Time for a new one of these before the existing one explodes! The floor is yours…
OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Up2snuff Nov 21, 15:24
Midweek 20th November 2024
ajs, great motorcycles, make motorcycles great again. If the Licence Fee is increased, as you suggest, it will only add… - Zephir Nov 21, 15:16
Midweek 20th November 2024
She’s got a gob alright, we all know that by now, it’s what comes out of it that’s the problem… - MarkyMark Nov 21, 15:16
Midweek 20th November 2024
“Rennie, who had been chief executive of LGBTYS from 2003 to 2008 and is also a previous SNP adviser, was… - Eddy Booth Nov 21, 15:07
Midweek 20th November 2024
‘You’ve got a voice kid, use it’ – how John Prescott inspired Angela Rayner https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy1k1k3x1no [img]https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/976/cpsprodpb/462f/live/f5343dd0-a801-11ef-b21e-5359bd56d02f.jpg.webp[/img] “It is not hard… - MarkyMark Nov 21, 13:46
Midweek 20th November 2024
HA HA HA HAH A! [img]https://i.postimg.cc/DwH86J4F/maxresdefault.jpg[/img] Iraq to lower the ‘age of consent’ for girls to nine A new law… - MarkyMark Nov 21, 13:42
Midweek 20th November 2024
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVJXmhsYKT4 - MarkyMark Nov 21, 13:41
Midweek 20th November 2024
“How John Prescott blazed a trail for Angela Rayner” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy1k1k3x1no blazed a trail blazed a trail “Rayner defends using donor’s… - digg Nov 21, 13:40
Midweek 20th November 2024
It seems the International Criminal Court has been infiltrated and taken over by Islamist activists. The latest totally ridiculous moves… - MarkyMark Nov 21, 13:37
Midweek 20th November 2024
200 people ….. no wonder people love them .. FREE PARTIES …..”Abbott, Diane 03/10/2008 London Schools/Black Child Awards Reception 200…
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
Mark Mardell tweets: “How come the killing of Iranian scientists isn’t called terrorism ?
Hey, pal, you guys rewrote the rules, remember? There is no such thing as terrorism. When did you last see that word in a BBC news report?
The implication behind Mardell’s comment is that someone in the west (the USA?) is responsible, which, Mark, does that make your hero Obama an “assassin”, a “murderer” or as you would prefer it “a terrorist”.
You know, I’m being to really hate this guy, Mardell. Sorry, Preiser, move over.
Attacks on military targets aren’t terrorism. Mardell should know this. But I bet he’s only saying this because he thinks Israel is behind it all, not his beloved Obamessiah.
Well, David, according to the highly respected and impeccably neutral news outlet, Iran-controlled Press TV, this was a terrorist attack.
(Warning: this website may contain nutjobbery)
According to Press TV, “American journalist” Richard Silverstein knows it was Mossad wot dunnit.
Yes, that Richard Silverstein.
Funny how last year Mardell was praising The Obamessiah for demurring from using the term. Now he’s asking for it when it makes Israel look bad? Typical Beeboid. He knows exactly what he’s saying here.
‘thinks Israel is behind it all,’
Would that not be Zion [Israel], or something?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16501566
Surely, surely, the USA/CIA is getting Israel to do it’s dirty work?? If not then that will be a first!
Mardell is posing the question asked by salon.com, an online liberal magazine aimed at the hairdressing profession. Or something.
As Louis suggests, he should read the BBC’s own guidelines on the issue which states that the word ‘terrorist’ “creates a barrier rather than an aid to understanding”; and the BBC prefers to use words such as ‘militant’ or ‘bomber’ because such terms don’t carry “value judgements” in the same way ‘terrorist’ does.
Thusly, the Beeb manages all manner of logical contortions. Its reporters talk about ‘terrorism’ yet the practitioners of this aforementioned thing called ‘terrorism’ are not ‘terrorists’ but ‘militants’ or ‘extremists.
OMG. Glenn Greenwald? This far-Left blogger is – quelle suprise – a JournoLista. The BBC’s top man in the US, the person whom the BBC expects you to trust implicity for an understanding of the issues here, agrees with the most extreme Left-wing views there are.
I guess the close connection to JournoListas wasn’t severed after groupie Katie Connolly left the BBC to join a Democrat strategy group.
The beeboids are quick enough with the ‘value judgements’ should the issue concern Israel, white non-compliance with enforced multiculturalism, scepticism towards the eco-enforcers of the Khmer Vert, non-Obama ‘redneck’ USA, patriotism, justified criticism of Islam, or the rational demand for sanity to rapidly return to government expenditure, & law & order.
Broach any of these subjects without adopting the beeboid ‘narrative’ & you will be pilloried – judged on the spot. Hear the sudden intake of breath, see the arched eyebrow, or panicky crumpling face when a guest goes off-message, & you will have witnessed BBC ‘impartiality’ at work. They are as freethinking, as open to alternative opinions, as a Pamplona bull rush mindlessly charging down the same old streets, hour after hour. And also, again purely on conditioned reflex, they will twist & turn like scalded snakes to protect their sacrosanct pets, be they Paul Mason’s ‘political trailblazers’: looters to most people, Dale Farm criminals, or ‘misunderstood’ muslim fascists. Welcome to the Land of Moral Relativism: the beeboids’ Year Zero. Utterly devoid of morality – the way they want it. A nation high on class A drugs, collectively swinging off the Cenotaph flags. Job done. Game over. Britain buried.
If Isreal are responding to the Iranian Nuclear threat then it’s three cheers from Chez Pacino…
Mardell can tweet with his cheese and wine liberal pals all he wants…
Someone has to watch the Iranian Government
The Beeb love to sanitise murdering terrorists as militants, bombers, extremists, gunmen, islamists, in fact anything but the truth. What a bunch of treacherous scum we are subsidising at the Beeb.
if Mossad did do it….and there is no certainty that it is……isn’t a series of very small bangs in Iran more preferable than several very large ones if it keeps the peace?
I’m still wondering why nobody at the BBC has speculated that there might possibly be an Iranian behind this. There is an anti-mullah faction in the country. There were protests last year, dissidents working behind the scenes. Have we forgotten?
Why does the BBC infantilize the Iranian people and expect that only nasty old Israel and its puppet in the White House can be behind this kind of thing? Why no speculation about an actual domestic source?
I see yet another opinion poll puts the Tories ahead of Liebore. Anyone want to take a bet the BBC won’t be mentioning that?
Also expect to see the anti Tory hatred ramped up over the new few weeks (yes it can get louder from the BBC)
Mardell is a wanker (a fat wanker) the BBC can’t even bring themselves to call scum who murder small children terrorists.
We get ‘Hostage takers’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8231597.stm
‘330 people died after a school was seized by Chechen rebels.…. Those killed in the ensuing battle included 186 children…. The rebels, who held more than 1,000 people hostage… The siege ended in disaster when those bombs exploded..
And those bombs ‘exploded’ how, exactly?
In the same mysterious way that the terrorist killers of US (but not Obama)-supported Zion murdered that poor, innocent nuclear bomb maker?
Splendid piece of crap by Nick Robinson on the radio tonight(The Decision Makers, I think!).
About Scottish devolution-one Labour ,two SNP advisers, one Scots Nats “academic” and -just for balance-that rabid true blue…Lord Malcolm Rifkind!
Nick sums it all up as Cameron sticking his Etonian twinkletoes into Loch Lomond…how very dare he!
