Middle of the Week and time for a new Open Thread to share your thoughts on Big Brother…
OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- atlas_shrugged Dec 22, 13:01
Weekend 21st December 2024
A bit more on Captagon in this article: https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/the-captagon-controversy-and-why-it-captivates The question being was it used to turn hamas into monsters… - Guest Who Dec 22, 12:59
Weekend 21st December 2024
Germans are also, historically, more prone to get with the gummint program. With the U.K. seemingly catching up fast, bar… - Mrs Kitty Dec 22, 12:51
Weekend 21st December 2024
@Pug at 11.04 Depending on who you speak to all three of those names have carried the terrorist badge. - Jeff Dec 22, 12:04
Weekend 21st December 2024
So, the German authorities received “multiple warnings” from the Saudi government, telling politicians that this man was a danger to… - MarkyMark Dec 22, 11:41
Weekend 21st December 2024
If we change “Christmas Markets” to “Festival Events” we can end the attack by upset Islamists and save lives. -… - MarkyMark Dec 22, 11:23
Weekend 21st December 2024
Cosy, green & cost effective heat pumps Installation from £500 including a £7,500 government grant with Britain’s favourite heat pump… - MarkyMark Dec 22, 11:22
Weekend 21st December 2024
“Rishi has proved to be a diligent constituency MP and it was no surprise to see him re-elected in 2017,… - pugnazious Dec 22, 11:14
Weekend 21st December 2024
Same with EV cars which might be more polluting than normal ones…not forgetting we have to scrap all those cars… - MarkyMark Dec 22, 11:08
Weekend 21st December 2024
Assisted Dying on the NHS – free POD for those who want to save the planet.
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
Cranmer has posted a piece on an Irish Academic who’s confronted the anti-Israeli leitmotif of so much of the Beeb and British Academia’s posturing. He has a pro-Israeli blog to go along with it.
It’s good to see at least ONE Academic standing up to the anti-semitism that has been inculcated in the little darlings.
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/09/non-jewish-scottish-professor-responds.html
http://mid-eastplus.blogspot.com/
The man is doomed. If your academe is anything like ours in the USA he is likely to be hounded out by the PC hordes.
Bias or incompetant – choice is yours, yesterday news they showed how the riots are based on poverty by saying they had mapped the accused postcodes with deprived areas and shown high correlation.
Superficially sounds O.K.; however what they should have done is shown convictions during non riot times, I expect the same correlation would have been found.
Playing devils advocate, I expect the same correlation if you plotted with one parent families. The area looked at was Manchester, if they had looked at London I expect they would have found a high correlation between rioters and Labour constituencies; therefore coming to the conclusion that rioters are labour supporters!!!!
Rioters are certainly labour creations, fred.
And very defensive of them, they are, too. Justly proud. Their gestation period goes back a long way. At least Baroness Williams, the beeboids’ favourite speed dial, wealthy old Fabian, is still around to see the culmination of her life’s work. A generation in which one child can say to another, ‘Yeah, we’re equal. We’re as badly-educated as each other.’ Apples of her old mad eyes.
Did they discuss whether said poverty was a cause or a symptom?
I believe the police have already stated that some 80% of people charged in connection with the looting have a police record. That is surely the real correlation – criminals running riot.
I saw this and the other thing they didn’t say, because it would have made a nonesense of the assertion was the percentage of scum from each postcode rioted. Deprivation or whatever you want to call it does not equal a rioter. Many stay at home because they have different moral codes to the scumbags out burning businesses.
fred bloggs – I like that – maybe you could draw the conclusion that Labour supporters are rioters!
BBC-NUJ, PESTON, ‘GUARDIAN’ and Leaks.
No doubt BBC-NUJ Labour’s anti-Murdoch sleuth, R. Peston, will be keen to report on this….
‘Telegraph’:-
“Phone hacking: Guardian journalist interviewed over police inquiry leaks.”A senior Guardian journalist, Amelia Hill, has been interviewed under caution by detectives investigating the leak of sensitive information about the police phone hacking inquiry. “
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8746900/Phone-hacking-Guardian-journalist-interviewed-over-police-inquiry-leaks.html
Compare and contrast:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14816827
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8746900/Phone-hacking-Guardian-journalist-interviewed-over-police-inquiry-leaks.html
It seems the Guardian thinks that Police Officers should be immune to prosecution if the paper they leak sensitive information in ongoing investigations to is the Guardian.
I dont think the Guardian journalist should be charged alongside the detective – its a newspapers job to receive information, and it was relayed by the rest of the media when it could have only come from an officlal source committing a criminal offence by relaying the info. On the other hand, if there is a ‘smoking chequebook’ …
oops! George R in there ahead of me on this one!
We’re on the same sheet.
Likewise, if a ‘celebrity’ leaves their voicemail unguarded, with a standard passcode, it is a journalist’s duty to report what is on their phone….
Well, I guess a case could be made if it led to information that served the public interest, but unfortunately, what it resulted in was invasions of privacy for showbiz tittle tattle and scandal mongering, and the principle of press freedom and ‘the public right to know’ I dont think extends that far in providing exemptions.
If someone leaves there door open, do we have the right to go in and rifle through their belongings to find out something someone might find interesting about them? I think on the whole, the Courts would take a rather dim view of this, journalist or not.
Mind you, if they changed all the padlocks and claimed squatters rights, the Police couldn’t touch them.
Shafilea Ahmed’s parents charged with her murder
Strangely, it would appear from the story that no-one has any idea of motive.
Oh, hang on. The Telegraph might have an idea. As might the Guardian.
Almost word for word and yet the BBC feel the need to omit the phrase ‘Honour Killing’. The BBC is once again protecting us from the news.
And what ‘honour’ is there in killing a defenceless girl? Taking the life of a girl will get them a few years and a life on lavish benefits afterwards.
Makes you wanna puke.
In INBBC’s censored report, there is no mention of the religion of the Ahmed parents. Is it Islam, INBBC?
Does INBBC presume that religion is irrelevant in all this?
“Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?”
(by Phyllis Chesler)
http://www.meforum.org/2067/are-honor-killings-simply-domestic-violence
Beeboid Nick Ravenscroft outside the courthouse just now actually said there wasn an accusation that this might be “some sort of honor killing”. It’s too bad the News Online style guide prevents similar honesty.
UPDATE: “honour killing” is now included in the blurb about this story on the News home page. Baby steps!
Maybe they read this site! And I’m glad to say they use the phrase “so-called”. There’s no honour involved. Quite the reverse.
Anyone who thinks I should treat as equal a culture that sees honour in this has truly got their head up their own backside.
