The fragrant (flagrant?) Ms Fiona Fox has had her say about Peter Sissons; time for a new thread to express your views about matters of BBC bias. Have fun!
OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Lazy Cat Dec 22, 08:36
Weekend 21st December 2024
Reform are the only viable ticket, but I see Farage as too left wing. He refuses to mention ‘remigration’. Perhaps… - Scroblene Dec 22, 06:34
Weekend 21st December 2024
Great clips there! Was Rik Mayall the voice of Bliar? - Scroblene Dec 22, 06:26
Weekend 21st December 2024
Stay up on your soap box, Lazers, you sum up what most legal citizens in the UK feel, and it’s… - Yasser Dasmibehbi Dec 22, 03:46
Weekend 21st December 2024
I found this interesting. https://youtu.be/tA8zz7niOy0?si=YwrTyvtMxLn2vVvH - StewGreen Dec 22, 00:14
Weekend 21st December 2024
Youtube just pushed a video at me that invading North Korean troops had been smashed cos they were using 19th… - StewGreen Dec 22, 00:09
Weekend 21st December 2024
“Jawdropping” propaganda from woke-Supremacist BBC and police https://youtu.be/IMuafLX0xhQ - Greencoat Dec 21, 23:22
Weekend 21st December 2024
Mantel was a deeply unpleasant, dishonest person. And her books? Next to unreadable. - tomo Dec 21, 23:12
Weekend 21st December 2024
Trump shooter…….. https://x.com/TonySeruga/status/1870474697676325217 - Lazy Cat Dec 21, 22:39
Weekend 21st December 2024
And that ‘Let’s get ready to rumble’ announcer is still going. He was doing the Tyson fights back in the…
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
One of the highlights for me of B-BBC are the quite unique postings of our dear friend Martin. Does anyone know what has happened to him ?
Has he changed sides and got a job with the BBC ?
Somebody suggested he had been kidnapped by Beeboid ‘Mongs’, and is being held on Hampstead Heath, surrounded by industrial sized jars of vaseline, with Rumanian rent boys guarding him, under the threat that Dame Nickii will be ‘Dealing’ with him shortly!
And the BBC never reported it!
Manfred,
I suspect that Martin , quite secretly, might enjoy that !
Now, now, ladies and gentleman, I think we know what happend.
An opinion that Martin had may well have gone a bit far (for some tastes) but it pails into insignificance when compared to the BBC’s”edgey” talent from the never ending treadmill of left-wing humorists. (Who can and say anything about the Tories ad hoc).
But if we don’t hear from him again, look forward to slightly less risqué b-bbc.
Martin has a very indelicate way of putting across his point at times People like Gregory latch onto Martins comments to ridicule all who oppose his authoritarian view.
“These are all points I endlessly addressed when I used to post here regularly. I refer you to them. Sadly in these days of Martin wishing AIDS on people I just don’t enjoy the banter of B-BBC like I used to so I’ll pass on getting involved in a big conversation here.”
David Gregory
http://biasedbbc.tv/2011/02/pull-other-one-roger.html#comments
Notice the word “banter” not debate.
Gregory used to post here a few years ago and he would use the same tactics not to answer the points. He never answered the questions put to him, because he refused to read anything that did not appear on Harrabins approved reading list.
I will issue a challenge to Gregory and I bet he does not take it up.
“Give me a link or list of the 2,000 scientists (not politicians or economists) who support the AGW theory”. It cannot be difficult for a science reporter to obtain this information. Ask the IPCC (they won’t tell me).
Or you could ask your collegue who wrote this.
“It highlighted a series of scientific reports issued over the last two decades by the IPCC, which comprises more than 2,000 leading climate change scientists and experts.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7041082.stm
But I suspect this is really the case:
“Chapter 9 of Working Group I had 53 authors in total but more than 40 were part of a network of people who worked previously together. In direct contradiction to the IPCC’s statements that the team of authors should have a wide range of views and experiences, most were climate modellers and there were many instances where several authors were associated with the same establishment. ”
http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers_orig.pdf
Here is something else that makes you doubt the AGW theory.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100075232/realclimategate-hits-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-peer-review/
Well it does me, but I expect Harrabin and his chums see nothing wrong with the corruption of science.
Martin went too far even by the robust standards of the blogosphere, and was rightly called out.
This immediately makes a mockery of the cherry-picking, high horse flouncing of those who would attempt to tar the vast proportion of sensible, justified commentary by diverse individuals, in irony-free and foot shooting attempts that merely highlight the daily, pervasive institutional line-crossings professionally, morally and ethically by the national broadcaster, its employees and groupies.
Especially by their silence 99.999% of the time and ridiculous over the top grasping at straw persons when rebuttal or correction could be sensibly pointed out on rare occasion. Plus, and I stress not in Mr. Gregory’s case (though I do note, as have others, how he has chosen not to ‘dip in’ lately across the swathes of BBC enviro-ineptitude on the beat he shares, demonstrating the watertight omission standards for which Aunty is noted when it suits), a facile inability to resist silly ad homs at those simply playing the ball.
Like Frankie Boyle who, unlike some here I think is an equal opportunity offender and rare talent, Martin hits more than he misses, but when he does miss the style will inevitably open a can of worms from the professional PC whinge and offence-taking community.
I don’t know, but maybe the absence is a self-imposed cooling off period in penitence and sacrifice to spare the blog the silly visitations it can get, that almost inevitably attempt to use rare archive line crossings by a person to tar the argument another is making by way of some justification.
If so, kudos. And an eventual return, equally robust, if wiser on sensible boundaries, will be more than welcomed. By me at least. In amongst the very un-PC teasing allusions (which I do not feel add much, frankly) are some truly valuable finds and insights that are missed.
Total loss would be a sacrifice too far, especially to offer a sop to the hypocritical PC-wielding vulture apologists of an organisation riven with multiples of standards on every ‘ism and matters of taste. And in light of the BBC’s sometimes vast capacity for forgiveness, if and when he does return having paid his debt, I’d suggest the petty brigade bears that in mind.
Of course, his abstentia might just be because he’s very busy! 🙂
Insights are what is needed. The problem is with the rest of it. Posting in a manner which is abusive will undermine and taint the blog as an irrational hate fest rather than a place of insight and reasoned argument. People will judge as they see fit and they are entitled to do so. Frankie Boyle is by no means equally obnoxious to one and all. He is just as PC as every other lefty comedian who infests the Beeboid Corporation and Channel 4. Like them, in the midst of his cruel and vicious jibes at suitably approved targets, he always goes suddenly all earnest and moral about some approved cause, which will be something like the evils of the West and the war in Iraq.