I`m sure that Donald Dewar and Robin Cook are already scratching at the crypt to get their say on the BBC,,any outlet will do!
I`m not watching Newsnight…I`ve just got the sound turned down as I tickle the ivories in a local brothel.
I note some Hungarian getting a ticking off from wee Gavin Esler.
I see that Cameron is not qualified to commsission films-so why isn`t he coughing up for the Loaches and Baddiels?
And that Iranian nuclear scientist is surely worth a minutes silence for delaying the jihad.
I really wish I had Gavin Eslers scriptwriters problems…hope he gets a hernia pushing his wheelbarrow of moolah home for gushing this guff
A while back, it was reported in the blog that the BBC were no longer considering my complaints of left-wing bias. I appealed against that decision, but was today informed that my appeal had been rejected.
The outcome came as no surprise. The Trust were hardly likely to say that my complaints of left-wing bias had substance!
If anyone is having trouble sleeping and fancies reading the extremely wordy letter the BBC sent me, you can download it here: http://www.mediafire.com/?mdq3svv7zbh2ip7
Jeff
When the Space Special Interest Group of Mensa made a complaint to the BBC Trust. We were surprised at how ideologically extreme the left wing bias was at the BBC. The most blatantly biased statement by the BBC said that “Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fact”. Now because the AGW theory is no more than a crude assumption, the Royal Society says “uncertainty” and the IPCC says “likely”. So because of this astounding ignorance by the morons at the BBC, the BBC’s loyalty does not reside with either the scientific community nor with impartiality, but with Britain’s most left-wing newspaper. The BBC is still fighting tooth and nail to avoid answering freedom of information requests to find out how this has happened. The good news is that this means that in the future politicians and scientists can make the BBC a scapegoat for there mistakes on this issue by calling for a Royal Commission into the BBC, once the politics in Britain catch up with what is happening in the rest of the World.
‘ The BBC is still fighting tooth and nail to avoid answering freedom of information requests’
Well they shouldn’t, or be allowed to, when the information pertains to anything outside of legitimate journalistic practices. Otherwise it is an abuse in covering up other abuse.
Jeff, forgive me, but I tend to err on caution on opening docs offline, so can’t check yours, but ‘no longer considering’ is a rather bizarre conclusion for them to arrive at.
I also have been getting very wordy letters, but seem subject to a charm offensive and an ongoing assurance that it is being kicked upstairs (on Thatcher/Liverpool, which they think they can win… Paul Mason speaking for the EU on the UK actions, or the BBC calling all Israels Zionists by default… so far tumbleweed.).
However, I am gathering they are saying more and more of the same thing, and that is nothing, in trying to make me go away. My money used to cost me time and money to hush up their dire practices and allow them to continue.
I suspect that, as I am not playing, they may soon arrive at a similar point as you, if via a different route.
The key is the details on record, and on their log. And the value of sharing on such as here, as that seems to cause them discomfort.
One day these poor excuses for complaint addressing will be read, and they will be held to account.
Yes the Newsnight discussion on evil Cameron and the film industry missed an obvious point, if the film industry brings in 4 billion a year why does it need state funding?
The state doesn’t fund Mclaren who are now producing a top world beating sports car, if Ron Dennis can do it without state funding why can’t the arty farties?
Because the luvvies want to keep the profits but socialise the losses.
If a the project bombs…loss to the public.
If it makes money….still loss to the public…. but the profits go to the….luvvies who all of them pay their full whack of tax, of course, honestly, surely. If they are tax resident etc etc. Bring on the tax lawyers!
Am I being a touch cynical?
RGH – that’s a great way to frame the argument against subsidising these luvvies and their personal projects ; that they are acting like the banks by privatising the profits and socialising the losses.
That will REALLY infuriate them. =-O Job done. 😀
Martin –
Quite. The problem with government subsidies is that you’re asking a bunch of civil servants and politicians to play the role of dragons, even though many of them won’t have had a private sector job in their lives!
If the banks aren’t lending money to a business, then there’s probably a good reason…
Jeff
ingsoc: R4 around 6.00pm Talking about Scottish Independence , say Cameron will not want to be known as the PM who lost Scotland. Ignoring the fact that it was those f***wits Labours idea to give them their own devolved Parliament.
They thought they were so clever that the with the voting scheme they devised the SNP will never get power. As usual with any Labour plan it fell apart. So bBC will whitewash that part of history and blame the coalition.
Those effwit Labour nutters gave the SNP Scotland by providing them no choice in the last election.
I get that Scots don’t like Tories, but to give Salmond Scotland and a home seat isn’t that far removed from fiving Nick Griffin the tiller for dear old Blighty…
Scots don’t want Salmond in charge, but they really need to find a way of voting that favours him less.
Or vote for devolution and join Greece and Portugal, live on the slide.
Scotland is too expensive too keep tethered to the UK : Discuss
“Cameron will not want to be known as the PM who lost Scotland”
Even though he would be more likely to stay in office as the PM who lost Scotland.
nice to see that liar Ken Livingstone exposedc on bBC Radio London.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100129252/ken-livingstone-another-meltdown-and-another-lie/#disqus_thread
There, there bBC you can’t win them all.
So while relaxing after a couple of hours at the gym tonight, I have the telly on. (very rare, as I’ve spent a lot of time on my kindle) and Newsnight is on. Ho hum, Scottish first minister is given such an easy time,(Unlike the bloke on ITV minutes before) and then they talk about Hungary typical leftwing claptrap how the EU is meant to guarantee (And I kid you not) a liberal socialist lifestyle. And what do the Hungarians get a rightwing government. OK I can live with that as I try to read my combat aircraft mag (Did you know that Algeria isn’t happy with the Su30MKAs it bought off Russia in 2007, it seems that they have Israeli equipment on board and so they have grounded them in a hissyfit, which is what happened when they bought 2 EC225s and they are currently for sale)
Anyway while reading I hear the bBC guy having a go at a member of the Hungarian parliament over how he called the Ambassador a flea infested jew. But what really caught my attention is that was followed up by, Not Israeli but Jew. So is it bBC policy to promote the view that while it is wrong to slate Jews , you can say anything you want about Israelis, because they are…jews? Gee I wonder what would happen if the same bloke referred to the vast majority of child rapists in the UK not as Muslims but as Pakistani, gosh somebody would have a fit at the bBC
Then the story moved onto Iran and according to the bBC reporter its all the fault of Israel. Really? And nobody has noticed that all those killed are minor actors in the scheme of things and could in reality be getting knocked off by Iran (you’d think by now all scientists would have an armed escort in another vehicle) so as to allow them to play the victimcard. I mean it’s just as viable as the Jews did it angle. Sorry did I say just as, I meant more. But according to the bBC the Jews did it, because Mrs Clinton said it wasn’t them. Yup I’m to believe the wife of a man who while president said he didn’t have sexual relations with that woman. For fucks sake he and she are politicians and the bBC doesn’t question that, You know like they would and did the Bush administration
The bBC, the reason why anti-Semitism is growing in the UK.
Above that should read:
He called the Israeli Ambassador a flea infested jew
Can’t be asked in cutting and pasting the above and then finding the blog won’t let me post.
This article is being run in today’s Daily Mail
Not this again! 61% of our TV programmes are repeats, BBC chiefs admit
A BBC spokesman tries to justify it by saying Audiences value having several opportunities to catch something they may have missed.’ This is about as disingenuous an excuse as you can get since most people have DVD or video recorders to ‘catch something they may have missed’ and have as many opportunities as they want to re-watch it. I’m sure therefore audiences would prefer to have more new programmes to choose between, but you can see just how little respect it gives to its audience with this feeble response.
