Hosni says “OK, I admit I am a dictator but I do admire the way the UK allows a broadcasting tyranny to provide daily news and comment. Any chance of a job later this year?” Open thread for a new week…off you go..
OPEN THREAD….
Bookmark the permalink.
Rudyard Kipling famously said Power without responsibility – the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.
Jeremy please read this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00yb4m7
I hope this works, I mentioned it on the last Open Thread. I started listening to this just after the half hour mark when Nolan was harranguing the Minister for Policing, using Labour figures as the Bible with which to bash the minister.
Nolan kept aggressively denying that he was getting an answer, because the Minister wouldn’t play ball on accepting the Labour figures. Nolan then started lying and pretending the minister had said things he hadn’t. The minister stuck to his ground though.
He then gave a ridiculously easy ride, even proactively helpful, to the police federation official who was brought on to attack the Minister. The first caller was good though, totally took the wind out of comrade Nolan’s sails.
The first part is about the Top Gear controversy. It seems to me like a deliberate attempt to make Clarkson’s position with the BBC untenable. Why would they want him gone? Well, it appear that he may be a Conservative – he’s certainly not as brainwashed as the rest of the Beboids. However, Jon Gaunt and Tiff Needell make short work of Nolan and Rosie Millard.
And dare I say it but I would think that Clarkson actually enjoys working the BBC up over its pathetic political correctness 🙂
Mailman
Agreed. Even Clarkson himself will occasionally hint that he’s not a conservative. He’s really a spoiled child who just wants to play with his toys. A licensed court jester, he knows very little about anything else. I don’t think he’s any more bigoted than the average Beeboid.
I caught the last part of this (curiously, when the caller they had on against Clarkson was an ex-BBC employee from Luton!). I did get the impression Nolan was rather ‘plaintiff’.
They STILL don’t get it do they?
BBC1 controller Danny Cohen is calling for more blue-collar comedy on his channel. My initial reaction was wahaaay! I have long thought that the best sitcoms are the down-to-earth ones: Steptoe, Fools & Horse etc. The BBC seems to have studiously ignored producing stuff like this in favour of crap like My Family and After You’ve gone.
But then it ocurred to me, those comdies are not bad BECAUSE they’re middle class, they bad because they’re bad! Boring, unrelated to real life and bland! Great British sitcoms worked because they’ve been about real people in recognisable situations.
When you think of it, the best British comedy has always hinged around frustrated aspiration. Harold Steptoe never being able to escape his “dirty old man”. Del Boy thwarted by “plonker” Rodney. In the Likely Lads, Terry wanted to be working class all his life, while Bob wanted the middle class life – and was never happy when he got it. Your average Beeboid is unlikely to understand that burning desire for self-improvement.
The alternative is where the main characters are more middle class and are made fools of because of their pomposity: think Captain Mainwaring, Basil Fawlty, Hyacinth Bucket and Rigsby. Everyone has probably met a real-life Victor Meldrew or David Brent. These are all characters we can relate to because we understand their failings.
Has anyone ever met anybody like the characters in Big Top? Me neither.
Comedy like this works because it is real and tangible. This is what Danny Cohen really needs to sort out, since BBC comedy now appears to have become a closed shop mafia. If you’re not part of their middle class gang, or if you’re not an Oxbridge graduate, would you get commissioned these days? It’s hard to believe you’d even get through the door. Conversely, would Simon Amstell’s Grandma’s House ever have been commissioned if it hadn’t been written by Simon Amstell? BBC comedy desperately needs an injection of fresh writing blood.
BBC comedy certainly needs an injection. Potassium cyanide should do quite nicely I would have thought.
Possibly someone could pass this lesson in impartiality to the BBBC, though I doubt it will stop the BBC Wikileaks hatchet job tonight.
http://rt.com/news/assange-sweden-us-extradition/
The last half minute is of interest.
Orson, here is the bBC article on this odious thing
Wikileaks’ Julian Assange begins extradition battle
The bBC write up is nothing more than a fawning article written in an attempt to garner as much sympathy for this odious creature as possible. If we were playing bullshit bingo, everybody would be a winner, it also reveals why this wanker went running to the Uk after he decided to act like a muslim in Sweden. (rape and rape some more) Here is the bBCs bullet point list which says their man is innocent:
*Swedish prosecutor Marianne Nye is “not eligible” or an appropriate “judicial authority” to issue a European Arrest Warrant
*The Swedes are guilty of an “abuse of process” as they have not demonstrated any intention to charge or prosecute Mr Assange
*The application for a warrant is “disproportionate” as he is willing to co-operate and be interviewed by phone, e-mail or videolink
*The arrest warrant paperwork is not valid as it does not “unequivocally” state that he is wanted for prosecution
*The offences Mr Assange faces – unlawful coercion and sexual molestation – are not criminal acts under British law; and
*Extraditing Mr Assange to Sweden would be a “real risk of a flagrant denial of justice” and a “blatant breach” of British constitutional principles.
Nice to see the bBC yet again defending a criminal and I will add a f—–g arsehole.
Surprising hints of anti-Swedish racism from the BBC. Very strange as I would have thought Beeboids would admire many things Swedish. Is it a question of Beeboid disappointment with the Swedes in this case ?
I’m sure it was an oversight the basis of the extradition request wasn’t put.
Hello. Did you see the trailers for the documentary about Chinese investment in Africa? Dripping enthusiasm, they were – apparently the BBC thinks that Chinese money is the best thing for Africa since, well, sliced bread. What I want to know is what the Hell is its great-big news gathering operation for, if this is its standard? Peter Hitchens got there two years ago, on his own, and in spite of the Daily Mail sensationalist headline – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1063198/PETER-HITCHENS-How-China-created-new-slave-empire-Africa.html – gave a more nuanced, more intelligent and probably much better informed account. Dear old BBC, always the first to discover what everyone else has discovered already.
What would the BBC do if they found out that the Chinese treat ordinary Africans even worse than the British did in Imperial times ?
I guess for a Beeboid that is simply impossible.
Great stuff from Tim Montgomerie this morning:
BBC News is obsessed with cuts, cuts, cuts http://twitpic.com/3xdjim
The BBC puts worst possible spin on IoD’s excellent pro-growth report http://twitpic.com/3xc912
A perfect example of how the bBC demonises the US for its Islamic masters
Widow of Pakistani shot by Raymond Davis kills herself
The widow of a Pakistani man who was killed by a US citizen has killed herself by taking poison.In her dying statement, Shumaila said she feared the American would be released without trial, police and doctors said.Her husband, Mohammad Faheem, and another man were shot dead by Raymond Davis in Lahore last month.The US embassy has called for Mr Davis to be freed, saying he has diplomatic status and is immune from prosecution. Mr Davis has admitted that he shot the men but says he acted in self-defence because they were trying to rob him
(The most important part of this story, that both men shot had pulled out guns, the bBC leaves until the very end of the article) Mr Davis is said to have told police that the motorcycle rider and his pillion passenger tried to hijack his vehicle at gunpoint.