Saying that it is indelicate is an understatement and a most delicate way of describing what is gross and objectionable. I compliment you on that. Also agree that Gregory latched on to it and has since refused to answer any questions. (That was also characteristic of a few others who have come on here from time to time to take issue on behalf of Beeboidery or just to throw stones.)
Someone here subsequently posted a perfectly civil question, asking him something about how this blog was viewed outside of here. He hasn’t had the courtesy to reply. So what was the point of his bleating about the blog? People try to be civil and meet him half way and he flounces off. Point-scoring arrogance is all it seems to amount to. Slippery tactics.
I think the argument that one or two unfortunate remarks discredit the entire blog is complete and utter BS. You don’t see David Gregory or Scott M or any other defender of the indefensible who has claimed that ethnically or sexually insensitive remarks make this blog not worth their time saying the same thing about the HuffingtonPost or Daily Kos or FiredogLake or Guido or any number of other very popular and noticable sites. Yet, the comments in those places are far, far worse on a regular basis than most anything said here.
In fact, the main posts of some of the blogs Katie Connolly and other Beeboids have linked to on numerous occasions are full of vitriol and vicious rhetoric. So if a handful of unfortunate remarks discredit this blog, then I want to hear from the usual suspects that they believe that no one pays attention to Guido because of a few commenters, and that they would never respsect anything said at the Daily Kos because for the same reasons.
Hell, BBC correspondents have said things on air which are personally offensive to me. I don’t like listening to Justin Webb or Kevin Connolly or Mark Mardell or Richard Bacon or James Naughtie call me a racist any more than a homosexual appreciates the occasional remark about rent boys or vaseline. The difference is that one is off-color humor, and while the Beeboids’ remarks are deadly serious.
It’s a sh!t argument. Either engage with the real debate at hand or stay away. But don’t make up lame-ass excuses as to why you don’t defend the indefensible. Martin was right on with his observations about BBC bias most of the time, and this is just an excuse to dodge it.
Funny that I have much the same opinion of your strawmen and tirade as expressed in your first sentence and closing paragraph. Not over sensitive or intolerant much, are we?
Millie, I’m very tolerant. I just don’t accept that only this blog is rendered worthless due to a few comments while mainstream blogs are given a pass, and even referenced by the BBC as valid sources of opinion and information.
If Martin only made crude remarks it would be a different story. If defenders of the indefensible equally boycotted every BBC humor programme for the same reason, I would be less sensitive about this.
And who said any of that? Get off your high horse for a minute and you might even see that.
Millie, defenders of the indefensible have said that a number of times, not you. I’m saying I don’t buy it because it’s a double standard.
That’s a fair argument but it isn’t what I was arguing and you were ostensibly responding to my prior comment. I give full credit to people’s insights and I don’t like the double and triple standards and slipperiness wherever they come from.
Ah, I see now. My apologies, Millie, I never meant to argue with your comment directly above mine. Comment/reply format made it appear that way, but it wasn’t my intent at all. I should have made it a separate comment. No offense, I hope.
Yes, I took it as a riposte to my comment and that you were telling me to stay away in which case I was quite happy to take up arms and tell you to do the same thing, with bells on! Oh, dear. Apologies on my side also are in order, I think. No harm done and ruffled feathers now restored to pristine smoothness.
Well that is a relief.
I hate to see Millie and David P, two of my favourite posters here ,falling out !
I defend Martin . Whatever his style, he so often hits the nail on the head .
So far as I am concerned , he is free to post anytime. Anyone who doesn’t like it can just scroll down.
mwah :*
Perhaps he’s on holiday? And, if he’s reading this, is touched that a whole string of comments is concerned about him.
I doubt if any other poster here would provoke so many comments !
I hope he is only on holiday.
As said above, places like Guido’s comment section are way beyond the pale for even me stomach. A fair share of that could be attributed to lefty trolls though IMO, much like the Mail. I still read him daily though and find him very insightful.
2+2=4 wherever it is written and people like Gregory, Dezzie et al will always go for the low hanging fruit.
This place is very civil by comparison and Martin’s comments were one of the main things that dragged me into the comments section. I hope he hasn’t disappeared like Jack Bauer did.
Daniel,
I quite agree. What happened to Jack ? His posts were always astute and amusing.
Martin has his own , almost unique, imaginative use of language and he makes excellent points.
I think that this site is a big enough tent to accommodate all people of all shades and opinions.
Jack was clever. I got to like him. Who knows what happens to people? Perhaps he just decided one day to do something else. Perhaps he became bored with the same old Beeboidery and thought it was time to move on.
Caught a snippet of R4 ” You and Yours” today.
Beeboidess interviewing Johnny Boden of the clothes manufacturing company.
Boden says that the tax and benefit system in the UK makes it difficult for him to recruit young people . ” They just don’t want to work in clothes manufacturing”.
Beeboidess, presumebly surprised by his answer, asks him if he is exploiting labour in Asia ( unaware that any job there can be the difference between starving to death and survival). Boden replies that his company has ethical standards.
Funny tailpiece when Beeboidess reads out email from listener. It seems that , at the start, Beeboidess criticised Boden for catering to the “middle class market “. Listener says ” what is wrong with that ?”
It is so funny. I mean what on earth could be more “middle class” than a Beeboid ? Hilarious !
Beeboidia is a irony-free zone.
A sense of irony requires a self-critical awareness.
This lack of awareness, so necessary in the real world, is learnt in real life. Life not insulated in a bubble supported by the licence fee.
I can’t help thinking of this:
http://tinyurl.com/5tx2rpg
RGH,
“Beeboidia” ! Is that the new “Utopia” ?
Fed boss Ben Bernanke says that unemployment is still really bad in the US, and got a bit worse in December.
The Fed chairman also highlighted “notable declines in the unemployment rate in January and December”.
However, he said moderate growth and reluctance among employers to hire new staff meant “it will be several years before the unemployment rate has returned to more normal level”.
He said the bulk of unemployment was cyclical, but that if the jobless rate remained high – it currently stands at 9% – for long enough, then it would become more structural in nature.
This means that Ed Balls told a big fat lie in Parliament yesterday when he compared the US favorably to the Tories’ management. He said unemployment was down, things were looking up. Yet the BBC allowed it to stand, hasn’t challenged a single Labour mouthpiece or other expert analyst about this. Instead, they challenge only the Conservative-led Coalition, taking the Balls line each and every time.
The BBC is HM Opposition.
The BBC is in effect the propaganda arm of the Labour Party; why the Conservatives don’t point this out is increasingly beyond me.
Because the consequences of going against the BBC and those who like/support the BBC would be grave at the ballot box. Putting up with the bias of the BBC is less harmful.