So I decided to do a little more research on this subject and see what I could come up with. BBC justifies its present necessity on repeats because of what it claims is ‘cuts’ to its licence fee referring to the freeze in 2010 for the subsequent 6 years.
So let’s examine what ‘cuts’ have there been, and what percentage of repeats were being shown prior to these ‘cuts taking effect, and if the ratio since is in line with their claims?
Probably all of us have wanted, and perhaps tried to get a raise at work. Sometimes we’re fortunate and get it, other times not. But if you didn’t get it would you consider it a CUT in salary? I would agree that if living costs go up while your salary stays the same, then your buying power has decreased relative to your salary. For the sake of argument we’ll call it a cut.
Now I’m no accountant or mathematician, and I certainly welcome any correction to my calculation, or further elaboration. In the first place, the BBC license fee was not cut, it was frozen. So the only factor affecting costs for their continued production is the cost of living/rate of inflation.
Assuming you had a salary of £100 at the beginning of 2005, according to the UK Inflation Rates to purchase the same thing by the end of the year you would have needed
2005 2.0497% = £102.0497
2006 2.3335% = £104.4310
2007 2.3210% = £106.8549
2008 3.6132% = £110.7158
2009 2.1662% = £113.1140
2010 3.2860% = £116.8309
In other words if your salary didn’t increase over that 6 year period you could claim that you had a 17% loss in purchasing power AT THE END OF THE PERIOD.
The Consumer Price Index for the same period went from 99.9917 in 2005 to 114.475 in 2010, which would indicate a 14.5% increase AT THE END OF THE PERIOD.
Yet the BBC claim All the changes mean a 16% real terms cut in BBC funds over six years.
Just how do they figure that? It may be a 16% cut AFTER 6 years, but it is certainly not a 16% cut OVER the 6 years. It would work out at to about an increasing 2.67% for each year.
Which means if the BBC saved just trimmed 3% each year for 6 years of what was their previous rate of expenditure, they could comfortably ride out this period.
3% pa
Question now is, if a company that has previously been EXTREMELY EXTRAVAGANT, needs to reduce its expenditure by 3%pa, should that be a real problem? Especially a company that is supposed to be CREATIVE – emphasis on ‘supposed to be’.
Well clearly that’s not the BBC, as what we get is an increase of repeats. But what was the ‘repeat situation before the ‘cuts’. Also, let’s not forget the balance of ‘original’ programming includes endless hours of Darts and Snooker tournaments – not exactly creative, and fairly cheap to produce.
I just thank God they don’t repeat the One Show…
This is a non-starter. According to BBC metrics, ratings = quality. If they’re getting the ratings, the value for money is indisputible.
Re: Ratings = quality:
Surely the BBC only adds value if it gives people things they wouldn’t get anyway from a commercial broadcaster. Therefore, from a value for money perspective, surely it makes sense for the BBC to sell its rights to show Premiership games to ITV, and to sell successful shows like Strictly Come Dancing to non-subscription channels. That would both raise money and save money, and would thereby fund new and innovative programming.
Jeff
Apparently the BBC has signed up for some very expensive 20 year leases on a lot of buildings and that is why other parts of the BBC have had to take a bigger hit (or so it was explained to me when I queried it).
The BBC Tax should be linked to the proportion of new programming. As 60% of its output has already been paid for, perhaps the tax should be reduced to 40% of its present level.
Why dont they try subscription ?
According to this Daily Mail article from 2009
Deja view? Repeats increase on the BBC with a third of output aired before
By Paul Revoir – Last updated at 12:58 AM on 27th May 2009
Repeats now form almost a third of BBC1’s output.
In a damning reflection of the Corporation’s commitment to original programming, the percentage rose to 33 per cent last year – 2,792 shows – from 30.8 per cent two years before.
And some 80 per cent of programmes on the BBC’s two main digital channels have been aired before.
The figures are for the 2007/08 financial year, the most recent for which figures are available, but the BBC says it does not expect this year’s statistics to be substantially different.
The findings, revealed under the Freedom of Information Act, come two years after the BBC announced that it would be making 10 per cent fewer programmes as part of an extensive cost-cutting drive.
The BBC has been committed to reducing repeats in peak-time – between 6pm and 10.30pm – on BBC1, which fell to 8.3 per cent last year from 9.7 per cent in 2005.
On BBC2 figures for prime-time shows have fluctuated over the past few years but the most recent analysis shows almost 30 per cent were repeats.
On BBC3, a total of 81.1 per cent of output last year had been seen before. Even during peak viewing hours, repeats accounted for 70.5 per cent of shows.
On BBC4, 78.7 per cent of the schedule is filled with repeats, dropping to 57.9 per cent during peak hours. So what does today’s article show?
Not this again! 61% of our TV programmes are repeats, BBC chiefs admit
By Liz Thomas
Last updated at 8:32 AM on 11th January 2012
Repeats make up 61 per cent of shows on BBC TV, the Corporation admitted last night.
Almost half of programming on BBC2 is old content, compared with 30 per cent five years ago.
Even on flagship BBC1, recycled content counts for a third of its programmes and has increased in peak viewing times.
The figures, released by the BBC in response to a Freedom of Information request, challenge its claimed commitment to ‘original programming’.
Bosses have warned that the number of repeats could keep rising as cuts to save the corporation a total of £1.3billion take hold.
They have admitted that BBC2 will effectively become a repeats channel, with 56 per cent of its content rehashed.
The high level of repeats on digital channels led to calls last night for them to be axed.
In 2011, just 15.8 per cent of programming on BBC3 and only 21.2 per cent on BBC4 was new.
Even in peak time, almost three-quarters of BBC3 shows and more than half of BBC4’s are reruns, even though the channels only run from 7pm to 4am.
Matthew Elliott, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance campaign group, said: ‘Viewers will feel cheated that they are getting endless repeats in return for their licence fee each year. Auntie should scrap BBC3 if there aren’t enough new programmes.
‘Bosses need to focus on delivering high quality and unique programming.’
The BBC, which released figures for the year to last March, said it was focusing on its prime-time content, particularly on BBC1. But it conceded there would be sacrifices elsewhere.
A spokesman said: ‘Repeats are scheduled to reach different audiences and are rarely shown in the same slot. On BBC1, for example, over 91 per cent of programmes in prime time are new.
‘Audiences value having several opportunities to catch something they may have missed.’
Hmmm – I’m looking at this evening’s offering on BBC1 from 6pm to see what the ‘new’ they offer.
News from 6pm to 7pm (I’m sure with the usual BBC slant).
7-7:30pm The One Show – BBC Reporters emphasising the BBC slant on the stories they find useful to themselves.
7:30 – 10pm – Football
10pm+ More news and sport oriented stuff.
Since repeats has been the ‘way of the BBC’ long before any cuts were introduced, it simply shows there is no creativity to make new programmes that could fill their schedule, and rather than reduce any extravagance they further reduce any quality, using the excuse of cuts to justify it.
The only cut the BBC should have is the AXE!
Wonderful. I am watching Last of the Summer Wine episodes from the 70’s and 80’s on Yesterday.
I was a teenager when it started so did not watch it with my father.
Now I am almost an old fart, and also a Yorkshire man, so now I am seeing how good it was before it went down hill after Brian Wilde left.
One of my favorite shows, thanks to PBS and YouTube. They did the “show about nothing” long before Seinfeld. Foggy was the best alpha, but I still like the others.
