74 Responses to OPEN THREAD…

  1. George R says:
    September 16, 2011 at 11:04 pm

    Don’t speak too soon, Islam Not BBC (INBBC):

    “Paris ban on Muslim street prayers comes into effect”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14945467

    ‘Jihadwatch’:

    Muslims defy outdoor prayer ban in France

    [Excerpt]:

    “What a surprise. In this case the Muslims appear sure that the French will ultimately bend to their will. And why not? They have so many times before.”

       0 likes

    • George R says:
      September 16, 2011 at 11:26 pm

      For INBBC:

      Islamised streets of Paris (filmed quite recently) –

      ‘Islamization’ of Paris a Warning to the West

         0 likes

    • ian says:
      September 16, 2011 at 11:31 pm

      Yeah, but at least a few tabloid-reading French thickoes will admire Sarkozy enough not to vote Front National at the next elections, and that’s the real point of this pathetic gesture.

         0 likes

    • Techno Mystic says:
      September 17, 2011 at 10:16 am

      BBC spin: “a practice by French Muslims unable to find space in mosques” and “became a political issue after far right protests”.

      So they only do it because their mosques aren’t big enough, and it’s all the fault of the “far right” for bringing attention to it, not that it’s a public inconvenience at all.

         0 likes

      • noggin says:
        September 17, 2011 at 1:32 pm

        not enough space ….absolute nonsense, always the same deceitful drone.
        muslims have been seen ferrying vanloads,  minibus loads of so called “worshippers” wanting to score political points, to these street soiree s, from the far outskirts of gay 😀  Parree, to break the law, ( hmm what a surprise).

        any opportunity to further the cause eh! to differentiate it from all other faith, mind you it isn t its all ideology anyway

           0 likes

  2. George R says:
    September 17, 2011 at 12:15 am

    “Hysteria, scaremongering and a desperate bid to keep a twitching EU corpse alive”

    by Simon Heffer – who gives BBC  on E.U., an appropriate mention :

    [Excerpt]:

    “The great danger now is that a combination of the Foreign Office, the malign editorial voice of the BBC (which regards eurosceptics as deranged and anti-Europeans as downright evil) and, above all, the Lib Dems would press Mr Cameron into signing a treaty advocating closer integration – and bully him to refuse a referendum on it.”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2038327/Euro.html#ixzz1YAEyutgb

       0 likes

  3. john says:
    September 17, 2011 at 12:34 am

    Listening to Mark Mardell’s rantings on the BBC, Obama’s Democrat paradise is not, alas, being shared with some of the people who live there.
    Indeed, quite a few of them don’t share it.
    On CBS tonight we learn that 72% disapprove of POTUS, furthermore 83% feel he has lost control of the economy.
    But what do we little people across the water know? We have after all the BBC’s giant M&M offering us daily candyfied reports that they have never had it so good.
    Whilst Mardell lays into the Republicans at every opportunity, ridicules the Tea Party, how long will it be before he tells us not to watch Television programmes about America broadcast from, well – er – America ?

       0 likes

  4. Louis Robinson says:
    September 17, 2011 at 4:19 am

    John, here’s a more sober look at the president’s prospects for the next election. I offer it as a counter to Mark Mardell.

    http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/

       0 likes

    • hippiepooter says:
      September 17, 2011 at 11:11 am

      I think I read in the Telegraph a couple of days ago that Obama is ahead in the polls over Perry.

         0 likes

      • Louis Robinson says:
        September 17, 2011 at 12:19 pm

        Hippiepooter, here’s the Real Clear politic run down of all polls. 

        http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/

        Polling is a complex operation with the question asked and the spin given both important to the result. At the moment, everything is in flux. Obama still has a chance. Depends on the Republican candidate.

        The House and Senate are a different matter. They look to turn Republican. Best to sit on one’s hands till next April before getting excited. But for geeks, this stuff is nectar.

        The secret weapon in Marco Rubio!

           0 likes

        • hippiepooter says:
          September 17, 2011 at 11:53 pm

          From what little I’ve seen of Marco Rubio I think he’d make as good a Presidential candidate if not better than anyone currently in the field.  Perry has an impressive record as Governor of Texas, but the unavoidable associations with Bush by his accent and present office I dont see as doing him good.  I may be speaking in ignorance, but I think Obama as a person would be seen more as representing Americans as a whole, Perry a lot less so.