But as far as I can tell, they do practically nothing. They could express some concern as a starting point, and in particular compile some statistics (with Craig’s help?) to back up their point. This would compel the BBC to respond with their own statistics, because getting Helen Boaden to say that impartiality is in the genes wouldn’t be enough.
There is still general support for the BBC because it’s never been properly challenged. The Tories haven’t had the balls or guile to do it properly, and are reaping the results of decades of this failure.
Marky,
I am not sure I agree. I find it hard to believe anyone would change the way they vote just because the Tories came out against the BBC.
I think that their inaction is partly cowardice and partly that some of them are genuinely too dim to realise how much the Beeboids hate the Tories.
The top ranks of the Conservatives have a number of highly intelligent people, including Cameron. However, if you yourself don’t have a deep level of hate, it is very difficult to grasp the depth of hatred that can be harboured by other parties towards you. And of course the Conservatives all grew up with the BBC too so they have the same love of it that people generally do.
I too grew up with the BBC; from Childrens TV onwards to Radio 4. I love the lack of advertisements (although the trails for other BBC programmes are almost as bad), the quality of much of the broadcasting. This doesn’t mean that I cannot hate the bias.
Millie,
Fair point.
But this is it Grant, they dont come out against the BBC. They use their position of supposed ‘impartiality’ to unduly influence people.
Yes, it’s like the NHS, another sacred cow. See how that would play? In addition to Evil Tories Destroying the NHS / BBC Which We all were Born in / Grew Up With and Have Loved All of Our Lives, you would have Evil Tory Political Interference with the Independence of the Impartial BBC for Ideological Reasons seeking to make the BBC a Lackey and a Propaganda Organ of the Government, Putting Grubby Politics and Party Political Advantage before the Prized Neutrality of a Worldwide Renowned Great British Institution.
Stuck record time: They cannot separate in their minds the News department from all the stuff everyone loves and grew up with. Attacking one is a de facto attack on all the rest. This seems to be an insurmountable obstacle.
Is is really? At present the BBC pour out anti-Conservative propaganda and the Conservatives say nothing so it continues. What would the BBC do if it was pointed out?
NotaSheep, it does get pointed out, and they just say “we think we got it about right”. Sometimes they don’t even bother with that and just give us the standard defender of the indefensible line about how we just want to hear our own opinions broadcast and nothing else.
They would say that they get attacked from both left and right; therefore they must be doing it right.
/ QED and thumb nose to you, mate.
True Marky, but the Tory Party doesn’t look for a way to change the climate so BBC bias can be properly tackled. Its critical to British democracy that it is. If we have the three main parties signed up to cultural Marxism because of it, democracy simply can’t survive.
“Tory Party doesn’t look for a way to change the climate”
I think you should rephrase that. 😀
Hippie,
You are right , the 3 main parties are marxists to a different degree.
As my late father said to me when I was a boy in the 1960s, “the Conservatives are just slow-motion socialists”.
Not when Maggie was in!
I’m watching Cameron – he is already changing the climate (oops, unfortunate phrase there) – and waiting for him to work his way around to quangos like the Beeboid Corporation. It will be interesting to see for example when appointments are made to the Beeboid Trust. Chairman is due to leave. Who is getting that post?
There are other key quangos where I anticipate change and developments. For instance, the Equalities and so-called Human Rights Commission. I cannot believe that Cameron really intends to keep the useless Labour luvvy Trevor Phillips there.
I hope you are right , Millie.
Trevor Phillips gets Correctnicks’ goat. Gotta have something going for him?
Did anyone catch Peter Sissons on Richard Bacon this afternoon? I commented in the old OT while it was on air, would be interested in people’s takes on it.
I heard it. Bacon was pathetic, like a petulant child.
‘Petulant’ is exactly the word I used in the old OT as well. It was interesting that he didn’t want to deal with Sissons’ strongest claim that the BBC is an AGW propaganda machine.
Radio 5 Bacon-Sissons episode on I-Player, for those with access:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00yc03b/Richard_Bacon_Peter_Sissons_and_Andy_Parsons_join_Richard
Wow! I’m listening to it now.
Bacon has the cheek to say he’s not defending the BBC!
What a prat.
The interview with Sissons starts at 8.10 minutes.
Bacon is indeed petulant – and also in denial that the BBC is biased. Bacon says that the Radio 5 newsroom is mainly influenced by the Daily Mail and Telegraph – Ho! Ho!
Sissons reveals that the influence of the Guardian is even more widespread in the BBC Television newsroom than he suggests in his book.
What is most apparent, however, is that Richard Bacon hates being confronted with the truth about the BBC. Writ large -the BBC is swamped with 1’000s more Richard Bacons who will continue to forcibly reject the daily examples of well justified bias with which they are confronted.
They’ll reject them while knowing they’re true. This part of his interview with Sissons reminded me of the highly partisan pre-election interview he conducted with Lance Price who confirmed previous allegations of Gordon Brown’s violent temper and instability. Bacon was like a dog with a bone. He mentioned about 3 times ‘why are you damaging Labour’s re-election chances?’ in the same petulant, whiny manner he employed with Sissons. Whenever someone says something he doesn’t want people to hear, he just tries to grind them down with repetition.
One claim he made was when he first started @ 5Live his producer told him if he wants to know what stories to cover, read the Daily Mail. Well, I’ll take his word for it, but its not advice he’s taken, is it?
I dropped Bacon an email pointing out that one thing that confirms endemic BBC bias, apart from the output, is what BBC staff Twitter – especially him!
Bacon is a denier. Or at the best a useful idiot. And he was also disrespectful to Peter Sissons a man of great experience. Bacon is not worthy to hold this mans microphone. Yet he bullys interupts his guest because Sissons slams BBC impartiality, and Bacon being a BBC drone uses all his sophistry to try and make Sissons look like a fool. However Bacon’s behavior proved Peter Sissons’ point.
Why does anyone even want to listen to him? The more I read about him on here, the more thankful I am that I have never heard him and the more certain that I don’t want to.
But by that measure Millie, if you’ve never listened to Nicky Campbell or Victoria Derbyshire, you never would from what you read here. I think they’re excellent.
I hadn’t heard Richard Bacon till I saw him mentioned here, but in his case, he fits his billing as a Labour stooge.
Yes, well, that’s the risk and I recognise that but I am willing to take my chances in this case. As it happens, in the case of Nicky Campbell, I do from time to time see his Sunday morning programme The Big Questions. It’s a programme with all the usual suspects and heavy on Beeboid agenda. How much of that is him or others is moot. I am aware of your intense admiration but am myself more lukewarm. He does throw in the odd question from the “other” side. Maybe that is just a gesture to impartiality, though.