But even then, the bBC still twist the story by trying to claim they were only after the vehicle.
Welcome to the la la land of the bBC where muslims can only be victims.
BBC Complaints dept finally getting around to responding to complaints about the Arizona shootings and the mindless Twitter drivel spouted by Rachel Kennedy.
“Whilst I appreciate your concerns about our coverage of the shooting, it’s worth noting that there was a significant degree of controversy within the US in the aftermath of the shootings which led Sarah Palin herself to attack suggestions that political rhetoric had contributed towards them.
With this in mind we have simply covered the ongoing debate within the US rather than attempting to promote any views or agendas regarding Sarah Palin in the manner you appear to suggest. We have reported the facts and allowed the audience to make up their own minds.”
I’m genuinely struggling to believe that someone sent me that as a legitimate response to my complaint of one sided biased coverage of the events. I get the impression the writer genuinely believes that statement which is scary to say the least.
In relation to Rachel Kennedy, I should explain that the views expressed by Rachel Kennedy on her Twitter account were personal. Rachel accepts that they were entirely inappropriate. While the BBC understands that some staff will want to take part in social networking in their own time they need to observe the guidelines set down for staff and a senior editor has reminded Rachel of these guidelines.
Again no attempt whatsoever to address the complaint raised which was how can we expect unbiased news reporting when a senior member of the BBC news team holds such extreme views and has no hesitation in airing these in public.
If such a senior employee needs “reminding” of surely one of the most critical BBC guidlines in relation to her role, has anyone considered she might be in the wrong job? No, didn’t think so.
Submitting a complaint to the BBC is such an utter waste of time. However, I do like the comedy value of their responses.
I think what you elicited on Rachel Kennedy’s Tweeting is significant.
As DB noted, before the Arizona shootings, largely due to Kennedy’s prior tweeting, Helen Boaden had sent out a memo to all staff advising them to avoid appearance of bias in what they tweet.
I wonder how the conversation went when (if) she was spoken to: ‘Please Rachel, dont make our bias so obvious’.
This isn’t such a bad result, I think. At least it shows somebody talked to Kennedy, as they say she “accepts” that her remarks were inappropriate. Even if it’s insincere, this means that at least there was a tiny consequence to her actions. And who knows – further complaints next time she or another Beeboids tweets something like that might get even better results. Keep the pressure up.
John,
I think you did very well to get such an admission from the BBC. No doubt the author has been reprimanded.
“BBC’s £1bn exodus: Huge bill for moving shows and staff around the country… with £157m spent on hotels and taxis”
By Liz Thomas
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1354367/BBC-exodus-Huge-moving-shows-staff-UK.html#ixzz1DHAVyT00
And, of course:
“The BBC’s move north is lunacy – and shows how catastrophically it has lost its way”
By Melanie Phillips
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1354381/BBCs-north-lunacy-Shows-catastrophically-lost-way.html#ixzz1DHBLc4KU
I have to admit that Melanie Philips makes me want to claw my eyes out as she announces matter of factly that she is right, you are wrong and you will have to accept that.
However the piece on the relocation of the bBC to Salford is a prime example of the last governments meddling ways. “the previous Labour government wanted to gerrymander the electoral map by creating well-paid, publicly funded jobs in Labour constituencies.”
It is a complete travesty, they were not relocating jobs they where relocating people, that is social engineering, chances are that those in Salford would pick up cleaning jobs and other non-media based functions within the bBC.
I hope that it all falls through and Salford is left with a disaster that hangs like an albatross around the Labour parties neck.
This world would be so much better without governments meddling in things…
>>This world would be so much better without governments meddling in things…<<
I want to claw my eyes outl.
More about the waste of money of the bBC moving.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1354367/BBC-exodus-Huge-moving-shows-staff-UK.html
It does not make any financial or logical sense, but was stongly pushed by Labour ministers like Tessa Jowell.
There are two strong smells coming from this anyway:
1) The property developers the Salford land is bought/leased from? This does need very close inspection.
2) The head of bBC North, is reputed to have refused to live in the north, but will still keep his job, controlling the North but living in London.
On point 1.) above,
Mr. J.Whitaker, now of Isle of Man, owns about 70% of Peel Holdings, including Salford Quays, Media City land.
The Olayan family of Saudi Arabia has big stake in Peel Holdings, where BBC Salford site is located:
[The Olayan Group] “developed into a multi-billion-dollar conglomerate with interests in the Middle East, Europe and the US. Olayan Group, together with car manufacturer VW and Abu Dhabi government investment fund Mubadala, owns LeasePlan, a leading vehicle management and leasing provider. It also holds a 26% stake in Peel Holdings, a leading UK property developer, which in turn owns Liverpool’s John Lennon Airport, the Trafford Centre shopping complex, the Manchester Ship Canal, Glasgow Harbour and the Mersey Docks.”
So taxpayers money is going either to a tax haven or an overseas oil rich despot monarchy. That what Liebour call ethical investment!
Isn’t the Beeboid “migration lead” ( whatever that is ), Guy Bradshaw based, in Kentucky ?
Bradshaw is an EX bBC employee made redundant by them. Now under contract to do the migration to the north. Not to be confused with the Director of bBC North. Surely you don’t expect him to supervise the move. He might get close to earning his salary!
I wonder if these buildings are under PFI (assume they will be), ergo costing the tax payer even more money…
The bBC and how it rewrites Radical Muslims in the Uk as…Victims.
How widespread is campus extremism?
A delayed report on how to tackle violent extremism on university campuses is expected to be published soon. But there is still widespread disagreement about how serious the problem of “radicalisation” is.This time last year the square behind London’s City University was the scene of a confrontation, between some Muslim students and the university authorities.In a case study, the counter-extremism think tank Quilliam claimed an Islamic society at City University, headed by a charismatic leader, capitalised on a row over a prayer room. Muslim students protested by praying on the street in the square. Some think it was a period when conditions on the campus were ripe for radicalisation.
And here are the bBCs salient points in this article:
*”I think if you were to look back in history many ‘terrorists’, many of those who’ve taken radical positions, will have been to university. That does not mean they were radicalised at university.”
*The Universities Minister David Willetts does not believe there is a pattern.