There is ONE reference to religion on that BBC page – but only on a side link to a story about a “Muslim Cosby Show” in Canada. So they can mention the religion of peace – but only in a positive story.
In the event that a so-called “honour killing” case does lead to a conviction (not wanting to conjecture inappropriately about this one in particular), will the judge treat the murder as a “hate crime”? If members of a religion butcher a young woman or man for failing to adhere to the precepts of that religion, that does seem to amount to a “hate crime”, in the cross-eyed eyes of the Law?
I happen to think that murder is murder and that “honour killers” deserve to swing and other murderers likewise. “Hate crime” is a ludicrous legacy of the latter years of the labour maladministration – which should have been repealed the day after the 2010 General Election: the notion that a crime is more serious, sometimes by several degrees of magnitude, if the perpetrator is deemed to have committed it while thinking politically incorrect thoughts, than if he committed exactly the same crime against a different victim, who fell outside one of the PC Favoured Denominations.
This isn’t tangential to the bbc, because Radio 4 recently broadcast a “debate” about “hate crime” legislation. It was a “packed programme”, but not quite in the way the late Ronnie Barker used the term. I think one participant voiced the opinion that similar crimes should be treated similarly by the courts and another wanted to make “hate crime” such an elastic term that he might have arrived at the same end point, without ever intending it.
Otherwise, though, everyone represented (or claimed to) one bunch of “victims” or another and everyone was in favour of maintaining or extending the existing legislation. Given the blatant lack of balance among the contributors and the general slant of the introducers’ comments, especially at the start, my guess is that the bbc’s line is to support “hate crime” law.
Supposing, in sentencing perpetrators of an “honour killing” murder, a judge were to announce that “I had in mind a minimum of twenty years, but, taking account of the hate crime aspect, I am raising that minimum to thirty”, would Radio 4 broadcast a programme to celebrate?
First para: …does that…”, not “…that does…”. (Answer: no, I am pretty sure it doesn’t.)
Interesting post, Owen. I’m in general agreement with you regarding hate crime legislation. The main problem is that laws already exist to cover all the crimes that come under the banner of ‘hate crime’ (harassment, assault, murder etc). This newer layer of legislation effectively puts one victim on a higher level than another based upon the motives of the offender, even though the crime may be exactly the same. Unfortunately now, in the eyes of the law, some are more equal than others.
I heard a discussion about this fairly recently on the radio but both sides, pro and anti, were argued, as far as I recall. I don’t know if this kind of murder was mentioned, but to me it is anomalous that this hate crime tariff, even if you accept the principle of it in the first place, is not applied to some very obvious categories, such as the murders of women, whether from these barbaric social practices from various parts of (mainly south) Asia or the mass murders of women such as prostitutes or the serial killings of women by the lone predator such as Levi Bellfield. These are all killed because they are women, just as some minority groups such as homosexual, or black or Asian, may be killed because of that. Similarly, you could also argue that men who are targeted for fights, kickings, beatings or stabbings and killed when out at night are killed because they are men. So the weirdly anomalous application of the concept fatally undermines its validity.
The fact that socially sanctioned barbaric practice murders or mass murder or serial murders of women aren’t called hate crimes and given an extra tariff because of that, isn’t an argument for the concept or for for extending it. Rather, it undermines it.
Not having such a special status, doesn’t mean that society and the law cannot or does not take those murders seriously or cannot give a sufficiently heavy sentence to reflect the nature and severity of the crime.
I note that BB Coot’s C on Views At Ten used the phrase ‘honour killing’ a number of times.
I suppose to insert ‘so called’ in front of the phrase would be ‘judgemental’. Does the BBCC believe that there is ‘honour’ in these killings? Or is the BBCC adopting its usual Sucking Up To The Muslims stance.
I despise the hopey-changies for the way they crow their (so-called 😉 ) compassion from the top of the dungheap just so long as it’s someone else’s sister that’s swallowed bleach, been smothered/strangled and dumped by a river; someone else’s husband that’s been kicked to death outside his own house for telling ‘children’ to go away; or it’s someone else whose business has been smashed, trashed and burnt out by the ferals.
They’re not on the dungheap, the hopey-changies, they are the dungheap.
Regarding Amelia Hill, I posted here a while back that when she did the Sky paper review Anna botting openly asked her if she was getting inside info from plod. I swear to god she said no, then waffled on about “investigative journalism,she got quite upset that Botting was questioning her about how they were getting so much info. Now we know plod was leaking it to her.
Was she paying plod? Will the BBC investigate?
Hearing the reference to the Government’s “controversial” proposals to change the planning system on the 10pm News a couple of days ago, I wish it were posible scientifically to track all the uses of the word “controversial” the BBC come up with. As with their “Critics say…” formula, it’s a way of giving a slant while keeping a veneer of detachment. But if anyone ever hears them refer to e.g. EU membership, the ban on fox hunting, the 50p tax rate, travellers camps or, heaven forbid, the existence of the licence fee as “controversial” can I urge you not to be shy about pointing it out.
Yes I notice that as well, anyone who disagrees with THIS government must be right and thereofre it makes any proposal controversial, as opposed to Labour when anyone who disagreed was a nutter or a racist etc.
Yep, the BBC also calls the free schools scheme “controversial”. Agenda? What agenda?
A real good Media Studies course to be had here.
It`s this sly use of language…”critics say”…”controversial”…Miliband “asserts” whereas Cameron “insists”…that kind of Orwellian doublespeak and restricted codes that they think no-one notices. That their subliminal brilliance, subterfuge and “creative news-setting agendas” is way too clever for us all!
Thanks for pointing out these BBC truffles that think they`re landmines. Only the BBC think that Wolfie Smith and Alan Partridge were real people…they created them,so they`ve rested ever since!
Hoffa Stands by ‘S.O.B.’ Remark Amid Tea Party Outcry <img src=”http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Politics/190/107/hoffa_james_090511.jpg” alt=”Teamsters Union President James Hoffa listens prior to President Obama speak in Detroit Sept. 5.”/>
Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa vowed on Tuesday that he will “never apologize” for standing up for American workers, even in the face of considerable criticism for a Labor Day speech in which he targeted Tea Party politicians and urged supporters to “take these son-of-a-bitches out.”
No comment from the BBC of course, its not news, political hate is not news UNLESS the Rebublicans can be smeared just as the BBC made a massive stink about Rick Perrys comments.
Did Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa Go Too Far?
By You Decide
Published September 06, 2011
| FoxNews.com
Print Email Share Comments
Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa is under fire for his harsh words about the Tea Party. Hoffa told a crowd in Detroit that America faced “a war on workers, you see it everywhere — it is the Tea Party,” and urged the crowd to “take these son-of-a-bitches out.” Hoffa made the comments while introducing President Obama. Did Hoffa cross the line with his heated rhetoric?
