Something for the weekend….George, as always wants to hear your views.
NEW GENERAL THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Zephir Nov 23, 19:07
Weekend 23rd November 2024
[img]https://i.postimg.cc/tRtz99cn/Capture-Zc.jpg[/img] - StewGreen Nov 23, 19:03
Weekend 23rd November 2024
Last night’s BBClocal news Opening item was people talking about rip off annual serive charges on their leasehold properties ..… - moggiemoo Nov 23, 18:59
Weekend 23rd November 2024
Somebody said the ad’s got people talking. Yeah. They’re saying ‘wtf is that?’ and ‘no way I’m ever buying a… - StewGreen Nov 23, 18:58
Weekend 23rd November 2024
COP29 on tV , I tend to think it’s all staged theatr, so I never watch any of it. - moggiemoo Nov 23, 18:56
Weekend 23rd November 2024
Nope. If it’s owned by the Indian company Tata, it’s Indian. - MarkyMark Nov 23, 18:48
Weekend 23rd November 2024
“Owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they… - MarkyMark Nov 23, 18:40
Weekend 23rd November 2024
“Puts the TRANS in TRANSportation” HA HA HA Comedian on Jaguar’s Bud Light moment – woke, out-of-date diversity advert https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFQpnBkvrcs… - Zephir Nov 23, 18:34
Weekend 23rd November 2024
Oh look, no glasses, before he got elected, bit worried no one would vote for “Speccie Starmer” were we ? - MarkyMark Nov 23, 18:32
Weekend 23rd November 2024
Male ‘transgender’ police officers can strip-search women under new guidance issued by the British Transport Police (BTP), allowing male staff… - MarkyMark Nov 23, 18:28
Weekend 23rd November 2024
A trap not a trick! Zephir! [img]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbp8shCDCbS6tQGgBgAHs4nYtqIHRhF5vOzw&s[/img]
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
Cripes! Are you on the night shift Robin?!
Always enjoy Newswatch each week, if only for the comedic notion it is there to actually do anything about objectivity.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00wctc4/Newswatch_03_12_2010/
First up, the FIFA story. I was wrong. No blazer, but a suit. And he didn’t say ‘we got it about right’. Actually, I was sympathetic to the journalistic rigour being defended… so long as such commitment to truth over agenda gets carried throughout the equally corrupt and debased entity that is the BBC.
Next… there’s no news like snow news. And… er… that was it. Nothing about what was being reported, usually with ‘we’re all doomed’ appended to dodgy science; simply they stood outside to read it.
And finally, the opportunity for news reviewers to skew the news with opinion. Interesting selection of papers held up, as I am sure viewers had the few Graun pundit images thrown in for balance well pegged.
Actually some good points by Robbie Coltrane, which lead to … er… nothing.
Just like it does on this pointless show each week.
Middle of last week, IPSA and expenses raised it’s head again and Newsnight did an item. Behind the presenter was backdrop with an image on it. Was it a montage of the pictures of the Labour MPs and Peers who have stolen 100’s of £k from the public. Or was it a picture of a duck house ,an expense claim that was rejected and never paid out on.
It is almost to insult you as to ask you to guess which back drop the bBC used. The public must not be reminded of thieving Labour, although that got blown away when one of the thieves pleaded guilty!
Well the Panorama programme might have had an effect on the decision.
Why would the BBC want the World Cup to be played in England?
Where would they be able to jet off to for 4 weeks? Nicky Campbell flies to Birmingham, Alan Green jets into Manchester, Vicky Derbyshire explores London?
Whoever the reporters are come 2018 you can bet they will be much happier to be culturaly aware of the eastern block than they will the east end of London.
East end of London might have a lot more cultures living there though.
Guest Who
This comment from the hilarious ‘We got it all about right’ The Editors navel-gazing, hole-digging, foot-shooting blog series was worth it..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/12/extreme_world.html#P103788862
If only to bring out Dez’ soul-sister Simon21, who haunts the BBC blog system, and make what is really dire a bunch worse with nasty, debate-inept ad hom ‘comebacks’.
The number of ‘modded’ comments is also heading for a record.
QATAR.
INBBC Arabic, and Islamic supremacism ‘lost in translation’.
INBBC is about to take over World Service Arabic (radio), and Arabic Television (based in East Wing, Broadcasting House, London); this means that the financial burden for such British public broadcasting which is designed to service Arabic speakers, predominantly of the Middle East, will be shifted from British taxpayers to British licencepayers.
INBBC’s Islamophilic view sits politically easy in the Islamic world. Of course, INBBC does not see it as part of its duty to British licencepayers to translate items from the Arabic world, which British people might see as critical of Islam, like the following:
Qaradawi: Qatar’s hosting World Cup first victory for the Muslims over America
[Extract]:
“FIFA’s has chosen Qatar over the United States to host the 2022 World Cup, and the internationally renowned “reformist” Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi is crowing that it represents a victory for Muslims over America. Interestingly enough, the English-language stories on Qaradawi’s Friday sermon say nothing about Muslims; in the Arabic, however, it’s a different story.”
The Now Show
It isnt at all funny. It is never ever critical of Labour. It always portrays the tories as disconected etonians with the instincts of Norman robber barons. The liberals having failed to deliver a lib-lab pact are now all quislings whom heroic students would be entirely justified in lynching; and above all the climate science is most definitely settled.
Last nights standup routine by eco nazi Marcus Thing was one of the most frightening rants I have ever heard. His psycopathic contempt was reserved for fat posh people just like himself so obviously we are looking at a very complex psychological mess; but really the BBC ought not to be encouraging him. Hes obviously a very angry and very sick man, and he isnt even slightly funny. It was in its strangeness and misanthropy quite tragic.
And Now Mr Mitch Benn, who could all too easily fill a phone-box (just the one) on the open market with his fan, will sing a humorous ode “arselickin” about David attenborough and Stephen Fry dedicated to the Controller of radio 4.
Interesting thought for you.
If special branch exposed a paedo ring which used a number of different websites and then they blocked one what would people think if auntie gave a list of other alternative ways to access the site.
I posit that we would be rightly enraged and alarmed and we would rightly accuse the beeb of enabling the kiddy fiddlers and we would start burning broadcasting house.
Well, we share many of our secrets with the yanks. In fact we have a reasonably open policy what with echelon and the like.
A traitor to the US has comitted treason by publishing many medium level secrets on the wickihacks site.
So what do auntie do when the US shut down the site, they publish a set of the mirror sites.
They are complicit in treason.
We may find all this funny what with the one eyed mong being thought of as irrelevant and unstable by the US but these leaks put at risk our own delicate diplomatic negotiations and my result in the UK losing many lucrative contracts and therefore jobs and at the most extreme they could result in putting UK troops lives in further danger.
