BBC gutted that their preferred candidate to become the next Head of the Met, Sir Hugh Orde, has been rejected in preference to Bernard Hogan-Howe. Just watch the BBC now move to try and undermine the new boy.
HELLO, HELLO, HELLO
Bookmark the permalink.
Do Beeb executives and ACPO president Orde share a “common purpose”?
Perhaps the Tories just wanted an old fashioned copper rather than one of these politically correct twats the last two plods have been?
Orde is a shit plod, everyone knows it except the BBC.
Hugh Orde, Mark Thompson, Robert Peston – snug little peas in the CP pod.’The Shadow Establishment’. Orde is CP’s favourite copper, they see him as one of their top level ‘leaders’, somebody all too willing to tick all the ‘appropriate’ boxes, along with the bent bankers, media whores & rotten members of the civil/servile service. Common Purpose needs to be dragged out into the daylight, but the chances of that happening are remote when ‘Tory’ Francis Maude is in cahoots with Julia Middleton, head of CP (LSE, dep chair of the Media Standards Trust Board, another ‘charity’, helped found DEMOS, it goes on…). Talk about a nest of vipers, unfortunately, most people don’t know that these snakes have entwined themselves around the nation’s throat. Surely the smell should alert them?
On another matter Paxman just grilled some Tory over banking reform claiming the Tories wanted less regulation back in 1997.
You know I can’t EVER remember Paxman or any other beeboid grilling Ed Testicles about THEIR screw ups, perhaps Steph 2 Ed’s Flanders might like to ask Ed the next time she see’s him (clothed of course)
Increasingly, I’m seeing ‘Moll’ Flanders as ‘Little Weed’ to Balls-Miliband’s ‘Flowerpotmen’.
Yes, this is a terrible appointment for the BBC to reconcile.
The fools have chosen an old fashioned Policeman who has asperations to catch criminals rather than acting like one.
Furthermore he’s done rather well in of all places – Mereyside – and horror of horrors may now well carry on in a similar vain in the left-wing multi-cultural metropolis affectionaly known as Londonistan.
The last person the BBC wants in charge is a crime solving copper.
They have become so used PC “PC” doing nothing, they may well have to organise trauma courses for staff to cope with the reintroduction of “law and order”.
You can bet the BBC will re-write history, just as they did with the American copper Cameron brought over, as I posted a while back when he was over visiting Red Ken the BBC were full of praise for him, but as soon as Cameron wanted him the BBC changed their tune.
Labour’s Chief Constables were all Labour politicians in an Police uniform.
Seems to me preferrable to appoint a policeman who can learn to be a politician, than appoint a politician who has to learn how to be a policeman.
So HMG decided to appoint a public servant who saw it as his duty to do his job, not undermine the Government of the day. Not something the BBC will understand, no.
I think Orde’s pitch with his outrageously unprofessional comments about HMG after the riots was his way of saying ‘This is what you’re going to get for the next few years if you dont give me the job’.
Let’s hope that as well as appointing a copper instead of a politician in uniform to head the Met, HMG has given Mr Orde some idea of what will happen if he does continue to be outrageously unprofessional.
I can’t understand why Orde even applied for the job having slagged off his prospective employer and specifically the person who would interview him. Surely you don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out that it wasn’t the best move.
Well, the last decent commisssioner I remember having been proud to serve under, was Bob Mark. Since then, the barrel’s really been scraped, with presbyterian oafs like Blackstock McNee, and political puppets like the other Blair slimeball running (or should I say ruining) the operation. I just hope that the Met hasn’t gone so far down the gurgler to be incapable of being rescued. I wish Hogan-Howe the best of luck.
The adage used to be “I came, I saw, I fucked it all up, I left”
Congdon wasn’t too bad, was he?
No, Condon was one of the better ones, I must admit, and John Stevens, too. Other than those two, I wouldn’t give tuppence for the rest of ’em (including the dwarf).
Peter Allen & co on Five Drive programme (‘Today Lite’) were setting up the BBC take on the Met Chief appointment yesterday evening.
A nice little bit of editorialising was slipped in when we were confidently informed that Hugh Orde would be the choice of most coppers but that he had queered his pitch by criticising the coalition Government’s response to the riots.
Now I may not have done the detailed opinion polling that the BBC appear to have access to….but something tells me Orde is not the coppers’ choice (at least not the majority of the rank and file).