I haven’t seen this show since I was a teenager in the 80s, where they seemed to end up hurtling down a hill on a couch in just about every episode 😀 .
The EPA goes through the looking glass:
A Fine for Not Using a Biofuel That Doesn’t Exist
Can’t blame the President for this one, as it happened under Bush’s watch. The Democrat-controlled Congress passed this insane Warmist law, with the bogus title of the Energy Independence and Security Act. A favorite Warmist tactic is to usurp the right-wing notion that we’re too beholden to Islamist OPEC countries for our fuel, which adversely affects our economy.
Now this Warmist agenda is actually fining companies who supply motor fuel to consumers and industry a combined total of $6.8 million because they don’t use a mixed-source fuel which doesn’t exist. Sure, the intention of the law was to force companies to adopt a fuel source the Warmists expected they would have forced the country to produce by now. But reality got in the way, just like reality got in the way of Solyndra and other Green boondoggles.
So the law is still on the books, and The Obamessiah Administration is enforcing it. Mardell wants you to think that the notion that the President’s policies are harming the economy is false, a nostrum of Republican rhetoric pandering to extremists. But if the President doesn’t shut this idiocy down, He will be allowing the Warmist agenda to harm business and the US economy yet again.
Can’t blame Bush for that. The BBC report at the time wasn’t exactly full of criticism. It even featured a rare picture of Bush that didn’t show him looking foolish or unappealing. You won’t hear the BBC condemning the law now, or blaming the current President for allowing an insane law to punish businesses. If the President really was any kind of competent leader who really wanted to help industry in a difficult economy, repealing this would be a slam-dunk, a vote-winner for sure. But it won’t happen, because His ideology will prevent it.
Yet you will keep hearing the BBC tell you that nothing that happens to the economy is His fault.
It’s baaaaaaaack…Question Time returns.
Justine Greening – Transport Secretary
Douglas Alexander – Shadow Foreign Secretary
Nicola Sturgeon – Deputy First Minister Scotland
Paddy Ashdown – Sanctimonious Libdem Peer
Kelvin MacKenzie – Token Right-Wing Nutter (ALARM!)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/9675691.stm
Any prospect of a restraining order being taken out on this “vulnerable old biddy” that thinks herself as the Pat Phoenix of Islington town?
Truly embarrassing to have to watch this shower of stage door johnnies and wannabe hoofers get brought into the ring by Dimbleband Major and his flea circus gofers…only to crave the mercy of the vets needle, but take up airtime for an hour or so.
Compilations of passionate excellence from the One Show would probably be better than this-and I`ll not moan about the repeats either.
Hell, Last of the Summer Wine would be better-at leat the whine stops for autumn, whereas this perennial whine of a show gives me tinnitus.
Stop dodging the coffin Dimbwit!
Kelvin McKenzie is entertaining, but the rest of them just put me to sleep!
Jeff
Greening and McKenzie will wipe the floor with the others if Dimbleby doesn’t shut them up and step on unfortunate answers by changing the subject.
A couple of good articles from The Commentator…
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/789/the_guardian_smug_arrogant_and_subject_to_special_treatment
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/788/why_won_t_the_met_police_prosecute_those_who_disrupted_the_israel_philharmonic_orchestra_
Some of you may recall that some weeks ago I made a complaint to the BBC about Mark Mardell’s Today hatchet job on Newt Gingrich:
In his section on Newt Gingrich, Mark Mardell listed a number of qualities that Mr Gingrich is said to have and then rounded this off with “in his own smugly arrogant estimation”. This was not reporting but was a personal opinion making it clear what Mr Mardell thinks of Mr Gingrich and has no place on an allegedly impartial broadcaster.
Well, lo and behold, a reply comes back exactly one month later:
Thanks for contacting us about ‘Today’ broadcast on 12 December.
We apologise for the delay in replying. We realise that our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we’re sorry that you had to wait on this occasion.
I understand that you were unhappy with comments made by Mark Mardell about Newt Gingrich as you felt they had no place on the BBC.
The piece from the BBC’s North America Editor, Mark Mardell, aimed to be colourful and entertaining as well as informative. It was not a cool political analysis, but an attempt to reflect the uncompromising mood of the latest Republican campaigning. As part of the piece, Mark reported the criticism expressed by Mr Gingrich’s opponents. The remark about his own “smugly arrogant estimation” came in this context — but it’s important to note that it followed a list of personal qualities (outstanding strategist, practised statesman, thinker and intellectual) which were listed by Mr Gingrich himself.
It was very much a tongue-in-cheek comment from an experienced BBC Editor, not a view expressed by the BBC itself.
Nevertheless I do fully appreciate your concerns with Mark’s comments therefore please be assured that I’ve registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that’s made available to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Thanks once again for taking the time to contact us.
Sorry for the delay, we’re right. I think that reply met my expectations in every way. “Very much a tongue in cheek comment”, my arse. Belittling comment, sneering comment would be a better description.
“Audience log”. I love it !!!
We apologise for the delay in replying. We realise that our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we’re sorry that you had to wait on this occasion. – Cookie cutter
I understand that you were unhappy with comments made by Mark Mardell about Newt Gingrich as you felt they had no place on the BBC. – Paid by the word?
The piece from the BBC’s North America Editor, Mark Mardell, aimed to be colourful and entertaining as well as informative – an aim, in itself, that bears explanation, beyond the fact it was missed by a country mile.
It was not a cool political analysis – no doubt. When are they ever?
but an attempt to reflect the uncompromising mood of the latest Republican campaigning – since when was reporting at the BBC moved to ‘attempt to reflect’? Especially when the only image they can produce is their own mirrored bias? This now joins ‘enhance the narrative’ and ‘interpret events’ in my book. Yes, I have a book.
As part of the piece, Mark reported the criticism expressed by Mr Gingrich’s opponents. The remark about his own “smugly arrogant estimation” came in this context – now, where the heck have I heard that pathetic excuse wheeled out recently? The explanation is missing still.
— but it’s important to note – Why? To whom?
It was very much a tongue-in-cheek comment from an experienced BBC Editor, not a view expressed by the BBC itself – Excuse me? First twitter, now this? Which part of the BBC’s prodigious AV broadcast-out by its employees via the airaves does actually reflect those of their employers who pump it out to the public, if not those who are compellled to pay them? Talk about a hole digger.
please be assured that I’ve registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that’s made available to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers. Cookie cutter. Trite. Tripe. With lies included.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content. Ditto.
These complaints exchanges join twitter, all Richard Black blogs and most on The Editors, especially Helen Boaden’s ‘we’re right’ pleas, as solid gold.
Roland, how did you manage to strip away the background formatting baggage to their witterings, that always blow my shares character limits into several chunks?
I didn’t! I simply copied and pasted from the email. Perhaps the fact I was accessing my Virgin Media account via the internet made the difference?
I think my Mac absorbs more than it should:) Cut & paste is all I do, too. And it’s only their emails that do this.
The most extraordinary thing in that whole reply is the bit about it being a comment by an experienced BBC Editor, not a view expressed by the BBC itself.
Ye gods! What the heck would be a view expressed by the Beeboid Corporation itself, then?
I was just about to say exactly the same thing Millie, my jaw dropped when I read that part. What a desperate line of defence.
Excellent, Roland. That’s proof that BBC editors are opinion-mongers and are not expected to be impartial journalists. Mardell and the rest of them can say whatever they like and get away with it.