The bbc are traitors fare and square
See this link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11907641
Check about half way down where they helpfully publish the traitors alternative addresses
Hippy smug naive bastards
I dont think there’s anything naive about it.
This backs up my comment from yesterday about Rory Cellan-Jones taking the political stance that WikiHacks is right, and Amazon is wrong to kick them off their servers.
The BBC continues to do damage to the US, all because of their personal biases.
Mass Immigration.
This seems to be how BBC-Labour reports on mass immigration into Britain:
“Phil Woolas says legal fight has hit ‘end of the road'”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11904630
But ‘Daily Mail’ has this:
“Special report: Will the white British population be in a minority in 2066?”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1335556/Special-report-Will-white-British-population-minority-2066.html#ixzz178dGvW00
Yes George R, it is very sad. A whole race of people betrayed by the self-hating elite. Hopefully I will not be alive to see it.
“self-hating elite”
I’m not so sure they hate themselves: rather, like the venally ambitious with no other readily-available outlet, ingratiating themselves at a Baathist party rally, they decry the values of those they wish to decouple themselves from, calling their exendable compatriots scum & traitors to the cause (of Universal Progressive Integration in this case) so that they save their vile arses, forming part of the upper tier of the New General Synthesis.
I never got round to making the comment on the ‘horrible histories’ thread (way down below) – the childrens programme prooving that there were no ‘British things’ and that ‘British culture was a srolen mish mash from older, wiser, more humate cultures.
It struck me as odd that Queen Victoria was held up to contempt because she “wasn’t British” – she was a “German”. Now she was born in Kensington palace; her father was born in Buckingham palace; her Grand father George III was born in London in Norfolk house, it was only her great Grandfather George II who was born in Hanover (not Germany because it didn’t exist.)
So Victoria was a third generation ‘migrant’ but she wasn’t British! Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t it “racist”in 21st century Britain (wherever that is) to question the ‘Britishness’ of immigrants – even if they have just arrived ‘informally’ in a veg truck from the Balkans or are fresh from the Souk at Mogadishu? Isn’t Bib Bag Mohhamed a heroic ‘British resident‘ even though he has an Ethiopian passport.
Is the BBC arguing that there is some sort of indigenous cultural identity that foreigners cannot assimilate even after 3 or 4 generations? Is it criticising Queen Victoria for mainating close cultural ties with her ‘parent culture’, speaking her ‘first language’ at home occaisionally and importing a spouse from her ‘homeland’?
I am fairly certain that if I posed a complaint – that the programme denigrated immigrants and the concept of multiculturalism – pants would be soiled in the producers ‘strategy brain storming’ session…..
Post of the month. May I re-post it on my blog?
NaS – be my guest, but could you correct my typing – I still have not worked out how to expand the comments box and the tiny font is a problem
I have done so, many thanks.
NaS
Loved the ‘exponential’ video on yr blog yesterday 😉
Yes I really liked it too, I think it needs much wider circulation.
I rfemember hearing about the ‘son of Thatcher’ on the radio and TV but as Martin as pointed out – the Brown a total, unutterable, disaster story
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11909607
seems to be getting the tumbleweed in the grave yard treatment. Any possible (perhas genetic) explanation as to the difference in emphasis?
Yes, the BBC seems to be playing this down.
Google News always gives you a snapshot of headlines on any given story, and the headlines for this story are (or were):
Press Association – WikiLeaks: Brown ‘went from disaster to disaster’
Daily Telegraph – WikiLeaks: Gordon Brown ‘lurched from disaster to disaster’
Independent – Brown ‘lurches from disaster to disaster’, said ambassador
The Sun – US: Gord ‘abysmal’ when PM
Daily Mail – How US wrote off Brown with his ‘abysmal track record’…
The Australian – ‘Abysmal’ Gordon Brown dismissed as dull
The BBC headline quoted was, however, considerably more discreet – to put it mildly!:
Cables show US view of PM Brown
Click onto the Google link and it shows that the BBC headline has now changed to
Wikileaks files: Brown’s premiership written off by US
which is at least a bit of an improvement.
Here’s Paul Reynolds’ take on the US opinion of Britain as an ally:
Wikilieaks reveals US diplomats’ view of UK as an ally
Spot the Missing Prime Minister
Though riddled with corruption, FIFA generally takes infringement of its rules quite seriously:
FIFA suspended Iran:
Zurich, 23 November 2006 – The FIFA Emergency Committee, composed of the FIFA President and one representative of each of the six confederations, yesterday (22 November 2006) decided to suspend the Islamic Republic of Iran Football Federation (IRIFF) from all international activity [my empasis] due to government interference in football matters and violation of Article 17 of the FIFA Statutes.
The FIFA Emergency Committee took this decision after determining that the IRIFF was not adhering to the principles of the FIFA Statutes regarding the independence of member associations, the independence of the decision-making process of the football governing body in each country and the way in which changes in the leadership of associations are brought about.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070102093639/http://www.fifa.com/en/media/index/0,1369,126229,00.html
[Link doesn’t work.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_national_football_team#Temporary_Suspension
That’s impressive, when you think about it. FIFA has the power to impose a civilising influence on the psychotic mullahs ruling Iran with their iron, Sharia-clad fist. They had ejected the elected president of the IRIFF, ignored instructions from FIFA to reinstate him and were therefore suspended. The suspension was only lifted when they complied with the ruling.
Incidentally, it would be great if the “international community” had the power to stop the mullahs making the Bomb. But it’s obvious that the only way to achieve that is by force.
But there is a bright side to this. Large numbers of young Iranians reject the mullahs. This is evident in the opposition in the recent elections, activist sites on the Internet and also, strangely enough, in the Iranian football team.
The bBC, how it panders to itself and something of a backlash:
Extreme World
Inspiration can come from unlikely places. I was recently reviewing a report from one of the BBC’s best journalists, Lyse Doucet in Afghanistan. In a remote and hostile location, she told the story of an expectant mother and the desperate attempts by pitifully resourced medical staff to save her unborn child. “This,” she said without exaggeration, “is the worst place in the world to give birth.” It was an intensely moving piece.
In the above blog Craig Oliver uses’s his article in which to wax lyrical about how he feels ‘Lyse Doucet ‘ is one of the best journalists, at the bBC (Allah help us all).
The funny thing, it’s a sentiment that nearly everybody who has written in doesn’t share. I wonder why?
What the fuck was that thing that ‘This Week’ tried to pass off as a ‘comedian’ last Thursday? That fat greasy minger was so utterly clueless about politics and so utterly lacking in humour or any ability to construct a coherent sentence that she even made Russell Howard appear mildly entertaining.
