgin, Pearson et al,  all backed by the Government.

      So he eventually said “Sod you, get real, satellite TV comes in over your heads” and obtained a licence from Luxembourg to run his channels.  He bet the entire News Corporation future on that gamble – and nearly went under.

      The rest is history.


  35. Pounce says:

    The bBC its hatred of Israel and yet another biased article about it.

    Israel woos Greece after rift with Turkey 
    Earlier this week the Israeli Air Force completed a series of exercises with its Greek counterpart – a sign of the growing links between the two countries.

    But more than this, it is an indication of the changing political geography of the eastern Mediterranean. 

    The exercise involved Israeli Apache and Black Hawk helicopters operating alongside Greek Air force helicopters and jets.

    Israel relies heavily on its advanced air power but has very limited airspace of its own in which to train.
    So reading the above do you get the impression that Israel in order to up the ante against Turkey has suddenly got into bed with Greece after slotting a few jihadists with a death wish.. Well according to the bBC it has.

    But hang on what is this I find from May (before that event which turned Turkey away from Israel)
    The Israeli Air Force is holding a joint exercise this week with the Greek Air Force in the skies above the Aegean Sea. The exercise, named “MINOAS 2010”, is supposed to continue through the weekend.

    It seems that the Israel Space and Air force was training with the Greeks well before that so called pivotal event the bBC just cannot let go. But hang there’s more the bBC refers to the changing political map but only looks at Israel. Yet remains silent on how Turkey under its Islamist government has turned away from Europe and towards Iran/Syria,Hezb-allah and Hamas. Funny that.

    While the article refers to  Israel AH64 (Apache gunships) it leaves out that Greece has them too, not only that but so does Egypt,Jordan and and a few other Middle-Eastern countries. While mentioning that Israel has an advanced air-force the BbC leaves out that Greece,Turkey,Jordan and Egypt as well as Israel use the F16. In fact the most advanced F16s in the world can be found in the UAE (Block 60) Then there’s the F15s used by the IDF and also by the Royal Saudi Airfoce in fact the RSAF is looking at purchasing the new F15SE (A stealth Eagle) What I’m trying to say is that Israel doesn’t have  the sole advanced Air force in the region.

    Oh and another reason why the Greeks and the Jews are training together, well seeing as the Greeks don’t trust the Turksm who better to train with than somebody who knows how they fly.

    Tomorrow from the bBC, how drinking the blood of Muslim children is a Jewish right.


  36. George R says:

    One might think that INBBC were genuinely concerned about cuts to Britain’s Defence budget, but Beeboids really prefer to appease Islamic jihad, and shift spending to ‘overseas aid’.

    “Speed of defence review ‘could put operations at risk'”


    But ‘Daily Mail’ has political corrective:

    “Cut overseas aid, not national security”



  37. George R says:

    We haven’t heard much from the BBC-NUJ’s political campaign for its second favourite ‘asylum-seeker’, (after Ethiopian Muslim, trained in Pakistan, Binyam Mohamed) – the Zimbabwean, X-Factor Gamu Nhengu.

    I wonder why this could be? This, possibly?:

    “Holidays to Zimbabwe could cost X Factor favourite Gamu dear: Trips home shoot a hole in her asylum case”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1321028/X-Factor-2010-Gamu-Nhengu-persecution-claims-tatters-holidays-Zimbabwe-emerge.html#ixzz12WYJEu7P


  38. George R says:

    “Radio 1 controller put £125 cake for DJ Chris Moyles on his BBC expenses”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1321059/125-cake-celebrate-DJ-Chris-Moyles-long-service-went-BBC-expenses.html#ixzz12WZNeUhL


  39. George R says:

    “BBC risks dumbing down row as executive behind Snog, Marry and Avoid moves to run BBC1”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1320894/BBC-Danny-Cohen-controller-Snog-Marry-Avoid.html#ixzz12WZrWrpm


    • dave s says:

      Presumably he has been bought in to purge all dissenting non libbie views from BBC1- those few that remain that is.
      Does anyone know how much taxpayers money he is getting ( don’t forget the pension contributions) ?


      • Millie Tant says:

        I posted it earlier in the thread with a link to a Grauniad article giving the details. It was something like £260,000 + some extras.


  40. Martin says:

    I see the Government is paying out three times the recommended amount to those who lost out in the Equitable Life shambles.