          All this said, Congressman Colonel Allen West is someone I’d love to see as President, but like Rubio, probably needs more experience at elected office to win enough confidence of the American people to get elected President.

             0 likes

  5. Cassandra King says:
    September 17, 2011 at 4:27 am

    White House forced me to back project funded by Obama donor, Air Force general tells secret Congressional hearing
     <img src=”http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/09/16/article-2038053-0DEB07F700000578-593_87x84.jpg” alt=”‘Pressured’: Air Force Space Commander General William Shelton was speaking about a wireless project by LightSquared”/>

    Air Force Space Commander General William Shelton told a classified Congressional hearing he was pressured by the White House into changing a political briefing to favour a Democratic-backed firm.

    Another day and another story the BBC will not be reporting on if they can possibly help it?

    Not newsworthy/legal considerations/more important news to air/the dog ate the report/it was lost in the post.

    Jus another gap in the news wall, these gaps sure are getting bigger and bigger.

       0 likes

    • My Site (click to edit) says:
      September 17, 2011 at 6:29 am

      ‘Not newsworthy/legal considerations/more important news to air/the dog ate the report/it was lost in the post.’

      Wateright Oversight – An approach to news where reporting is avoided at all costs with facile claims of professional integrity, when in fact it is usually because the reality doesn’t fit the narrative.

         0 likes

      • My Site (click to edit) says:
        September 17, 2011 at 6:31 am

        ‘Watertight’, though ‘what, I’m right’ could apply to eny post on ‘The Editors’.

           0 likes

  6. My Site (click to edit) says:
    September 17, 2011 at 8:28 am

    The author covers a variety of issues and, mostly, all could track back to a certain hive…

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100105484/is-the-edl-the-new-voice-of-the-white-working-class/

    … and not in the best way for their ‘narratives’.

       0 likes

  7. My Site (click to edit) says:
    September 17, 2011 at 8:39 am

    As the ‘news’ media seem polarised on the issue, does anyone know of any objective analysis on the issues as they pertian to the Met OSA efforts with the Graun journo.

    So far all I can see is NoTW vs. Graun ‘it’s different’ waling and knashing, and before the BBC weighs in objectively I’d appreciate the facts prior to their news, guest reviews, blogs and tweets.

       0 likes

    • Craig says:
      September 17, 2011 at 10:14 am

      There certainly wasn’t any objective analysis on last night’s Newsnight.

      The programme’s introduction framed it like this: “We ask whether the Met is looking for justice or revenge”. 

      There was a very one-sided report from Richard Watson, outlining the Guardian‘s role in bringing down the ‘NOTW’ before saying, in loaded terms, “now the police have turned on the journalists behind that story”.

      The first ‘talking head’ was Mark Lewis, the Dowler family lawyer, who praised the Guardian‘s work on the story.

      Watson continued to use loaded language, saying “but to serve the Guardian newspaper with a production order on the basis of the Official Secrets Act is both highly irregular and controversial“.

      Newsnight didn’t seem particularly coy about naming names at the ‘NOTW‘ whenever collars were felt by the police, yet Richard Watson tactfully avoided using Amelia Hill’s name, merely calling her a “Guardian journalist“.

      “Concern has been raised in parliament”, he said, playing a short clip of Jeremy Hunt expressing concern in vague and general terms.

      Then came a short Guardian statement, followed by the second ‘talking head’, Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, attacking the police’s uses of the Official Secrets Act for 50 uninterrupted seconds.

      A short Met statement followed. Unlike with the Guardian statement, Richard Watson editorialised here, beginning “So it seems that they’re arguing…”, paraphrasing but also casting doubt on the clarity of the police statement.

      Then we got Alan Rusbridger again, disputing the police statement (for another 37 seconds).

      Watson then outlined the coming legal argument, as regards…whether the Police are right to use the OSA in this way!

      He ended with an anonymous source, saying “One of the Met’s most senior former officers told me tonight ‘it’s a bit rich, given that without the Guardian’s story, there would be no new investigation to damage because the Met had closed the book.”