I’ve just looked up some of her videos (Josie Long is her name) and there was no hint of humour or political knowledge in any of them. She comes across like a 12 year old autistic child after a heavy drinking session.
The BBC seem to love these freaks. Take the 37 year old single mother who was still at uni, that was on Newsnight the other week claiming that education should be ‘free’.
I find these people so offensive to look at that I’ve written to the BBC about them. I said:
‘No ifs, no buts,
no ugly scrounging sluts’
That she is like this AFTER graduating (from Oxford no less) proves the need for the reform of higher education in itself.
I must say too that I used to enjoy This Week despite its shortcomings. Andrew Neil often makes non-pc points that one would be hard pressed to see elsewhere on the BBC.
However the last episode was one of the most embarrassing prgrammes I’ve seen. Not only did we have the painful rants of ms Long, but Adam Boulton was somehow persuaded to dress up like Albert Steptoe and fix a toilet, no doubt to see his reputation being flushed away. I wonder what the point of these featurettes are; they seem to distract the attention rather than add anything.
Also Portaloo seems to have moved so far left that he could just about join the SWP. I guess the BBC has that effect on its personnell. I remember John McCririck’s pained accusation of him on the show “you used to be a right-winger!” That was a long time ago.
He was probably sent to a Common Purpose re-education camp!
http://www.stopcp.com/
One fears the praise Neill has received on this site hasn’t helped him much at the BBC. It seems whenever a watchdog site like this hightlights quality and impartiality at the BBC the BBC will quickly move to end such embarrassment for the majority of its bent staff.
The bBC, it’s reporting over the Wikileaks and half the story.
Has anybody else noticed how the bBCs reporting of the Wiki leaks is somewhat one-sided. From reading the bBC website I get the impression that the bBCs agenda is to achieve the same level of polarization agaisnt the Americans that the bBC feels it has achived agaisnt the Israelis. Which may explain all the negative stories about the US while remaining silent on much worse stories from else where. I mean has anybody seen this story on the bBC:
Gaddafi risked nuclear disaster after UN slight
Highly enriched and unstable uranium left on Libyan runway because leader was banned from pitching tent in New York.
Instead the bBC headlines continue to malign our nearest ally , which if you take the time to read from another source is actually something of a non-runner.
It really does make you ask the question just what is the bBC playing at
I caught the orld at One on Friday and heard the reporting of the Woolas appeal. Even at the time the coverage seemed surreal, since although Woolas was named by the News Announcer, the political party that he stood for wasn’t, despite the Liberal Democrat candidate being identified as such. In addition, the main part of the report didn’t refer to Woolas at all.
I’ve looked in vain for a BBC definition of a news correspondent – other descriptions suggest that (foreign) correspondents are not bound by the news agenda, but still responsible for reporting news. If the BBC’s Political Correspondent reports in an unbalanced manner, does that make him a commentator instead?
I’ve transcribed the iPlayer file (apologies for any typos) – perhaps other readers may comment whether I’m percieving bias where there is none.
BBC:R4:WatO reporting of Woolas appeal 031210:
(01.51)
“The High Court has upheld a decision to strip the former minister Phil Woolas of his seat in the Commons. Mr Woolas was removed as the MP for Oldham East & Saddleworth after an Election Court found him guilty of lying about a rival during the general election campaign. From the High Court, here’s our Political Correspondent, Ross Hawkins”
(02.10)
“Today’s judgement means that the choice of the voters in Oldham East ans Saddleworth has been overturned. They will now need to pick an MP in a by-election that is likely to take place in January. The Liberal Democrat who brought this case Elwyn Watkins will stand again for his party. Today Mr Watkins said that he had risked everything in bringing the case to court. The Speaker of the House of Commons and the Labour Party spokesman have both stated that they will study today’s judgement, but the way that all future general elections and by-elections are fought may now be very different as candidates know that if they make inaccurate attacks on their opponents they could be stripped of any victory”
Why Are We Still Paying for This?What does the BBC do that other media cannot – except help strangle that competition?
Alex Deane
http://critical-reaction.co.uk/2846/03-12-2010-why-are-we-still-paying-for-this
Brilliant article. Thank you. The writer, Alex Deane, is a former chief of staff to David Cameron.
‘The BBC is awash in a jacuzzi of cash.’ Not my words, but the words of Mark Thompson when head of Channel 4. Thompson is of course now Director-General of the BBC, on a package worth £838,000 in 2009.
………….
I resent having to subsidise my enemy. I don’t mind a consistent opposing perspective. I mind having to pay for it. When the BBC did occasionally criticise the Labour government, it was from the left. Now, when they criticise the left, it’s from further left.
To other Conservatives, tempted to harrumph about institutions and Auntie and book at bedtime, I’d say – think of the harm that’s already been done. If we manage to end it tomorrow, billions of pounds of our money will have still been ploughed into generations of a soft-left establishment that hates us. The effect of their pampered, smug influence looms large in our national life and is very difficult – if not impossible – to undo. If stopped tomorrow, it would still be felt for generations to come. And of course it won’t be stopped tomorrow. Notwithstanding a new government and a supposedly Conservative culture minister, their budget remains unchanged.
Good stuff.
BBC-Labour’s chum Ms Toynbee at anti-Top Shop demo today:
“Polly Toynbee snapped at Topshop protest: captions, please”
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/leftwatch/2010/12/polly-toynbee-snapped-at-topshop-protest-captions-please.html
Blimey, it’s getting hard keeping up with all the protest events by various celebs/two-faced journos/confused students these days, so the #UKuncut one was just another blur for me. Wonder how Aunty’s coverage has been?
Plus the twittosphere traffic from impartiality central (‘I work for the BBC so please follow me, but anything I go on to write in abusing this position is nothing to do with my employers. Did I mention I work for the BBC?‘).
However, it does seem that Topshop has managed to attract most of the BBC’s guest commentariat outside, doubtless a bit at a loose end until the Gatwick backlog is cleared and they can top up the tans at the Tuscan/Majorcan villas before popping back to rage at how little Cancun managed.
Still, could have been worse. The BBC might have been running another set of free advertising events for U2, and the irony of them all fighting to get tickets for that whilst fighting to decry Mr. Green’s tax schemes might have done their poor, thick, hypocritical heads in.
Plus if I was a student, beyond wondering if this wasn’t one barely connected protest too far already, I might find it ironic being supported by a vastly overpaid employee of an outfit that does all in its power to ensure it doesn’t pay any tax either.
None of which one presumes the pretty heads of any BBC reporters flouncing about.
QED (if for a sister ‘news’ broadcaster)..