Share your thoughts, answer our question then click “Leave a Comment.”
Thank you for voting! No. Sometimes you have to use strong language to get your message out. 3.52% (4,051 votes) I’m not sure. I know people are fired up but is calling people “terrorists” or cursing ever appropriate? 2.5% (2,878 votes) Yes. President Obama should ask Hoffa to apologize. 90.74% (104,523 votes) Other (post a comment). 3.24% (3,735 votes) Total Votes: 115,187 Return To Poll
This is not a scientific poll.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/06/did-teamsters-president-jimmy-hoffa-go-too-far/#ixzz1XGwbrqvL
Here we have the poll and it looks like a big story does it not? And you can bet the farm that if it had been a remark by Palin then the BBC would be beside itself with furious indignation, hold the front page stuff.
ABC’s Jake Tapper actually asked Katty Kay’s friend, Jay Carney, about what the White House had to say about this, considering the President was at the rally where Hoffa said this. Carney said that the White House is not responsible for what other people say, and left it as basically “no comment”.
Yet the BBC more or less accused Sarah Palin of being an accomplice to murder for her target graphic.
This is the White House line, so it will be the BBC line, if they ever dare to report it.
Hacking: Guardian journalist questioned
Amelia Hill interviewed under caution by police investigating leak of information in phone hacking inquiry.
Oooh looky here =-O Big story related to the massive primetime BBC coverage of the hacking scandal BUT this story will never see the light of day on the BBC or its website and any mention in the comments sections will be wiped out. BIASED BBC? Of course it is.
Can any lurking BBC employees or defenders of the indefensible tell me if there are any BBC reporters embedded with pro-Ghaddafi forces? Plenty of Beeboids hanging around with the rebels, yet not a single one within shouting distance of all these pro-Ghaddafi forces I keep hearing about. What’s up with that?
DP (USA) wrote:
Can any lurking BBC employees or defenders of the indefensible tell me if there are any BBC reporters embedded with pro-Ghaddafi forces?
I think the answer to that in typical leftwing fair weather friendships is no. Something about having bullets flying your way.
How the bBC goes out of its way in which to confuse the reader about the nefarious activities of the Iranian Mullahs.
Fake DigiNotar web certificate risk to Iranians
Fresh evidence has emerged that stolen web security certificates may have been used to spy on people in Iran.Analysis by Trend Micro suggests a spike in the number of compromised DigiNotar certificates being issued to the Islamic Republic.It is believed the digital IDs were being used to trick computers into thinking they were directly accessing sites such as Google.In reality, someone else may have been monitoring the communications.Hundreds of bogus certificates are thought to have been generated following a hack on Netherlands-based DigiNotar.The company is owned by US firm Vasco Data Security.
So say you know nothing about computers, the Internet and digital IDs and you come across the above article tell me who is watching who? Then in order to confuse the reader some more the bbC adds:
However, a spokesman for the Dutch Interior Ministry, Vincent van Steen told the Netherland’s-based ANP news agency that the cabinet was looking into claims of Iranian government involvement.While much online debate has centred around the role of the Iranian authorities, there is no firm evidence to support such a theory.Iran has previously been on the receiving end of cyber attacks, including the elaborate Stuxnet conspiracy which enabled a computer worm to take control of machinery in a uranium enrichment plant.
Get that, according to the bBC nobody is sure who is behind this, but Iran has been the victim in the past. Now here is how the Independant sums up all of the above in 1 para:
Failures at internet firm let Iranians spy on emails
An internet security company is being investigated for possible criminal negligence after it was slow to disclose a hacking incident that is likely to have helped the Iranian government spy on dissidents, Dutch prosecutors said yesterday.
Now why can’t the bBC report the news with the same level of brevity as everybody else.
Nice work Pounce. Seems like the BBC was trying to disguise the REAL story in a fog of verbosity. They really do seem incapable of just giving us the news in a straight forward fashion without tainting it with their sympathies.
Gameshow Nikk on Radio 5 Persistent Vegetative State seems to have a new Token Dozy Mare alongside him. Clearly straight from Presenter School with the usual droidess EVERYTHING I SAY IS VERY VERY IMPORTANT voice. (cf Victoria Dreadfulshire et al).
Anyhoo BBC’s 750 strong elite, highly-trained, enhanced CRB Checked, secretive Patronise-A-Pak unit have decreed that all this week Radio 5 PVS will interview Asians to get their ‘unique perspective’ on the events of 9/11.
Today the droidess spoke to one of my mob, somebody or other Singh.
Droidess: Did you find that people’s attitudes changed towards you after 9/11.
Singh: Yes they treated my differently and called me names.
Droidess. Did they call you names?
Singh: Yes.
Droidess: There we have it then, some deep insights there.
Bupendra: Where do they dig up these halfwitted bints from?
How many attacks on Muslims have there been in the UK and US compared to how many terrorist attacks on non-Muslims in the UK, Spain, and attempted attacks on US citizens have there been by Muslims since then? I forget.
How many attacks on Muslims and how many by Muslims on Jews?
Is the US ready for ‘Little Mosque on the Prairie’?
Influential American broadcaster Katie Couric has suggested a way to change attitudes to Muslims in the US
Why is it always up to everyone else to change their attitudes to Muslims. Why never the other way around?
Agreed. I’d be more impressed by a Muslim version of “Goodness Gracious Me”.
“There is no humour in Islam. There is no fun in Islam.”
“There is no humour in Islam. There is no fun in Islam.”
Jeremy, that’s the big thing that they have in common with the Left Wing.
(Apart from love of opression, hatred for Jews, love of violence, hatred for democracy etc.) Come to think of it, extreme-Islam has a lot in common with extreme-leftism.
“Come to think of it, extreme-Islam has a lot in common with extreme-leftism.”
Yep. Both oppressive religious outlooks that wish to dominate, with the aid of useful idiots and placemen, some of whom reside within our state broadcaster.
“There is no humour in Islam. There is no fun in Islam.”
There is fun in Islamic Fundamentalism
Perhaps Couric should wear a burkha? That would be a massive improvement.
Text under the image:
“Little Mosque has been shown in over 80 countries, but not in the UK or US”
They just can’t help themselves, can they?
“This is a sitcom about Muslims and Christians trying to live in harmony in the fictional town of Mercy in Saskatchewan…”
Sounds like a religious version of an old UK sitcom…Love Thy Neighbour 40 years ago!
