Thanks to ALL who come to this site for your tremendous enduring help, encouragement, insight and humour during the previous 12 months and here’s to making 2012 another great year on Biased BBC. This is your blog and I promise to do my best to keep it lively and on topic in the New Year. Cheers!


Well, I was in the belly of the beast last night, doing the Paper Reviews on 5Live. Thanks for all your suggestions and thought I might explain how it actually works.

Basically you are presented with the A4 front pages of most of the daily papers 30 minutes before you go on-air. A few of the papers have some more pages, last night the Indie and Express did. That’s a challenge as I believe most of what is worth reading lies inside the newspaper, not on the cover. Anyway, you select a few stories you want to talk about and then off you go. There is no coercion and no censorship. The only thing I couldn’t talk about before midnight was the details of those being honoured in the New Years List. Didn’t bother me as I oppose the Honours system.

I chose Nanny Statism and the Collapse of the Euro as my topics. I found the host, Jonathan Overend, pleasant and he did not challenge me so I really can’t complain. My co-reviewer, David Banks (former editor of the Mirror) was a pleasant guy who I enjoyed talking with. I got in one dig about the entire public sector needing to take cuts and he did not come back! All in all, it was a pleasant if somewhat insubstantive experience. This time of the year is news silly season and so I hope I get the chance to repeat when we have real news issues to debate. The BBC in Belfast were very accommodating to me and the only problem was I didn’t get home to about 1.30am. Hope that let’s you know how it all works. Tired the morning after!


Nobody would fail to feel sympathy for the family of the teenager who was stabbed to death in London’s Oxford Street during the Boxing Day sales. Who would want to see their 18 year old stabbed to death? But the BBC does test one’s patience. Just consider this…

“Seydou Diarrassouba, 18, was stabbed after a fight began in the Foot Locker sports shop near Bond Street Tube station on Monday. His family praised the “loving son and brother” who was “snatched away”. The tribute came as police raided the homes of 20 suspected gang members to “quell” related tensions.”

The way the BBC writes this one leaves out a few essential facts…

A known gangster, he (Diarrassouba) was facing trial over charges of robbery and assault by beating in relation to an alleged attack in September.On Boxing Day he is believed to have left his home on a council estate in Mitcham, South London, with other members of ABM with the intention of using the sales crush as cover for shoplifting.

WHY does the BBC deliberately erase this aspect to the background of the young man? I know it is not pleasant but it does provide genuine context. This guy was out with his gangster pals to thieve and it all went wrong. Also note the photo that they use – above. The could have used this one…but didn’t. I wonder why?


Interesting approach the BBC takes the release of material from the National Archives concerning Northern Ireland. It COULD have used this headline “IRA leaders outside Maze controlled Hunger Strikers”. But it didn’t. It COULD have used this headline “IRA rejected Hunger Striker Deal”, But it didn’t. No, instead it spins it this way “Margaret Thatcher “negotiated with IRA”. If you read the detail, you discover she didn’t do any such thing but that is beside the point, THIS is all about creating an impression.The BBC have been sympathetic towards the IRA for decades and continues to present the British Government as the bad guys whilst IRA scum who enabled their own to starve to death are the noble freedom fighters. All that history teaches is that you CANNOT trust the BBC.


Ed Miliband must be delighted with his pals at the BBC this morning.

They have been leading all their news items this morning with the results of a Labour Party survey which claims to show that the evil Coalition is behind a sharp rise in the cost of council services for elderly and disabled people. Nothing to to with the efficacy of Councils, of course, who are sitting on top of BILLIONS in their reserves, also unreported by the BBC. Quite why a Labour press release justifies being lead story is beyond me but I suppose it conforms to the narrative.

As an extra follow up, we also had the ghost of Geoffrey Howe being asked to explain why he thought that the Government regenerating Liverpool back in 1981 was like making “water flow uphill”. Now, there is little that I found to admire in Chancellor Howe, but it seems to me that his assessment of Liverpool back then was pretty accurate. Of course the Government DID introduce Enterprise Zones and the like but the BBC was more interested in portraying the evil Conservatives led by…gasp..THATCHER…as being detached from the north of England.