Here we go with tonight’s Channel 4 News outlook. To be honest I have spent much of the day with taxation protesters on Oxford Street in London so back in the newsroom – here’s a quick rundown…
Several hundred demonstrators forced Sir Philip Green’s Topshop to shut down for prolonged periods of putative Christmas rush on London’s Oxford Street and in Brighton earlier. They claim Sir Philip is avoiding tax by putting large amounts of money into his wife’s name – she lives in Monaco.
Well Topshop is saying nothing to us. Nor retail associations. Nor the CBI. Nor anybody much so they cannot complain if the demonstrators are making the running. Nobody says Sir Philip is doing anything wrong in law – but there’s real anger that the government cannot or will not clamp down on the panoply of tax dodges used by the rich to avoid payment – around £25 billion appears to be the agreed figure.
There were students, pensioners, civil servants out there today. All organised by the UK Uncut group which has spread virally and now enjoys the kudos of having plainclothes cops spying upon it.
Topshop protests over Sir Philip Green’s taxes: http://www.channel4.com/news/topshop-protest-over-sir-philip-greens-taxes
Meanwhile..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11918873
No obvious insights here into the oddly considered less awful tax arrangements of fellow travellers at the Graun, or Bono and the boys.
And, come to think of it, there are those rather convoluted deals Aunty’s contracted market rate talent employees enjoy, doubtless to ensure a fair whack goes to the Exchequer to keep skinny bald young men and posh young gels wearing Doc Martens in iPhones and banner making kit as they studiously avoid getting actual jobs.
It wouldn’t surprise me if more than a few of the demonstraters outside of Topshop had recently used Daddy’s credit card in – well, er – Topshop.
I shall excuse the BBC cretins covering this story from doing such a reprehensible thing.
They wouldn’t dream of lowering their hypocritical standards in a non-designer shop.
Which paper carries hypocrite Toynbee’s scribblings about Philip Green?
Oh yes, The Guardian. I’m sure they pay their full whack of tax in the UK. What’s this? They don’t?
The Guardian Media Group is one of the shrewdest corporate avoiders of tax in Britain, in 2008 it made a £300 million profit and yet managed to pay no corporation tax, the following year in 2009 it still paid no corporation tax, it uses the offshore Caymans tax haven to own assets, it uses tax efficient trusts and deploys all manner of perfectly legal tax shelter strategies to avoid paying tax. Polly seems silent about this tax dodging…
Well found. Hypocritical old cow. I wonder what her excuse would be if someone challenged her about it.
If one depends only on BBC-NUJ-Labour ‘reports’, these protesters are simply innocent, concerned citizens; the ‘Daily Mail’ report and photos indicate some of the organisations involved in this attempted occupation of the store:
“Mayhem in Oxford St as protesters target stores including Topshop’s flagship branch over firms avoiding tax bills”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1335632/Mayhem-Topshops-flagship-London-store-closes-protests-Sir-Philip-Greens-taxes.html#ixzz17Apn6oyp
The political left’s commitment to violence and anti-democratic behaviour by the week: mid-week: student violence on fees; weekends: violence on taxes.
George R
I wonder how many of these wise people protesting about “off shore” tax avoidance schemes are also familiar with a certain BBC Director General’s attempt at exactly the same thing ?
Well knowledge seekers ! His name is John Birt, should you wish to do some home-work.
Or isn’t revising in the module anymore ?
Your Left-wing Tutors have never had it so easy, you are an embarrasment to your generation.
Here’s an idea ! Try thinking for yourselves !
Tell us why Phillip Green is in any way nastier than John Birt.
And just for fun : Do it on the BBC.
For the first time in several years, more US adults identify themselves as Republicans than Democrats. Have more people turned racist? Or is it about the policies of the Democrat President and Congressional leaders?
BBC minions in the US are unintersted in letting you know.
‘Corrie: the Road to Coronation Street’ on BBC4. I must confess I had no idea that series creator Tony Warren was Gay. Or is it just that all BBC4 drama must revolve around poofy blokes or the female ideal they identify with (eg Enid Blyton)?
The bBC liberal MPs Russian Aides and half the story.
MP Mike Hancock denies assistant is Russian spy
A Russian working as a parliamentary aide to a British MP has been taken into detention to face deportation proceedings amid claims she is a spy……Mr Hancock said last night that Ms Zatuliveter was not a spy. He confirmed she was subject to a deportation order, which she would be appealing against.He said she had done nothing wrong and he was sure she would be vindicated. Mr Hancock is an Liberal Democrat MP in Portsmouth, where there is a large naval base.He also sits on the House of Commons Defence Select Committee.
And here is what the bBC isn’t telling you from Aug of this year:
The Russian links of Liberal Democrat MP Mike Hancock are under the spotlight after questions were raised about the extent to which he has in effect acted as a lobbyist for the Kremlin in the Strasbourg-based Council of Europe.Colleagues from the Council of Europe’s parliamentary assembly said they were so concerned about the MP’s pro-Russian views that they warned then Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy that the party might be plunged into scandal, although Hancock says that Kennedy dismissed the concerns.Hancock, the MP for Portsmouth South, is the chairman of parliament’s all-party group on Russia. At the weekend the Sunday Times reported that officials at MI5 were investigating his Russian parliamentary assistant Katia Zatuliveter over her alleged links with Russian intelligence.
I take it the lovies at the bBC are keeping the red flag flying by curtailing any extra info on Hancock.
Not sure who is coming out of this worse: Mr. Hancock for coming out with such a facile statement (how the heck does he know?) or the MSM who are trotting out this Mandy Rice Davian line straight off a PR.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/05/peter-preston-bbc-strike-comment?CMP=twt_fd
A less than flattering critique… in the Gaurdian
Other than Newsnight’s Michael Crick trotting out oddly negative stories on anyone but Labour (Miliband E. doing so well and there being no hint of division in their ranks) via press releases from ‘sources’, it seems odd that the other two main political beat bloggers, Robinson and Neil, seem to have fallen silent for almost a week or two.
Maybe they’re snowed in?
The weekly suck-fest (in every sense of the word) that is Mr. Marr’s show continues to delight, with him and the DG as I write inspecting each other’s belly button fluff, and deeming all to be just spiffy.
I was just mulling the kick off ‘review’, with Marshmallow and dinner guest trying to sideline the lady who is not part of the hive.
Mr. Forsythe of Save The Children was a revelation. Ex Labour core, and now in a ‘charity’ that explains how the entire sector spends more time, and gets more coverage, trying to shape society rather than actually spending the money left over after Mr. Forsythe and the board get their cut on actual supportees.
He also showed why charisma black holes such as Miliband E. have risen to the, er, ‘top’, as it would appear that everything is relative, and the Government Of All Talents really had zero.