I implore you to catch him on his morning radio programme and his phone-in after. This phone-in on anti-Semitism (which DV gave grudging – very grudging! – appreciation for) I highly recommend if you have the time.
… Actually its no longer available, but this phone-in on multiculturalism is a good one:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ybz65/5_live_Breakfast_Your_Call_Multiculturalism_what_exactly_is_it/
It’s partly that the radio station that they are on is not even on my horizon. I wouldn’t know where it is on the dial without looking it up. I tend to keep tuned to Radio 3 with occasional sallies into Radio 4. At least they are next to each other on FM. Radio 4 is not safe these days as it is so agenda led. Even Radio 3 is not immune but at least there is usually some nice music that they can’t tamper with. I will though, listen to the programme on your link above, thanks.
Your reference to the Radio 5 Newsroom’s influences reminds me of something I’ve been meaning to ask. The other day, out of idle curiosity, I twirled the dial from the Radio 4 news bulletin at the top of the hour to the Radio 2 bulletin to see if they were giving out the same news. They weren’t. I wondered why. This is only the short bulletin I am talking about. I thought they would have an integrated newsroom and news bulletin to go out on all the main UK-wide radio stations.
One line that Sissons wrote in the Daily Mail that Bacon was too much of a coward to mention “Islam must not be offended at any price, although Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended”
What a weasel Bacon is, always covering up for the BBC.
Is it me, or has the bBC tightened the ratchet on the present government. Anything this government does is criticised, instead of showing the facts in which to back up their case they play the emotion card usually by having an Labour MP to play the bBC violin.
Any chance of the spam getting canned???
Deleted, blocked, and my apologies for the delay. The spam filter here blocks hundreds of off-topic *cough* comments from spambots each day but every now and then a couple get through.
All seeing eye,
Thanks for that. I wasn’t aware this site was a target. I just hope that, generally, censorship is as light as possible.
Hi Grant, I don’t censor anything – the spam filter picks up tons of automated offers to make certain bits of your body bigger/smaller and quietly dumps them. It has probably been responsible for depriving one or two genuine heirs of their rightful Nigerian millions too. Occasionally one slips through.
All Seeing Eye,
Many thanks for that. However, my wife may be disappointed !
If you really, really want to know what’s going on in the Umma…and who thinks all this revolutionary stuff could be going their way….please, compare and contrast the anodyne BBC report :
“Jordan tribes criticise Queen Rania’s ‘political role’
A group of Jordanian tribal leaders has taken the unusual step of urging King Abdullah to curtail what they see as his wife’s involvement in politics.
The 36 tribal leaders attacked Queen Rania’s Palestinian origins and said she was “building power centres for her own interests”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12400274
with
with the following:
“On one side is the fashionably dressed Queen Rania of Jordan, an elegant symbol of progressive values for Arab women. On the other are her country’s conservative social and religious leaders.
At stake is a political test case for reform in the Middle East, one that pits demands for greater democracy against the need to end the scandal of so-called honour killings of women.
Queen Rania, who regularly appears without head-scarf, let alone hijab, has given her quiet support to women’s rights groups who want to change laws amounting to legal impunity for men involved in honour killings.
Standing against her is another symbol of the country’s attempts to show a progressive face. Jordan’s MPs, who have been given more power to hold the government and royal family to account than in other Arab countries, have shown little enthusiasm for the moves.
The leader of the parliament’s Islamic Action Front, a coalition of Islamist and tribal representatives has so far blocked an attempt to introduce tougher sentences for men who have killed their sisters and daughters for bringing “shame” on their families.”
Then the BBC, thrilling to all this ‘change’in the air, senses more Arab enlightenment from the challengers to Queen Rania:.
“Like other countries in the region, Jordan has seen large street protests calling for political and economic reforms. But the protesters have not called for the king to step down.
“We call for a modern electoral law based on consultations with all political forces in Jordan, enhancing freedoms and the formation of a national salvation government to oversee a transparent parliamentary election,” the tribal leaders’ statement said.
“Disregard for the content of the statement will throw us into what happened in Tunis and Egypt and what will happen in other Arab countries,” the statement warned.”
What a bunch of chumps the BBC are!
Has anybody this this bBC excuse for a news article from Sweden. The subject.. Muslims can only be victims.
In f@#$ing Malmö, of all places? Where Jews have been forced out due to violence by Muslims, actions which the f@#$ing mayor justifies by saying they have it coming if they support Israel? And which the BBC has NEVER reported? Jesus H. Christ.
BBC = Scum.
Come on you miserable defenders of the indefensible: let’s see you address this one. Do I need to call you out by name?
For an alternative view.Swedish Welfare State Collapses as Immigrants Wage War
Muslim Rape Epidemic in Sweden and Norway – Authorities Look the Other Way
No, INBBC has its pro-Islam, pro-Hamas agenda, which even afflicts is totally biased reporting of Sweden.
This ‘Telegraph’ report (21-2-2010) gives some idea of the harsh consequences of mass immigration and ‘multiculturalism’ in Sweden:
“Jews leave Swedish city after sharp rise in anti-Semitic hate crimes”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/7278532/Jews-leave-Swedish-city-after-sharp-rise-in-anti-Semitic-hate-crimes.html
How dare the Swedes, after they forced all these cherubs at gun point to leave their wonderful homelands since 1990 (starting with Bosnia) to be fully supported with the most generous social benefits in Europe paid for by 60% taxes.
I mean, how dare they!
Don’t they know that they are racists with their exploitatative asylum policies, their inhuman human rights legislation.
How double dare those honky Swedish?
(sarc/off)
Is the bBC handing out a different version of the news for its foreign language readers?
I use a number of web browsers on my home computer, one of them Google chrome has a translate function built in and so if you hit a foreign language webpage it will offer to translate it into English. Which is what I’ve been doing with the bBCs Persian News website. Now I came across the story about William Hague talking about the peace process in the Middle East and while I accept that a lot can be lost in translation i don’t think it can conjure up the following which for some reason is missing from the English version of the same story:
Meanwhile, Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s foreign minister, said anyone who thought the Israeli-Palestinian conflict part of the current crisis in the Middle East, is trying to escape from reality. John Danysvn, BBC correspondent in Jerusalem says Mr Lieberman has a history of reckless talk.
Now if you click on the vido clips on both versions you find that the Persian version is over a minute longer, mainly due to the 1 minute clip of houses been built with the view ending with an Israeli flag flying over them all, just in case you wonder who owns them houses.
Oh and for those of you who don’t use Chrome here is a screen dump of said webpage.