James Bond villains blamed for nuclear’s bad image.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16509668
Of course, they can’t resist giving the last words to Greenpeace and the Green Party – The nuclear power industry is evil, dangerous and too expensive. Full stop. Here endeth the lesson.
I think Sarah Montague’s opinion about last night’s HoL vote on means-tested benefits may have just – just – sneaked through the ‘balanced and fair’ filter on the Today programme…
You might have thought that Tescos were doing pretty well, given the fact that the Islington luvvies seem to not want them taking over the nations towns etc.
Not a bit of it-why that Titan of the Market James Naughtie says no!(Purveyor of tongue and tripe to his betters since …well, when the Guardian thought him to be florid, fat and facile…as if!).
Jim gives Tescos top scally the third degree of not being as greedy and rapacious as his business plans were intended to be.
With his other hat, Jim would be pleased at the return to sustainable values and less scarring of Gaias fair face…but as Torquemada for Big Business, he sees it as a chance to slate Tescos as a concept…and hopefully have another embittered scouse voice to moan at the Coalition and its cuts!
I`m assuming that Jim, Sarah and Peston etc all roll down to Shepherds Bush Market once the shows over…and show us wannabe entrepreneurs just HOW to run a business…Jim certainly gives the impression of discerning the best tasting cherry blossom shoe polish to go with the shortbread paninis.
Privitise the BBC NOW…let Jim, Evan etc create the sustainable BBC that we stakeholders passionately crave…whilst they still know everything about how to do it.
Alexei Sayle can do the posh scouse voice I believe-if that`s a “game-changer” as they say!
A question that the BBC will studiously avoid is who was it who got us where we are with this devolution issue?
Take a bow the Labour Party and the BBC!
Labour first embraced devolution, just as it embraced the EU, at a time when its own near wrecking of the UK economy had led to deep unpopularity and its being locked out of power for a political generation at Westminster.
When their turn came around Labour proceeded to set up this thin edge of the wedge policy with the inevitable consequence that it would be electorially turned over in Scotland by the nationalists.
Which is where the BBC came in – with their constant mantra of celtic = good, English = bad, coupled with a fiscal insight that we all live on a gold mine and that Governments can give us all we desire – unless they are mean Tories.
From free university education to free NHS car parking – have it all, only a Tory would tell you no.
So no awkward questions from the BBC for Ed Miliband to answer as far as devolution is concerned.
A fascinating statement from Ed was this
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2012/01/12/david-cameron-and-ed-miliband-join-forces-to-fight-scottish-independence-115875-23695027/
Ok Ed give the Scots some reasons to stay in the Union, what do you, Red Ed, actually like about the UK ?
Answer:
“…the shared economic interests, the shared institutions like the NHS, our defence forces and the BBC and above all the shared values we hold together.”
In other words, waffle, waffle, a de rigueur mention for the NHS and our brave forces and – who would have thunk it – the BBC!
As I See It says: Ok Ed give the Scots some reasons to stay in the Union…
Answer:
“…the shared economic interests, the shared institutions like the NHS, our defence forces and the BBC and above all the shared values we hold together.”
AISI, that is tosh, of course.
There are, however, 41 very good reasons why Ed Miliband and his party oppose Scottish independence.
Jeremy
Agreed, even if fair constituency sizes would reduce the 41 to c30. I say let Labour and the Scots self-destruct.
Of course unless Cameron calls the Nats bluff Salmond will have the English tax payer deliver the more lucrative devo max.
1997-2010 never happened, remember?
Just as 2+2=5.
On the Radio 4 8:00 News this morning news (at last) of the Wife of God’s arrogant behaviour at the White House. The “news” is that the possessor of the largest backside this side of Belgium has refuted all criticism. Were we told what the criticism actually was? Of course not – this is the BBC.
At least they’re mentioning it. Only took them five days or so, after trying to sweep it all under the rug and pretend it was just about some “apparently lavish” party, throwing in the White House lies about it too boot.
Baby steps!
I was going to await anything new from the BBC to emerge, and felt that teh lady deserved a break from having her spinning highlighted, but Roland D’s recent share has minded me that these things need a broader airing.
The lady in question was charming throughout, but useless. A lot of time (and funder money) was consumed going nowhere. Maybe, that was the point. I await the ‘big gun’ offering promised with interest.
On 10 Jan 2012, at 21:54, xx wrote:
Many thanks for your response and your additional comments which I have noted.
You are welcome. As I note and thank you for yours, whilst appreciating the time you have and still devote, along with the speed of response.
You are right, I’m sure, that semantic arguments about the exact meaning of headlines are something we could spend a significant amount of time debating.
To be avoided, then. But still acknowledged, as we are very much in the arena of subjectivity and objectivity, where tone and how things are taken matter.
Especially when, by what you share, rather arbitrary, self-imposed ‘rules’ by the BBC have made things very difficult to deliver accuracy at best, and allows agenda to creep in at worst.
For the record, I would say that using quotation marks in the Abbott example you offer (which, in fact, is actually a Todayprogramme item, not an English Regions one)
Noted, for the record, on the programme distinction, but in matters of complaint about the BBC standard of editorial, I fear your and BBC internal sensitivities over turf are not really a concern to me as licence fee payer. Again, this goes to process over product. Saying ‘not us guv’ may be appropriate when answering to internal review, but honestly to me it is irrelevant. And simply compounds the problem. I listen to or read about Today from an English Region. I complain to the only BBC complaints system there is online. How that is picked up, and addressed, or not… the BBC’s problem to resolve.
has the opposite effect to the one you suggest – in other words they clearly signify that the comment is NOT the judgement of the BBC.
Abbott tweet ‘not a resigning issue’ 36
Well, we are not arguing semantics, but if you believe that then OK, who am I to argue your beliefs? At the very least it shows the problem being faced. Because I do not work for the BBC, and hence become privy to your internal perceptions, I would still maintain that as it is not stated who said that, given the BBC’s new commitment to ‘analysis’ over fact, that reads… to me.. as what the BBC believes, or what Labour has passed on for publishing on their behalf. It is only clarified in body. On new media that can involve on-linking some may not be bothered to attempt.
Some do, and can get concerned. Which was in process of discussion on the topic we were discussing when that thread was closed.
380. sandy winder
31ST DECEMBER 2011 – 6:57
The BBC headline ‘Thatcher told abandon Liverpool’ shows how out of control the BBC has become.
So I fear that, as far as I am still concerned, you are saying you are right because you think you are right. And seeking to terminate discussion on that basis.
Labour: no Abbott action over tweet 35
Your proposed headline on the other hand is would have been inaccurate because to suggest that there had been ‘no action’ gives the impression that the tweet had not led to an intervention by Ed Miliband and an apology by Diane Abbott, amongst other things.
Again, as in the area of semantics, I totally disagree. But I was simply playing your game. Perhaps as poorly as your headline writers as I still managed to exceed the mandated maximum character limit by 3, which is better than the BBC’s 4 (those ‘rules’ can be streeeeeetched… evidently). I point out who has made the statement and the incident/protagonist about whom it was about. Trying to shoehorn the need for and actual sense that Mr. Miliband ‘acted’ or Ms. Abbott apologised… by inference… in your version, is, quaint. If anything, it serves only to show whose tune was being danced to, or at least how the spin options get prioritised. I am sure Labour, and the BBC did not feel Ms. Abbott’;s tweet was a resigning issue. How reflective or reality, and/or public opinion is that, vs. the more neutral notion that no one on Ms. Abbott’s side of the fence felt that anything much had been done or needed to be done in response… moving on. I’d say, in looking back, ‘no action’ perfectly reflects the Labour leader’s position, and that taken by the BBC.
