Nothing excites the BBC more than conveying victimhood status upon those it most favours. And so it is that this morning, the Today team determined that Saint Vince Cable is “a victim” of those evil snoops at the Daily Telegraph. Indeed that Cable halo that has slipped since May is now restored as he is turned into a media martyr. Throughout the programme, the BBC were keen to provide Lib-Dems with an opportunity to bash the Tories, Ed Miliband will be pleased that his broadcasting arm is so active opposing the Coalition! Of course Cameron deserves all he gets thanks to his gutless approach in dealing with the monster in Broadcasting House. There can be no reform of the BBC, no amelioration of its worst excesses. It must be axed.
VICTIMHOOD CONVEYED!
Bookmark the permalink.
The problem with Vince is that he was planning on breaking the Human Rights Act, article 6, relating to a free and fair trial. This applies to the competition issues as article 6 applies to both criminal and civil cases.
Basically, he’s a human rights abuser.
Mr H(C)unt might be a rising star but sometimes shit floats to the top.
The tories wont do anything to the beeb because they think they will turn on them if they did.FFs what have the beeb been doing for the past few years then Mr Hunt..Grow some balls before we get tired and vote ukip as a protest vote.You have been warned…..
Ermm, viz the protest vote, too late in my case .. well it would have been if I’d bothered to do the paperwork for an overseas ballot!
What I would like to see is a new political alignment drawing together conservative strands from across the democratic spectrum to test the political waters at the next by-election. I would love to see Melanie Phillips translate the moral leadership she gives and get such a party off the ground. I can’t see anyone else with the nous or moral authority to do it.
I have also already switched to the minor parties, UKIP at the last election, and cannot vote Conservative again in a parliamentary election until either a) they’ve got rid of Cameron, or b) given us an English Parliament and given us the vote on EU membership.
“Today” 0718
The charity Crisis believes the government’s spending cuts will push more people into homelessness. Leslie Morphy of Crisis and the housing minister Grant Shapps examine the issue.
Shapps had to correct Humphrys who interrupted to harrumph “cuts” during the interview. He explained there were no cuts. Even the quangoite sort of accepted it (it appears it boils down to local authorities being less hog-tied by government specific funding, so they may now switch money away from this area). But still the BBC “Today” website says “Cuts”.
Why don’t Ministers tell the likes of Humphrys to just ask questions if they don’t know the facts, rather than shouting the minister down with their biased incorrect information?
Quangoite! I like it. Given me the idea for another coinage: Quangoid.
@ Will .. I must admit that compared to the jaw-dropping bias under Thatcher and Major and in favour of Blair and Brown, this bias, if it is bias, is barely perceptible. Admittedly, here in Spain I’m only catching these snippets and dont have the whole picture. Perhaps I’d see things differently then?
BBC News Channel running this again right now. Carol Walker was just talking to Huw about it. Other LibDem MPs have apparently run their mouths in private to constituents about tuition fees and other things, so Cable gets to claim that the Telegraph has “undermined” the relationship between voter and pol.
Er, no, the politicians did that already. Where’s Nick Robinson to remind us of that? Oh, that’s right, he protects politicians, like he did during the expenses scandal, and like he did with Mr. Brown’s violent nature.
I think there are a couple of BBC editors who believe that if they put too much pressure on Cable himself, they’ll miss a huge opportunity to undermine the coalition as a whole. The way they’re framing the whole story is that this is a flaw in the Coalition, and not Cable being a bastard willing to abuse his political power.
Now the Beeboids get to show a couple of other LibDems criticizing the Coalition, so it’s another gift to their agenda. No wonder they don’t dare bring Cable in to listen to the tapes and have him explain himself like they did with Mr. Brown and his private remark about Mrs. Duffy. Of course, the BBC had a different agenda then.
The BBC should have only one Agenda – to report the news in a balanced non-partisan open and even-handed way. Instead of spouting about how impartial they are, they should practice impartiality. Know them by their deeds, not their words.
No need to shut down the BBC, just give notice of termination of contract of the thousand or so embedded lefties, starting with Helen Boaden, every BBC US correspondent, and every news editor and reporter who cannot prove they have practiced impartiality in their daily work. You know, just like the rest of us have had to “value diversity” in our daily work.