      End of report!!!! EXTRAORDINARY!!!!!

         0 likes

      • Craig says:
        September 17, 2011 at 10:15 am

        Emily Maitlis then said, “Well, as you can imagine, we asked the Met Police to come onto the programme but nobody was available to join us”.

        Did the Met shoot themselves in the foot by not joining the discussion? Or should they be keeping quiet at this stage of an investigation, except for issuing a brief statement?

        So who did Newsnight get to talk about it instead? Well, they used two of their speed dial favourites – Brian Paddick and the increasingly ubiquitous (on the BBC) media lawyer John Cooper. 

        Was one a robust supporter of the Met’s actions and the other a robust opponent? No.

        Brian Paddick: “I think it’s going to damage public confidence in the police. Of course it is, because it looks like vindictiveness.”

        John Cooper: “What seems to be happening here..and I do think, and perhaps Brian and I both agree on this, it does have a vindictive taint to it here as to how the act of parliament is being used against the Guardian.”

        “Vindictive” is the word Rusbridger has been using too.

        Some credit must be given to Paddick though for pointing out what (amazingly) hadn’t been mentioned so far – why the police are questioning the Guardian: “Well, clearly if you have officers who are employed on Operation Wheeting investigating the phone hacking and they’re leaking information themselves to the papers, then that’s obviously going a bit too far for the Met.” (Paddick added that the OSA is quite clear, despite what Rusbridger says.)

        Why on earth hadn’t either Emily Maitlis or Richard Watson given this vital piece of background information to the story? It’s an extraordinary omission on their part to fail to report this. 

        Just one brownie point should go to Emily for her only question (to Guardian defender John Coooper) put from a devil’s advocate perspective): “The Guardian should still be not above the law, right? So, I mean, if there has been wrongdoing, if they have broken the law, even though it’s an investigation into phone hacking, that should be investigated?”

        This was her one and only attempt to be fair. All her other questions fitted in nicely with the Guardian’s position, including such gems as “There’ll be people sitting at home tonight saying ‘this is not just a co-incidence, is it?'” and “Can this REALLY be brought under the OSA?”

        To me, all this came across as a sustained defence of theGuardian. Certainly not impartial reporting.

           0 likes

        • hippiepooter says:
          September 17, 2011 at 11:30 am

          There’s a serious falsification of the issue by Newsnight/Guardian here.  
           
          It is very evident from the Met statement that what is being investigated is leaking of information such as who was going to be arrested the following day, which had no public interest defence whatsoever, it was just the Guardian bragging that they know everything and can do anything.  My immediate thought at the time was that the Police should investigate how the Guardian came by this information, as they law was clearly broken with out any public interest defence.  
           
          ex Met Commander Paddick, to my mind, suprisingly spoke in defence of the Met.

             0 likes

          • John Anderson says:
            September 17, 2011 at 1:41 pm

            The Guardian looks like a whited sepulchre on this one.

            I am shocked, SHOCKED, that the BBC should rally to its support on this one.

            It is wrong on any occasion IMHO for police to be releasing info on imminent arrests.  In this case,  orders had gone down from very senior Met officers to remind their staff that NOTHING should be revealed about the major investigation under way.

            It appears from what I have read that the Guardian had been milking a source or sources inside the Met for info.   When the order to maintain especial operational silence went down,  it would be surprising if the source/sources did not tell the Guardian journalist(s) that they were under special instruction to refuse to pass on info.

            So – what prompted the Met source(s) to put their career in total jeopardy just to please the Guardian ?   I would be surprised if there was no inducement.

            ………………………..

            My fervent hope is that the final blowback from the whole anti-Murdoch campaign by the Guardian and the BBC will be recognition that the BBC’s news dominance is way too large.

               0 likes

            • Martin says:
              September 17, 2011 at 5:01 pm

              Exactly and you have to ask WHY those plods involved continued to give out information, were they being paid, were they under duress (perhaps in fear the Guardian might let it be known they’d be getting info from them in the past) or for example were any of the plods having a relationship with Guardian journalists? WE need to know as does the Police.

              Most of what the Guardian was getting hold of had no public interest defence, the arrests etc were going ot be made public anyway. 