I think my satisfaction with the Liverpool story you originally wrote to me about is relevant because you asked me, as Executive Editor of the BBC England online output to make an assessment of your complaint.
Glad to get back to this. Thank you.
First off, may I apologise for not fully appreciating, until, now, your position. I wrote a complaint originally via the BBC ‘system’. Not to you personally. I regret that, until now, I was unaware of the extent of your role. Or indeed the constraints of this position. I view a complaint to the BBC to be about the BBC, and not as needing to be seen as tuned very specifically to the division in question, much as internal sensitivities or politics may prefer it. It is surely the quality of argument, rather than the heft of the person making it, that matters?
However, all this notwithstanding, your satisfaction or otherwise is not really that helpful to the substance of the complaint, or me as a stakeholder making it.
In some cases when complaints are made I will look at stories, accept that the complainant has made a point which requires us to adjust a story and ask for that adjustment to be made.
I will leave that comment as made to highlight what’s at play here, especially the mysterious vagaries within the BBC system about the BBC system, made by employees of the BBC. In some cases.
In this case I was confirming that I had decided not to make any alterations because I felt none were needed.
Well, you confirming you, and the BBC ‘got it about right’ is more a cause for wry amusement. And frankly you have spent a lot of time and effort making that case so far simply in varied iterations.
I might also point out that this particular case was about a selection of headlines that did not convey the facts, and were changed, at the very least between points, when called out for so doing.
This is not to say that we don’t appreciate, discuss and value your comments.
By the exchanges we have had so far, for what it is worth, I absolutely do not dispute the second in this instance.
There is nothing I can usefully add to my earlier explanation
Also agreed.
about moderation except to say that we expect our journalists to make a judgement about how long to keep comments threads open depending on the level of interest, developments in the story and, of course, available resource.
Expectations and judgement, when trust in how these are made is so lacking, going to the core of the complaint, and our discussions.
Especially when no answers on the trend to pull comments threads for no good reasons, especially those shown to be active, topical, and going badly for the BBC narrative or the credibility of the authors. And in terms of bias, stealth editting and being called on these.
I’m afraid I cannot comment on the complaint response times of other departments in the BBC.
Understandable at an internal political level; but a damning indictment of the BBC complaints system. I made a complaint about yet another perceived example of editorial failing. Not the first; won’t be the last. To do so I used the only avenue offered, namely the BBC complaint system. I now discover it is so convoluted as to be inoperable effectively. Possibly deliberately so, for this very reason.
Now I am learning that, on top of the labyrinthine convolutions this systems has in its own right, the humble member of the public is now meant to be aware of, second guess and play to various different BBC internal departments’ satisfaction the complex interactions that exist within the organisation.
This from a previous email of yours (Jan 4):
If you have any examples where you believe we have acted improperly on a story I would be keen to hear about them so I can investigate and, I hope, provide you with the thinking behind what we did, just as I have for the story above.
Why, on earth, am I now being redirected to deal with a bunch of (unspecified) people who probably, when things get to consistency or detail, if deigning to answer as you have at least kindly attempted, will suddenly not feel able to comment about other aspects of the organisation they all work for? Sorry, won’t wash.
As you identify, since you would like your complaint taken forward I will copy this mail to the Controller English Regions xx and he will reply to you directly.
I shall be interested to what he has to say, especially given the preponderance of ‘we think we are right so we are right’ mentality that seems at play ‘after investigation’, up to and including such as Helen Boaden or the DG. The BBC judging itself is not really proving very satisfactory any more, other to the most credulous.
I don’t know if it falls under ‘English regions’, but I also have an ongoing complaint about English (by definition at least) editor Paul Mason using his position to offer a personal view on the contact of UK government on behalf of its people, with regards to the EU. I am still awaiting an answer on this, or guidance on who, in or around the vast, complex totem, this time may provide one. If your department, maybe this could be expedited too? If not a hint as to who would be able to do so.
Complaint Summary: Biased report, and now facile attempt at cover up
Full Complaint 8 Jan: Please note the 1st reply paragraph. Prompt, but as much use and as accurate as such things from public sector authority so-called complaint systems too often are. ——- We understand you felt the comments made by Stephanie Flanders regarding David Cameron as you felt they were biased against the actions of the Prime Minister and the Government on recent international issues. —— As the cited piece was by Paul Mason, clearly identified by the time code on the iPlayer URL, the complaint was clearly not even read or checked. I can also testify to the fact that the content of the insincere, inadequate ‘explanation’ is cookie cutter template patronising at its worst. The BBC complaint system is clearly unconcerned with addressing serious licence fee payer concerns on matter of bias, and one can only wonder at the staff and costs dedicated not to investigation, assessment and correction, rather being devoted to distraction and covering up and making issues ‘go away’.
Full Complaint 6 Jan: I am intrigued by the words of the BBC Economics Editor http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b019ch5b/Newsnight_05_01_2012/?t=4m35 We’ll let the extra context of a ‘right wing’ government pass for now, but I would like an explanation of ‘a country that threw its toys out of the pram’. That is a view, certainly but not one held by all, and an odd one for an impartial British broadcaster to use about the actions of a British Government and PM in handling its interests internationally. Please explain the thinking and ability to so express using the airwaves to 60M fellow Britons, some of whom may not agree with such analysis. Without context, ‘time was short’, ‘no space’ weasels, etc. For once.
Whatever happens, please be assured that I do keep your services under review and will pass your comments on to anyone relevant.
—
I should point out that she again wrote back to confirm her boss was replying, and that she had passed on the Newsnight/Mason complaint, without specifying to whom. I may ask, as she seems to know while the public is not meant to. Equally she may have a hint on who in the BBC editorial may be responsible for adding the notion that all Israelis are also Zionists, which I did not know. And if incorrect, why at a time of high ME tension.
My Site, you have the patience of a saint. I salute you.
RD, from you, a compliment indeed. Especially as you are yourself exposing some rather wonderful gems in your effrots… the admission that BBC editors do not reflect the views of the BBC (which I am not sure will be easy to live down, explain or stealth away) being only the latest to treasure.
Yes, it does take time, but really not too much. And I engage in my tea and lunch breaks as opposed to other screen-based distractions of the RSI-addled homeworker, so no biggie.
I think it is a necessary task. The complaint system is the last avenue of correction to bad or biased reporting, and those responsible need to be hauled up and, if necessary, held to account.
I try and do so with fact, fairness and, on occasion, fun. But never rude, though this can be a real test of patience.. and temper. I fear Dr. G pushed me beyond a limit accusing me of calling him something I did not… then vanishing when corrected.
I applaud what appears either a desire or mandate to engage more, but not if it is using public money to simply wear out public complaint by attrition. Or to ‘look’ repsonsive over being it.
Sharing at forums such as here will, I believe, have an impact, as to date they have relied on ‘lessons being learned’ insincerely lost away in the ‘Beware of the Leopard’ cabinet, so the same happens over and over.
Which, frankly, I think should not be allowed to persist.
Enough complain, stick to their guns, make good cases, cite sources, URLs, etc, and copy in others (my MP is now interested, me having asked his opinion on soem clear abuses) and there may be change yet.
It may even be, for the BBC as well, for the better. Or not. Their choice.