Most Muslims are perfectly normal good people; however when a do-goody leftie twat tells you “they’re good people, they great people, they’re normal people, they are the same, they’re fine, they won’t bite, they’re great (did I say that already)…” you start to take the opposite view.
Span,
Pleased to say I haven’t had a headache since you changed your avatar !
Yeah, it’s been shown in lots of countries: Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Malaysia…..
The Islamic jihad massacre of law courts in Delhi.
Unlike INBBC, ‘Telegraph’ provides profile of the Bangladesh Islamic jihad group suspected of massacre:
“Delhi blast: profile of Harkat-ul-Jehadi-e-Islami-Bangladesh-
Harkat-ul-Jehadi-e-Islami-Bangladesh (HuJI-B), which claimed responsibility for the Delhi High Court bombing, is Bangladesh’s largest and best organised terrorist group. ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/8747446/Delhi-blast-profile-of-Harkat-ul-Jehadi-e-Islami-Bangladesh.html
This information is important to the security of Britain too; it adds to the case for there to be ZERO IMMIGRATION from Bangladesh to Britain to prevent the security, economic and cultural threat from there.
So the Government makes it clear that the 50p tax rate isn’t going anywhere, yet still the BBC find time to give Ed Testicles the chance to spout a load of crap about “Tories favouring the rich” when it’s nothing of the sort.
Did the BBC ask Testicles about Alistair Darlings book? Thought not.
Oh and the BBC 1 news doesn’t seem to want to tell us the old hag from the Guardian has been questioned by plod. I wonder why? Not as if the BBC doesn’t have form for hiding the Guardian’s involvement with phone hacking does it?
Strange isn’t it. They seem so keen on the phone hacking scandal most of the time.
I wonder if any hacks at the beeb are waiting for plod to knock on their Hampstead town house doors (or buzz through on the security-video-answer-phone thingy)?
Everyone rejoice – Question Time Returns :
Question Time marks 9/11 anniversary
Question Time, the BBC’s premier political debate programme returns to BBC One on Thursday 8 September.
David Dimbleby will chair a special edition of the programme from London marking 10 years since the 9/11 attacks in the US.
The panel will include the Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox and the former foreign secretary David Miliband.
The American political adviser, lobbyist and neo-con Richard Perle will also be on the panel together with the American-born British playwright and critic Bonnie Greer.
The panel will also include the anti-war campaigner Tariq Ali and Christina Schmid, the widow of Staff Sergeant Olaf Schmid, a bomb disposal expert who was killed while disarming an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) in Afghanistan in October 2009.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/9579386.stm
Notice how they label Richard Perle a ‘neo-con'(boo-hiss) but don’t label Tariq Ali a ‘Marxist’.
half the story,all the time
that’s al beeb
Too bad I won’t be around to catch this. Or maybe it’s for the best, considering QT’s form on producing an audience.
Probably right, David. Especially where 9-11 is concerned!
Will the BBC re run the infamous 13 september 2001 Question Time when women in burkas were insulting the American Ambassador two days after the attacks.
Oh, the BBC wants us to forget that one.
I never watch QT as it makes me sick, but I would like to see Richard Perle. He won’t take any crap. Wish we had more Brits like him.
i think as far as the BBC, lefties and Labour are concerned, where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise
the thing with the BBC, they wish everyone is left wing and gay
I’m sure you may have seen this….interesting that the issue of bias is now getting to the mainstream:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14830938
To quote:
“Culture minister Ed Vaizey said the BBC was a fine broadcaster, but action was being taken over concerns about bias.”
With Patten in charge…..yeah, right!
In response, Mr Vaizey said the new BBC Trust chairman – and former Tory minister – Lord Patten was looking at concerns about bias.
The culture minister also said he understood that the corporation would in future have “annual impartiality reviews” and regular “impartiality seminars” to “re-educate staff”.
Oh. So the Beeboids need lessons in impartiality – just as they needed them in honesty. Yeah, but impartiality is in the DNA. 😀
“impartiality seminars” to “re-educate staff”.
Even their responses to lefty bias sound like lefty indoctrination tactics. It’s just in their DNA, they can’t help it.
Patten is “looking at concerns” and that is all he will do. Pompous leftie prat.
I think that the “annual impartiality reviews” will find that the BBC is getting it “just about right“.
Listening to the mood music there does seem to be much consternation at the BBC as the mismanged salmonella ridden chickens come home to roost
Firstly, BBC bias is now being discussed openly. It is not just in the domain of our enlightened group. The above article is but one pointer – even the PM has given various asides critiicising the BBC. BBC employees need to look forward to more compliance and more of an effort for balance short-term. Also,look out for criticism from the left saying they are too right-wing. Look! we have complaints from both side so that must mean we are neutral
The Celebs are now openly moaning about the bureaucracy Ricky Gervais and Jonathan Ross have mentioned the problems with compliance – the controls which hinder their creative efforts (!!!!). The crap news coverage – partially blamed on H&S. Look forward to more belly-aching.
The penny must be dropping that the money is running out – no amount of whinning is going to change it and it is going to get worse for everyone and that includes the BBC. I would be really pee’d off if the licence fee were to rise further. after 2013. The BBC cut of that will get smaller as various other (non BBC) projects seem likely to get an increasing amount of money. The stupid twats thought it was a BBC tax. Look forward to more spin about the value for money that the BBC gives – you know – it only takes 30p a day (or whatever) to run the BBC – Sky news coverage has blown the value for money argument completely out of the water.
I predict a couple of older “news” people to retire soon – unable to handle the changes. Here’s hoping
Bias by ommision – The Bombardier story has been doing the rounds again over the past two days. I found two lefty reports:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14817281
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/09/08/government-s-thameslink-bid-was-like-buying-a-toaster-115875-23404098/
Both lefties show the same approach; that there is no mention that the lab gov designed the contract, set the criteria and enshrined it law.
In the DT this morning: “Mark Olden, a BBC documentary maker who spent four years interviewing witnesses for his book, Murder in Notting Hill ….”
A recent Notting Hill Carnival? No, this happened on May 17, 1959 “in a case which was echoed by the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993”.
Nothing like keeping certain grievances warm, is there? I don’t suppose this BBC documentary maker is planning a book or a documentary about the murder of Nicholas Pearton, who was chased, beaten and stabbed in Sydenham last May? I suppose Mark Olden would claim that his book is justified because the white-on-black murders were never solved. But 1959? A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then – and quite a lot of blood as well.
Brace yourselves for the promotion of this book on the BBC, and maybe a documentary as well.