    However, the BBC’s only comment is “tihs if far less than the holders wanted”

    So yet again a totally negative spin is put on a story. Can you imagine if the one eyed gay boy had done this? the BBC would be praising his as the son of Obama.


  41. Craig says:

    Here are the basic figures for last week’s Question Time from Labour-unfriendly Cheltenham (not that you’d have guessed that from the audience!):  
    Number of questions/points put by DD to each guest above and beyond the question from the audience, not counting such invitations to speak as “David Willetts?” or “Max Hastings?” (as a general rule, the more extra questions put the tougher the ride for the guest):    
    Tessa Jowell – 17
    David Willetts – 11

    Phil Willis – 6
    Maria Misra – 3
    Max Hastings – 3

    Number of interruptions made against each guest by DD:    
    David Willetts – 11
    Tessa Jowell – 9  
    Phil Willis –   
    Maria Misra – 2  
    Max Hastings – 0     
    Length of time each guest got in the spotlight (all the time they were speaking & all the time DD was putting a question to them):     
    Tessa Jowell – 11 minutes 26 seconds    
    David Willetts – 10 minutes 3 seconds    
    Phil Willis – 8 minutes 44 seconds    
    Max Hastings – 7 minutes 27 seconds    
    Maria Misra – 6 minutes 35 seconds    
    Interruption Coefficients (the number of interruptions/the length of time spent in the spotlight – the higher the number the tougher the experience!):    
    David Willetts – 1.1  
    Tessa Jowell  – 0.8   
    Phil Willis – 0.6  
    Maria Misra  – 0.3  
    Max Hastings – 0  
    So the Tory came off worst, though David Dimbleby did give Tessa Jowell a hard time over tuition fees.

    As to Millie Tant‘s question about whether where the show comes from makes a difference to the character of the show’s audience, well a break down of the points made suggests ‘Not really’, though there was less aggressively partisan applause and jeering.  

    Attacks on Labour/Support for the Coalition – 2
    Attacks on the Coalition/Support for Labour – 11
    Attacks on Lord Browne’s tuition fees proposals – 9
    Support for Lord Browne’s tuition fees proposals – 0
    Attacks on the BBC – 0
    Support for the BBC – 1
    Attacks on MPs in general – 1
    Support for foreign ownership of British football clubs – 2
    Attacks on foreign ownership of British football clubs – 1

    The second question was “Does it smack of incompetence that the government can’t even say how much money will be saved by the closure of the 192 quangos?” About five minutes later, DD turned to the audience and asked the man who put this question his view. He strongly attacked the government. Seven minutes later DD returned to the audience and picked the same man again (on the same subject). Naturally the man attacked the government again! Being charitable, that was probably just doziness on DD’s part.


    • Millie Tant says:

      I noticed on a couple of occasions how he was so quick to pounce and interrupt David Willetts while DW was making his introductory remarks leading into his answer to the question. This was after DD had listened to others making similar sorts of introductory remarks without similar interruption.

      Thanks for that reply Craig re the location. This makes me wonder of the BBC weights the audience in the same way to get the result it wants no matter the part of the country, even though one might expect some variation from place to place in the population and its views.


  42. Craig says:

    Catching up on this week’s editions of Newsnight. On Monday night (the day of Lord Browne’s report on tuition fees), Michael Crick reported on the strains in the coalition. He badgered a Lib Dem MP (Stephen Williams) over the issue, then featured as ‘talking heads’ Pam Tatlow of Million Plus, which he described as “one university think tank”, and a Labour MP called Adrian Bailey. Pam Tatlow was very critical, and also attacked bankers and the City. 

    What Crick failed to tell his audience is that Pam Tatlow is also a Labour Party member who tried to become the Labour candidate for the safe Labour seat of Ashfield (beaten by Gloria de Piero).

    Yet again a BBC ‘talking head’ who is presented as an independent voice who turns out to be no such thing.


    • Martin says:

      As Andrew Marr would say “damn you bloggers”


    • Craig says:

      Martin, p***ing off Andrew Marr is one of life’s little pleasures!

      In the studio after that report no Lib Dem MPs “were available” (according to Jeremy Paxman) to defend their position. So did Newsnight call a Lib Dem supporter instead (or a Tory)?