Ladies, gents… ladyboys (of the professional offence-taking community), flounce up your engines! I do declare another gauntlet has been thrown…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8314213/Michael-Buerk-presenters-should-not-be-recruited-to-fill-quotas-of-lesbians-or-Asians.html
ps: Fiona, groupies…. while I do concede he’s another who has waited until the pension is secure before finding some more cojones, before going the usual routes, it might be worth reflecting that there seem to be an awful lot of them coming out… of the woodwork.. who were employed and stayed so a fair old while. But I do look forward to the hole-digging tweetstorm by yoofist hive members and maybe even another foot-shooting outing on ‘The Editors’ by market rate ‘talent’, ‘Hugs’ Helen.
Michael Buerk has pedigree for going against the Gramscian grain at the BBC. A year or so ago he upset Anna Ford for speaking out against the preference given to women. Anyone who upsets a left-wing prig like Anna Ford gets the thumbs up in my book.
Curiously enough, of he regular stable of panelists on ‘The Moral Maze’ about half of them are from the Revolutionary Communist Party! Last night Kenan Malik and Claire Fox were on with Michael Portillo and .. someone else! I was only aware Malik was a commie when Douglas Murray (God bless him!) called him out on it. And lo and behold, the first thing Comrade Fox wanted to say in her closing remarks was how appalling Douglas Murray’s behaviour was. Buerk interjected to repudiate this.
Anyone catch Eddie Mair on PM yesterday regarding Meryl Streep playing Margaret Thatcher?
The main interview was with Sylvia Sims, who had played her. “I loathed the woman”, she said. So, to cancel out Ms Sims’ partisan views, they started with advice from John Seargent, Matthew Paris (who were both, I thought, fairly neutral in their advice) and…. drum roll….
Billy Bragg. “Vindictive.” “Meryl Streep has previous as she played a wicked witch.” Yes, the left are so tolerant, and not at all the nasty party.
Top headline on INBBC ‘US & Canada’ news webpage:
“Egypt Minister criticises US role”
What INBBC relegates:
“Aims of the Brotherhood”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/6666343/aims-of-the-brotherhood.thtml
We see that Prince Charles has now had a pop at climate skeptics. Does any one else think its a bit of a coincidence, coming on the tail of attacks on Dellers, Monkton, then the Fiona Fox diatribe, now Charlie.
You would be forgiven for suspecting a co-ordinated campaign with “guiding minds” somewhere in the Greensphere. All ways the same messages – skeptics are attacking science that is settled, in the face of overwhelming proof, harming the saving of the planet by sowing seeds of doubt.
And the treacherous BBC is always around to report it. Anyone might think they might be part of a co-ordinated conspiracy.
I think Charlie is brilliant [the royal not the other !! :-$ ] anything he says turns to utter “£$^8 !really no one should really feels much but a grudging pity for the bloke! and his followers !.
Now his son’s are different one having a good time with girls in clubs and nowt wrong with that now and the other is on S.A.R at valley and doing some good in the world, plus he got the track day at the base reinstated as he has a 1058 ducati which is great for me as I’m 10 miles up the road [sorry self interest i know !!]
Thank you very much!
I prefer our very own B-BBC Charlie !
I do talk posh sometimes!
Wonder if we’ll hear any peep of this from the BBC….
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/01/cnnheroes.roth/
The BBC propaganda machine works even in the Arts and Entertainment section.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12398823
Exhibition of photographs from Gaza by Kai Wiedenhofer.
Photographs taken ” after a 6 month ceasefire broke down”
And why was that, dear BBC?
“A 16 year old playing on the top floor of her aprtment building with her sister and friend”
(During an air raid???)
And look at the missile case. The explosive must have poured out of the top, leaving the case intact.
The photographer has been accused of anti-semitism, but he jokes “anti-semitic photography doesn’t exist. I only photographed what’s there.”
No you didn’t. You artfully arranged the victims and the artifacts to prove a point.
And of course, the final statement of the video “Israel deliberately targeted civilians”
It’s what the BBC does so well- (and this exhibition fills the role supremely well- ) so the fact that the BBC is promoting this and advertising it comes as no surprise.
And I pay for this!!!!!
I wonder when he’ll be running an exhibition of photos of our troops next to the IED that blew their limbs off. What about a nice snap of Gilad Shilat? – just as he is right now will do – no pose necessary.
What about an exhibition of some of his old stock photos of what’s left of the Israelis blown to pieces on buses and in shops is Israel hit by the multiple suicide bombers.
Somehow I don’t think we’ll see that
“I wonder when he’ll be running an exhibition of photos of our troops next to the IED that blew their limbs off.”
Don’t hold your breath!
Most explosive devices do exactly that. Nothing remains of the IED but shrapnel.
Except in Pallywood.
And naturally no reporting of this:-
http://idfspokesperson.com/2011/02/09/israeli-air-force-targets-terror-sites-in-the-gaza-strip-in-response-to-rocket-fire/
“Over forty mortar shells, Qassam rockets and Grad missiles were fired from the Gaza Strip and landed in Israeli territory since the beginning of 2011.”
But then, that has yet to be confirmed by an independent source.(sarc)
@familyjaffa – thanks for the site reference. Been looking for one of those for a while now
Presumably photoes like these http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2011/02/bbc-and-gaza.html will not be featured.
Exactly like those. The Israelis made a proper mess of Gaza didn’t they judging by those photos 😉
In the eyes of the BBC and fellow anti-semites, Jews are not human beings.
Looks like my father and his generation wasted their time fighting the Nazis.
I linked to this here. ( First heard on the Strand BBC World service) more here.
“The photographer has been accused of having antisemitic views.”
Not being “conservatives”, they are in agreement with the “labour” party as much as with the the lib-dims, so why would they want to get into a fight. They don’t do “fighting” as they don’t do EU or defence.
Listened last night to the Tuesday afternoon Radio 4 programme “Driving on the right” concerning the Danish Peoples Party influence on immigration policies in Denmark.
One Dane commended the party for reducing immigration from 30000 (I believe) down to 4000 a year (presumably of non – EU citizens). Another Dane bemoaned the fact that he and his Mexican wife may have to leave because she cannot obtain a permanent residence visa.
What was so patently missing from the programme was information on just what changes had been made to their laws to bring this about – strange that. Anybody reading this can enlighten us?
The presenter then popped over to Malmo where seemingly many Danes set up home with their non-qualifying wife and commute to work in Denmark. But seemingly Sweden is starting down the less welcoming road, with Malmo seemingly represnting all that is worst from immigration of people unwilling to subsume themselves in Swedish culture, apart from the state benefits of course.