                 0 likes

              • hippiepooter says:
                September 18, 2011 at 12:05 am

                It’s certainly in the public interest that the Met investigates to establish if there are grounds for charges.  The Met statement made very clear the public interest basis under which their side investigation to Operation Weeting is being conducted.  It was pure special pleading on behalf of the BBC’s print arm the Guardian that led to the Newsnight piece.

                   0 likes

      • wild says:
        September 17, 2011 at 11:15 am

        If Newsnight journalists (paid to tell you what to think) stopped pushing whatever happens to be the Left agenda du jour, now THAT would be extraordinary.

           0 likes

      • My Site (click to edit) says:
        September 18, 2011 at 6:15 am

        Tx for that.

        As mentioned more and more, it seems a pity that the national broadcaster is now not to be relied upon to share the full extent of a story* for idealogical reasons.

        *Wonder if they will be covering the rather intriguing role model that is the Indy publisher that I just saw on SKY decking a bloke. Guessing this is the kind of guy, and action, they approve of in this instance. Maybe he was unsettled by the paper’s credibility post the Hari inquiry?

           0 likes

  8. George R says:
    September 17, 2011 at 9:11 am

    INBBC’s Islamophilic propaganda continues, at all levels.    
       
    ‘Today’, INBBC presents an admiring  view of a Muslim (inevitably named Mohammed- but INBBC never even mentions he’s a Muslim) who has lived in Swansea for the last 13 years or so.    
       
    But this Mohammed in now in Libya fighting with the Islamic ‘rebels’. Why is he doing it? In his own words: ‘You’ve got to fight for your own country’. And by this he means Libya, not Wales, not Britain.    
       
    How many admiring INBBC interviews do we get of British, Christian men fighting for ‘their country’ Britain, in say, Afghanistan?    
       
    INBBC headline on this:    
       
    “Swansea man ‘fighting for Libya'”    
       
    Headline, more accurately would be:    
       
    “Muslim, 13 years Swansea resident, fights for Allah and ‘his country    
    Libya'”    
       
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9593000/9593491.stm

       0 likes

    • George R says:
      September 17, 2011 at 9:14 am

      And, of course, not explored by INBBC, this Mohammed will not be staying in ‘his country’ of Libya, but will return to the country of his past 13 years’ residence, which is not his, Britain.

         0 likes

    • Biodegradable says:
      September 17, 2011 at 4:55 pm

      No question of “dual loyalty” here.

      If he was a British Jew fighting with the IDF in Israel I wonder what the story would be.

         0 likes

  9. George R says:
    September 17, 2011 at 12:23 pm

     

    INBBC Muslim reporter on Pakistan, M* IIYAS KHAN profiles HAQQANIS without mentioning: 1.) Muslims; 2.) Islamic jihad!  
     
    A masterpiece of Islamic exposition of mere ‘militants’by INBBC’s M* (*is it Mohammed?)  Khan.  
     
    So BBC non-Muslim licencepayers are fed a Muslim account of an Islamic jihad group, but that key phrase is censored out!

    Propaganda indeed:- 

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14912957

     
    Alternative material on HAQQANIS:-at ‘Jihadwatch’-  
     
     
    http://www.jihadwatch.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/br0nc0s/managed-mt/mt-search.cgi?search=haqqanis&IncludeBlogs=1&limit=20

       0 likes

  10. Martin says:
    September 17, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    But the real question is has the Guardian been paying Police for information. The Guardian says not, so that’s it, we’re supposed to take their word for it?

    Ask an obvious question, even after being warned about talking to the press why would a plod risk his career and pension for nothing?

    Something smells bad (not just Amelia Hill’s breath either) here and the Police need to investigate.

    We’ve seen other plods taking money etc so  it seems perfectly reasonable for the Police to follow this up after all it was the Guardian/BBC alliance that was stating the Police were slack over the original phone hacking investigation, so it seems reasonable to be throrough all round this time.

    I also return to my point made some time back that I’m sure Amelia Hill denied live on Sky News getting information from the Police, I bloody wish Sky would put that conversation up on the internet.

       0 likes

    • John Anderson says:
      September 17, 2011 at 1:44 pm

      Martin

      I posted a similar thought above – before seeing your post.  It appears some copper or coppers risked their entire career by feeding info to the Guardian,  even after special instructions to stay mum.   No inducements on offer ?   

