What did we do to deserve the Cameron government? Autonomous Mind explains the supine sell-out over the EU here. And now the so-called culture minister tells us that the BBC is the “best broadcaster in the world” in response to some genuinely probing questions from a backbencher who is at least partly aware. On which planet does Ed Vaizey live? He seemed reassured, too, that Lord Patten is to hold “impartiality” seminars. With his fat EU pension and his rabid views on climate change, that’s a bit like Ribbentrop promising to get Hitler to educate the Reich on the pros and cons of the Jewish question. I await the results of the latest phase of indoctrination with bated breath. Or perhaps not.
WHICH PLANET?
Bookmark the permalink.
Damn I feel sorry for any conservatives who voted Conservative!
I see Cameron has got his fake grass roots/fake sceptics movement off the ground. Isolated within their Westminster bubble the Quisling regime actually believed that setting up a blatant client stooge group would manage the genuine Eurosceptic rebellion?
The gang of 80 led by George EUstace who straight away gets a prime slot on the BBC toady show to peddle his bosses talking points without contradiction or interruption. And if the BBC toady show forgets its right wing hating principles you just know that EUstace holds progressive values to the core.
So useless EUstace proposes the ridiculous assertion that Cameron is a Eurosceptic and that a referendum would be a distraction, strange kind of dissident group that mirrors and copies the same talking points as the PM isnt it?
What did we do to deserve the Cameron government? Robin asks this question. We trusted the lying fake Tory traitors, yes we trusted them and they betrayed us, wont make that mistake again will we?
Is there any doubt about this fake dissident group which by strange coincidence is made up of the new intake of selected mindless droids who would jump off beachy head if so ordered by the fake Tory regime.
Oh and BTW the final clue is the BBC treatment of useless EUstace, he is given the soft treatment usually reserved for labour party stooges and green shirt eco fraudsters. It doesnt take a genius to work out that if a genuine sceptic had been invited on(not likely) he or she would have been treated like the spokesman of a child molester support group.
I’m sure the BBC love The Conservative Party in it’s current form. They just prefer Labour’s particular brand of Champagne Socialism.
The BBC prefer labour because labour will spend more on the BBC than the tories. That is the only real difference between them as far as government policy directly affecting the BBC itself.
George Eustice?
Go the spelling wrong in my post.
You could say EUinjuSTICE?
Perfect description in the name eh?
From Robin’s BBC link:
David Amess told the Commons the end of the digital switchover in 2012 would be a good time to rethink BBC funding.
He also criticised “one or two female newsreaders” for smiling when they read serious news items.
I don’t know exactly what Mr Amess said, but I’d be pretty sure that the line about female newsreaders was an aside. (Perhaps someone heard and can confirm?)
But you see how the BBC puts this in right after the main complaint to give the impression that Mr Amess is complaining about trivia and marginalise him. And frankly to have mentioned that at all, when it would obviously have been seized upon, shows the shit Tory MPs have for brains.
Here it is in all its glory. 😀
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9581000/9581692.stm
After an intro, a mention of many forms of bias that will be familiar to posters, commenters and readers here (and with heavy reliance on Peter Sissons’s views also), he went on to BBC costs and salaries.
He was criticising high salaries of senior staff and board members and proposals that would have given them another possible 10% of their large salaries in performance bonuses had the wonderful Lord Patten not stepped in. He said that showed how out of touch [they were] and then said at 13 mins
Now let me go on to the presenters. Now I don’t know whether we have brilliant presenters; I would just say that it annoys me when one or two female presenters – I don’t know whether they have had too much botox or something but when they are presenting the news and it’s a very serious subject, they’re smiling, which I find slightly annoying – but their salaries which we are paying for, are worth looking at; and the highest paid stars’ earnings from the BBC cost 1.55% of the £3.49bn that the licence fee brings in; this is huge: the seven high profile presenters involved in this year’s coverage of the Glastonbury music festival for the BBC not only were paid lots of money for going – they were given free complementary tickets. Why did the BBC send 400 journalists to the Glastonbury festival? And this all goes unquestioned: we’re concentrating now on phone hacking and all the rest of it; I think it’s things like this that if Parliament was as it used to be we could properly scrutinise these things…
[Sits down to take a question. Answers question]
Then resumes:
Now to save money, head quarters are moving to Salford; well, I’m sorry: London is the capital city…fears of £877m white elephant.
Then goes on to sport.
Then talks about the level of the licence fee and the need to think once again about how the BBC is funded.
Finishes his speech by saying he hopes that there will be changes in the terms of these ridiculous high salaries that have been paid.
Typo: complimentary
Apart from ID cards and Libya, I cannot really see any big difference between labour and the tories and the liberals. On the two specific issues which will effect more policies than any other, the EU and climate, there is no difference between the parties at all and all three of those parties are 100% wrong on both of those issues. Likewise all three parties treat the BBC as an untouchable icon of the British Establishment. That is a foolish thing to do, as the BBC are not interested in promoting British interests, but solely in furthering their own “third way” agenda and spreading it as far as possible.
As a condition of continuing to receive his EU pension Patten is not permitted to do or say anything which acts against the interests of the EU – or the project in general. AFAIAA no-one has asked Patten – worse, no-one has even brought it up in Parliament or the paper press (I don’t expect the BBC to go near the subject) – what such a condition implies for his oversight of “impartiality” at the BBC concerning EU matters.
I am (to say the least) not a fan of Noam Chomsky but his remarks about the contrick of free and open debate in Western democracies happen to be spot on where the BBC is concerned (although his remarks were aimed at a completely different target). The contrick, in any particular case, comprises the BBC setting a framwork in which debate – sometimes fierce debate – takes place. However, outside that framework, virtually nothing is discussed.