This is a strange one. The article is entitled “Is The UK Safer Now Than On 9-11“. The first section’s sub-title (in bold) is Suicide Bombings, which talks about the 7-7 bombings. The second section talks about the general threats faced by the UK today, but it’s sub-title is Lone Far-Right Extremists, even though there is only one brief reference to such in the entire section (Anders Breivik). It seems as though, with the 9-11 anniversary approaching, they felt that they had to write something about terrorism in the UK but were reluctant to make it all about the Islamic threat. What better way to dilute the reality of the main source of threat that the left are keen to make excuses for, than to throw in one that they have no such squeamishness in condemning.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14832156
Notice also this snide piece of opinion-based limp-dickery :
Meanwhile, the early and misleading post-9/11 rhetoric about a “War on Terror” has given way to a more pragmatic approach.
His conclusion : So there is no definitive answer as to whether the UK is safer now from terrorism than it was 10 years ago.
Bit of a pointless article then, wasn’t it. Except that it gave him an opportunity to take a pop at the usual targets : the war on terror, the nasty west and it’s foreign policies, the armed forces…
It’s not pointless at all, if one understands the intent behind it. The intent was to plant the suggestion that invading Afghanistan was wrong, hasn’t helped, and in fact is a root cause of 7/7 and all Islamic plots since uncovered.
There are no Far Left Extemists according to the BBC, even though the 7/7 bombers were Far Left Extremists.
bBC breakfast views this thursday morning opining on the pain of savers due to low interest rates
their guest?Government spokesman and economic colossus,Ed Balls
oh,wait……Liebore got kicked out,didn’t they??????Maybe I was just dreaming
anyway-Bollox was asked “what do you know that economists don’t?”
oh where do I begin? LOL
and apparently one eyed MacBroon the loon and semi Trot Alistair Darling “can be proud of what they did for the country”………. it says here……
taking pride in destroying the economy and turning the UK into Europe’s immigrant dumping ground
yeah-three cheers for those guys….
Last night’s news at 10 led with economists demanding the scrapping of (Labour’s) 50p tax rate, seems the BBC have just discovered the groundbreaking theory that high taxes stifle growth. When I got over the initial shock of a vaguely tory policy being trailed I waited in vain for a government talking head to respond. First we got one of the economists, then two bods on the street, then a right of reply to (“The Peoples”) Chancellor and 1st minister of the treasury Ed Balls (smirking as usual). Then we got analysis from Pym and finally Robinson. Ten odd minutes and not a government spokesman in sight!
Sorry if this has already been covered but it made my blood boil somewhat.
bbc5live BBC Radio 5 Live Does the abuse of prisoners make you ashamed to be British? Your Call with @nickyaacampbell >> bbc.in/clTSfG
Actually, I feel that putting such an issue in such terms is more a matter of shame for any broadcaster with British in its name.
Yes, these were representatives of the country in an Army that bears the nation’s name. And they really blew it, on behalf of themselves, service and country.
But war produces abuses. What encourages is there are stronger mechanisms than most in place to address such things. However, I do doubt that the outcome of any ‘inquiry’ will be too much different to all others held in the UK. The BBC seems flexible on these and their outcomes depending on whether it suits.
But such a simplistic, all-inclusive breast-beating direction for a medium to adopt? Facile. Especially if justice is to be served.
Does 9/11 make you ashamed to be a Muslim? Your Call
The perfect riposte, Barry.
I apologise if this has been mentioned already. Conservative MP David Amess (remember Basildon 1992 – the turning point of the election results?) has railed against BBC bias.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14830938
This issue is coming up again and again – I think Cameron has said it, and I’ve seen several items in the Times on BBC bias. We’re getting through 🙂
Amess has made (ahem) a mess of this by making remarks about female newsreaders “smiling when reporting serious issues”. He’s making a fool of himself here – and I’m afraid will convince a lot of people he is a stuffy, out-of-date, and out-of-touch MP.
Nevertheless much of what he says is what we have been saying (perhaps he’s on here and I’ve missed it)
Yes, it’s mentioned on another thread where I have posted a link to his speech and transcribed his remarks about the femal presenters, in which I agree he made a fool of himself.
PS: The thread is called Which Planet?
http://order-order.com/2011/09/08/the-yanks-know-marr-is-a-soft-touch/
It’s that world-famous impartiality Democrats love best.
When it suits both.
“On the public diplomacy side, I hope you can take some time out to tape an interview with leading British journalist Andrew Marr, to be broadcast on his Sunday morning BBC TV talk show. The program, which reaches 1.5 million live and millions more on the web, is essential weekend viewing for Britain, often setting the week’s news and political agenda for the nation. The program could be taped at your hotel, at my residence or at the BBC studios in West London. It would be a powerful way for you to set out our priorities for Afghanistan/Pakistan, and underline our premier partnership with the United Kingdom. Marr is a congenial and knowledgeable interviewer who will offer maximum impact for your investment of time.”
Even the Yanks know the BBC is seriously biased. And that’s just the Dems!
I remember in 2008 when Hillary Clinton was still a candidate for the Dem nomination. Matt Frei was waiting in the cold to get a quick word with her as she made a campaign stop (Iowa, I think?), and he ran up to her as she and her entourage walked briskly away after the event. He stuck the mic in her face, introduced himself as being from the BBC, and she told him that she was aware that the BBC had been “very faithful” to her campaign.
The lapdog lapped it up.
“is essential weekend viewing for Britain, often setting the week’s news and political agenda for the nation.”
Big yourselves up, BBC. Just a little OTT, I think!!!
But they probably believe it, I suppose.
Listening to R5L coverage over the public inquiry into the death of an Iraqi in British Army custody.
Very responsible coverage. They do nothing to obscure what took place, but on the other hand give full vent to guests (and they themselves) speaking up for the good name of the British Army as a whole.
I’m now listening to Richard Bacon. I perceive a different tone. One that sneers at the British Army as an institution? Is it just me? He’s going to interview an ex-army guy soon so I guess I’ll soon know …
Just turned on R5L to hear Richard Bacon discussing ITV’s Red or Black with some studio guests. One said that the show had lost millions of viewers not least because a “woman-beater” had won the first £1M. One of the other guests laughed at this and was immediately slapped down by a very serious Richard Bacon who told him: “That’s not funny.”
How things change.
In the end I had to wait to long for Bacon’s ex-soldier guest. One can only take so much of Richard Bacon at once.
The bBC, the lifting of the gay blood ban and…..half the story.
Gay men blood donor ban to be lifted
The lifetime ban on blood donations by homosexual and bisexual men will be lifted in England, Scotland and Wales. Ministers have agreed to let men who have not had sex with another man in the past 12 months to donate from November.The restrictions were put in place in the 1980s to prevent the risk of HIV contamination…..