         0 likes

      • Martin says:
        September 17, 2011 at 5:04 pm

        There are all sorts of reasons that the Police could have been leaking information to the Guardian.

        1. Money

        2. Duress

        3. Personal relationships

        4. Political

           0 likes

        • RCE says:
          September 17, 2011 at 6:22 pm

          Martin – no. 4 is too readily overlooked. There are all sorts of braindead leftist mongs on other blogs who assert that just because no money changed hands no offence was committed!

          It’s very telling that they don’t understand that someone could do something on principle and that would still constitute breaking the law.

             0 likes

          • Martin says:
            September 17, 2011 at 11:13 pm

            Yes the Police were turned into the political arm of Nu Liebore under Bliar and Brown. We saw the Police capmaigning for Liebore in the London Mayoral elections, we saw plod actively campaigning for the 90 day detection without trial proposal, we saw plod arresting people at the Liebore party conference for calling Jack Straw “rubbish”, the Police deleted photopgraphs off cameras (including MP’s) that showed images of them dragging people away. We’ve also seen the Police arrest and harass a Tory MP for doing his job (Damien Green) and we’ve seen the Police use anti terror legislation to harass ordinary members of the public. We’ve also seen the Police go after Christian groups who simply want to provide a voice of opposition to things like gay marraige or gay adoption. 

            To me the current government need to disenfect the Police of the lefty scum that have taken hold there. The Police have a very simple job, catch bad un’s and bang em up. Leave the politics alone.

               0 likes

    • hippiepooter says:
      September 18, 2011 at 12:09 am

      Given the number of Met intake who’ve studied ‘bollocksology’ at uni, it wouldn’t suprise me if a Met officer was supplying info to the Guardian for ideological reasons.

      Gone are those wonderful days when policemen almost to a man were conservatives.

         0 likes

      • RCE says:
        September 18, 2011 at 10:16 am

        Just looking at the DT and Guido threads on this subject it is truly astonishing that people are, in essence, taking sides: Guardian or Met.

        People do not understand that the basis of our civilized society is that the law should apply equally to all. What many are proposing is that ‘The Met should leave the Guardian alone because they are the good guys whereas they should pursue NI to the ends of the earth because they are the bad guys.’

        The word for that is fascism.

           0 likes

  11. TooTrue says:
    September 17, 2011 at 6:20 pm

    Just noticed this via another site:Anti-Israeli feeling rose after violence on the Gaza border last month.

    It was nowhere near the Gaza border but hundreds of kilometres south near the city of Eilat. That was newsworthy in itself because of the unusual site of the terror attack. These BBC “journalists” are bloody clueless. And biased to the hilt.

    Five Egyptian policemen were killed as Israeli forces pursued Palestinian militants.

    No, they pursued terrorists who had crossed into Israel and murdered eight people, seven of them civilians, including two children. They were wearing Egyptian army uniforms and had infiltrated close to an Egyptian army post – which would help to explain the deaths of the soldiers as the Israelis pursued the terrorists.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/14864411

       0 likes

  12. John Anderson says:
    September 17, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    Some more indications that Obama’s position is precarious if not terminal – some thoughs by Jay Cost,  one of the best commentators on US polling :

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-does-obama-really-believe-hes-still-popular_593593.html?page=1

    Obama’s combination of arrogance, ignorance and inexperience shines through – but not to the BBC.

    The suggestion now being floated is that a deputation of senior Democrats may soon call on President EmptySuit to beg him to declare that he won’t stand for re-election.   Otherwise he will drag large numbers of their Senators and Reps down with him,  probably losing the Senate so heavily that the Republicans reach the magic 60.

       0 likes

  13. Jonathan S says:
    September 17, 2011 at 8:30 pm

    the world according to the BBC, you must be gay or a socialist, or preferably both

       0 likes

  14. George R says:
    September 17, 2011 at 10:31 pm

    BBC-NUJ provides much political propaganda on behalf of Dale Farm gypsies/travellers:

    “Dale Farm travellers lose court bid to halt eviction”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14952642

    But BBC-NUJ deviously omits the case against, such as:

    “Dale Farm travellers fighting eviction own multi-million pound housing estate back home in Ireland”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037069/Dale-Farm-travellers-fighting-eviction-multi-million-pound-housing-estate-Ireland.html#ixzz1YFeZDHHU

    And:

    Melanie Phillips:

    Basildon twinned with…Zimbabwe?