*UCL’s own inquiry concluded Abdulmutallab had not been radicalised during his time at the university.
*Do we know that this person was radicalised as a result of being at a British university?… It is quite hard to pinpoint whether the university experience was the specific trigger.”
*But while David Cameron talks of the need to “de-radicalise” universities, his minister in charge of them insists there is no proof yet of a pattern of radicalisation on campuses across the UK.
Get the drift, according to the bBC there isn’t a problem, and actually this government (like the last one) can only be racist and its ‘Islamophobic stance leads to terrorism.
Yes.
“Radical Islam on UK campuses”
(pdf document)
http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/files/1292336866_1.pdf
“Nick Cohen on the UCL-Abdulmutallab Whitewash“
This still seems a mystery to UK political establishment (inc INBBC): why are so many Muslims sympathetic to jihad against us?
Big clue: read the tenets of Islam.
20 minutes in the life of BBC24 earlier today.
12:40
Interview with a kindly looking old man, a representative of the Muslim Brotherhood to tell us that we have nothing to fear and that they don’t really want to take power in Egypt anyway (4min)
Two lefties and the interviewer crowing that spending cuts will derail the “Big society”. (5min)
Another attack on the coalition telling us that thousands of front line police officers are to be sacked to save money. One factoid that did make it into the open was that at any one time only 11% of the police are at work and away from their desks. Do you think this could be raised to 20%? No one asked. (3min)
At last, a coalition spokesman, but only to explain their latest socialist policy, the decision to introduce an anti-criminal prevention injunction to be decided in civil courts. No one asked if this means a lot more criminals will no longer face jail, but I guarantee that this is what it will mean. (3min)
Proposal from CBI to remove collective bargaining from teachers unions followed by another lefty interview with a union leader. Guess what he had to say? (2min)
13:00
what it means is that the wrong types of cases will end up in court.
We will continue to be harrassed for not paying train fairs or parking tickets BUT thats ok, because if you kill someone you wont have to bother of going to court because that can be sorted out on the quiet!
Mailman
Hi John. The question of the 11% police on the front line is a really interesting one. And “More or Less” did a short piece on it on Radio 4. You can read what they discovered here. But basically, 11% is actually pretty efficient. See what you think.
http://criminology.blog.co.uk/2011/01/26/maths-myths-and-police-numbers-10435662/
Thanks for the link, David. However, “pretty efficient” depends on your terms of reference and your remit. I’ll bet the Bow Street Runners managed better than 20%, and I’ll bet it has been falling ever since.
John,
11% is “pretty efficient” by Beeboid standards. They live in the same make believe, parallel Universe as the police.
David, as you are a BBC employee (I live in the West Mids & hence see you on screen) I am interested in your thoughts on this site and the contributions made. Are we all bay-eating-Daily-Mail-reading-evil Tories or do you take note of what is said here?
nice to see a bbc employee on the blog who at first appearance at least isn’t a swivel-eyed fleck-speckled troll!! 🙂
Itwf,
But he isn’t as good fun as Dez and Scottie !
Any figures DG on frontline policing before the fuzz were deluged with paperwork? You know, the days when they could actually nick people?
“..telling us that thousands of front line police officers are to be sacked to save money” and who was the source of this item? Did it come from the Home Office? Or the Labour Party?
“More than 10,000 police officers in England and Wales are to be cut over the next two years according to figures obtained by the Labour Party, it was reported today.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/police-to-lose-10000-officers-by-2012-2205931.html
Was there anyone from the Home Office to answer the alegations?
I presume the Police have been sent in to search Labour MPs offices for the source of these “figures obtained by the Labour Party”.
But basically, 11% is actually pretty efficient. See what you think.
_____________________________________________________-
http://tinyurl.com/482pc8d
or even better, see what a serving police officer thinks.
As a bloodthirsty non-Left United Statesian, I’m having a very hard time understanding the sanguine nature with which everyone – including Dhimmi Dave – has been saying that the freeing of the Lockerbie mass murderer on “compassionate grounds” was just a bit of bad judgement by the Scottish Executive, nothing to do with the Labour Government even though there’s plenty of evidence now that they were working behind the scenes to secure his release.
Now, as a “states rights” kind of guy, I’m the first one to appreciate the devolution of power and that Scotland has control over most of it’s own activities. But this is surely an issue of national – as in UK – security, seeing as it involved international parties and a former enemy of Britain. The Libyans weren’t hating on the Scots: this was a hit on Great Britain. So why is everyone content to leave the decision in the hands of Scotland?
On a side note: Who in their right mind buys that mass murderers ought to be released on compassionate grounds?
The BBC hasn’t explained any of it. All they’ve done is summarize Dhimmi Dave’s statements, summarize Labour’s defense that “there’s no evidence” that Labour put any pressure on Scotland to set the mass murderer free, so the documents that show how Gordon Brown’s Government was negotiating with Scotland and wanted this result exist in a vacuum. Or something. Even now Emily Maitlis just said that there’s no evidence Labour did anything, and they’re completely innocent. She even helpfully reminded us that “there’s no love lost” between Labour and the SNP, as if to suggest that they couldn’t possibly have been colluding.
I have a hard time believing that the average BBC viewer has a full understanding of how this works any more than I do. Why isn’t the BBC explaining how this came about, and how Scotland was given the authority to do this? If this was done by Mr. Brown, hanging Salmond out to dry as a scapegoat, why would Salmond agree to it? None of what the BBC is telling me makes sense.
I admit my ignorance. I don’t get it. Now there’s yet another Scot on the News Channel dancing around all this.
Oh, Christ, now some Beeboid named Glen giving his analysis from Scotland just suggested that Cameron would have done the same thing if he had to face the “enormous repercussions” the Lybians were threatening if the mass murderer died in prison. Maybe he is that wet, but it’s not the BBC’s place to suggest it as a defense of Gordon Brown.
David P,
I think your analysis is not bad for a bloodthirsty Yankee 😉
David, I bet that was Glenn Campbell, who I think is one of the most biased of all the BBC’s journalists – in favour of Labour. (And that’s saying something, given all the competition).
He used to present the Politics Show in Scotland and would treat his Labour guests with kid gloves but wreak havoc on any SNP or Conservative politicians, week in and week out. Few other BBC interviewers could match him for sheer naked bias.
You’re right, it was Campbell.
Now maybe this is why the BBC want to move news and politics to Scotland?
Stories the BBC will never report.