So the bBC informs the public that turning back the ban on gay men giving blood is going to be lifted, hurray for common sense the bBC shouts out. And here is something the bBC (or the government) doesn’t mention:
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, 4,800 British haemophiliacs were infected with Hepatitis C through blood transfusions through their NHS treatment. 1,200+ of those people were also infected with HIV, the virus that leads to AIDS. Of those 1,200, more than 800 people have already died. Hundreds more have died from Hepatitis C. 170 non-haemophiliacs were also infected with HIV and countless infected with Hepatitis C through contaminated blood. Many of those people have also died.
In fact the government set up an inquiry ‘The archer inquirywhich only gave its findings in 2009 (2 years ago) from that report thousands of people were paid compensation for contracting HIV and Hepatitis through dodgy blood.Compensation I should add which was increased in march of this year. The bBC gives the impression that the ban was a knee jerk reaction, yet actually nearly 5000 people were infected with contaminated blood.
Gee I wonder why the bBC kind of left out that elephant in the room.
I for one am really angry over how the feelings of gay people (Who constitute the fastest growing group with Aids) have been allowed to over-rule common sense. Tell you what, the next time I go to give blood (Jan) I’m thinking of openly refusing in front of everybody so as to send the message that I am not impressed.
I wonder whether al-Beeb’s Comedy Wing would’ve tweeted this, had Galliano been making Islamophobic™ rants in Paris, instead of anti-Semitic ones?
Possible audience cleansing in QT tonight.
Guido becoming a biased BBC mirror
http://order-order.com/2011/09/08/question-time-paranoid-at-unpredictable-audience-tonight/#comments
Richard Perle is red meat to the anti-war crowd, which is why the BBC invited him. Except for Bush himself, I don’t think they could have found a more polarizing figure if they tried. Nice set-up, BBC.
Probably means the usual audience selection process has had to be dumped and they have gone round trying to find some token middle class conservatives.
Actually I am surprised the BBC has the nerve to put this show on after what occured last time.
Is it worth watching? I doubt it.
The consensus will be it was all the fault of the nasty USA and Israel of course.
Clash of civilisations? All in the mind. Sometimes it must be hard to be a jihadi and find that western liberals just won’t take you at face value.
‘the usual audience selection process has had to be dumped and they have gone round trying to find…’
Hard to tell wht the truth is these days.
‘..programs production-company Mentorn declined to comment when Guido put it to them that there had been a significant rejigging of audience members today…’
If true (a concession the objective national broadcast news rarely seems capable of acknowledging), a few questions need to be asked:
a) Does rejigging actually suggest a culture of rigging to suit?
b) If so, how does this reflect on the ‘value’ of QT as a ‘voice of the country’, when it clearly is no more than a voice of a very limited collection of folk for agenda or ratings propaganda purposes.
Check out this partisan propaganda piece by US President editor Mark Mardell. Magic, eh? He’s worried about the President’s jobs lecture…er…speech tonight, so he’s driven a few miles away from his home to find fellow Democrats for a couple of vox pops.
They’re both true Obamessiah believers, and both produce the desired Democrat talking points. The businessman says the President should not compromise (read: work with Republicans in bi-partisan fashion).
“You don’t get excellence by compromise and I want to see a president that is willing to stand on what he was elected for, and push that forth with sincere tenacity.”
Um, what happened to working together? Never mind. When it’s The Obamessiah’s Plan, there’s no such thing. You’re either with Him or against Him. Supposedly this guy is unsure whether or not he will vote for The Obamessiah next year. He obviously believes that the President will have a great Jobs Plan For Us.
“Like with my company – if you don’t get the job done, you are removed. If things don’t change, things will change. I guarantee that.”
He will of course not vote for a Republican next year, despite the disingenous pose of being an undecided voter. Like Mardell, he’s worried that The Obamessiah might not help His re-election chances tonight. But never mind that, as Mardell has an agenda to feed.
The other Obamessiah worshiper makes a statement which sounds like one of Mardell’s own blogposts.
“I hope that he pulls a rabbit out of his hat. I hope that he enlists help from all of Congress, because I really don’t know what the next step is going to be without some magic.”
Then he gives us something that even the US President editor himself has told us more than once is the number one White House talking point: blame Congress.
But Mr Griffin says he is appalled by the way Congress has been behaving.
“I can’t understand why we can’t entertain things we’ve never entertained before in times of dire need. If our children were bickering, what would we tell them?
“If we had that bickering in the workplace, what would we do? We’d say ‘develop teamwork, work together’. If they believe in big business, take some lessons from it. Brainstorm. Come up with solutions.
“All I have seen is a bunch of adults acting like children and it’s saddening. All of us Americans are suffering the consequences. And the rest of the world is looking at this.
“Sometimes I am proud of being an American, sometimes just embarrassed. What’s been happening in Congress just embarrasses me.”
The agenda is so transparent here it’s not even funny. Mardell is a propaganda artist. He closes with yet another editorial opinion, again revealing his partisanship.
There are not high expectations in Washington for tonight’s speech, but I have a feeling it could be a pivot point for those who want more from their president.
Mardell is certain that the President will work His magic. Of course he is. All week long the President has been pointing waggling His finger at Congress, saying the kinds of things that excites the hardcore believes like Mardell. Of course tonight’s speech is meant to be a lecture, a scolding of children. That’s why He’s taken the extremely unusual step of demanding to address a joint session, rather than behave the way President’s normally do in these cases. He thinks He’s going to slap Congress in the face and shame them into following big-government spending. What he’s really going to be doing, though, is tell the public that we should have confidence in His leadership because He just told Congress to come up with spending cuts to pay for His spending plans.
Of course Mardell knows exactly what’s going to be in the speech, as the White House has already passed a preview along to select “journalists”.
this 9/11 conspiracy thingy on BBC3, what a load of bollocks, where do they get these people from?
Many BBC employees are either Truthers themselves or at least very sympathetic to the “unanswered questions” meme. Or just think the US had it coming. It’s no small wonder that the BBC even tries to debunk the Truthers. Oh, hang on:
Andrew Maxwell thinks all five of them are wrong…
It’s only his opinion. It continues to beggar belief that the BBC qualifies a statement like that yet states over and over again that AGW is proven fact, no air time needed for people who deny “science.”
bBC 3 running with a conspiracy about 9/11. So they pay for 5 truthers to travel to New York then Washington then that air crash site. What a bunch of loons. And my tax pays for this shite.
I saw some of that – there was one really mouthy little bugger amongst the group. I was aching to reach into the TV and slap her arrogant face.