       0 likes

  15. Jonathan S says:
    September 17, 2011 at 10:37 pm

    do the residents of Dale Farm pay tax and NI on their ‘earnings’?

       0 likes

  16. George R says:
    September 17, 2011 at 11:13 pm

    This is NOT a BBC-NUJ interview with English Defence League, which is officially opposed by NUJ policy.

    Michael Coren Interviews Tommy Robinson

       0 likes

  17. OWEN MORGAN says:
    September 18, 2011 at 11:03 am

    Digging for Britain, Friday evenings, BBC2.  

    With my Welsh name, I am well used to the hypocrisy of the BBC.   BBC “comedians” can say things about the Welsh which would get them an instant P45, if they replaced “Welsh” with “Scottish”, or “Arab”, or “Mexican”.

    My complaint about Digging for Britain, though, is about its blatant neglect of another minor sector of Our Island Story:  the Anglo-Saxons.   [I mean,:  what did they do?   Yeah, they did that thing with the language, but so what?]    The first part of Digging for Britain dwelled on the Romans primarily and the second skipped straight to the Vikings.   When is the last time that the BBC broadcast a history of the Anglo-Saxons?   Has it ever?   People may object that television histories of “Britain” tend to be anglocentric and there is some truth in that, but those histories habitually ignore the time from the departure of the legions to the arrival of the Vikings, making no mention of the arrival or, more to the point, of the impact of the Anglo-Saxons.

    This isn’t a coincidence.    “Anglo-Saxon” is as toxic a term as “Nazi” to the BBC.   The only television historian who has rooted modern British history in the Anglo-Saxons is David Starkey (on leftie, but still flexible, Channel 4).    Starkey’s “Monarchy” series was plainly a history of England by another name, a (far superior) rival to the establishment cud we we were fed by Schama, courtesy of the bbc and our tax-pounds.    No wonder the unreadables detest David Starkey.

       0 likes

  18. Craig says:
    September 18, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    ‘Sunday’ with Ed Stourton dealt with the story of the Dale Farm travellers in the expected way.  
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014m6r1 (beginning 20 minutes into the programme).

    Whatever your take on rights and wrongs of the story, Kevin Bouquet’s report surely failed the BBC impartiality test.

    The report began with “pretty grim” mood of the travellers. We heard from three of them complaining about the situation. No challenge came from the reporter.

    Bouquet then went to the local Catholic church to talk to traveller supporter Father Dan Mason, who talked of their “tremendous fear and anxiety” and said he had thanked the families for what they’ve contributed to the parish. The reporter didn’t challenge him either, merely asked if more travellers will leave before they are evicted.

    Time for a few voices from the other side to balance the imbalance so far?

    Well, he was then joined by two local parishioners. One of them, however, was another traveller supporter, adding to the tally and keeping the imbalance just as it was: “Ann Kobiashi” (approximate spelling!) “who over a long period has been quite a high profile supporter of the travellers” and by “Clare Clark” (no less approximate spelling!), “who thinks it’s right that the travellers should be moved on.”

    The questions Kevin Bouquet put to each of them show some attempt at balance, though the wording of the one to the opponent seems (to me) harsher in tone, she is given her full name, unlike the supporter, and her answer is far shorter than the supporter’s:

    To CC: “Clare Clark first, how can you justify breaking up a community, basically over a planning matter?”
    (20 second answer)
    To AK: “Ann, should you have a situation in which most of us in the community have to abide by the planning laws, why should there be one group of people, such as the travellers, who do not have to abide by those regulations?”
    (45 second answer)

       0 likes

    • Craig says:
      September 18, 2011 at 3:43 pm

      Next, it’s the local residents, and the language strikes me as slightly loaded: “Some have been campaigning very hard to get them evicted, but others have a more relaxed attitude.”