As it stood, he seemed mainly to be there to try and feed Marshmallow ‘um, right’ reasons why the evidence of our own eyes and ears is wrong, and what the BBC and its guest portray is all that is needed to be known.
Sadly for them, just because it is force-funded to the tune of £3.6B, and pumped out from Lands End to John ‘o Groats… don’t make it so.
Yes, very cosy between Marr and Justin Forsyth – the man who replaced smear-merchant Damien McBride as Brown’s spin-doctor-in-chief.
Lots of talk about Wikileaks, yet Andy chose not to ask him about what Wikileaks said about his boss – such as those unflattering American views about his ‘abysmal’ record and his ‘lurching from disaster to disaster’.
Forsyth was allowed to say, off his own bat, don’t believe what you hear from Wikileaks about British politics as junior diplomats were out of the Downing Street-White House loop (thus spinning for Brown without having to mention any of the criticism of Brown).
That was surely the perfect opportunity for Marr to specifically raise the criticisms of Forsyth’s boss. He didn’t. Instead, he backed up Forsyth by asking him, “Do you think there’s an element of diplomats bigging themselves up to their masters back home…?”. “Completely!” replied Forsyth. So there you go – nothing to see there then!
Forsyth later brought up, in passing, the Obama-snubs-Brown story and spun it as a media falsehood. Marr ‘um’ed along, and said nothing to challenge this either.
When Amanda Foreman tried to do Marr’s job for him and interrupted the ‘ex’ Labour spin-doctor with “But there’s no smoke without fire!”, Marr quickly intervened to say “OK, I think we must move on. We’re running out of thime” and asked Forsyth to introduced his next story – giving him the chance to attack the government over VAT (with his Save The Children hat on, which sounded suspiciously like his old Labour Party hat).
(Amanda Foreman spoke for 3 minutes in total. Justin Forsyth for 5 minutes 30 seconds).
If you had Brown’s right-hand man on your BBC show and were talking to him about WikiLeaks, wouldn’t you, as a self-respecting, supposedly impartial journalist, feel it your duty to ask at least one question about that? Instead Marr just let Justin Forsyth spin and spin and spin.
The predicatably ‘off-the-wall’ take on the Wikihacks story from Paddy O’Connell’s Broadcasting House (possibly the most reliably left-liberal current affairs programme on Radio 4) heard the programme look at BBC hero Julian Assange through the eyes of Nick Barnes and Mark Down, political puppeteers from the Blind Summit Theatre. Assange’s actions were favourably compared to the flair, artistry, vanity and attention to detail of a puppeteer.
One of them added, “There’s a sort of innocence about what he’s done, or a desire for innocence, because all he’s doing is letting other people see what some people can see. It’s a fantastically, demonstrably innocent point of view.”
It’s a lie. Assange himself has said that he has the specific goals of “ending two wars”. If the BBC allows anyone to claim otherwise on air, they are promoting a demonstrable lie.
Indeed, as WikiLeaks is trumpeting its latest coup, a number of former WikiLeaks activists are painting another picture of an organization that is out of control, still too driven by the personality and ego of its mercurial founder, Julian Assange.
“I’m too busy ending two wars,” is the response one reporter got in an e-mail from Assange after asking for clarity on an issue, according to a source who saw the e-mail, and thought it captured Assange’s crusading and peremptory nature.
In case any defenders of the indefensible want to run to any Beeboids whom they follow on Twatter and tell them I called them a liar, I’ll spell it out very clearly for you:
Assange has the stated goal of sabotaging and obstructing specific foreign policy actions of the US. Anyone who says that he’s merely innocently publishing something somebody else handed to him on a silver platter, or that Assange’s goals are purely about freedom of speech, transparency, or a “desire for innoncence” is a liar. Any BBC employee who says any such thing on air or on Twitter or prints something online is a liar. Any BBC employee who allows someone to state this on air without challenge is enabling a lie.
Even if they agree with Assange’s goals about Iraq and Afghanistan, to claim he doesn’t have any regarding causing harm to the US is a lie.
I hope that’s clear enough.
Poor old Vince Cable.
In the years leading up to May’s general election, he used to move from BBC studio to BBC studio, being treated as a great sage and an independent expert on economic affairs by obsequious BBC interviewer after obsequious BBC interviewer (rather than as a mere party politician). Except for Andrew Neil on a remarkable edition of Hardtalk, no-one grilled him hard enough to find out his flaws.
How things have changed!
Today, Paddy O’Connell continued the BBC’s new mission – to beat up any Lib Dems who won’t reject the Coalition – by mocking the fallen one on Broadcasting House.
In the programme’s introduction, Paddy said “Vince Cable needs deft footwork on tuition fees, but what kind of dance moves?” This was immediately followed by a clip of a woman singing: “In, out, in, out, shake it all about. You do the hokey-cokey and you turn around. That’s what it’s all about.”
This is the sort of simplistic mockery a politician might expect in a party political broadcast by one of his opponents.
The mockery resumed at greater length later: “As Vince Cable prepares to vote on tuition fees, we’ve got some tips on his footwork in politics. The business secretary first launched the policy then suggested he may not vote for it before replying he might after all when the time comes this Thursday. I mingled with the audience at ‘Strictly Come Dancing’ to get tips on how to change direction.”
Paddy introduced himself and continued his patently obvious game: “I’m here from the Broadcasting House programme. Now, you know Vince Cable? I just wondered if you could suggest a dance for him that’s good to do if you’ve changed your position?” The rendition of the hokey-cokey followed.
And that was it. No Lib Dem politicians were invited to respond to this silly stunt (as I like to think of Paddy!)
Now Vince certainly deserves to be mocked. He’s making a complete prat of himself again over the issue (not for the first time), but surely it’s we the public and guests on BBC programmes who should be mocking him, not the BBC and its biased presenters.
* * * * * * * * *
And Marr was up to the same thing.
During the paper review this morning he stopped proceedings to tell a joke at the Lib Dems’ expense. It wan’t a particularly funny joke, and certainly not an original one, but it had a political point to it (and a valid point to my way of thinking.) But should he have told it? Should an ‘impartial’ presenter be telling potentially politically-damaging jokes, especially if the target isn’t there to answer back?
Here’s Andy’s joke:
“My joke of the day is ‘How many Liberal Democrats does it take to change a light-bulb? They have absolutely no idea but are holding a party meeting on Tuesday to find out?”
Yes I heard Dame Nikki Campbell spouting on about how Cable used to be the ‘goto guy’ for expert analysis on the economy (why am I not shocked at that?) before he became a semi Tory.
Now St Vince is about as popular as a turd in a swimming pool at the BBC.