…its OK, really, the tablets are starting to kick in now…
I do have sympathy with Cable’s line that conversations between MPs and their constitutents are private and should remain private. Any deviation from that principle can only lead to less freedom of speech and greater political correctness and totalitarian conformism.
Its hard line for the BBC to spin though, considering its (highly selective) love of wikileaks.
I greatly share that sympathy, and furthermore, he told the two reporters that what he was saying was “confidential”. ‘Off the record’ should mean ‘off the record’ to reporters whether undercover or not, except in extreme circumstances such as exposing child porn rings etc.
It was a squalid exercised carried out by the Telegraph. It used to be a gentleman’s paper. One shudders to think when one of the last vestiges of its soul Charles Moore leaves what will become of it.
All this said of course, there’s no way Vince Cable should have been making these comments to anyone.
Cable can say what he likes and have all the freedom of speech that he likes when talking to his constituents (as far as I am concerned, though not as far as the law is concerned of course re “hate” speech, incitement etc) but he should not be carrying out ministerial responsibilities and legal duties if he has compromised those by not approaching the issues responsibly in a seriously considered and objective manner. Actions are supposed to have consequences and he really should not be in a government senior ministerial post, particularly the Business one that he is still in.
Apart from having shown that he is unfit to exercise that kind of ministerial responsibility in a proper manner, he has been shown up to be a fool for his indiscreet meanderings. He was hyped beyond his worth by the media (guess who) and promoted above his abilities because of this artificially created (largely by the media) halo effect.
Lib Dems are really showing themselves up. I always knew they were loopy with their daft policies but see how they are coming out with stupid statements, such as the nutcase who opines that a restricted immigration policy comes from uncharitable motives. The man is too stupid to notice let alone acknowledge that he is operating in a democratic system in which the electorate is supposed to count for something with the MPs who elected them. And the public in general, not being as daft as he is, doesn’t want a policy of unlimited immigration which it knows is neither practical, realistic, desirable, responsible nor admirable. So what is he sniping at the Conservatives for? Their policy is fairly lax anyway and arguably needs to be tighter.
Millie, excellent summary of the situation ! This is a story made in heaven for the beeboids – the limp dims spitting in the soup and they can raise their dainty little hands and say, we are only reporting what has been said.
All part of the remorseless drive by the labour sympathisers within the bbc to harm the coalition because it is Conservative led.
Milly and Backwoodsman.
Oh dear, sad we didn’t win. Ahhh diddums! Its a coalition, get used to it.
Vince is an academic. He told the Torygraph reporters how he felt. So what? Why does his dislike of the Tories disqualify him from being a Minister? Most Lib-Dems dislike the Tories. Don’t forget, Vince was warning about Liebour’s spending when “Boy” Gorge Osbourne was still signed up to following it.
What you guys should be ranting about, is the way the BBC are wallowing in anything that harms the government. When was the last time they carried a Torygraph story with such gusto (except expenses).
It’s a constant stream of cuts. cuts, cuts!
Fumky TeaPot :Why does his dislike of the Tories disqualify him from being a Minister?
==================
Did someone say this? If so, who? Certainly not Backwoodsman or I, to whom you chose to address your disobliging remarks.
Please take the trouble to follow an argument and understand what is written before making yourself look silly by attacking and lecturing other people about what they should be doing.
I am very sorry Milly. Must have got the wrong end of the stick. You were not really saying he should not be a minister, oh silly me.
What is Vince supposed to have said then? As I understand, he bigged himself up (“I could bring down the govt..”) and slagged off the Tories.
I have obviously missed something and would greatly appreciate some enlightenment from such an erudite person as yourself.
Give up the trolling. You’re not very good at it, it’s pointless other than as provocation and adds nothing to discussion.
Trolling? Why am I a troll, you arrogant w@nker?
I visit this site because of the shocking bias of the BBC. I support most of what is said, Labour bias, Israel etc but I am not a Tory.
Insult me like that again and you can have my address and we can settle this like gentlemen.
If you think it is acceptable to offer insults and name calling backed by challenges to off-line confrontation of the sort that you just have, you are well beyond the norms of discussion and even trolling and should be banned from the forum.
That post was way over the top. Way over. Argument is one think we actually like here. But we don’t like personal abuse.
Back off, please.