Another BBC reader observes;

“Friday 19 August (I think). Jonathan Dimbleby at his worst and most transparent. He gave Harriet Harman a free run with little or no interruption on the riots etc. He then acted as agent provocateur by inviting her to blame the cuts and she got another full go without interruption. Baroness Warsi was then interrupted as usual, something both the Dumbellboys feel free to do, presumably because she’s a relatively inexperienced young woman (and a Tory). Then it was Peter Hitchens turn. I’d be the first to concede that Peter Hitchens can sometimes appear bonkers, but this time he was lucid, articulate and challenging, but crucially, he wasn’t playing to JD’s agenda, so he was unceremoniously unterrupted. Hitchens protested that he’d like to make his point but JD became abusive and said Hitchens wouldn’t be interrupted if he didn’t go on at such length, and anyway he, JD, makes the rules. Dimbleby appeared to be oblivious to how much time Harriet Harman had gone on without challen! ge. This wasn’t the first time I’ve had the impression there is an organised effort by the BBC to blame the cuts for everything because they have a vested interest in not being cut themselves.

Later in the program there was a discussion about moral decay and absentee fathers and so on. Dimbleby bleated like a child caught with his hand in the sweetie jar that we mustn’t make people stay together because this is even worse for the child, a tired old cliche that he’s run past us before. My assumption is that he feels guilty at his behaviour at the end of his marriage to Moon Belly, but it just shows what we are up against in trying to get moral justice for our children versus the right of our betters to think of themselves first.”

Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to ANY QUESTIONS?

  1. john in cheshire says:

    I wish I could see a time when someone says to Mr dimbleby – “will you please just shut up for a few seconds so I can respond to the question”.
    How has this nepotism been allowed to pertain in a publicly funded entity? I’m sure there are other families who would love to be granted unfettered access to the airwaves for decades. And make a fortune in the process. dimbleby – I just hope their kids were tormented in the playground.


  2. cjhartnett says:

    You did well to listen to this old tripe.
    Heard it at the time and it was the usual slops of liberal pish.
    Hitchens is a hero-but he needs to stay away from the BBC as does anyone with any integrity.
    I`d book to go back on only when it returns to being the national broadcaster again…or is broken up into bits,which would be better.
    Let the Beeb stew and steep in its own sewerage, let it echo the Guardians whinings; and look for the news at 180 degrees to whatever exercises the linen suits .
    Stop feeding it with your money too…they seem to care only about that!


  3. Martin says:

    I’m always amazed with Tories who go on this crap that they don’t have all the personal dirt on the Dimblebores ready to tip on them. 

    Also Harman, I’d shut her up right away by getting her to explain to the audience why she sent her kids to Kent Grammar schools instead of the shit hole comps she so loves for the proles in Peckham


  4. Martin says:

    Don’t know if anyone else saw al Bowen’s report from Tripoli (if you can call it that), but basically we have here evidence that under the LAST LIEBORE Government rendition took place and that Libyans etc were torturedwith the knowledge of the CIA and MI6. So you might expect al Bowen to want to point the finger at Bliar and Brown? but no instead he tries to blame the current Government (but funny enough not Obama) for still having contact with the Libyan regime via MI6 even up until February.

    Well perhaps but as usual the BBC try to smear the Tories here, there is no proof that the current Government were involved in torture or rendition of Libyans, that all took place under Tony Bliar and the one eyed queen from Fife, but this doesn’t stop al Bowen from spouting his shit.

    Now of course we normally get a Liebore politician on giving us the ‘Government view’ even though Liebore are not in power, so how come the BBC haven’t had a single Liebore politician on to explain all this yet try to blame William Hague instead?


    • Buggy says:

      Has there been a mention of the interesting little piece in the Telegraph about Gaddafi’s son planning the regime’s last-ditch effort in one of Bowen’s notebooks ?

      “Oh,” says Jeremy (innocence seeping from every pore) “I lost this in April.”