From 1981 to the end of 2011, the drumbeat of the BBC is the same.

Wake up Calls

Last night’s BBC World Service broadcast two notable items for insomniacs. From Our Own Correspondent aired an old episode, first heard in 2007, by Martin Bell.
As a BBC correspondent Martin Bell had been “trained to be objective”, but later wondered whether such a thing could really be achieved.
TV news is the most powerful medium that has yet been devised, he said. Politicians and generals take account of it and adapt their policies accordingly. He spoke about impartiality, and warned against ‘false equivalency,’ and after giving what seemed to me a very shaky example concerning Hitler, (he persecuted the Jews, but he rescued the economy) he concluded that reporters should be aware of the moral ground and not stand equally between good and evil. But all the time questions were begged, and answers were not forthcoming. I’d like to have heard his view on another item that disturbed my slumbers. An episode of Hard Talk featuring Michael Morpurgo. I’ve heard most of the content before. He dragged out the incident during his infamous visit to Gaza, where he saw a sight that convinced him that the IDF deliberately target children. He wouldn’t hear any of the multifaceted explanations that might have shed new light on what he saw then, and he obviously hasn’t changed his mind now. Stephen Sackur even had a go, and accused him, gently, of naivety. I see from my earlier article I noted that Paxo also ‘had a go’ at him on Newsnight.
“Children were innocently picking up rubble. They weren’t shooting at anyone, they weren’t throwing stones, yes there was an exclusion zone, but a young man was shot in the leg, and that means the Israelis deliberately target children.”
He felt very very strongly about it, so like a good schoolteacher, he felt it was his privilege, nay, his duty as a famous storyteller, to side with the Palestinians against the Israelis.
I can’t say I warm to indignant smugness, especially when it’s wrong-headed and comes from a sentimental school-teacherish bloke who dresses only in clashing shades of red.

Leadership Debate

Two of the Today guest editors bucked a familiar BBC trend. Two in a row. Yesterday Tracey Emin courageously admitted that she Voted Tory, (gasp) and our Thursday, Jewish guest editor chose to explore leadership with special reference to the Middle East, whereupon Sarah Montague, the BBC’s premier advocate of the “talk to Hamas strategy’ was dispatched to interview Tony Blair. Tony Blair may not be everyone’s favourite person, but having settled into his post as Middle East Peace Envoy it started to look, to some people, as if he was gradually discovering what was going on.

One wonders whether he felt, like Tracey Emin, that it was difficult to bare his soul openly to the Today audience without obsequiously justifying himself, because some of his answers seemed designed to pre-emptively appease a cynical reception. For example:

“There will always be incidents that go, …it might be acts of terrorism…. it might be raids that go wrong. There will always be reasons why people retreat to their comfort zone and say “I’m not dealing with these people”

Which sounded as though he too was contemplating the inevitability of the Talk to Hamas strategy. Then again, on Israel’s security problem. Because, thanks in no small measure to the BBC, the separation wall has acquired notoriety as a disingenuous excuse for land grab, rather than what it really is, a lifesaving protective barrier against terrorism.

“Look. The Israelis worry hugely about their security.
And their security worry is a genuine worry.
They haven’t just made it up.
They have their genuine security problem.”

Please believe me, he almost pleaded. I do protest! Then he continued with a bizarre and startling example of moral equivalence.

“As a result of that they go into the Palestinian areas. As a result of that many Palestinians feel the weight of the occupation upon them. That makes them more angry; they therefore want to retaliate.
The Palestinians have a genuine worry. particularly with things like settler violence starts [sic] on the increase, they think ‘will these guys ever get out and let us run our state.”

Who is ‘retaliating’ and who is ‘instigating’ here? Let’s leave that aside though, and ask, is Tony Blair really equating ‘settler violence’ with suicide bombings, murderous assaults and rocket attacks on civilians? By jove, it seems he really is.
Sarah moved the discussion on.