I applaud My Site for not putting up with waffle about “departments” and “regions”. The complaints sytem has a single point of entry – therefore whoever replies, from the BBC, has to speak for the BBC as a whole. Their “not my department, mate” defence only works if you have addressed the complaint directly to them (which is not possible).
Again, thank you. I have (too much) experience with this technique from the public sector (a complaint on elder care over the treatment of my Mum is now in its 2nd year and nth Obmudsman/commitee/inquiry/whatever) and enough is enough.
Using the cracks in their own systems as excuses for things getting lost and/or their suddenly midway not being able to deal or answer with them (or, worse, shifting the onus back on you to sort out) is, simply, not going to fly.
As you have reiterated, there is only one entry point. This point will be made when (or if) the promised bigwig deigns to get in touch.
He is right about the quotation marks in so far as that they may signify that those are not the words of the Beeboids. However, it is the impression left by the headline and the import of making those words the headline message that serve to frame and shape what we are being presented with and affect how we are left thinking about the subject.
I noted how this : http://biasedbbc.tv/2012/01/brilliance.html – Humphries interview with Miliband
has lead to this : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2085452/Ed-Miliband-Nobody-loves-eat-Quorn.html?ITO=1490 – Miliband scorned/pitied in parliament
Humphries getting tough on Miliband has shown Liebour that Auntie Beeb doesn’t think he is up to it so they have stopped supporting him in parliament – who would have believed it??
Here is the video I wrote about last night
Listen to what is said from 5mins to 5 mins 21.
Mr. Mason doesn’t like Hungary’s new government much, does he?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16522848 – 5min
I guess that explains him using the right-wing appellation, when such qualifiers are often denied other regimes more in favour with the BBC mindset, in the same slot he called the UK Government failing to find merit in the EU/ro bail out plans and not jumping in, ‘throwing toys out of the pram’. I still await BBC feedback on what he meant by that, and if this was another editor not speaking for the BBC in BBC ‘most trusted’ broadcasts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b019ch5b/Newsnight_05_01_2012/?t=4m35
I am also interested in Mr. Mason’s stout defence of conflating racial or demographic terms in a less than stellar manner, even if in private. I must ask whether he would be so determined for an answer from his colleague who wrote (as I now believe, having had no denial, that it was added in the edit) that all Israelis were Zionists… in writing, in public. Another non BBC-endorsed piece, possibly, despite the fact it seems to be on their site, with their name at the top.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16501566
Unique.
This link will be useful to make the case. Thank you.
Glad you spotted the Mason piece.
If events in Hungary are to be reported, Mason is, with his socialist conviction, the least impatial reporter the BBC could possibly have sent.
What is happening in Hungary bears NO resemblance to the distortion produced by Mason.
If the Hungarian left elite, who enriched themselves massively while batting for Brussels and lied to the Hungarian people leaving a collossal deficit on having been thrown out of office with a massive electoral defeat, could choose who the BBC could send to cover the face-off with Brussels….it would be Mason.
The BBC only dares frown at anti-Semitism when they can stick a “right-wing” label on it. They turn a blind eye to it when it happens in happy Left-wing countries like Sweden and the Netherlands and Italy and France.
And where a football match in Springtime Egypt can exhibit this….where’s Yolanda. Oh, yes, she’s left. Back in Jerusalem. Can’t blame her. Jerusalem is a much nicer place for pavement cafes.
Will these thicko sportsmen never learn?
Don’t they ever listen to BBC 5 Live, that awkward mix of sport and lefty opinion?
We’re all playing under new PC rules now and the Beeb are here to enforce them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16521776.stm
‘Ipswich manager Paul Jewell criticised female assistant referee Amy Fearn’
So when a journalist suggests “everyone to a man thought it was a penalty” you’re not allowed in your reply even to allude to the fact that the linesperson was, well, not a man?
What kind of state is this country getting into?
bbcHIGNFY HaveIGotNewsForYou At #Leveson Richard Desmond’s contribution to today’s unhealthy media is being broadcast, and in a first, you don’t have to pay for it.
There may be more to raising the topic of having to pay for unhealthy media there than BBChignfy intended.
I heard the Today show trying to smear Desmond this morning.
They used some plummy grandee who was trying to tell us that all charities are equal-Olympics just as valid as hospices etc.
Desmond preferred to back health charities and not Loaches latest offering-and this would not do…at least the Lottery are honourable and reputable( no don`t ask!).
Any Sir Stephen told Jim to get desmond into the studio to defend himself-the cur!
Jim was tugging the tam o shanter as he duly said that he would do just that sir…and do thank yourself for the national Lottery,won`t you .
Desmond has been summonsed…and I really think that Today regards itself as equal to a Parliamentary enquiry!
Let them deam on-meanwhile I hope that we might resurrect Mr Hudson to do our interviews-he`s a rottweiller in comparison to Naughtie!
An observation on Beeboid Evan DAVIS’s tweeting –
(by Quentin LETTS, ‘Daily Mail, scroll down):
“Radio 4’s Evan Davis –
known to some as Mr Bojangles because of his Prince Albert genital jewellery – tweets: ‘Anyone know how I can find 3 or 4 good-value, good-looking, gay-friendly helpers for a party… Ideally though, those of a non-naked variety.’ Look out! ”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2085514/Did-Michelle-Obama-really-tell-Carla-Bruni-hell-living-White-House.html#ixzz1jGOvsoSS
i want to vomit
I quite fancy Evan Davies.
Not sure about the genital jewellery though.
A few cocktails might sort it. He seens a sweet young puppy, desperate for attention
I think “desperate for attention” pretty much sums him up. He is quite likely straight and spends his nights making model trains.
Italy wrestles with Berlusconi legacy
“On New Year’s Eve, Italians traditionally see in the new year by burning the vecchione (old man) – an effigy personifying the outgoing year.
When inhabitants of the little town of Ozzano dell’Emilia, just outside the northern Italian city of Bologna, decided to give their effigy the face of Silvio Berlusconi, they did not imagine the reaction it would provoke.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16518599
Oh, they didn’t, did they?
Look who’s bonfire it was! In the heartland of ‘red’ Bologna.
http://www.comune.ozzano.bo.it/internet/Il-Comune/Il-Consiglio-Comunale/I-gruppi-consiliari-informano/Partito-Comunista-dei-Lavoratori-informa
BBC, studiously blind in the left eye.
Thew first public mob I ever saw was in Mantova – Mantua. In 1975
I had driven my wife and young children over the Julian Alps, in March, heavy snow. Our target was the deep south of Italy – Apulia.
We found cheap rooms overlooking the city square, Next morning we were woken up by a baying mob. The city square was full of people with red flags, shouting, screaming. My children were scared. It was like Don Camillo times 1000
We were finally able to get out of the city. As we left, I asked the nice landlady if the rooms what all the trouble was about. “Nothing special. It happens every week, the Communist crowd comes out to shout”
So how many times have you heard from the bBC how the British have armed somebody: Be it the Saddam (err no we didn’t) The Taliban (err no we didn’t) or even Gadiffi (err no we didn’t) the bBC just shouts out from the highest minaret how Bad the Brits are for arming nasty people. You know like the small kingdom of Bahrain which faced with mischief from the Iranians clamped down on the protesting killing around 56 people in 2011 and since then they have bitched about any dealings the UK has with the Island state.