      Yes, effendi. Of course you did.


    • dave s says:

      Of all Bowen’s recent posturings this is the most disgraceful. Clear case of distortion of the reality. he needs to go.


  5. Martin says:

    You can see real hatred in Bowen’s eyes when he talks about the current Government.

    Also, why would MI6 cut off relations with Libya? Surely al Bowen knows they’d be trying to get as much information as they could, THAT’S THEIR JOB.

    Bowen really is just shit at everything he does.


    • hippiepooter says:

      The real story is how extremely disturbing it is that a anti-Western terrorist is head of rebel forces in Tripoli.

      Stuck on stupid, as ever.


      • George R says:

        Yes; INBBC takes a ‘Binyam Mohammed’ view on these matters; it’s at it again, talking as though the West’s ‘rendition’ is the worst aspect of the Islamic jihad activity in Libya, and Britain, past and present.

        “How al-Qaeda got to rule in Tripoli ”

        [Opening excerpt]:

        “His name is Abdelhakim Belhaj. Some in the Middle East might have, but few in the West and across the world would have heard of him.
        “Time to catch up. Because the story of how an al-Qaeda asset turned out to be the top Libyan military commander in still war-torn Tripoli is bound to shatter – once again – that wilderness of mirrors that is the ‘war on terror’, as well as deeply compromising the carefully constructed propaganda of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO’s) ‘humanitarian’ intervention in Libya.”


  6. Millie Tant says:

    Has anyone seen the Open Thread recently?

    Maybe it has legged it in despair at the sheer volume and depth of Beeboid bias.


  7. jarwill101 says:

      Apparently, the current BBC charter is due to expire in 2015. I hope our corrupt, traitorous, state-fattened, terminally red, wilfully blind old Aunty expires with it. A mercy killing that will put millions of us out of our misery. Or at least the old whore undergoes deeply invasive surgery, which cuts out all the nasty little polyps like Dimbleby. But the fear of such a drastic intervention, the switching off of their high-life-support system, has driven the beeboids into overdrive. They’re pulling out all the stops, launching weapons grade bullshit at every opportunity…anything to get another New Labour regime back into power. The BBC must ensure its future, even if its political champion puts what’s left of the nation in the cemetery.
      The analogy with a cancer has some mileage. A cancer has but one function: to proliferate, unthinkingly. But, in the end, if unchecked, it kills its host. In one way, the BBC is also in reflex mode – it must, unquestioningly, do all it can to destroy the Coalition. The BBC must grow, entrench, secure its survival, but if it requires New Labour’s patronage to do so, then it will find itself in a country on its deathbed. A failed state in which watching TV comes a distant second to fighting, literally, for your life, & the lives of your loved ones. Home invasion, not home viewing. We’ve seen the beeboids/Miliband side with the looters, for God’s sake. A nihilistic, ultra-violent mob, capable of anything. During the nights of the riots I would have rested a little easier with a loaded handgun at my side, that’s how poisoned the air had become. As it was, I had a selection of ‘conventional’ weapons to hand. It was awful. The dreadful culmination of cultural Marxist social engineering. The BBC, once again, displays immorality of the very highest order. But they should be careful of what they wish for. The fires next time will engulf us all.


  8. Dez says:

    Always interesting to investigate the bias of biased bbc. So I carried out some analysis of the programme:

    “Friday 19 August (I think)”

    It was Friday 12 August – never mind eh?

    Total speaking time was as follows:

    Harriet Harman: 11 minutes
    Julia Unwin: 4 minutes
    Baroness Warsi: 9 minutes
    Peter Hitchens: 8 minutes

    So Harriet had a whole 2 minutes exposure than anybody else.