From the ‘Your License Fee Hard At Work’ Dept.:
Diversity training with added drama
A specially commissioned short drama from EastEnders and Sugar Mummies writer Tanika Gupta is part of a new style diversity training course that’s meant to entertain, as well as inform.
Fronted by Coast presenter Neil Oliver, Out of the Box is first new BBC online diversity module for ten years. Commissioned by the Diversity Centre and produced at the BBC Academy, the hour-long course features interactive quizzes, videoed audience opinion and content from EastEnders, Radio 4 drama and BBC News.
Users are also asked to take the role of executive producer in assessing a producer’s responses to diversity challenges.
Gupta’s original interactive drama, set around a production meeting, is about unconscious bias – be it the superior white male exec character who routinely asks a young female colleague to take the minutes, or the failure of everyone around the table to tell a blind web producer what’s written on the whiteboard.
It’s deliberately exaggerated for effect, but as senior diversity manager Sue Caro attests: ‘There’s nothing I haven’t seen before at meetings in this industry.’
Shame that Neil Oliver (from the superb Coast series) is involved.
He seems to have a mind of his own, and is one of the few BBC presenters able to be overtly patriotic.
Scottish patriotism is permitted because it is anti-English.
wild,
As a pro-english Scot , I agree with you. Actually I can’t stand Oliver. I guess his long greasy hair and machine gun voice puts me off, but you can be sure he wouldn’t be on the BBC if he didn’t tick all the right boxes.
It is virtually impossible to be a Scottish Academic if you are not Left-wing. I lectured for many years at a Scottish University and learned quicky to keep my political views to mysef !
The fact is he’s not anti-English. From everything I’ve seen of him he’s very patriotic about British history. And all of Britain, not just Scotlands part in it.
It comes out again and again in the Coast series, which I’ve watched several times. I quite liked him for it, as it’s quite different from the usual Beeb orthodoxy.
I agree with Grant about Neil Oliver. I find him a sanctimonious bore. I did not watch Coast, but I watched his A History of Ancient Britain, and (in typical BBC fashion) it was the usual Leftist box ticking.
I also watched his (nationalist) History of Scotland. My point however was not about Neil Oliver. Nor was it about his affection for Scotland. My point was that patrotism is acceptable for Beeboids if it is anti-English.
If somebody unfurls a Scottish flag and waves it about, they are not assumed to be Fascists.
I am not approving or disapproving of Scottish nationalism (like a lot of people south of the border I have some Scottish ancestry and am open minded about whether a union or independence is best for Scotland) I am making an observation about the BBC.
I wouldn’t be so sure about Oliver. He gushed over an off-shore windfarm in one episode, proudly exclaiming how it was going to be all over Britain’s coasts soon.
I give up. It sounds beyond parody. Have you made it up?
They say they wanted to avoid ‘diversity fatigue’. Too late.
Is this for real???? I fear it may be, but it’s balls-out bizzare.
Is there no self-awareness at the BBC ?????
They also say : “We need to reflect our audience in our output and in our organisational culture”.
So, in this post New Labour Britain with a Conservative PM, presumably they’ll be reflecting the views of the more right-wing audience out there. No, thought not.
be it the superior white male exec character who routinely asks a young female colleague to take the minutes, or the failure of everyone around the table to tell a blind web producer what’s written on the whiteboard.
LOL, so it is evil for a white man to have a secretary. And what the hell is a blind web producer, how will he be able to read the computer screen.
I want to see this in-house show. Looks like something Clarkson would spoof on Top Gear.
Oh and Neil Oliver has probably been forced to do this, a bit like when they got Gervais to do red nose day.
Looking forward to the BBC falling over themselves to refute criticism against happy-go-lucky Nurses from Eastern Europe working for the Great God NHS.
Just because they can neither Nurse or speak English, the BBC will de-facto defend them.
The BBC itself is very ill, so when the terminal prognosis is received, but not in English, the dulcet tone of the Albanian sewer expert turning off the life support machine, will no doubt be of great comfort that the BBC have been right about everything.
john,
It is really funny that the criticism of nurses and doctors is coming from Lord Winston, a BBC favourite. Can the BBC ignore it ? You bet !
PS doctors and nurses who can’t speak english, taht is 1
Saw most of the President’s speech online just now. Dire. As predicted, the first words out of his mouth were about scolding Congress for the “political circus”. Unbelieveably hypocritical. But He really believes it. He came in thinking everyone would simply do His bidding, and as it continues not to happen He simply doesn’t get it.
So it’s basically Spendulus Jr. He says it will all be paid for, but the can is kicked down the road. S&P probably spit up their collective dinners. And we all know that the next Congress can easily stop any of it, and it all depends anyway on what this bizarre Supercommittee does in the coming months. The only intelligent thing He said was about cutting payroll taxes. Some of it sounded like His speechwriter had been watching Gordon Brown reruns about building schools and whatnot.
The worse part was when He said His Jobs Plan For Us would be watched very carefully to make sure the money was spent properly, with no “bridge to nowhere” and “no boondoggles”. What an effing joke. The FBI just raided His own $535 million boondoggle for one of his top money men.
Mark Mardell will not remind you of that. He will instead tell you how The Obamessiah sounded presidential, and worked magic or some such drivel. And he’ll repeat the “roads and bridges and schools” talking point like Paul speaking about his visions to the Corinthians.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2035324/BBC-Breakfast-girls-blast-Tory-MP-David-Amess-Botox-Jibe.html
The guy rather blew it with this opportunity for distraction, predictably seized on by brain dead beeb bimbos and gleefully spun up by brain dead tabs that can smell a rating before Aunty has sucked her head out of the gopher hole.
Have to love that the issue of smiling at all the wrong places and bias NOT addressed.
Oh, no, our multi-hundred K teleprompter moppets, whose spontaneous insights come from the commissar in the edit suite via the in-ear, are most concerned…
‘BBC Breakfast presenter Susanna Reid says she uses only moisturiser and make-up’
Sucks when folk select what is used, or what not, eh, girls… er… ladies (was Ms. Phillips dipped in Cuprinol for that BBC promo shot?)
Bah-Bah, B’Bah-Bah, Bah-Bah….
Let’s join Stuart Hall once again for BBC It’s Knockout!
Friends, Romans….Eddie Waring….Welcome, welcome to a windswept green field somewhere in England. Bedecked in bunting and staked out for fun and games. Let the tournament begin!
First out of the blocks struggling down the track for the home side here come our favourite players Ed Balls and Ed Miliband. Balls is dressed in some sort of retro uniform – is he a German traffic warden? I couldn’t possibly say. No one quite knows what Miliband is supposed to be.