If you want blataint bias then you should have listened to Chris Addison on 5Live. I had to turn it off twice in 40 minutes, the anti-Conservative bias was so relentless. Take a listen on listen again and prepae to be amazed, or not!
Moving on…
So some Assange-worship, then a bit of Coalition-bashing on BH. Next it was a Derry Diary from a former IRA man “who now works for peace”. He told us a ‘funny’ story about how the IRA once embarrassed the British army.
Paddy O’Connell then briefly returned to the Strictly Come Dancing audience to torture Vince Cable some more, quoting an e-mail at the end saying that they’d forgot to mention “the twist”. (Paddy doesn’t quote many e-mails but, oddly, they always seem to back up the general thrust of the point of view the programme seems to be espousing – not that his programme should be espousing a point of view.)
Then former Labour MP Chris Mullin (lengthy extracts from whose diary were featured on an earlier edition of the show) and future Conservative peer Patience Wheatcroft gathered for the paper review.
The sale of shares in the three nationalised banks was the first issue. Mr Mullin began and made some pro-Labour points, Mrs Wheatcroft cautioned about the depth of the problems within those banks, Paddy asked Chris Mullin “Are you more optimistic?” and gave him the chance to reply and attack George Osborne and then, in return, gave Patie…ah no, he moved on without giving Patience Wheatcroft a second bite of the cherry or the chance to make a balancing anti-Labour point.
Moving on, Patience talked about the Euro and Chris responded. No second bite for Patience.
Moving on, it was Nick Clegg-bashing time. Mr Mullin attacked the Lib Dems then, prompted by another question from Paddy, attacked the tabloid press. Patience briefly defended Clegg as “brave”, so Paddy passed it back to Mullin to attack the Lib Dems again. “We’ll move on”, he then said, leaving the Lib Dems undefended from this second attack.
Patience then talked about Boris, praising his withdrawal of an offer to house FIFA officials in luxury during the Olympics. Chris Mullin was then invited to comment, but during the invitation to Mr Mullin biased ol’ Paddy put in his own dig at Boris: “Boris Johnson was there in Zurich, I think, wasn’t he, trying to win success.?..So, it’s not that much of a victory, is it?” (Couldn’t he just have waited for Chris Mullin to attack Boris instead of doing it himself first? Well, his caution in making this pre-emptive attack on the Conservative mayor was justified because Mr Mullin didn’t subsequently attack Boris!)
In a follow-up question to Mullin (not to Patience, naturally), Paddy worried about whether the attacks on FIFA show us to be “xenophobic”? – a classic BBC question.
Broadcasting House is always like this.
Another typical BBC question is ‘why does nobody like us?’, which got an airing on the Vicki Pollard show on Radio 5 in the aftermath of the World Cup debacle. A nice extrapolation from 21 people on the FIFA executive not liking us, I thought. Paddy O’ Connell turned up near the end to explain why we don’t do well in the European Song Contest. Apparently, we enter crap songs and then we arrogantly expect Johnny Foreigner to deliver some points and because we take the mickey out of the other acts. Of course, ‘we’ in the latter case is two irishmen (Wogan and Norton) and the BBC.
But the producers of the programme saved their ace until near the end in the form of two callers. Why does nobody like us? Both explained that our dark colonial history is the problem.
What is global warming?
Global warming is the rise in temperature of the earth’s atmosphere.
It’s said that by the time a baby born today is 80 years old, the world will be 6 and a half degrees warmer than it is now.
These, and similarly interesting ‘facts’ are available on the CBBC Newsround website.
Get them young eh.
What next CBBC Global Warming Podcasts for pregnant mothers.
Pravda, Goebbels, Reith would have been proud.
Vile, really.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but did Mark Thompson not tell Marr this morning that, despite the freeze to the license fee put on them by the nasty Tories, he actually expects revenue for the BBC to go up because there will be more payers and more cash coming in from the commercial arm? So basically all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about an attack on the beloved BBC was a load of utter BS.
There has been an interesting show on Radio 4 for the last couple of Friday mornings about city workers who were made redundant and retrained as teachers. Now I think I have mentioned in the past that my family is riddled with teachers so the subject interests me but having heard assorted stories about the politics , back biting and poor management it would perhaps be my very last choice of career.
Anyway back to the programme which showed all of Aunty Beebs little biases. We had endless mentions of the trainee teachers previous “cushy jobs” in the city and how hard they would have to work now they were on the front line. Now I have never worked in the city but several of my friends from school did/do and I would never describe their jobs as cushy. I do however know several totally incapable teachers who do have cushy jobs and who are being carried by their considerably more hard working colleagues.
Next the programme told us that several of the trainee teachers committed the worst crime known to the Beeb. Did they kill someone you ask ? No they went to teach in a private school. Que several set pieces from the other teacher trainees on how bad this was etc etc.
What could have been an informative show was sadly spoiled I’m afraid.
Andrew Marr’s introduction to today’s programme foretold the slurpy interview with the DG to come with its dishonest talk about “the government slashing the BBC’s income“. (If only!)
Marr’s interview with Mark Thompson began like this:
(Perky face) “Well, there have been plaudits for the BBC this autumn, with record viewing figures for two radio stations, a string of awards for drama and television news programmes and the increasing take-up of the i-Player system.”
Um. Widely panned re-design of the website? Criticism for the Panorama that ‘cost us the Olympics’? Bias seeping out of every pore, as more and more people seem to be noticing?
He continued, “Off-air the picture has been a bit less rosy. Critics have attacked the number of managers getting paid huge sums…”
(What, just the managers? What about the ‘stars’? The reporters? The likes of Andrew Marr (whatever huge salary he gets)? Just ‘critics’? What about the public at large?)
“…the government’s pushed through a big cut in BBC funding…”
(No it hasn’t. It’s a freeze, and the loss of revenue is far from ‘big’ – and far, far less than many people – especially here at B-BBC – would have wished).
“…and the normally loyal staff have been so incensed by decisions to impose smaller pensions, they’ve been out on strike…..”
(Well, 1/5 of them have. And, as a private sector worker, my heart bleeds for them. Boo hoo!)
Are those the only downsides Marr can think of? Andy Pangloss, it seems.
First topic: BBC pensions (yawn!). Marr interrupted Thompson’s ‘It’s all handled brilliantly’ spiel to ask, not “Wasn’t it long overdue?” (the question I’d have asked), but “Was it imposed too fast?” (Marr’s follow-up question pressed this point.)
Lots of ‘mm’ing (as Guest Who notes) from Marr to Thompson’s answers.
BBC managers salaries were next up. Marr was sticking to managers’ pay. Nothing about the ‘stars’ and the reporters/autocue readers, just the managers. He pressed Thompson, but not very hard.