Mob of over 1000 Muslims in Java deals appropriately with heretics
At least Laura K. is now pressing Jack Straw on this matter. She says that Labour’s claim that they didn’t put pressure on the Scots doesn’t jibe with the documents which show they were negotiating with them. And how convenient, Straw is a physician, so when he says Labour couldn’t have made up the “medical evidence” which was the supposed reason to release the mass murderer, his opinion has weight.
The big hole in this defense – which Laura ignores – is that, if the release was done on “compassionate grounds” based on the “medical evidence”, what was going on with all these “negotiations”? Was Scotland going to keep him prison, and Labour was pushing for it, and the whole thing was rendered moot when the “medical evidence” magically appeared? Was this “medical evidence” there the whole time, but Scotland didn’t want to release the mass murderer and Labour told them to use the cancer diagnosis and get on with it? Nobody at the BBC seems interested in asking that question. It doesn’t add up, that’s for sure, but Laura K barely scratched the surface, and let it go.
Laura asks, “Is it appropriate for the Foreign Office” to help Libya in this way? Straw’s easy dodge is that they were merely “normalizing relations”, just like the US and everyone else does for basic business reasons. Now he’s claiming – this is really funny – that it was in fact the Labour Government which got Ghaddafi to give up his nuclear ambitions! Nothing to do with George Bush at all, apparently. Laura K lets him speak uninterrupted, “people will take from this report what they will”.
I know the issues I’ve raised were discussed back when the mass murderer was released. But if there were any answers, the BBC sure ought to be reminding us now, otherwise this doesn’t make any sense. Unless it’s the beginning of a whitewash, and by tomorrow the Beeboids will be giving us Red Ed’s line that lessons have been learned, “never again”, time to move on.
Cabinet Office Report on this tawdry affair just released.
Make of it what you will. Forked tongue comes to mind.
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/20110207-megrahi-review-report.pdf
Oh, good, Maitlis just said that, “Americans are confused about devolution”, and asks the Beeboid in Washington if there’s any noise from the White House about today’s revelations. Well, he says, Americans just don’t get it.
Thanks for the explanation, BBC!
Here’s another game for you – Your challenge (BBC Journalists) is to write a new article, that should be deeply shaming for the ex-Labour government, without mentioning the Labour party at all (except for one mention when it changed its policy). Gggggggrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12381612
All the newspaper headlines quoted in their “From other news sites” section at the bottom manage to fit the word “Labour” into their headline, with it even being first word!
Beeboids really must have a hard time trying to think of new ways of not using the word Labour when the article and the rest of the media have no problem using it.
Yes, the Sky News website is leading with Labour Govt ‘Wanted Lockerbie Bomber Freed’, followed by the summary:
The Labour government developed a policy to do “all it could” to ensure the Lockerbie bomber’s release from prison.
The BBC News website, however, is leading with Assange ‘would be denied justice‘.
The Lockerbie story – surely far more important – comes second and the headline is Ministers ‘wanted bomber release’, and the summary is no keener to mention Labour or Gordon Brown:
The previous UK government did “all it could” to help facilitate the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, an official report says.
I suspect that the person who wrote that headline and that summary votes Labour.
The trial of GEERT WILDERS resumes.
1.) ‘Jihadwatch’:-
“WILDERS: The lights are going out all over Europe”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/02/wilders-the-lights-are-going-out-all-over-europe.html
2.) INBBC:-
“Dutch MP Geert Wilders back in court over ‘hate speech'”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12380167
“Dutch anti-Islam MP claims persecution”
http://www.news24.com/World/News/Dutch-anti-Islam-MP-claims-persecution-20110207
Wow, Huw Edwards just now defending Salmond and Labour by asking the president of the US victims’ families group if he would “at least accept” that there were sensitive issues “which might have pushed” the Labour Government into the direction of helping Lybia work out an angle to get the Scots to free the mass murderer.
Defend Labour at all costs.
If impartiality is ever restored to the BBC Huw Edwards would be amongst the first to be booted out on his arse along with Humphrys, Bowen, Paxman et al.
It is with resigned depression that I learned that David Dimblebore has signed a 5-year contract to present QT.
Don’t know what the state of play with QT’s move to Glasgow is, but I wouldn’t even wish the Bore on Glaswegians.
Dimbleby doesn’t need to move to Glasgow to present the show. Thanks to communications technology, he can limit his time to occasional production meetings while staying down south most of the time.
…and they always have the same crowd so it doesn’t matter where it’s broadcast from.
David Dimbleby as B-BBC hate figure, along with Nicky Campbell, is something that constantly leaves me non-plussed. The man is quintessential BBC – in the best possible sense of the term.
Despite a decent enough report from James Lansdale, the BBC Six O’Clock News seemed to be trying to spin the Lockerbie Report away as just a political storm in a teacup, right from the opening words which stressed the party political angle rather than the “accusations” themselves:
The prime minister condemns the previous government after Labour’s accused of doing whatever it could to facilitate the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
When Sophie Raworth turned to Nick Robinson her opening words were:
Nick, you do have to say there’s an extraordinary amount of politics surrounding the release of a convicted mass murderer.
Nick himself will be in Labour’s good books again tonight from what followed. Following up on these hints, his spin on the Lockerbie report turned the tables on David Cameron in a way that Alastair Campbell himself could only have admired:
David Cameron implied today that they were doing one thing in private while saying something very different in public. But he tonight is himself facing similar charges. He was rather low-key in the House of Commons but meanwhile his party’s aides were issuing a dossier accusing Gordon Brown and Jack Straw of a lack of honesty. This despite the fact that today’s report says there was no cover-up, there was no conspiracy. That is the one thing that Gordon Brown and David Cameron do seem to agree upon.
So maybe most the important thing here, the BBC seems to be implying, is that the Tories are playing party politics over the issue.
The most striking difference between the two most-watched news bulletins – the BBC’s News at Six and ITV’s 6,30 News – is that ITV featured the views of two relatives of victims of the Lockerbie bomber – Pamela Dix and Stephanie Bernstein – who both attacked Blair and Brown by name for their part in the whole shabby affair. The BBC bulletin chose not to include any Lockerbie relatives.
ITV News then moved on to look at the American reaction to today’s report with Robert Hall. The BBC moved on to Julian Assange.
Yes Craig. Sometimes I wish there was a ‘double-like’ button here. The sluice gates of moral corruption were long ago breached and have left the whole of the BBC drenched in bilge. This hightlights the fact.
There was that word again on this morning’s Breakfast: controversial.
The Institute of Directors has made some recommendations to help business growth and the BBC were in a flap about it. Here’s an exchange between Bill Turnbull and BBC reporter Samantha Washington, following Bill’s rundown of the two juciest proposals:
BT: Sam Washington’s here. Morning Sam.