      We next hear three vox pops saying nice things about the travellers – that they are harmless, and that you never get any trouble out of them. Bouquet’s only intervention is to ask them, “So you’ll be happy for them to stay there indefinitely?” They all reply that, yes, they’ll be happy.” 

      Then come two vox pops against the travellers. Well, they are cast as being against the travellers and the first lady says they should go, but then worries about where they can go? “Well, that’s the question, isnt’ it”, interrupts Bouquet. “Where do they do?” The ladies are puzzled. The second lady wonders aloud why are they called travellers when they stay put, but she then begins to feel sorry for the traveller children. Bouquet again pounces, saying “And of course they go to local schools.” The lady agrees, saying all “their friends are there, their whole life is there, they’re the innocents”. With enemies like these, who needs friends?

      “And indeed,” continued Bouquet (back in narrator role), “some of the children have told their parents they don’t want to go to school next week because they’re worried they might return in the evening to find that their homes and their families have gone.”

      With a compassionate tut, Ed Stourton returned as the report ends, please thinking of the children. 

      I’m guessing that I know where Kevin Bouquet stands on this story.

      The last time the issue was discussed on the programme (8/8/11), the section began with a tiny interview with a former Conservative leader of Basildon Council, Cllr Malcolm Buckley. He got 48 seconds to talk practical details and give the tiniest defence of his council. We then got three full minutes of Father Dan Mason, the local Catholic priest (again), making the case for those “very frightened, vulnerable people”. Only one of Ed Stourton’s five questions can be considered even remotely challenging. 
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b013rgb9 (starting 6 minutes in).

         0 likes

      • John Anderson says:
        September 18, 2011 at 7:37 pm

        Craig

        As ever,  you have provided a meticulous report.

        I heard the item this morning,  it was amazingly biased.

        Call me old-fashioned,  but Basildon Council is democratically elected.  It represents the people of the area.   It is IMPROPER of the BBC to run such a long item without having a spokesperson from the local Council,  it is the final action of the Council after 10 years of trouble that the story is all about.

        Also – what on earth is the item doing on the “Sunday” programme – that is meant to be a religious-issues programme.

           0 likes

      • RCE says:
        September 18, 2011 at 7:56 pm

        If Stourton and Bouquet are that sympathetic they should put some ‘travellers’ up in their own (doubtless palatial, courtesy of the licence-payer) houses and gardens.

           0 likes

    • Millie Tant says:
      September 18, 2011 at 4:37 pm

      Well that’s loaded language and question for a start.

         0 likes

      • Millie Tant says:
        September 18, 2011 at 4:38 pm

        I meant this question:

         “Clare Clark first, how can you justify breaking up a community, basically over a planning matter?”

           0 likes

        • Reed says:
          September 19, 2011 at 4:09 am

          Quite, Millie. It’s only, like, the laws of the land an’ all that, to which we can ALL take a selective approach without a visit from the police or local officials. It’s not like that attitude is a route to absolute chaos, civil disorder and riots or anything like that. When has THAT ever happened?

             0 likes

  19. George R says:
    September 18, 2011 at 5:43 pm

    “BBC’s hotels for Olympic staff who live just eight miles from the stadium”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2038731/London-2012-Olympics-2011-BBCs-hotels-staff-live-just-8-miles-stadium.html#ixzz1YKKoLvPr

       0 likes

  20. George R says:
    September 18, 2011 at 6:00 pm

    BBC-NUJ  – politically empathetic to rioters, whatever the evidence of their anti-social, law-breaking behaviour:

    BBC-NUJ report:

    “One in four riot suspects had 10 previous offences”

    -But Beeboid CASCIANI here wants more info on class of rioters; he’s defence counsel for rioters already.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14926322

    Alternative, non BBC-NUJ analysis:

    Thoughts on the British Riots

       0 likes

    • It's all too much says:
      September 19, 2011 at 8:30 am

      Uttery disgusting

      What will it take to convince the BBC that the rioters were criminals? – 5% have > 50 previous convictions, 25% have> 10 convictions and 75% have some convictions.  That is utterly conclusive.  Unfortunately the BBC wheels out the ‘society / class structure to blame’ marxist analysis as usual. I guess if 75% had ‘I am protesting about the cutz’ placards the BBC would object to a correlation as well!