Although the DPP have never been in government their 15% of the vote is enough to influence policy. But then that is proportional representation for you
Again with Malmö? And still no mention of the problems Jews have faced there at the hands of Muslims?
BBC = Scum.
R4 “From our own correspondent ” today. Beeboid , John Line (?) in Egypt singing the praises of the local vigilante groups set up as a result of the breakdown in law and order. I look forward to Beeboids supporting the UK equivalent.
The Beeboid then went on to criticise the Egyptian State Broadcaster for broadcasting “inflammatory propaganda “. Beeboid totally unaware of the irony of that comment !
R4 “Womens’ Hour ” today was about Women in business .
Business woman says that when she started in business she didn’t even know the meaning of “cash flow “.
Beeboidess says ” Don’t worry , many people I know in business don’t know the difference between turnover and profit , in fact I am not sure I know “.
No further comment required !
There seems to be an attitude at the BBC that certain things are important to understand – like the offside rule. But matters related to business are unimportant; the difference between the deficit and debt for instance.
Nota,
But I bet Beeboids understand their own pay packets and support their own tax avoidance schemes !
Makes a change from spending money the easy bit. Making money the hard bit. A refreshing change.
When is the BBC going to do a programme discussing how national sovereignty no longer exists in England, nor in the UK?
Scotland is allowed (by the laws of devolution – I get it) to have complete control over UK-national security issues, and Westminster is powerless. Then there’s the whole larger problem of how Scotland, Wales, and NI have more control now over their own internal destiny than England, as there is no English Parliament. That’s no more fair than the fact that English students have to pay to attend Scottish universities, while Scottish students don’t, while England isn’t allowed to play the same game.
The BBC lends tacit support to this when they tolerate Welsh and Scottish nationalism and flag-waving, but accept the flying of the St. George Cross only during sporting events, and treat it as a racist symbol at all other times.
Now I see that the UK has to change its own voting laws – which will affect the composition of the government and the fate of the entire country – because a rule has been handed down from the EU. No choice, as your rulers signed onto it years ago without your consent.
There are several other issues where laws created elsewhere must no be enforced in Britain, although this voting rule seems to be a much bigger deal than the proper shape of bananas or whatever.
Now Laura Kuenssberg is telling a Tory MP who is complaining about this voting noise that complainers like her will want the Human Rights Act to be “torn up”. Being upset at losing national sovereignty like this is just a “gut point of view”, says Laura. She suggests it’s really very complicated, so best leave it be. Good thing the BBC trust removed the part about speaking for UK interests from the Charter in their last revision.
I believe there is a very important story here regarding the loss of national sovereignty on a whole host of issues. This isn’t just about the EU, either, as the deal with Scotland and the Lybian mass murderer reveals. Where is the BBC on this? Playing it down at every turn, obviously. Is there not a single BBC producer who thinks this might be worth examining at length? Nobody in the public concerned at all, so not worth the BBC’s valuable time?
Perhaps this is just another misapprehension by an ignorant United Statesian. But I calls ’em like I sees ’em.
Small point of order, David. The rule on voting for prisoners is a judgement of the European Court of Human Rights, not the EU. They are separate bodies, although I am sure those more knowledgable than I can show how intimately entwined they are as they seem to be populated by the same kind of f***wits.
In truth, whether a few prisoners can vote or not is of little practical importance. It’s the principle that counts and if this can be used to persuade our supine MPs to rebel, then so much the better. Having done it once they may find it easier the next time.
You’re right, Roland, sorry, my mistake. It’s a third body which has more control over your own destiny than the government you get to vote on. But now the UK will have to defend its own sovereignty in court?
The Convention on Human Rights with its own court in Strasbourg comes under the Council of Europe which was set up after the last World War before the EU existed or was thought of – well, its embryonic form, the European Coal & Steel Community, was proposed about a year afterwards. All the Member States of the EU were and are members of the Council of Europe.
Adherance to the European Court of Human Rights (correctly identified as not being the EU) is, nonetheless, a requirement for EU membership.
“MPs are obviously enjoying this. You’re enjoying this immensely,” Laura Kuenssberg says to David Davis. She can say it’s non-binding, but should she be allowed to chide an MP on air like this?
I was watching News 24 when Straw & Davis first mentioned tabling this motion. Cue the return to the studio and something like “They make a right pair” in a p*ss taking fashion
David P,
Did David Davis just take it or did he fight back ?
Davis stood his ground, and went on to say that it was only going to get worse, and now Britain had to defend its own sovereignty on the issue against a lawsuit from Strasbourg. He didn’t exactly fight back when Laura said he and others were “grandstanding”, just kept to his viewpoint.
I think a fair thing would have been for Laura to say something like, “Isn’t this just grandstanding?”. But that’s not what she did. She was actually chiding him for “enjoying” making an issue out of it.
A couple of non-Journalistas in the US recognise the significance of the Cameron speech condemning multiculturalism – the speech that the BBC quickly buried :
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/02/08/krauthammer_camerons_speech_on_multiculturalism_an_important_cultural_shift.html
My impression was that the BBC carried on for days about the Baroness Warsi speech about “Islamophobia”. But Cameron’s far more important speech was quickly sidelined, linked with the EDL rally etc – the CONTENT of the speech was hardly pursued by the BBC.
They must have been gobsmacked and left reeling. A right kick in the teeth for Beeboids and their ever-present multcult creed.
And this may help to explain the seeming stepping up of BBC attacks on Conservative policies in recent days.
So here i am with the TV on in the other room and the bBC news presenter says to the reporter in Eygpt;
“Isn’t this great news, that Mubrarac is stepping down’
It seems that impartial reporting isn’t in the bBC remit anymore. Based on that I wonder when the bBC will start issuing the call to prayer 5 times a day,
It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the BBC will be broadcasting the adhan – http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2008/04/transmitting-call-to-prayer.html
I have not been able to find anything on the BBC about reports that the Saudi king is threatening to bankroll Egypt if the US does not back off from trying to force Mubarrak out.
Obama and his advisors , in love with the heady whiff of activist power , seem to be unaware that other Arab leaders regard their behaviour as a betrayal of a loyal ally.
If King Abdullah gives them the money the regime will hang on. Next step will be a Saudi approach to Iran in an attempt to mend relations.
Nothing about this from the 60s student activists on the BBC.
Nothing is so far removed from reality or realpolitik as the emotional approach of the liberals currently dominant in the West.
One of the Beeboids on the News Channel mentioned it once, but I think they got away with it. It was barely mentioned in passing the one time, but nothing since then.
I hope the BBC doesn’t start calling this a military coup, full stop. While the army is obviously going to make things happen, surely this is them responding to the people and not the usual sort of military coup like in Burma or something. The result is more like Thailand, maybe?