SW: Morning Bill.
BT: Controversial!!
SW: Indeed, it will have some people spluttering on their conflakes this morning!
Sam went on to say, “They’ve put forward 24 proposals that they think the government should be thinking about. They include controversial things such as abolishing the right of employees to ask for flexible working…”
and then
“Perhaps the most controversial is the proposal to abolish the right to collective bargaining for health workers and teachers.”
So, BBC probably not too keen on these ideas then.
Later on (at 10.45) Sam Washington talked to Miles Templeman of the Institute of Directors – for two whole minutes!! She put to him the trades union criticism of his ideas (“Thatcherite fantasy world” etc). He said she hadn’t mentioned the institute’s main ideas on planning reform.
As soon as the interview ended (“Thank you very much“), she turned back to the studio and said “Some pretty controversial proposals there!”
No, definitely doesn’t like them!
Libya, Jihad, Labour and INBBC.
Will the latest revelations about Lockerbie, Labour, Libya, Megrahi and BP lessen INBBC’s political ardour for Labour?
“‘Britain can’t sink any lower than this’: Fury of American relatives as report reveals UK did ‘all it could’ to release Lockerbie bomber”
“‘He should have died in jail’: Cameron blasts Labour over Megrahi’s release”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1354626/Lockerbie-bomber-Megrahi-Fury-American-families-report-reveals-Labour-pushed-release.html#ixzz1DJCR9I4P
INBBC report:
“UK” [Labour] “ministers ‘wanted Lockerbie bomber released'”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12381612
And clarification of INBBC’s first sentence from above:
“The previous UK” [Labour] “government did ‘all it could’ to help facilitate the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, a report on the case says.”
Video included of Cameron’s Parliamentary statement.
Received an email from the “Yes to fairer votes” campaign highlighting an example of bias in the BBC.
Seems they’re reluctant to call the May 5th referendum on electoral reform “Electoral Reform”??
Who’s driving this decision is beyond me – I think the people on here have strong ideas about the BBC’s political agenda – perhaps you’ve some ideas as to why they’re keen on keeping the status quo?
http://www.yestofairervotes.org/bring-back-reform
So would this be the same Jonathan Bartley who is a regular contributor to BBC and the Guardian’s Comment is Free [lol] green party activist from a women and gay friendly Christian group,anti cuts pro N.H.S and has written articles on how great a left wing coalition between lib and labour would be and who also ambushed,David Cameron during the election by using a helpless child like a puppet in a confrontational manner over conservative plans ! but I notice didn’t confront Brown and complain about Labour policies until he had to later ?
Yep he’s a real winner in the bias stakes then ?
Her master’s voice!
Ed Miliband asked for people to start calling the coalition government “the Conservative-led coalition”. The BBC hears and obeys. This morning Rachel Schofield (News Channel presenter) said
the SNP and Plaid Cymru are asking the Conservative-led coalition government to establish a fuel duty regulator…
If its used sparingly, there’s not necessarily anything wrong with it, but if they were going to be fair to all sides in the argument on nomenclature, they would use the phrase Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition, just as, if the Lib-dems were senior partners, it would be the Lib Dem-Conservative Coalition.
I have very little doubt though that if Labour were senior partners with the Coalition, the only time they’d be using the phrase ‘Labour led Government’ is when reporting something they know will be popular.
It is true David (Preiser) and Americans generally don’t understand devolution, Scottish devolution anyway.
Alex Salmond would have released Judas Iscariot, if he could have, to prove that he and Scotland had power in foreign policy areas. Anything to get one over on London was going to be done to extend their independence.
Salmond didn’t care whether Megrahi had terminal cancer or terminal acne, he was going out those prison gates.
He relied in the upshot not on the vague reports from medical experts but on an assessment made by the head of the Scottish prison medical service who had been just a GP so long ago he was no longer registered.
All the other prisoners that the Scottish Justice Minister Kenny McAskill has released on compassionate grounds died within weeks, some within days of release, and one on the very same day!
The BBC will never interview Salmond seriously because they love him and because they are so metriopolitan or biassed they don’t want to reveal it.
Thanks for that, Framer. I do understand the concept of devolution when it comes to local domestic issues. It’s the foreign policy part I can’t understand. That is to say, I get that somehow Scotland has this power, but it seems to me to be utter madness to cede the national security of the UK to a member State like this, and I don’t understand how devolution gives Scotland this power.
In any event, if Salmond did do it for no other reason than to flex Scottish muscle and show two fingers to Westminster, then the BBC ought to be saying that instead of defending Labour by reminding us of the possibility of severe repercussions from Libya or whatever. Their coverage is still a smokescreen to distract from all this.
Salmond was just interviwed by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight and, as usual, he walked all over him. Paxman had the vague notion that the Scottish prison service medical reports were important but he was swept aside, due, mostly, to deference I detected. No interrupting this loquaciouyus, well-prepared, giant of anti-UK politics.
“The BBC ought to be saying,” David writes. This presupposes the BBC has no agenda. Scots in devolution are immaculate. End of story so far as the BBC is concerned.
Devolution gave Scotland the power to release prisoners, foreign or otherwise. The Scots simply used it to the hilt. The UK has a residual or reserved power in the matter but to choose it would have been like sending a gunboat to Edinburgh and, as we know, Labour wanted Megrahi released.
Of course the BBBC don’t want electoral reform – The present system unfairly favours Labour. Another party can win more constituencies, but Labour end up with more seats – Can’t think of a more biased system.
Though every media outlet has to pick and choose its items to set editorial priorities, there was an item, quite distressing, which has been reported by public broadcasters (ie not privately funded) in Europe. So while the BBC has been filling its web page with Tahrir bloggers and bags of images and stories about their adventures with thugs who released them after a bit of pushing and shoving, this did not merit a report.
“News of a massacre of two Christian Coptic families by Islamists just emerged from Upper Egypt with the return of the Internet connections after a week of Internet blackout by the Egyptian regime. The massacre took place on Sunday, January 30 at 3 PM in the village of Sharona near Maghagha, Minya province. Two Islamists groups, aided by the Muslim neighbors, descended on the roof of houses owned by Copts, killing eleven Copts, including children, and seriously injuring four others.
Anba Agathon, Bishop of Maghagha, told Coptic activist Dr. Mona Roman in a televised interview on Al-Karma TV that the killers are their neighbors, who seized the opportunity of the mayhem prevailing in Egypt and the absence of police protection to slaughter the Copts. He said that he visited today the four injured Copts, who escaped death despite being shot, at Maghagha General Hospital and they told him that they recognized the main attackers as they come from the same village of Sharona. They gave the Bishop details of what happened.