    But there were four people on the panel and even if you decide that Julia Unwin leant towards “the left” (despite agreeing with Peter Hitchens sometimes) – the result is:

    Left wing views: 15 minutes
    Right wing views: 17 minutes

    “[Hitchens] wasn’t playing to JD’s agenda, so he was unceremoniously unterrupted”

    He was interupted just once by Jonathan Dimbleby in the entire broadcast. Exactly the same number of times as Harriet Harman was. But of course he pulled out the victim card (just has he always does); seemingly oblivious to the fact that he himself had rudely interrupted Baroness Warsi just a few minutes previously.

    “Later in the program… ….Dimbleby bleated like a child caught with his hand in the sweetie jar that we mustn’t make people stay together because this is even worse for the child”

    No he didn’t. 

    This is a complete lie.

    And before anyone tries to claim – “it must of been edited from the BBC archives” – I’ve also listened to a recording of the original broadcast.

    So… I wonder Mr. Vance, if you are (for once in your life) going to apologise for publishing such blatant lies?


    • Roland Deschain says:

      I’m glad to see you taking the time to collect some statistics.  I can’t comment on who is right because I didn’t listen to the programme.  But since you’ve gone to the trouble of putting together some statistics in rebuttal it deserves a polite reply.

      As you’ve felt it worth collating, would you concede that these are the sort of statistics the BBC should be keeping, and publicising, in order to demonstrate its impartiality.  At the moment all we get is “we think we got it about right, because we say so”, or variants thereof and that just isn’t good enough.

      One could of course argue endlessly as to what statistics should be kept but it couldn’t be worse than the current we-know-best attitude.


    • Demon1001 says:

      Of course Dezzie, if you’d read it properly you would have seen that it wasn’t David Vance’s own findings but he was quoting somebody else.  You are right that an apology is needed, but from you to David Vance. 

      P.S. When will you address the main BBC issues raised on here?


      • Daniel Clucas says:

        Dear god not a incorrect date =-O


        • My Site (click to edit) says:

          I’m going to have to redefine what is meant by ‘blatant lie’, especially with a view to what can be used that adequately covers the majority of the BBC output, again kindly highlighted by their resident ‘foot in mouth and shoot it’ comical wally rebuttal unit.

          If ever ‘apology for’ was appropriate, they are well matched as ‘broadcaster’ and ‘sensible support’.


      • Scott M says:

        Demon1001: I don’t see any point within Dez’s post that claims David Vance wrote it, merely that he published it. Which, of course, is exactly what he did.


        • Demon1001 says:

          Scotty, nice to see you: thin pickings on here lately?   It is clear that David Vance had not written it, nor did he add any further comment.  It is irrrelevant to say he “published” it as it is not his words so no need for an apology.  Except from Dezzie.

          It would be hilarious for a few days, but quickly become boring if the BBC apologised for every small factual innacuracy they publish, let alone the outright lies and misinformation that they specialise in.


    • hippiepooter says:

      Quiet at work and I’ve just listened to the programme.

      12th August?  Correct sir.  What a liar David Vance’s mystery contributer is.

      I dont know if your stopwatchery pans out or not (I got the impression it does), but in the mystery contributer’s piece he never actually complained about disproportionate time.  Thanks for going to all this trouble all the same.

      ‘Joseph Rowntree Trust’ is a synonym for left wing moonbattery.  Notwithstanding, its boss Jenny Unwin sounded refreshingly sober and centrist.  As far as I could tell, the only time she agreed with Peter Hitchens was when he opposed evicting the families of rioters and looters.  She dont say though whether she shared his that this was because looney children’s rights legislation had left parents powerless to discipline their children and so shouldn’t be held accountable when they run amok.

      On the first two audience questions JD was hectoring and badgering towards Baroness Warsi, and angling, non too subtly, to rubbish what she was saying.  In short, blatantly partisan when dealing with the Conservative representative of Her Majesty’s Coalition Government.  As someone once said, Jonanthan Dimbleby can always be relied upon to be the ‘extra man’ for the left on a panel.  The questions he asked of Harriet Harman were just not of the same plaintive hue.  In fact, he seemed to be trying to buttress her comments about the cuts and (his words) “deprivation” being a cause of the riots.