The level of the intelligence of BBC employees
“@lynnbaba given what is happening in Egypt couldnt the Iraqis have done the same without outside help and wouldnt that have been better”
Tweets by bbckirstylang
Maybe Kirsty Lang needs to do a bit of research.
http://www.int-review.org/terr35a.html
How can people with such a lack of understanding become “..news anchor BBC World News.”?
So there’s a Conservative Political Action Committee conference going on now, where various conservative figures try to set the agenda for the next year. This time, of course, a couple of Presidential hopefuls start testing the waters for a run. The BBC’s primary concern? Sarah Palin isn’t there.
CPAC: Top US conservatives meet amid Sarah Palin row
Potential Republican runners for US president in 2012 are gathering at the CPAC summit of conservatives, amid a row over former Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s non-attendance at the event.
Their obsession with her puts a minor story ahead of the real story: Tea Party-elected Rep. Michelle Bachman takes the national stage for the first time, and clearly the Tea Party movement (whom the BBC denegrated and dismissed at every turn) is having a very real influence on the Republican Party and the agenda of the confence.
Of course, since this is the BBC, there’s always going to be something they don’t want you to know. In addition to responding to some remark by Rick Santorum while on Fox News, she said this, in the very same interview:
Palin said she didn’t see anything wrong with the participation of GOProud, a group of gay Republicans, at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which runs Thursday through Saturday.
“I don’t have a problem with different, diverse groups that are involved in political discourse, and having a convention to talk about what the answers are to their problems that face America,” Palin said Wednesday on Fox News when asked about GOProud.
Somewhere, a Beeboid’s head just exploded.
Oh, yeah, there’s one other thing the BBC doesn’t want you to know. It’s relevant to the main topic of this news brief, and directly contradicts the message that Palin isn’t appearing due to a “row”:
Palin isn’t participating in the conference, and she’s declined previous invitations, despite CPAC’s role as a cattle call for possible Republican presidential candidates.
So she doesn’t go to these things anyway, nothing to do with Santorum or a row. Not only that, but apparently certain other conservative figures are boycotting the event specifically because of the inclusion =-O of the homosexual group. That should be the real story: the Tea Party influence has nothing to do with Social Conservative issues, contrary to how the BBC tried to portray us last year. Instead, the BBC decided they needed to interpret the event for you in a different way.
Don’t trust the BBC on US issues.
Link to actual Sarah Palin statement:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/143163-palin-no-problems-with-gay-conservative-group-at-cpac
They’ve updated the report to include Donad Trump’s appearance at CPAC (the earlier version can be viewed here).
The bit about Santorum/Palin spat is typically shoddy:
Ms Palin, one of the most popular and closely watched conservative figures in the country, did not attend, citing a scheduling conflict.
In a sign of intra-party strife that is likely to build as the party nomination fight heats up, Mr Santorum suggested Ms Palin was skipping the conference because she would not be getting paid.
But speaking on Fox News on Wednesday night, Ms Palin suggested Mr Santorum was “uninformed” and called him a “knuckle-dragging Neanderthal”.
The account fails to point out that Palin was responding to this comment from Santorum:
“I don’t live in Alaska and I’m not the mother to all these kids and I don’t have other responsibilities that she has.”
Santorum has seven kids of his own, hence Palin’s retort:
“I will not call him the knuckle-dragging Neanderthal,’ Palin said. ‘I’ll let his wife call him that instead.”
She didn’t actually call him a “knuckle-dragging Neanderthal” directly – she said she’d leave that to his wife, which was a more subtle and amusing way of making her point.
An out-of-context misquote – still, it’s only Palin and the Republican Party so nothing for the BBC to be bothered about.
OH dear, the bottle of champagne will have to be put on ice until September as things didn’t go according to what the bBC have been saying 60 minutes in every hour since this afternoon about how he who is worse than ‘Saddam,Kim Jong,Am-a-nut-job and Castro'(but not Thatcher/Bush/Regan) hasn’t stepped down as fortold by the bBCs inhouse Eygptian mullah.
Question time will be very interesting tonight.
Didn’t watch, but…… maybe what could have happened is that the stateme… questions that were going be asked got changed.
For watertight oversight reasons of course.
Though oddly, every spokespundit the Newsnight team found on twitter has been giving their… so far totally contradicted facts that were actually merely desires, each minute.
Just watched Nick Clegg on SKY question the value of running commentaries over waiting to see what is before reacting, and opposed to inflaming with preconceptions as to what should be. ‘The West is not hear to micromanage the lives of others.’
Aunty… MSM.. please note.
An excellent cartoon from Matt in the Telegraph:
<img src=”http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01823/110211-MATT-web_1823370a.jpg” border=”0″/>
Drat. You beat me to it by 7 minutes.
Matt is arguably the best newspaper cartoonist by far in my book with remarkable consistency.
Superb! IT’S FUNNY BECAUSE IT’S TRUE.
A ‘report’ by a ‘body’ on a ‘topic’ of some ‘relevance’ and ‘heft’ to the tax and fee paying income generators of the nation, which one is sure will be covered with all due impartiality and professionalism by our national broadcaster:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8317384/Public-sectors-Madoff-style-pensions-pyramid-will-spark-crisis-warns-Centre-for-Policy-Studies.html
And with no possibility that they are in it all up to their necks in any way creating a conflict of interest in this regard.
Evan Davis on the Toady programme calling the Egyptians to arms – or so I thought. Whilst exchanging information with (when it is one of the many BBC correspondents in Egypt I can hardly say Evan is reporting) Evan says something to the effect that he expects the demonstrations to move to the Presidential Palace… oh yes says the other, ‘the Presidential Palace’, ‘Yes says Evan, the Presidential Palace’ as though encouraging the move. I expect the BBC has a camera there which has nothing to do but it did sound like a very not subtle message to be passed along the airwaves.
More on those awesome standards of factual, in-depth journalism, especially on matters technical, of which BBC is justly proud (and charges us so much for):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/maggieshiels/2011/02/facebook_is_moving_and_hiring.html
Comments not going well. I predict a closing.
It is a (minor in the scheme of things) quibble of mine that the Rajar figures of who’s listening to al-beeb’s radio output quote a weekly audience figure for daily radio ‘shows’, the advanced mathematical formulae to then calculate a daily audience being too much for them. Happily though this allows the droids to bang on, say, about Chris Moyles’ 7 million listeners, when really they mean Chris Moyles’ 1.4 million listeners.
Last week Radio 5 Near-death was pretending that the Rajar figures were somehow ‘news’ so that they could include them in news bulletins. By public sector standards (we’re crap, but on stats of questionable reliability we’re not quite as crap as last year) the figures were ‘good’ hence the wall-wall trumpeting.