“The two families were staying in their homes with their doors locked when suddenly the Islamists descended on them,” said Bishop Agathon, “killing eleven and leaving for dead four other family members. In addition, they looted everything that was in the two Coptic houses, including money, furniture and electrical equipment. They also looted livestock and grain.”
I emailed the story together with links to broadcasters to the BBC this morning.
Still nothing.
I think that in all the discussion about freedom and “will he go, won’t he go” and ‘facebook’, some issues have just been swept under the carpet because the don’t fit the narrative of how wonderfully the rainbow diversity of the protest reflects some fantasy of peace breaking out all over if Mubarack is seen off and how hard it is to sit in a Cairo nick for a couple of hours.
The One Show…aka, Labour Party Political Broadcast lite
Islam Not BBC (INBBC)’s Mr Kennedy unable to explain how the tenets of Islam are linked to Muslim father’s murder of his daughter in Italy.
INBBC’s Mr Kennedy describes the Muslim father as ‘a victim’!
“Why a” [M*****] “father killed his daughter who was ‘too western'”
(inc video clip)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12388801
For INBBC:
“Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings”
by Phyllis Chesler
[Excerpt]:
“Tempted by Western ideas, desiring to assimilate, and hoping to escape lives of subordination, those girls and women who exercise their option to be Western are killed—at early ages and in particularly gruesome ways. Frightening honor murders may constitute an object lesson to other Muslim girls and women about what may happen to them if they act on the temptation to do more than serve their fathers and brothers as domestic servants, marry their first cousin, and breed as many children as possible. The deaths of females already living in the West may also be intended as lessons for other female immigrants who are expected to lead subordinate and segregated lives amid the temptations and privileges of freedom. This is especially true in Europe where large Muslim ghettos have formed in the past few decades. It is particularly alarming to note that in Europe 96 percent of the honor killing perpetrators are Muslims.”
http://www.meforum.org/2646/worldwide-trends-in-honor-killings
I watched that video this morning and found that bBC video somewhat disturbing. It excuses honour killings as a [just] reaction to the excesses of the western world, that the father is a victim of his rage (which doesn’t explain how after refusing to go to Pakistan in which to marry a man they had picked for her, the family held a council, found her guilty and murdered her for the crime (In their eyes only ) of being a prostitute,) Also jailed were her uncle and his two sons.
Also left out of the bBC attempt in which to blame the west for Asians (Sorry, I used the term the bBC uses at the start of its propgander piece i meant to say Muslims) killing for loss of face, is how so many more girls are murdered in the East. Girls who I should have never ever set foot in the west. Instead the bBC paints this picture of a loving father who feared his daughter would fall victim to the act of taking drugs.
Here is a snippet taken from the link george provided which explains a little futher that western tag:
Finally, worldwide, 58 percent of the victims were murdered for being “too Western” and/or for resisting or disobeying cultural and religious expectations (see Table 1). The accusation of being “too Western” was the exact language used by the perpetrator or perpetrators. Being “too Western” meant being seen as too independent, not subservient enough, refusing to wear varieties of Islamic clothing (including forms of the veil), wanting an advanced education and a career, having non-Muslim (or non-Sikh or non-Hindu) friends or boyfriends, refusing to marry one’s first cousin, wanting to choose one’s own husband, choosing a socially “inferior” or non-Muslim (or non-Sikh or non-Hindu) husband; or leaving an abusive husband. There were statistically significant regional differences for this motive. For example, in North America, 91 percent of victims were murdered for being “too Western” as compared to a smaller but still substantial number (71 percent) in Europe. In comparison, only 43 percent of victims were killed for this reason in the Muslim world.
If they worry about being “too Western” what the f*** are they doing living in the West?
The BBC clip George R has posted is 2:21mins, and despite providing the feeling of having puss squirted in your face by the correspondent Duncan Kennedy it’s well worth viewing.
I feel tempted to commit an ‘honour killing’ on Mr Kennedy to restore BBC impartiality. I’m sure he’ll understand when I come at him with a knife for this obscene apologia he’s produced. It will be a tragedy for all concerned. When convicted I would still feel that Kennedy dishonoured the democratic values of his country ‘but regret the tragedy of what happened’ (ie getting locked up for it)’.
Not BBC , but it could so easily have been. Channel 4 News, “Krish” in Cairo does an incest interview with the utterly ludicrous Lynsey Hilsum. It is quite clear neither of them have a clue what is going on.
Pinko Jon Snow comments ” fascinating interchange there “.
I seriously believe that it is not just BBC journalists who are insane !
Channel 4 News is the ugly sister of the BBC.
Matthew Parris on Nicky Campbell’s call-in on marriage. ‘Are you married Matthew?’ – ‘No, I’m in a civil partnership, which is something different.’
Indeed. Try telling that to the Judge who ruled against the Christian B&B owners who refused a homosexual couple a double room because they only allow married couples to book them.
And having just done a quick google, there’s no inconsistency in Matthew Parris’ statement. He is a genuine liberal on the subject.
For some reason, best known to itself, Islam Not BBC (INBBC) only provides a cryptic report of this Muslim man, Hassan, who ran a Muslim TV station in America, and who beheaded his wife.
‘Jihadwatch’ has this reports:
“Buffalo, New York: Moderate Muslim who beheaded his wife guilty of 2nd degree murder”
-and there are about 10 earlier ‘Jihadwatch’ reports here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/br0nc0s/managed-mt/mt-search.cgi?search=buffalo+moderate+muslim&IncludeBlogs=1&limit=20
INBBC has this latest cryptic report:
“TV boss Muzzammil Hassan found guilty of beheading wife”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12388540
Ah, but the best part of the BBC’s coverage of the story must be this:
Prosecutors argued Hassan abused his wife and planned the attack in a hallway at Bridges TV, a satellite channel he set up in 2004 in an effort to counter negative portrayals of Muslims following the 9/11 terror attacks.
Good luck with that Hassan! 😛
Once again the usual beeboids come out of the woodwork on the BBC POV board (I wonder if they are the same as the digitalspy board?):
Peter Sissons and Bias
Someone asks: “Can you offer up a single example of the BBC attacking the coalition?”. Perhaps they should be invited here, at least for comedic value.
I’m sure many on here could reply to the poster’s question.
Richard Littlejohn telling it like it is again, on Labour Jihad boy Saddiq Khan and the BBC
In BBC-EU language, if one opposes mass immigration, one is termed ‘far right’.