      I never fail to be deeply mystified as to why David Dimblebly gets it in the neck here the same as his brother.  For me, Dimbleby Sr is everything the BBC should be; a bastion of integrity and a gentleman broadcaster.  His brother however, yes, is screamingly bent.  An ex-member of the SWP who hasn’t left his Trotskyism that far behind him.  Some years ago (particularly under Conservative Government) Jonathan Dimbleby was absolutely appalling.  One of the rudest, insufferably arrogant broadcasters one could hope not to hear.  At least he falls some way short of those dizzying heights of crassness now.  Not withstanding, despite his eminent ability as a broadcaster, his partisanship shows he does not have the professional integrity to be in charge of a BBC microphone.

      Peter Hitchens was wonderfully articulate, and I dont think he was unduly interrupted by J Dimbleby, although JD was embarrassingly churlish about Mr Hitchens’ (unduly brusque) objection.  And Dimbleby extracted his petty revenge at the end with his condescencion towards Mr Hitchens.

      Quite where the mystery contributer’s claim came from that JD said the above about people staying together I don’t know.  Maybe he misremembered where he’d said something of the sort?

      David Vance has nothing to apologise for.  He has published the perceptions of a B-BBC reader, you have countered them and I have countered yours and shared them where I deem appropriate.  It’s how democracy works Scott/Dez.  Contrary to what so many on the Left would have us believe, someone is not ‘lying’ and something is not “illegal” if it goes against the wishes of the Left.  That is just your totalitarian slip showing.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      That’s 1 out of, what, 50 or more, Dez?  Well done.  You’re a star, truly discrediting the entire site.  Not.  The BBC has a far worse track record, yet you trust them implicitly.


  9. Martin says:

    Funny that the BBC totally ignored Alistair Darling’s attacks on the one eyed lunatic from Fife over the weekend, but all of a sudden because the BBC found a bit where Darling attacks Mervyn King (for being a Tory) the BBC have finally decided to report this story.

    Funny that.

    Then we get sexist crap that if only more women were bankers we wouldn’t be in this mess, yet most banks were fine and of course Lloyds TSB was a very good bank until Gordon Brown (egged on by the BBC’s Robert Peston) persuaded them to take over HBOS. Barclay’s bank didn’t need a government bail out.

    But of course it all fits into the BBC leftie narrative pumped out by man hater Hattie Hatemenperson.


  10. Filbert Cobb says:

    Dimbleby is muchly a ventriloquist’s dummy in this format. Some years ago a tech fault during QT transmitted his earphone traffic – it’s the production team who feed him the questions and give direction on next moves who actually run the show.


    • Beeboidal says:

      Years ago, I used to listen to late night discussion programmes on Radio 5. There would be one guest from the left and one from the right (often Peter Hitchens) plus the “impartial” presenter, discussing some current topic. On occasions, the guest from the right would make a very good point which neither his opponent or the presenter could rebut, offering nothing or waffle in return. Shortly after, you would hear a faint voice akin to someone on a poor telephone line. Shortly after that, the presenter would offer a much better rebuttal to the right-winger’s point. It always happened that way – there was never a late rebuttal from the presenter to a point made by a left-winger.

      I believe the ‘telephone voice’ to be  that of the show’s producer, leaking from the presenter’s headphones and picked up by his microphone. They fixed the problem long ago – it never happens any more, but I’ve no doubt the lefties in the production booth are still at it.


  11. kayjays says:

    It’s not just our cuts, according to the BBC. On the website today, David Willey reports on Rome monuments being attacked by new vandals, with at least two suspects chipping away the fabric of historic monuments to secure a souvenir. This, according to the BBC, is a consequence of mass tourism and “government budget cuts”. Not, of course, sheer unthinking, solipsistic criminality.