Old Academician Gameshow Nikk was on the case straight away, bragging about Borefast’s ‘3 million daily listeners’. He might have got away with it had there not been a news bulletin thirty seconds later announcing to the world that Borefast had 3.2 million listeners a week.
3 million a day; 3.2 million a week. Meeeh.
Is it venality? Or is it just stupidity.
I have written to Gameshow to ask him.
Need a new thread? I doubt anyone gets this far!
Compare:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12429152
The government has been defeated in the High Court over the way it scrapped part of England’s school building programme.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6691068/a-win-for-gove.thtml
Crucially, the judge has ruled that “the final decision on any given school or project still rests with him [Gove]. He may save all, some, a few, or none. No one should gain false hope from this decision.” This means, in effect, that Gove’s original decisions can stand.
Trouble at t’mill (the Channel 4 newsroom), the peasants are revolting and it’s all the fault of the Beeboid’s model of two-tier reporters.
The peasants in this erstwhile happy hive have written a letter complaining that some reporters are now more equal than others and it has been leaked to the press.
“But several insiders pointed to the appointment of six “heavyweight” specialist editors, including Gibbon, Hilsum and Islam themselves, as well as culture editor Matthew Cain. Channel 4 News, which is provided by ITN, will also soon announce the recruitment of a social affairs editor and a science editor.
The strategy follows the successful appointment by BBC News of senior on-screen correspondents such as business editor Robert Peston.
“If anything, the letter understates the strength of feeling in the newsroom,” said one insider, who also pointed to the recent arrival of Jay Hunt as Channel 4’s chief creative officer. ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8317022/Channel-4-News-staff-complain-of-them-and-us-culture.html#
Bless. All those market rate talents and not a market that rates ’em.
Plus a NaughtieMarr from Aunty in the mix too.
The BBC’s economics editor Stephanie Flanders has updated us with her thoughts today.
Are they on the Bank of England and interest-rates? Er no.
Are they on the surge in producer price inflation from today’s figures? Er no
Are they promoting something Stephanie had done? Yes!
What would that be then, Jane?
A Radio four interview/podcast
It is possible to get the BBC enthusiastic about a Christian. How? this from the BBC Radio Times
Father Ray Comes Out
Friday 11 February
7:30pm – 8:00pm
Channel 4
Though the Church of England says it doesn’t have a problem with its homosexual priests, it does require them to remain celibate. That must still feel like a rejection to gay clergy like Ray, who’s seen here struggling with his decision to come out to his flock. He’s a charming man, full of warmth and extremely humble. Hearing him talk openly about his sexuality is deeply moving. He says that his mother might well have had an abortion if she’d known her son would turn out to be gay. Ray’s scared of the storm he might provoke, and knows it might mean he has to leave the Church. But he speaks up anyway. Ray’s a true hero and a tribute to his calling.
Radio Times reviewer – Ruth Margolis
Behold Katty Kay’s blatant neo-Marxism:
In the US the richest 1% of the population has gone from taking 8% of GDP 30 years ago to 25% today.
“Taking”. Not earning or creating, or some combination thereof, but taking. Straight up Marxist ideology. Twitter continues to pay dividends in revealing the personal biases of Beeboids.
In the US the richest 1% of the population has gone from taking 8% of GDP 30 years ago to 25% today.
Well good for them !
The left surely can’t jib about “the idle rich” now, can they ? Not when the said rich have self-evidently been so busy and productive as to raise their market share by more than threefold in 30 years.
As that word usage very definitely counts as opinion, in the absence of the usual silly weasel disclaimer, one presumes that her unique worldview is that of her employer. ie: skewed big time.
Love the thicker than bat guano ‘observation’ about veil-less women in the square. On the basis of a two-week holiday there last year, I recall almost no veiled women around. And, given the country’s make up, why would there be? Maybe our Katty was unhappy and offering a prompt to the guys at MB to get on the case?
I think the market rate Aunty deals in is peroxide content and hive mimicry as opposed to ability.
While I’m on Katty’s Twitter page, check out this revealing observation:
Striking how many of the female demonstrators in Tahrir are not veiled.
Now, why would she find it striking that there are more than a handful of unveiled women there? I thought Egypt was supposed to be laregely secular and all that? Oh, dear, somebody didn’t get the memo.
Funny how David Cameron managed to come up with a few reasonable, statesman-like words acknowledging what’s happened in Egypt, while the Great Speechifier Himself is still sitting on His hands waiting for His crack team of speechwriters to load something on the teleprompter for Him to read out.
The BBC will not notice the difference in competence.
According to a report on BBC WM (the West Midlands station) Birmingham City council have announced 1500 redundancies as a result of the “cuts”, but Unison have claimed the figure will be 7000.
Headline on BBC Ceefax tonight “Council is to lose 7000 jobs”.
Not hard to see where their sympathies lie, is it?
So the BBC is dutifully paraphrasing the latest White House press release about how the Treasury Dept. has decided it’s time to shut down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
We hear the opinion released from on high, and the BBC sub-editor who put this together with the help of some Beeboid in the US essentially presents them as the latest victims of the financial crisis. We are given a couple of sentences on the lovely intent behind the founding of Fannie Mae, just to drive home the Narrative that this was A Good Idea which has now been destroyed by whichever stock villain the reader infers (hint: greedy bankers).
As this is a BBC report about a US issue, there is – surprise! – something they don’t want you to know:
The whole setup of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, combined with disastrous policies of Bill Clinton and horrible management from the executives of both organizations largely drove the mortgage bubble which was directly responsible for the financial crisis and economic nightmare we’re still facing.
Investigating Fannie Mae and the Housing Bubble
The BBC isn’t interested in telling you, because their partisanship prevents them.
Check out Mark Mardell glowing with pride over how his beloved Obamessiah has in fact been on the side of the angels regarding Egypt all along. He was worried for a while as to whether or not the President was competent enough to deal with this, but – whew! – Mubarak has stepped down so Mardell can claim victory.
You may think He hasn’t been on top of things, says Mardell, but really He saw the parallels with the Civil Rights movement and supports all the right things, and so on and so forth.
Praise Him!
ITV’s equivalent of Mark Mardell, Robert Moore, said something very different tonight (at around 6.35pm):
Well, we were expecting President Obama to be speaking right now. That’s just been postponed and I think that tells a very significant story. This is a White House and a president scrambling for an entirely new foreign policy in the Arab World…It’s been a pretty inept 18 days of diplomacy in Washington. They were unable to anticipate events, unable to influence events.
President Obama should consider replacing Jay Carney with Mark Mardell.