These are the opening synoptic words on a 2-part BBC-EU Radio 4 programme (4 pm today, and next week):
“Chris Bowlby investigates how the far right is influencing mainstream European politics. He travels to Scandinavia where anti-immigration parties are increasingly powerful.” (Next week: Austria./Germany.)
Title of series:
“Europe: Driving on the Right”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y8vk4
But, of course, BBC-EU will continue ‘driving on the left’, in this series, and in all its political output.
If the BBC is reporting from a viewpoint which opposes the Right, they must be on the Left. Defenders of the indefensible will pretend this isn’t true anyway.
The first picture has been released of Meryl Streep playing Baroness Thatcher in The Iron Lady, the forthcoming Hollywood film about the former British prime minister’s life.
“It is being made by Pathe and BBC Films……”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/8311053/First-picture-of-Meryl-Streep-as-Baroness-Thatcher-in-The-Iron-Lady.html
OMG !
‘Daily Mail’ Sept 2010:
“Besmirching of a giant: How Meryl Streep’s ‘Maggie’ plumbs new depths by portraying her as destroyed by dementia and guilt about her record”
[Extract]
“Describing the film as a ‘Left-wing fantasy’ designed to cast
doubt on her political legacy, her relatives and supporters are once again having to accept that, where the world’s best-known female politician of the 20th century is concerned, art rarely reflects life.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1301025/How-Meryl-Streeps-Maggie-plumbs-new-depths-portraying-destroyed-dementia-guilt-record.html#ixzz1DNTEE0yr
There seems to be some debate on the ‘BBC Films’ part now. And it appears the Telegraph may have stealth edited in ways only BBCphobes will appreciate.
Pity, as i was looking forward to ‘Gordo Does World Saving’ by Michael Winner, funded by us via Aunty, natch
“Jeremy Paxman takes 20% pay cut to stay at Newsnight – but still gets £3m over four years”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23921439-jeremy-paxman-takes-20-percent-pay-cut-to-stay-at-newsnight—but-still-gets-pound-3m-over-four-years.do
Will we have millionaire Paxman and millionaire bankers commiserating with each other on ‘Newsnight’ tonight over pay and bonuses?
I would love to know what tax avoidance methods Paxman uses to shelter this massive income from UK tax.
“I would love to know what tax avoidance methods Paxman uses to shelter this massive income from UK tax.”
Well, there’s this for starters.
And how strange that HMRC are not using the “personal service company” legislation to challenge Paxman and his fellow tax avoiders.
Socialist corruption , anyone ?
Apparently the only way to deal with budget cuts in Manchester is to slash public services for children and the poor. There is no waste, no bloated bureaucracy, no poor management. The only way to make up for the “unfair” withholding of funds from Westminster is to close pools, libraries, and leisure centers, plus stop helping the poor with their rent. It’s the only way.
After a couple minutes of tragic vox pops, complete with shouty graphics and a big “26%” thrown up on the screen to drive home how massive these awful Tory cuts are, we get some councillor bleating about how unfair it is (somehow the cuts aren’t being spread evenly). He suggests that there are rich cities which aren’t facing large cuts, and that these closings are then the only way tp deal with the unfairness.
After repeating the “pools, libraries, and leisure centers (oh, my!)” line, the female Beeboid closes by saying that the Government says that this is a Labour council doing this out of spite and “playing politics with people’s lives”. That’s it for the opposing viewpoint. Nobody from the Government or even a non-Labour local gets an actual say. It’s only the BBC quoting the Government line, but after a whole segment of sob stories, it doesn’t sound very convincing, as no alternative cuts are offered. Nicely balanced, then.
And if we’re supposed to look at the long game, the bigger picture of the BBC’s reporting on these cuts and how councils handle them, it won’t help. There haven’t been, and won’t be any alternative plans offered at all, or any discussion about whether or not there’s any waste or anything else that could be cut besides services to the most vulnerable.
Yes; and as noted by ‘hippie’ above, Littlejohn has a suggestion for BBC on ‘cuts’: (scroll down) –
“How about some Tory cuts at the BBC?”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1354646/Camerons-multicultural-speech-Sadiq-Khan-politics-hate.html#ixzz1DNYOFKXA
Dopey female Beeboid in Manchester just said – after giving air time to yet another local hating on the Tories for closing a local leisure center – that the Coalition Government line is that Manchester council is “playing politics with people’s lives” with these closings, “but it’s places like this (gesturing to the center being closed) which feel the brunt.”
Yes, dear, that’s what they meant. And now you’re the one playing politics with people’s lives. She and her producer probably don’t even realize what she just said.
Again, another devastated Manchester mom, then the Labour MP for the area. Here’s the Coalition line, sir, please tear it apart. Thanks. They’re deliberately targeting the poorest communities.
But five points go to Sophie at the news desk for pointing out the waste of hiring Twitter and Facebook consultants for the council at ridiculous salaries. That’s the first time today someone has dared to make an intelligent point, and a very rare instance at all in BBC coverage of nasty Tory cuts.
Let’s see if her producer told her never to do it again.
PC Political Correctness
The beeb are all about PC The careful use of words so as not to offend minorities and so as not to reinforce prejudice. Thus they use actor for a female actor instead of the usual actress.
Thus a suicide bomber is an insurgent not a terrorist.
Well they play the game both ways. When words can be used to reinforce their own prejudices its perfectly ok.
Thus its not ‘coalition cuts’ its ‘tory cuts’.
Its not ‘freezing of funding at todays level’ but ‘cuts’.
A climate realist is called a denier.
A narrow majority is a consensus.
And today pro life groups are called anti-abortion but pro-abortion groups are called prochoice.
So one side gets its spin word whereas the other doesnt
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12369712
“Republican anti-abortion or Democratic pro-choice credentials ”
Choice and pro good positive words, anti and abortion bad negative words.
Its bloody 1984 mind control
Old trick. Pro is ‘progressive’, anti is ‘negative.
Straight out of the propagandist’s manual.
You can tell were the Beeboid mindset is located.
Both groups in the abortion battle call themselves ‘pro’.
Pro-Life and Pro-choice.
The Beeboid chooses which side to favour and this is a constant in their reporting and gives the lie to the impartiality conceit.
Thus they use actor for a female actor instead of the usual actress.
================
No, actor is now usual among actors. Has been for years. That’s what they call themselves so the Beeboid Corporation is following suit. Get with the lingo!
The case of insurgents or militants instead of terrorists is different. It appears to have become the Beeboid Corporation’s own preferred usage once it found itself having to report Islamic terrorism. It never had any difficulty using the phrase Irish terrorists and did so for years and years. In fact it continued to do so long after it had adopted militants for the Islamist variety.