“Let’s move on the western leadership because that’s the other big player. I wonder to what extent western leadership has made things more difficult. We encouraged the Palestinian elections. The EU funded them. But when there was an outcome that we didn’t like, which was Hamas being elected, we withdrew aid, and we ignored the result. And I wonder when you look back at what has happened in the past year across the Middle East, and you wonder whether that was a mistake?”

Having avoided looking at the Israeli or the Palestinian leaderships, what was on Sarah’s mind was the Arab Spring. But Tony Blair wasn’t quite finished. He was referring in some way to the IRA, and apparently warming to the idea of talking to Hamas.

“I think historically the difficulty of the west has always been, and you know, we faced the same difficulties with the IRA, the circumstances where people are not foreswearing the use of terrorism to advance their political objectives, can you interact with them or not? I actually think there is an opportunity now, with what is happening across the region, because after all, frankly we will be dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas are associated with them all over the region. Now, I think if Hamas were prepared to at least say ‘look, so far as we’re concerned we’ll pursue our political objectives, but by non violent means, I think that would give you a far greater opportunity of creating circumstances in which you get all of the Palestinian parties in some sort of dialogue.”

Good luck with that. Good luck with Hamas pursuing its political objectives by non violent means. Perhaps a polite notice of eviction will do the trick. Dear Israel, kindly vacate the premises, Yours sincerely, Ismail Hanyieh. Or perhaps not.

Sarah persists.

“We’ve slightly been forced into this because as you say the Muslim Brotherhood now is actually looking like the more moderate of those
Islamist groups rising in Egypt, But back in parliamentary elections as far back as 2005 they did well, and yet we were still supporting and promoting Hosni Mubarak. I wonder whether we have been guilty of thinking that our self interest lies in supporting stability, and making sure that we’ve got intelligence on terrorism and we’ve prioritised that over promoting democracy, over our own values.”

Here the BBC’s real attitude is laid bare. We are, apparently, guilty of supporting despots and tyrants and ignoring peoples’ human right to democracy, and all for a selfish little bit of peace, stability and a tip off or two about potential acts of terrorism. It ignores the nature of Islam, and has done all along. It projects our concept of democracy onto people who haven’t been pressed to be explicit or specific about their aims and aspirations. Sarah criticises our desire for stability as though it was misguided. But isn’t that what the very people who are voting for the Muslim Brotherhood want for themselves, over and above many other things? Could that be part of the reason why they like the Muslim Brotherhood and why they voted for Hamas? Do they prefer order and certainty over chaos and uncertainty. They opt for the certainty of the Islamic conservatism with which they are familiar, over what they see as the decadent and directionless west. But nobody asks these questions.

Tony Blair is unable to say what he might really wish to. What I hope he really wishes to. He is constrained by political correctness and reluctance to risk alienating the audience, or perhaps because he really doesn’t know what he’s been dealing with all along, throughout his Peace Envoyship. He waffles, insinuates and emotes, but he doesn’t and can’t come out with an outright condemnation of Islamism or an explanation as to why our own concept of democracy might differ from that of the Egyptians, the Tunisians, the Libyans, the Syrians and the Palestinians.
And as for Sarah and the BBC, they still refuse to see what is in front of their noses.


Wonder if you heard Sarah Montague interview Tony Blair this morning here? I was struck by her clear assertion that the Muslim Brotherhood is “moderate” and that Hamas is a legitimate government that we must do business with. It’s an interesting time of the year when the BBC Illuminati seem more bold in declaring their bias.


The BBC coverage of the murder of a youth in Oxford Street has already proven less than complete, leaving out the pesky detail that Seydou Diarrassouba was himself a member of the notorious London street gang ABM, which stands for ‘All ’Bout Money’and was facing charges of robbery and assault, Notwithstanding that, the BBC carries on with the meme that jail doesn’t work. They wallow in a slough of liberal cluelessness, never once confronting the fact that black gang crime is a major problem in the UK, and in London in particular.