It was then impressed on the listener at least three or four times that this was Boris Johnson and Theresa May’s appointment.
The ‘unbiased’ BBC then added words to the effect ‘ we’re not saying he’s a Tory but the Tories will like him because he has spoken out against PC’.
Well I guess the BBC may as well start as they mean to go on. My advice to Hogan-Howe would be the words they used to say to boxers before a bout at Madison Square Garden…..’defend yourself at all times….’
O/T , but in the same show junior pitbull/man on the Clapham omnibus interviewer Peter Allen gave Union boss Paul Kenny of the GMB a completely free hand to attack the Government and make his call for civil disobedience
– in fact our Peter helped things along with comments such as ‘Are you saying that those who’ve got least need most protection?’ and ‘I think a lot of people would agree with that….’ A very sympathetic treatment of the union point of view.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b014gs1k
Listen from 0:46
The trouble is that the BBC edit their iPlayer version of the show and one aside that they cut was the reading out of an email asking ‘Has Peter gone to sleep during the interview with the union guy?’
The reply was something like : ‘ Well it’s nice to just have a chat sometimes, just for variety’.
I’m a big fan of Pete Allen, although from time to time he does go with the BBC correctnick flow and act like an absolute twerp – an accusatory, hostile interview he once conducted with an Israeli spokesman comes to mind from about 10 years ago, when many of his colleagues were in full-on ‘Der Sturmer’ mode. The interview with the Trade Union leader certainly is worth a raised eyebrow, but most especially if the reader’s email and his response has been ‘airbrushed out’ by the BBC politburo.
Haven’t listened to the coverage they gave over the Met Commissioner’s appointment. If its true what they said that the appointee has a history of speaking out against political correctness, cue ‘ode to joy’!
I think Scott/Dez is worried that the day might be soon coming when he can’t phone up the Met Correctnick Unit to accuse someone of ‘hate crime’ for suggesting that two men having sex together is abnormal.
The culprit here was home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw.
As soon as the news broke, Peter Allen asked him whether Bernard Hogan-Howe’s appointment was expected:
“Well, I always thought it was going to come down to two people – either Bernard Hogan-Howe or Stephen House. I thought there was no way that the home secretary was going to pick Sir Hugh Orde, even though Sir Hugh Orde, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, is widely considered by everyone in the policing field as the best person for the job, the most experienced person, the one who’s shown most leadership qualities. But he has clashed with the home secretary. He’s been perhaps a bit disruptive on occasions. So I think there was no way that Theresa May was going to appoint Sir Hugh Orde. Tim Godwin was out of the picture because although he’s a very able deputy he doesn’t really have the strong leadership skills. So it came down to between Hogan-Howe and Steve House…”
“Widely considered” by “everyone” to be “the best”??!! That remark in particular reeks of bias towards Sir Hugh Orde.
Why did Mr Hogan-Howe get the job then, according to Danny Shaw? Partly because Theresa May had already put him in place in an acting position but also because “if you look at what he’s said over the past few years about gun crime, about the health and safety culture that was inhibiting policing, these are all themes that are very much in tune with Conservative thinking. Not to say that he’s Conservative..erm..in terms of his political views, but certaintly some of what he has said has very much chimed in with what the Conservatives believe about policing.”
Pure speculation there from Danny Shaw, and pretty loaded speculation at that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b014gs1k/?t=0h38m5s
“if you look at what he’s said over the past few years about gun crime, about the health and safety culture that was inhibiting policing, these are all themes that are very much in tune with Conservative thinking”
Thats a strange statement. Is he saying that the opposite is in line with Labour thinking?
If that’s the report the BBC write up when they are “gutted”, then thank goodness.
Orde doesn’t even get mentioned until way, way down the page, along with the other two shortlisted candidates. And the BBC doesn’t even mention that panels from both the Home Office and the MPA assessed Orde as the best candidate.
Surely if the BBC was actually “gutted”, they would have mentioned that?
I suppose an alternative explanation is that David Vance is just making stuff up again. But who would countenance such an act from a fellow with such a long, detailed history of being scrupulously accurate?
PS: Watched any more BBC programmes on Channel 4 recently, David?
You’re being disingenuous here. I listened to the programme on my way home yesterday and DV seems to have summed ip the BBC’s immediate reaction to the appointment accurately. The listener was left in little doubt that Hugh Orde had been the better candidate, but had been black-listed because of his recent criticism of the government.