Marr next pressed him on the government’s “cut” in funding. Thompson said it was a “freeze” not a “cut”. Marr, attacking as ever from the Left, asserted the “cuts” angle, repeatedly. Cuts, cuts, cuts.
Do the cuts risk fewer programmes, fewer channels, less quality (ha!!), he pursued – not do we need all these programmes, all these channels (BBC 3?) Shouldn’t the BBC seize this opportunity to streamline significantly? Not a question Andrew Marr thought worth asking.
Thompson said more money would come from the growing number of license fee-paying households, a further crackdown on evasion and, as David P. indeed heard, a rise in commercial revenue, and this would balance out the freeze in the license fee. So much, as David says, for all the BBC’s moaning.
Marr did bring up the criticism of the Panorama programme on FIFA, though he prefaced it with “almost nobody would say it was wrong for Panorama to investigate FIFA and honesty expose and broadcast what it found.” Good for Marr, though it wasn’t good that he failed to press the obvious question “Why not hold off for two weeks, until just after the decision was made?” and his follow up “So no regrets on this one?” was as feeble as the response to the issue from Thompson.
Next up and all the way to the end of the interview, it was away from controversy and onto some piece of new technology for an easy ride.
Dismal stuff from Marr.
‘Dismal stuff from Marr’
For which he keeps his very well paid ‘job’ as a… well, whatever it is, it isn’t an interviewer, or reporter, or…
Good summary of this week’s pathetic effort on his part. From Miliband E. in politics to this bozo in media, we seem cursed to endure the mediocrity of talent and tedium of agenda that can only come from a system that snuffs out any with fire in their bellies and integrity in their souls, leaving only the shadowy scavenger classes who’ve skulked in the shadows long enough to somehow score the mainstream top slots. And once there, they are almost impossible to remove.
And next week… more of the same, rigged dross.
To the BBC/Labour alliance, a freeze is a cut as spending/investment must always rise
During Marr’s highly sympathetic interview with Mark Stephens, solicitor for Julian Assange, Mr Stephens mentioned that a Swedish politician had been pressing for the prosecution of Assange for rape. I haven’t been able to find the name of that Swedish politician on the BBC website (Has anyone else seen or heard the name mentioned on the BBC?).
Wikipedia comes to the rescue though. lt’s Claes Borgstrom, the spokesman for Gender Equality of the Social Democratic Party. No Sarah Palin (attacked by Mr Stephens during the interview) he.
Andrew Marr bent over backwards to help Mr Stephens (and Mr Assange), saying “He is facing what have been described as (Marr’s fingers forming the rabbits’ ears gesture meaning ‘in inverted commas’) alleged rape allegations from Sweden”. So not just ‘allegations’, or ‘alleged’ allegations but ‘what have been described as’ alleged allegations.
“So you’re basically saying it’s a political stunt?”, he also asked helpfully, allowing Mr Stephens to argue that it’s a political stunt by the “lickspittle state” of Sweden (“lickspittle” in that is helped the U.S. over rendition).
WikiHacks has revealed some sickening information about the homosexual abuse of boys in Afghanistan. The BBC is strangely silent on the issue. Again.
Foreign contractors hired Afghan ‘dancing boys’, WikiLeaks cable reveals
A scandal involving foreign contractors employed to train Afghan policemen who took drugs and paid for young “dancing boys” to entertain them in northern Afghanistan caused such panic that the interior minister begged the US embassy to try and “quash” the story, according to one of the US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks.
In a meeting with the assistant US ambassador, a panicked Hanif Atmar, the interior minister at the time of the episode last June, warned that the story would “endanger lives” and was particularly concerned that a video of the incident might be made public.
The episode helped to fuel Afghan demands that contractors and private security companies be brought under much tighter government control.
I wonder if the fact that this incident happend last June, on The Obamessiah’s watch, has anything to do with the BBC’s censorship of this information?
Sadly, this phenomenon of Pashtun men sexually abusing boys has been going on for ages, and I’ve been wondering for years when the BBC was going to get around to reporting it. If I could do a proper search of this blog for comments before 2009, I’d list several. Only this past September did the BBC at last get around to reporting it, although it stayed tucked away in the World Service and has never made the big national new reports or flagship programmes.
Stephen Fry: Wagner and Me – is on bBC4 now.
Me Me Me – I’m so fascinating, intelligent, interesting. That’s why I’m never off bBC TV.
Reminds me of Beachcomber –
Moonliness
by Roland Milk
The moon and I
Came face to face
In a sequestered
Country place
I thought the moon
Was heavenly;
I wonder what
It thought of me.
I’ve seen it. It’s amazingly self-indulgent. Imagine going to a Holocaust survivor to ask permission to enjoy Wagner.
And watch how the arrogant Fry doesn’t even realize he’s holding his finger over the wrong damn note the whole time the pianist is playing the excerpt. He thinks he’s so with it but can’t actually follow the music, and has no idea he’s doing it until it’s too late.
Wagner’s music is “essentially good”? Give me a break. And I say that as a Jew who is a devoted fan of the Ring and Tristan und Isolde.
You’re brave, David.
I don’t watch anything that prat does!
I’m a big fan of Wagner’s music, and Fry was tackling a legitimate issue, one which I can relate to personally. But that doesn’t make it any less cringe-making. I am a trained musician and saw the wrong note coming a mile away, and was hoping he’d screw it up, which he did to my delight and dismay. It killed the moment of enjoying the music, yet another moment where the focus was shifted from connecting to the music and made it clear that the actual point of the whole show was Fry’s personal trip up his own ass and not about providing anything of value to the viewer.
Look at the two pictures and spot the difference.
Not only has this person signed away our country without the will of the people she now seems to be paving the way for her idiot son.
Maybe its time for a change. How about Queen Margrethe II
“We are being challenged by Islam these years. Globally as well as locally. There is something impressive about people for whom religion imbues their existence, from dusk to dawn, from cradle to grave. There are also Christians who feel this way. There is something endearing about people who give themselves up completely to their faith. But there is likewise something frightening about such a totality, which also is a feature of Islam. A counterbalance has to be found, and one has to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on you. For there are some things for which one should display no tolerance. And when we are tolerant, we must know whether it is because of convenience or conviction.”
http://www.cphpost.dk/news/1-latest-news/13807.html
OT I know .
Excellent spot
@r4today BBC Radio 4 Today Yes, your ears deceived you. Move along now, nothing to see here…
Well, credit someone for self-parody (or, are they serious???), even in the face of a blogosphere where they don’t, yet, have editorial control of what the UK public did or did not get exposed to.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/06/james-naughtie-today-jeremy-hunt
Seem happy enough.