      No. Instead Newsnight invited Labour Party member Aaron Porter of the National Union of Students and Professor Steve Smith of Universities UK. Professor Smith advised the Labour government on education from June 2007 to May 2010.


  43. Craig says:

    Still on with Monday’s edition of Newsnight and its Labour dominance, there was also a discussion about the relationship between Labour and the civil service between Tony Blair’s chief of staff Jonathan Powell and former cabinet secretary Lord Butler. It was preceded by a report by…Jonathan Powell.

    Moving beyond Labour, there was also a report from “a deprived estate in Bristol” that asked “what will cuts to budgets of police and drugs agencies do to places like that?”. Vox pops (“vulnerable people”) denounced the effects budget cuts would have. (Woe, woe and thrice woe!) The makers of Newsnight saw fit to use a clip of one of those people at the very start of the programme – the short bit where she made a personal attack on David Cameron and his “millionairess” wife. That suggests where Newsnight‘s interests lie.

    Finally , on the subject of the death of Linda Norgrove, there was an interview with someone from a U.S. think tank, the Center for American Progress. Not many U.S. think tanks have been used as talking heads/interviewees on Newsnight since the beginning of August. This is the full list:

    25/ 8 Centre for a New American Security (centrist)
    31/8 Center for American Progress (left-wing)
    2/9 Center for American Progress (left-wing)
    21/9 Center for Strategic & International Studies (bi-partisan)
    11/10 Center for American Progress (left-wing)

    It looks as if the Center for American Progress is the U.S. think-tank equivalent for the BBC of our own IPPR (or Demos) i.e. their ‘go-to’ think-tank.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      The Center for American Progress also has at least two JournoListas.  Explains a lot.


  44. Beeboidal says:

    However, the BBC’s only comment is “tihs if far less than the holders wanted” 

    Worse than that.

    In the first Radio 5 bulletin I heard, it was stated that the amount was more than recommended by a report but less than what the policyholders wanted. Then the ‘fairness’ genes kicked in, and in subsequent bulletins the part about the amount being more than recommended was dropped, Someone made a deliberate editorial decision to spin it differently.


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘..being more than recommended was dropped, Someone made a deliberate editorial decision to spin it differently.’

      Ah, but that’s the opposite of a stealth edit, so no need to worry about time stamps. As they were making a spun point and then, having realised it could be spun even worse… did so.


    • John Anderson says:


      The Equitable Life holders blames the Government (run by Labour) for lax oversight of the pension company – probably due to Gordon Brown’s disastrous changes to the structure and responsibilities of City financial controls and blindness in the Insurance Division of the DTI.

      I believe it took a long, long fight to get the Govt. to establish a review – which led to the report that recommended a moderate level of compensation.

      As you say – the Coalition has decided to award several times more than the report recommended.  They decided this out of decency and fair play, rather than under pressure,  the pension-holders had run out of steam.  They are now very pleased after all these years to get some sort of reasonable result.

      The BBC’s descriptions of the decision have been curmudgeonly.

      If Labour had awarded that levelk of compensation,  they would have been lauded to the skies.


  45. George R says:

    “BBC launches competition for multicultural writers as its sitcoms are branded ‘too middle class’”



    • Martin says:

      I’d brand them as sh*t actually.


    • John Anderson says:

      But BBC “drama” output is already far too multi-culti.  I am sick and tired of Radio 4 afternoon plays droning on about newcomers.   Often with suspiciously false accents,  usually with no real plot – except “Let’s grab easy money off the BBC”.


  46. George R says:

    It seems that more financial cuts are needed at BBC-NUJ (inc at World Service)

    ‘Telegraph’ report:


    “Expenses claims lodged by Peter Horrocks, the director of the World Service and BBC Global News, show he travelled business class for the reception on May 6th held at the British Embassy in Washington DC. He flew back to London the following day.
    The flights cost £1,780 with an additional £181.49 spent on his hotel room. Mr Horrocks, who earns £242,800 a year, also charged the corporation £79.60 for taxis to and from the airport in Washington and a further £19.44 for ‘access to secure BBC internet’.”



  47. james1070 says:

    Not on BBC

    One of the most interesting stories of the last couple of weeks, ignored not covered. And I thought the BBC was interested in education.



  48. George R says:

    Omitted by BBC-NUJ:

    ‘3 face suspension from House of Lords’