So, for instance, in the matter of CAGW there is fierce debate across the BBC about how much carbon dioxide emissions should be reduced by a particular time in the future, where to site wind farms, the implications of (unchallenged and skewed) data concerning how much Arctic ice has retreated and so on. What is never explored – and is the place where real debate should occur – is how the framework of discussion is created and how “impartial” the process of framework creation is. Instead all we get at the boundary of the framework is a continuous dribble of assertion about “settled science”, “climate change deniers”, “flat earthers” etc. In other words, the BBC “debate” follows the recommendations of the IPPR to warmists concerning climate scepticism; that the “truth” of CAGW must be taken as a given in any discussion or statement about climate.
And so it is with the EU: the BBC framework is in place, the major parties have signed up to it. Any discussion outside the box of the possibility or desirability of marginally relaxing the stranglehold of the EU is treated by the BBC analogously to a visit to Bedlam to bait the nutters. Look also at the coverage of the 7/11 anniversary.
The BBC has launched an avalanche of crapola asserting or implying that it was nothing to do with “real” Islam, that “our” Moslems are now victimised because of “our” perception that the Moslems committing the 9/11 and 7/7 atrocities had (and have) substantial, (albeit passive) support from the Moslem community here (no mention of the polls indicating that this is so!), that it was our fault because of our foreign policy, and – of course – that the prime culprits are Israel and the Jews.
Any discussion outside the box of the possibility or desirability of marginally relaxing the stranglehold of the EU is treated by the BBC analogously to a visit to Bedlam to bait the nutters.
More than analogously, I’d say. Think how often you hear politicians, spokesman etc being given free rein to call the likes of climate sceptics, EU sceptics and the Tea Party nutters. And never called on it.
I’m now glad I wasted my vote by voting UKIP for the first time in a General Election. The only people I have seen on the BBC who quote science that proves the AGW theory is bullshit are UKIP MEP’s and Nigel Lawson. The BBC is desperate to censor the opinions of the only scientist on the governments science committee, Graham Stringer MP, not only to maintain an illusion that there is a scientific consensus, but that a Labour MP is the only Scientist and only Sceptic on the committee is something the BBC does not want the viewers to know. Somehow I do not expect ever to see a documentary about Climate Change presented by an Atmospheric Physicist or any scientist relevant to Climate science on the BBC, let alone a documentary stuffed full of climate scientists like the channel 4 documentary “The great Global Warming Swindle”.
EUREFERENDUM SAYS:
While the Idiot Boy greets the would-be Führer of Europe as if he was a long-lost brother (pictured above), the Express and others fulminate over Dave’s refusal to give “us” a referendum – despite a petition deposited at 10 Downing Street. There, no doubt, it would be used to keep down energy bills if they still had open fires.
The petition was never going to go anywhere anyway, with the Daily Mail reporting that the whole idea of a Westminster debate has descended into a farce.
We cannot record any dismay at the refusal. Our objections to the idea of an in/out referendum have been made, and do not need repetition. But there is one beneficial effect of the activity – it increases the dissatisfaction with Cameron, which cannot help but advance the cause over time.
One possible danger is the upsurge of Tory “euroscepticism”, but as my erstwhile co-editor very quickly discerned, this is nothing but a ploy. Furthermore, so transparent is it that very few people will be convinced that the Conservatives are serious about “Europe”. It is likely to have an effect only on MPs and other of the weaker members of our society.
Come the conference season though, there are the party faithful to entertain, and a display of ritual “eurobashing” always plays well with the troops. The Idiot Boy needs to convince them that he is going to be “tough on Europe”, and the Eustice charade all lends a touch of drama – and a useful diversion from other issues.
Nevertheless, despite the europlastics’ attempts to hijack the eurosceptic agenda, nothing much has actually changed. The Idiot Boy is as much a europhile as ever he was, his Tory supporters are variously every bit as duplicitous and gullible as ever they were, and the MSM is still populated by a lightweight commentariat which is unwilling or unable to discern the difference between a real eurosceptic and the plastic variety.
What particularly has not changed is any sense that the eurosceptic community is getting is act together. Too many simply oppose the EU for the sake of it, without any clear idea of what they would want as an alternative. Others still hanker after the “Commonwealth, King and Country” paradigm, despite it being dead in the water since the 50s and before.
Possibly, the only encouraging thing on the horizon is the propensity of the EU to self-destruct – nothing particularly new in that, although it is closer now than it has ever been.
That could provide the answer to the plastics as well as the sceptics. We can all keep spouting our own brand of rhetoric and when the EU does collapse in a pile of its own ordure, we can all claim the credit. – and only then start thinking about how we clear up the mess.
My personal worry in all this is that the consequences of a collapse will be so severe and so prolonged, that there will emerge a real Führer, one able to stop the traffic in Brussels and elsewhere, and a lot more besides. By that time, the mess might be more than any of us can deal with.
A one man band running on mere pennies coming up with THE definitive explanation that the billion pound BBC news could only dream of. You will note the impartial nature, the stupendous ease with which North deconstructs the narratives to get to the kernel of truth that lays within the shell of lies and deceptions.
This is how journalism should operate, this is NOT how the BBC operates. Real journalism is not about party loyalty is it? The BBC has fooled itself into believing that journalism is about attacking and destroying their enemies. Political parties fight for their beliefs and a genuine MSM would be right in there holding them to account and keeping them within acceptable boundaries. The BBC has failed, more than failed it has led the way in the degenerate slide into 3rd world politics.