Now lets look at Syria, you know that Syria which the bBC hasn’t really bothered its arse on reporting over how it has clamped down on its own people killing over 6000 people in 2011. Which is why you didn’t hear from the bBC how the Russian fleet sailed in the other day. (A message to NATO perhaps to keep out?) or how today Cyprus intercepted a cargo of ammunition bound for Syria from Russia. (funny enough the bBC never mentioned a similar cargo from Belarus (read Russia) just before things kicked off in Libya. )
And how another ship docked in Syria Jan 12 in which to unload..ammo
But if the British government signed an export licence to allow a British company to take 2 deactivated sniper rifles to a trade show in Libya and hey according to them we armed Gadiffi.
Funny that?
I note that Islam Not BBC (INBBC)’s Yolande KNELL, has left the mirage of Cairo’s ‘Arab Spring’ and is now in Jerusalem, no doubt to criticise Israel.
She refuses to describe the hackers of tens of thousands of Israeli credit cards as ‘Muslim hackers’, instead merely describing them as ‘Arab hackers’.
“Israeli hacker retaliates to credit card hacking”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16526067
Of course, it is obligatory that INBBC’s Ms Knell censors this:
‘Jihadwatch’:
“It’s allowed when it concerns Jews”: Saudis thrilled over hacking of over 400,000 Israeli credit card accounts
Opening extract:-
“Glee over the plundering of those whom the Qur’an terms the worst enemies of the Muslims (5:82). Those who objected were a tiny minority. And note that the Saudis who were fulminating about the Jews being ‘the filthiest people on earth’ were reflecting what they learned in their study of Islam, and in the jihadist propaganda that demonizes Israel.
‘Saudis laud credit card hacking scheme,’ by Roi Kais for Ynet News–
Lucas on Hollywood colour divide
George Lucas doesn’t talk about a ‘Hollywood colour divide’, a term that conjures images of bigoted white executives discriminating against people from ethnic minorities.
He merely said that Hollywood doesn’t think it’s commercially viable to produce a film with an all-black cast.
Not quite the same thing…
Jeff
Hollywood is like the BBC in that they think the vast majority of United Statesians are unwashed, mouthbreathing racists.
Then there’s the fact that Cuba Gooding, Jr. is of little box office because he’s crap, not cos he is black.
The bBC goes well out of its way in which to promote how bad the West are when it comes to treating Muslims. Why today we have had the bBC headline how 2 Libyans (Now in Government) claim they were mistreated and that the British must pay..We’ve had the lefts poster boy Mozam (i am a victim) Begg opining about how bad the British are when in comes to mistreating Muslims and currently the bBC are jerking off (over pictures of Mohammed I bet) over how 4 marines got their willies out and had a piss on a couple of the faithful dead.
Today the bBC is pushing the story
over how Sarah Ferguson who instead of sucking a few toes for cash made a video in Turkey for ITV which showed the abuse of Islamic children. Here is a clip from a follow up program (aired the next night) tell me what you notice in the first minute and if you have the time watch the remaining 5 minutes and then ask yourself if the Turks have a leg to stand on. (unlike the little girl tied up in a jumper) when it comes to saying this:
“A court in Turkey has said it plans to prosecute the Duchess of York for secretly filming orphans in the country for a television documentary.The Duchess visited the orphanage near Ankara while making a film for the ITV Tonight programme in 2008.The court plans to accuse her of going “against the law in acquiring footage and violating privacy” of five children.”
Really if anything she exposed the shambles that is Turkish society which has ingrained in its DNA the culture of a very peaceful religion. But for some strange reason the bBC doesn’t mention the the full ugliness the film uncovered and instead dilutes how Islamic turks treat their unwanted children by saying:
“The Duchess wore a disguise to enter the institution and filmed scenes of children tied to their beds and left in cots all day.”
I mean the above doesn’t sound that bad. Yet what toe sucker uncovered could be classed as: “whistle blowing” You know like those whistle blowers the bBC goes all for such as Julian Assange, Bradley Manning but not the guy who informed on labour Mps and their expenses.
It seems the bBC doesn’t want the world to know how ugly life is for Islamic children inside Islamic countries. If only Manning had wikileaked this story.
You’d think with the BBC showing 61% of its programmes as repeats, up from a about a third 2 years ago, that their expenses would fall. But as ever, they can always find excuses to reduce quality while increasing their own extravagance.
Expenses for BBC bosses rocket by 20% as a result of move to Salford
Why anybody would let this abomination of an organisation do their thinking for them is beyond me.
Just noticed, too late, that you had already posted a comment and link about the Beeboid expenses which I have also posted below!
Oops, me too. The Curse of the Eric Morely thread review technique.
Interesting we made the precise same connection.
Moazzem Begg and friends (BBC) owe MI6 and MI5 an apology
By Con Coughlin
I can’t wait for the day when the BBC needs the protection of our security forces – nd the BBC is going to make sure that day comes sooner than later.
What are the Beeboids spending our money on? And what about the Cuts? What cuts? Their expenses claims continue to rise. Blame it on the move to Salford. Ah yes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9011275/BBC-leaders-claim-extra-20pc-in-expenses-as-Salford-move-sparks-rise.html
I found it interesting to note that the head of the DG’s office is on £130, 000 p.a. Mind, it looks like peanuts when set next to his own takings of £660, 000 but it’s still quite a whack and lest we forget, not far off what we pay our PM. This organisation is still ridiculously bloated and considering that they are public service jobs, the amounts these Beeboids are taking are excessive.
Yes the Guardian is obsessed with what Clarkson is paid but not the totally useless unproductive beeboids.
So this money saving effort is progressing true to form then?
A King’s ransom in capital extra to create the new location, followed by a vast annual hike to adminster it.
Now, this money comes from where again?
I sense more Dad’s Army repeats if the BBC pension pots are also to be maintained.
I know this comes up every time but hands up if you work for (or have worked for) any organisation that pays for employee’s leaving parties? And why, if you are a manager, do work issues have to be discussed over “dinner”. What is the working day for?
i think the BBC should do a documentary on gay saunas
Got to laugh at the media, all saying that this decision from Turkey to want Fergie and some (now) beeboid reporter arrested is nonsense.
Except of course the very same media all want Turkey to join the EU, no where safe to hide then!
So in Sarah Montague’s completely pointless interview with some guy I’ve never heard of about sex addiction it is seen as appropriate to use statistics (6% of popn ‘suffer’ from it, apparently) to provide context and reference.
No problem with that.
But only half an hour earlier on the somewhat more immediate issue of police stop-and-search, with great focus on community relations/riots/race/yadda yadda, the fact that young black men are statistically far more likely to be involved in the crime that stop and search is designed to counter, is curiously absent.
Now why could that be?
In a liberal’s eyes the greatest crime is to discriminate in any way that offends against the prime liberal directives of equality and non discrimination. It is just not possible for the liberal to make a judgement based on the evidence and what actually happens.
It is a denial of reality and also the instinct for self preservation both of the individual and of society.
Rather than appear judgemental the liberal would rather put himself and by extension society in danger. The liberal is quite literally mad.
Nicky Campbell was much more at home this morning shooting the breeze with trendy teachers on the subject of that nasty Mr Gove. Not like yesterday with all that economics about high speed trains and ‘too much testosterone’.
Nicky was much happier today as master of ceremonies – ‘…listen everybody – it’s Fatima’.
‘We don’t want parents coming in, telling us what to do’.
So many hard-working dedicated teachers calling in – it must be half-term?
General conclusion seems to be that there is no problem.
Reminds me of British Leyland in the 1970s.
Funny how the public thinks there is something a little defective about their product – August riots?
That no one seems to want their product – how many youngsters unemployed?
Leave us alone, Mr Gove.