      So we do not have a breakdown of the types of convictions* and how ‘serious’ they were. Fellow contributors – how many people that you know personally have criminal convictions ? (btw speeding/traffic offences are not criminal)  Would you be surprised if three quarters of everyone you knew had a conviction?  Would you think this normal/acceptable?

      Personally I know no one with a criminal record of any description.  Statistically a 75% incidence of ‘previous’ in a population (of rioters) suggests a very, very strong correlation between their past and present behaviour.  This is not ‘simplistic knee-jerk right wing dogma’ it is simple maths.

      Will Harriet Harpie and the Labour party now apologise to Michael Gove and the British population live on Newsnight for her odious correlation (with no evidence) that the riots were a) a protest against ‘the cutz’ (and especially the free phone,booze and fags EMA  ‘vote labour’ bribe) b) outrage at the materialism of bankers c) something to do with racism…

      *amongst other salient facts about the rioting population omitted

         0 likes

  21. George R says:
    September 18, 2011 at 6:35 pm

    MALDIVES.

    INBBC should update its ‘Maldives Profile’, but won’t:

    ‘Jihadwatch’

    Maldives criminalizes preaching of any religion other than Islam

    INBBC’s ‘Maldives profile’ requiring update:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12651486

       0 likes

  22. George R says:
    September 18, 2011 at 7:11 pm

    I’d say that this ‘Telegraph’ editorial applies as much to ‘greenie’ BBC  as to Government:

    “Wind power: a policy spinning out of control.

    Telegraph View: The Government’s policy on renewable energy is based on dogma not evidence. ”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8771172/Wind-power-a-policy-spinning-out-of-control.html

       0 likes

  23. David Preiser (USA) says:
    September 18, 2011 at 9:55 pm

    Travelwise: The warming wine regions

    Napa Valley’s premium wine production could be cut in half in the next 30 years, according to a recent study by Stanford University.

    The culprit is the world’s warming climate, which could render 50% of the land currently used to grow pinot noir, chardonnay and cabernet sauvignon grapes unsuitable. This troubling forecast is being echoed in wine regions worldwide.

    As greenhouse gases turn up the heat on our planet, the world wine map is changing. High-value grapes are grown within a narrow climate window, Stanford earth scientist Noah Diffenbaugh said, making them more sensitive to temperature variations than standard crops.

    The next bit speaks about how “climate change” affects Tuscany, etc., and it’s a perfect example of the successful conflation of AGW with a naturally changing climate.

    Why did the Vikings call it Vinland again?  I forget.  Why is Greenland called that, Mommy?

       0 likes

  24. Millie Tant says:
    September 18, 2011 at 11:04 pm

    I see from Sky’s front pages, the Independent has a heading:

     Newsnight’s failings – why I quit – Michael Crick interview

    http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/media-gallery/16072439

    Hm…Newsnight’s failings include its blatant Labour bias.

       0 likes

  25. My Site (click to edit) says:
    September 19, 2011 at 6:13 am

    Gettig a lot of early work done these days.

    Of course the BBC may be much better, but SKY just went off.

    They just popped over to Dayle Farm, where, by their own admission, there seem to be an equal mix of media, ‘travellers’ and ‘activists’.

    It’s a circus. With nothing but clowns. And I think even the ‘reporters’ have deep down realised their role, but are commited by the deamands of the 24/7 news maw to play this out.

    One at least managed to note that the ”activists’ seem out and manning the barricades whilst sthe ‘travellers’ are still getting their beauty sleep. Doubtless in antcipation of a hard slog conducting interviews.

    Hope the authorities are smart enough to play this one in a way to show these three grouping for what they are. Two at least want only one thing, and will use the third to get it. Once they get up.

       0 likes

  26. My Site (click to edit) says:
    September 19, 2011 at 7:59 am

    Just finished my morning surf (quicker w/o any PiP ‘news’ to distract me, as the 4th estate get in one with and over a bunch of folk no one cares about save as ratings-driven cannon fodder for minority agendas), and noting that across the BBC ‘RACE’ rep/anal/corro/ed-hustling blogosphere, most seem to have been posted an age ago and/or are now early closed.

    They are not off for Xmas already are they?

       0 likes