I was also listening when Peter Allen (who I like as a presenter, and was particularly effective in putting Ed Balls in his place during an interview earlier in the year) was chided by a listener over his lack of input into the discussion with Paul Kenny.
I dont remember anyone on the BBC implying that it was improper of Obama to sack General McChyrstal for publically criticising him. McChrystal was a truly great soldier but clearly had to go, Orde comes nowhere near to comparing to his stature as a policeman. What Orde did over the riots was prove everything DV has been saying about him.
feck sake
is there any chance of at least doing away with that photo?
do it now,………….
on second thoughts,i think I’ll print it off,enlarge it and stick it on the mantelpiece
at least it will keep small children away from the fire
Cruel, but amusing! 🙂
I’m sure Scott/Dez, being the balanced, well rounded person that he is, will take it in the spirit that it’s intended. 😀
Ah, ltwf1964 and hippiepooter. The two people who can be relied upon more than any others to contribute nothing but personal insults.
Wouldn’t be one of my comments without either or both of you feeling you had to fling your own faeces about underneath it…
Hang on a minute Scott, what about my insults ?
If that is what you long for, enjoy this one :
If your suffix is M, then I can only presume that Dez’s is F.
Scott’s right about the link. The report the post links to doesn’t provide any actual evidence of bias against Bernard Hogan-Howe and in favour of Sir Hugh Orde. Nor does the accompanying BBC profile of Hogan-Howe (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14888782). Both are straight reports that, if anything, present Hogan-Howe in a positive light. The Editors’ Picks on the article are a balance of positive and negative comments which reflect the full range of comments on the thread. Only one of the picked comments supports Orde, properly reflecting a strain of opinion found there.
Another David to add to the confusion! DA, DV didn’t cite this piece as BBC bias, he merely anticipated that the appointment of Hogan-Howes would quickly move to undermine him as he’s ‘not their man’.
We’ve had an alleged example in the comments with the coverage received on R5L Drive. I still haven’t heard the piece in question as noone has of yet mentioned when its on in the links posted. However, Craig’s transcript does suspiciously fit the bill of what DV was saying. Hearing it might lead to a different opinion though.
Hi Hippiepooter, the relevant bit begins 38 minutes into the programme. ( I tried to follow that tip about putting the time on the end of the i-Player link so it begins at exactly the right moment when you click on it – but it probably hasn’t worked!) There’s a second discussion of it about 1h 21ms in.
Unlike Danny Shaw, Peter Allen does you proud throughout.
Scott short memory?? it was you that started the insult fest on the other post and god are you easy to play !pmsl !!!!!
Everything I said on the previous thread was borne out by previous experience, and has been amply repeated here.
Look at the behaviour of lwtf1964 on numerous threads, even ones I haven’t posted on. Nearly every single post involves verbal abuse of some form or another.
Anybody who criticises me but clicks “like” on his posts is either very, very stupid, a brazen hypocrite, or both. Whatever, they’re clearly not worth listening to. And I suspect they know that, which is why, like ltwf1964 and so many others, they get so uppity when challenged.
I think Scott/Dez is the only bloke known to medical science who suffers from pre-menstrual tension.
Oops! I was wrong about him being balanced and well rounded!
DV, I’m beginning to think Scott/Dez fancies you! (I know, try to keep the dinner down).
Can you imagine his feelings were I to convert to Islam? 😀
Nice to see that David Vance once again demonstrates that his snide little schoolboy nature isn’t very well hidden.
Care to comment on the fact that the article you linked to bore no resemblance to your précis (and not for the first time)? Or are you instead going to recede to the comfort of sniggering with your like-minded, puerile fellow children?
Hmm. David Vance seems to be deleting comments now. It’s okay call me all sorts of names under the sun – he’ll encourage that. But if I refer to his comments as exhibting schoolboyish behaviour, my comment gets deleted.
What a pathetic crock.
It seems that, like so many who use the internet for spouting hateful nonsense, his own skin seems ultrathin.
You must have broken a few hearts in your time, Scottie sweetie.
The only thing that Scott/Dez breaks are farts!
BBC researchers will be working overtime. Expect a few “This is the man who …..” stories over the coming months.
Actually, you should read Nic R’s latest blog intro for just such a thing, but in a good way.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14898021
I think the move to dire humour is welcome.