Millie,
You say that actor is the new acceptable form and yet both BAFTA and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences both nests of luvies and left wing thinkers still referrs to leading actress not female actor or actor in a femal role.
If Hollywood has not ‘got with the program’ then i dont see why I should i’m far to the right of those pinkos
Calling someone an actress doesnt demean them. If it does then why have a gender based award at all and just have best actor and have done with it.
Then of course we could be more inclusive and give every one of the buggers a prize just for turing up just like some comp sportsday/ enjoy sport gathering event.
Pinkos! Those august institutions are obviously just as behind the times. It’s the individual thespians themselves I hear calling themselves actors. And they have been at it for ages. So much so that it seems normal now. They do have separate categories in the awards, of course. But if people want to call themselves actors, in line with singers, dancers etc, it is up to them and why not? as Barry Norman, used to say.
BBC Radio 4 is running a 2-part series on poloitical trends in Europe
The series is entitled:
“Europe: Driving on the Right.”
Part 1 today featured the Danish People’s Party, and the Sweden Democrats on issues such as multiculturalism, immigration, Islamisation and national identity.
If you can get past the BBC ‘driving on the left’, those political parties make some interesting points.
(f you have appropriate receiving equipment and appropriate geographical location, you could get audio on ‘i-Player’ here):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00y8vk4/Europe_Driving_on_the_Right_Scandinavia/
Next week: Austria and Germany.
Why is anti immigration right wing?
The left is full of xenophobic biggots. They just choose their own set of foreigners to object to.
The left dont want Gurkas coming here, ooh no dont want someone who may be loyal to what britain used to stand for , ooh no , theyd much rather have some pseudo asylum seeker claiming asylum because theyd been a terrorist in their own country and their homeland might want to deal with them.
They dont want south africans or white zimbabweans because they wont vote labour ooh no they’ed rather have a non english speaking pakistani entering the UK from a forced arranged marriage.
They dont want Yanks and aussies who’ve over stayed or Canadians who might have married brits ooh no they would rather have more big issue sellers to supplement the already huge number. They want terror cells on benefits not ex colonials contributing
PC is not a bizarre joke. It should not be laughed at. It is ,as you say, a deliberate attempt to mould our thinking to fit a totalitarian mindset. It is quite possible that the totalitarians will succeed. Our children are being indoctrinated and we, their parents, are being silenced. The next stage is to criminalise any opinions they want to silence. This is now happening in Europe to Geert Wilders and others . It will happen here and I predict it will be this government that does it. At the heart of this coalition is a very nasty authoritarian streak and I expect the worse. The BBC is only arguing about details. At heart it is one with the new authoritarians.
Dave S,
You are right, they are really not much different from the last lot.
Following on the above comments from George and dave:
Multiculturalism will fail: Tarek Fatah
A prominent voice in Canada’s Muslim community said British Prime Minister David Cameron was “spot on” when he insisted British multiculturalism has failed.
And just like Britain, Canada’s will fail, said Muslim Canadian Congress founder Tarek Fatah.
He said Monday that, like Britain, Canada has been too tolerant in allowing Muslim immigrants to settle into closed communities, some of which preach Islamic values and a hatred toward the West.
The coup de grace:
“The Canadian multicultural model has failed, as the British model has,” said Fatah. “When first generation (Muslims) are more loyal to Canada than the second generation, then we have sufficient evidence to say that multiculturalism has failed.”
BBC: ZZzzzzzzz
Another racist moving to the Right due to unhappiness with a black man as President?
Conservative Democrats switch to GOP across the Deep South
For Democrats, Ashley Bell was the kind of comer that a party builds a future on: A young African American lawyer, he served as president of the College Democrats of America, advised presidential candidate John Edwards and spoke at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston.
But after his party’s midterm beat-down in November, Bell, a commissioner in northern Georgia’s Hall County, jumped ship. He joined the Republicans.
So he’s abandoning his principles just because his party lost an election?
Bell, 30, said he had serious issues with the healthcare law and believed that conservative “blue dog” Democrats in Congress who shared his values had been bullied into voting for it.
Hmm. This sounds suspiciously like a Tea Party platform. I thought that was only white people who already opposed Him.
Bell’s defection is one of dozens by state and local Democratic officials in the Deep South in recent months that underscore Republicans’ continued consolidation of power in the region — a process that started with presidential politics but increasingly affects government down to the level of dogcatcher.
So maybe it’s the Democrats moving further and further to the Left, and further away from the majority of the public. How can this be an example of the Tea Party forcing the country further to the Right? That’s what the BBC has been claiming. This kind of thing keeps happening, all over the country, and it proves the BBC wrong.
And they’ve been utterly silent. ObamaCare is doomed, and people are abandoning it in droves, yet the BBC won’t tell you.
Off topic, but this footage of an old lady fighting off a group of jewel thieves with her handbag is the best thing I’ve seen in ages, if not ever.
Brilliant..I like the way she comes running from distance…whilst multiple cars/vans/taxis etc just pass by…and nobody else runs to help until AFTER most have got away.
I know I would have been no different to the mesmerised passersby, mulling over whether or not I was going to be a hero until it was too late, or in this case after this truly wonderful old lady had paved the way and done 90% of the work.
If this woman was made Chief Constable of Northamptonshire imagine how crime would fall – robogran!
She is very limber for a 70 year old. If this was 1 April, I’d say the News team had staged this. It still looks like that to me. I’m half expecting to be told that it was a hoax and that she is really a 40 year old fitness instructor, disguised as an old lady. I had to laugh, though. Six of them and she goes in swinging! And according to the news report, others were standing around photographing the robbers before she intervened. Is this a new thing? Don’t do anything to intervene but stand there snapping.
Full text; spot the missing word:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-12400076
Expenses fraud Barnsley Central MP Eric Illsley resignsEric Illsley pledged to stand down before his sentencing
Barnsley Central MP Eric Illsley has resigned, two days before he is due to be sentenced for dishonestly claiming parliamentary expenses.
The MP had come under pressure to step down after admitting £14,000 of expenses fraud last month.
Illsley had earlier said he “deeply regretted” his actions and would resign before his sentencing, which is due at Southwark Crown Court on Thursday.
A Treasury spokesman confirmed that Illsley had resigned on Tuesday night.
The spokesman confirmed that Illsley had been granted the ceremonial post of Crown Steward and Bailiff of the three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham – the traditional way of resigning from Parliament.
A writ will be moved for a by-election in his Barnsley Central seat, where Illsley enjoyed a majority of over 11,000 at the last election.