And when you want to join in, but really shouldn’t, simply reach out for a proxy chum and twitter…
cliftonpeople Clifton People by BBCBreakfastNaughty Naughtie. Hilarious c-word gaffe on R4 this morning:http://tinyurl.com/34j957s
May help to make sure the link works 1st, guys.
Ahem.
I see Guido has the audio up of James Naughtie calling Jeremy Hunt Jeremy C**t then sniggering like a 3 year old kid.
I had heard about the James Naughtie incident, but what really amazed me was Andrew Marr at 9.35 on Start the Week, while discussing Freud and Freudian slips, gratuitously and apparently purposefully repeating it without any editing.
Naughtie apologised for his ‘verbal tangle’. Verbal tangle my arse. It was quite deliberate.
daily_politics BBC Daily Politics Andrew Neil has been blogging about his views of Mervyn King’s forecasts – read the blog here and join in : http://bbc.in/gpQTGa
Bless…
NOTE: Comments are invited on this blog for the next three days, but please keep them relevant to what Andrew ahs to say as off-topic comments will be removed. General comments about the Daily Politics can be sent to our comments page via this link.
And don’t even think of telling them they can’t proof read.
Correction. Apologies. Seems they can.
Still trying to figure out how they will maintain this the next time he swans off for a few months, when a week is a long time in politics.
Doubtless the solution will be ‘unique’ (two-faced but who cares)
Maybe it should be called ‘Neil by mouth’?
I just sent in the following comment, and assume it will get past the mods:
Andrew, it seems more like King was actually making predictions about the US, not Britain. Think about it: concern about the great inexperience of the new man in charge, high risk of a double-dip recession (if it doesn’t happen in the end, that doesn’t mean there was no risk), anemic growth, the private sector still not hiring. All quite accurate when it comes to the US situation.
Are you sure you read those documents correctly? 🙂
Nearly five hours later, my comment is still “awaiting moderation”, while a comment posted nearly an hour after mine has been approved and published for some time now.
The morning crew published it at last, several hours after publishing other comments submitted well after mine. Lame.
The bBC, its self imposed rules of loaded nouns and double standards.
Afghan support for insurgency rising, poll suggests
More Afghans feel that attacks against foreign forces are justified than at any time since 2005, a survey suggests. The poll found 27% of people felt attacks against US or NATO troops were justified – though 64% disagreed. The survey of 1,691 Afghans, for the BBC and other news groups, suggests that security has overtaken the economy as the greatest concern.
The bBC’s policy of loaded words sending the wrong message has seen Terrorist replaced by militant, Plumber, Misguided criminal and other such gems. The thing is the bBC doesn’t use that brush of impartiality when reporting on the UN .Yes the troops in Afghanistan as they are on a UN mandate should be referred to as UN troops and lets be serious how more neutral than UN,UN supporting, troops can you get. Yet for some strange reason the bBC of late has started referring to those troops as’ Foreign’ in a day and age when everything the bBC does is so as not to inflame Islam, you know the prophet Mohammed etc.. It seems strange they have no problem flying the flag of the Umma in which to rally the troops. Problem here is these so called troops they appear to be rallying are the ones who set off bombs in Hospitals, Markets, Buses etc…
Ah, the circle of life…
TomHarrisMP Tom Harris by patentlyRT @LukeBozier: How many Lib Dem MPs does it take to change a light bulb? Don’t know, they’re having a meeting on Tuesday to decide.
Labour MP>Labour sympathiser (or Graun journo – same diff)>BBC Employee>AndreMarr Show> Labour MP
BBCLauraK Laura Kuenssberg Ok apols for lack of tweets this morning – something weird happening with Twitter
Oddly, my own twitter experience today, and those of all I have engaged with, has seemed fine.
It must therefore by something we all did.
Or, maybe another course needs to be ordered up?
‘be’
Perhaps a private message from on high went out for certain people to cool it for a few until the bosses figured out they could shrug off Naughtie’s faux pas pretty easily?
Metro_Online Metro Online Licence fee freeze means more repeats, warns BBC bosshttp://bit.ly/fBCQBL
Well, the DG did promise less with more, what with all the new licence fee enforcees coming on board and all this extra cash having to go straight to pensions.
What a crock. Thompson told Marr yesterday that revenue was going to increase anyway. What utter BS.
Repeat what? They don’t make any programmes worth repeating. Or are they going to repeat the golden age of BBC comedies? Probably not as they would be unviewable if they edited out the unPC.
AndrewSparrow AndrewSparrow Not a good day for BBC. After Naughtie, WATO gets tricked by someone pretending to be Lib Dem MP Mike Crockart –http://bit.ly/hXOXeV
Well, struggling by on £3.6B, what does one expect?
I saw a thread yesterday on Digital Spy asking what had happened to the BBC’s Schools and Open University programmes. It seems they have disappeared even before any freeze in the cost of the annual licence. One thing I used to like were the foreign- language teaching programmes which were excellent but there were loads of other subjects as well.
Well, with very little else going in in the world of news, they must at least get full marks for predictable, if obsessive, consistency…
bbc5live BBC Radio 5 Live John Waters talks to @richardpbacon about his new book ‘Role Model’, Sarah Palin, Baltimore and fashion http://bbc.in/bOHiil
I have to say the lack of Mr. Bacon and guests’ latest ‘thoughts’ on Ms. Palin have been a source of some concern to me in the last few hours.
Forgive the language, but I am beginning to suspect the entire BBC is basically stuffed… to the gunnels with a bunch of NaughtieMarrs.
BBC hardtalk with Stephan Sackur talking to PJ O’Rourke.
A joy to listen to with Sackur out of his depth and in trouble, trying to spew the old leftist venom and smear against the tea party and the right in general.
The tea party are angry? Wel at least when the right get really mad the worst they do is talk and talk whereas when the leftists get angry they usually leave a trail of smashed windows and ravaged vandalised buildings and massive tax bills to clean up after them. Obviously Sackur is too stupid to see the actual and root difference between left and right and the respect the right has for law and order and civilised behaviour. The leftists get angry and lose conttrol and act like the emotionally retarded children they are.
I am right wing and thank the Gods I am every day.
Yes, it was well worth watching. Here’s the link for it.
Did you also see Sackur’s interviews with Dan Hannan and Ann Coulter? He just can’t hold his own against sharp-witted right-wingers.
I’ve never quite been able to take Stephan Sackur seriously ever since the BBC rushed him to Rome a few years ago (when prime minister Berlusconi got into trouble for saying naughty something about an MEP) and put him on the Six O’Clock News and announced him as its Rome Correspondent (which he hadn’t been until that day). As you might expect, he gloated about the gaffe and tut-tutted about all the offence caused by…the Italian “president”. Clearly he hadn’t a clue what he was talking about.