They’re busy struggling up the greasy pole now and getting a nice leg up from our Stephanie Flanders (Ha Ha). It’s stiff competition. There’s little Robert Peston doing his bit to help lubricate the team and Nick Robinson is lending a hand.
Don’t forget we will be doubling up their scores by playing all our jokers (Brigstock, Fry and Izzard).
Now you will notice that everybody is struggling with buckets brimming full of water – that’s despite the droughts we promised.
And don’t forget the Fil Rouge (that’s the thread of red left-wing bias that runs right through our entire coverage).
Oh look here come our opponents – the coalition team starting their Mini Marathon. We’ve dressed Cameron and Clegg in monster costumes – Ha Ha Ha.
Looking very shakey there tied together up on the podium!
It’s hilarious. We keep tripping them up and they keep falling over – but what makes us laugh is the way their expressions never change! Ha Ha Ha. They just keep playing the game! Ha Ha Ha.
Look at them dodging the Paxman taking the easier route and blundering right into the One Show – losing points all the way.
Of course all this effort goes toward winning a place in Europe. We’ve helped even the best losers like our former champions Patten, Mandleson and Kinnock to their big winning night on the European stage. Jeux Sans Frontiere!
Utterly brilliant!
INBBC Radio 5 this morning is live from Gitmo, via Ms V. DERBYSHIRE; she speaks in mournful tones about the conditions on Gitmo.
Of course, she does not emphasise the Islamic jihad crimes for which the inmates have been imprisoned/convicted. Nor that many released inmates go on to commit more Islamic jihad crimes, globally.
One gets the impression that just as a few thousand innocent Americans were massacred on 9/11, one has the equally sad story, as told by INBBC, of Islamic Gitmo prisoners deprived of their freedom.
Perhaps INBBC is campaigning to get all such prisoners out by September 11, so that they can act against the remembrance services on Sunday.
At times, INBBC’s Ms V Derbyshire sounded like a cross between the Gitmo prisoners’ welfare visitor and defence counsel, with her cencerned enquires as to whether the detainees had TV access to Al Jazeera, (a political chum of Beeboids).
Will Radio 5 Live and Ms V Derbyshire do a report from the prisons where poor people who cant afford their TV Licence are incarcerated .
I think not because the BBC loves terrorists but those who don’t pay the BBC TV Licence are lower than paedophiles in the eyes of the BBC.
Time for a ‘refresh’ of the thread?
Meanwhile, look, another familair face is back to tell us all is still great in the land of Aunty.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/09/ibc_in_amsterdam.html
Wonder how long ’til this ‘un gets shut down when he finds the interactivity aspect is contrary to the BBC narrative?
Quite an astounding piece of uncritical pc nonsense on Shelagh Fogerty. Today you might has missed was the state funeral of the saint and martryr Marc Duggan. Listen to this gem it starts at about 7:44 and thnakfully only lasts until about 11:10
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b01428m7
I was nearly in tears as it was reported mourners played drum n bass from there cars to mark the moment. At the end the conclusion is that there were some “mixed” reports about Marc member of a gang or family man – speaking to others – he might have been a bit of both.
HE WAS A DRUG DEALER !!!!!! HE WAS CARRYING A GUN!!!!!!! Why the F***ing hell do you call yourselves jounalists. The real question.
Why does part of the Tottenham community and the BBC lionise and make excuses for drug dealing, gun toting gansters who terrorised his community (sorry gantas). It makes you nostalgic for the Krays!!!!
Oh ..and the BBC anti-American? Never!
Today’s quote of the day:
“I have no further use for America. I wouldn’t go back there if Jesus Christ was President”. CHARLIE CHAPLIN
How’s that for gratitude?
I prefer Buster Keaton.
Barry,
So I am not alone in finding Charlie Chaplin unfunny ? He was a prat. I prefer Mr. Bean !
This is the BBC:
Bank shares lead falls on US and European stock markets
The US Dow Jones index dropped 2.6%, which in turned pulled European shares lower. German shares fell 4% while UK shares declined 2.4%.
This was DESPITE President Barack Obama’s new $450bn (£282bn) jobs plan.
See how the BBC operates? note the word “despite” as though Obamas ridulous and doomed re election bribe would boost the markets.
Of course the fall of the markets is BECAUSE OF the Obama plan yet the BBC cannot admit it, regardless of the facts and regardless of investors hating the Obama plan and regardless of the blatant pork barrel politics that could use taxpayers money in such a selfish self centered attempt to buy off his base. The Obama jobs plan is a complete and utter disaster for America, the POTUS simply cannot think beyond his own prejudices and his own future. Sound familiar? We had a lame duck deranged loony in charge, it looks like Oabma is copying McDoom.
Yes, Cassie, it seems that when it comes to macro-economics at the BBC, we are through the looking glass now.
Naturally, the BBC US President editor loved the speech, and loved His Jobs Plan For Us. He didn’t call it “Presidential”, but there was plenty of gushing praise for His performance anyway.
Even as Mardell grasps the partisan gamesmanship, he still doesn’t call Him out on it. If anything, he’s showing respect for the President’s tactics. The cynicism of a political editor (that’s what he was at Newsnight, and that’s what he is now, regardless of his job title) is suppressed in favor of admiration. No other politician gets so much praise for partisan hackery.
As predicted, Mardell did not bust his beloved Obamessiah on the “boondoggle” ruse. And he will continue to censor that news. He also refuses to call this what it is: another Stimulus bill. Instead, he calls it “pretty big”. And he thinks there was plenty of “meaty detail” when there was actually a distinct absence of detail on how this would be paid for. He just claimed it would be, and Mardell bought it hook, line, and sinker, the fact of the SuperCommittee seeming not to register in his Beeboid brain.
And Mardell’s absolute ignorance is on display again:
This was not of course a new President Obama, but it was a style of speech I have never heard him make before.
Fired up, yes, but using plain language. The call, if not the response, of a preacher.
You can tell Mardell has never set foot in a black church before, and it’s actually astonishing that he never noticed the cadences of a preacher in The Obamessiah’s speechifying during His run for President. How can anyone take the man seriously when he says the President has never spoken this way before? Is he that blind? It’s a joke.
It can only go wrong, he says, if the US public doesn’t want to throw yet more money down the toilet.
That is the gamble he is taking.
If he’s wrong, if the majority of Americans think more stimulus money is a waste, that government spending and red tape are the real problem, then a smart speech and a well thought out strategy won’t save him.
Mardell means that the political strategy is well thought out, not the actual economic policies, surely. Or does he? But as always, if the President doesn’t get His way, it will not be because He had the wrong policies, but because of the stupid public who will spurn Him as the Jews did to Barabus.