Shall we hang the bankers? Here’s a new Open Thread for you….
OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Eddy Booth Dec 23, 13:40
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
“The crocodile from Crocodile Dundee dies in Australia” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2we313k6ro “The crocodile who starred in 1980s hit film Crocodile Dundee has… - Emmanuel Goldstein Dec 23, 13:38
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
Eddy, I also wondered about Farage teaming up with mandelson. My guess is that Nigel will use the opportunities presented… - Ian Rushlow Dec 23, 13:33
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
‘Better to be far right than far wrong’ - Ian Rushlow Dec 23, 13:32
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
The suspect is a foreigner. He originates from a Middle Eastern country. Five people were killed in a method widely… - MarkyMark Dec 23, 13:25
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
Comment … “Hungary, do not let the EU and WEF destroy your country. Don’t allow so called cheap labour from… - Deborah Dec 23, 13:13
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
Quarter past one, and it is 2,998,632. It should, without government interference make 3 million by Xmas. - MarkyMark Dec 23, 13:13
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
“Classic novel off GCSE list amid racial slurs fear” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cge922jn1z8o Meanwhile…… “The writers and contestants of RuPaul’s Drag Race have… - BRISSLES Dec 23, 13:12
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
Bowie called his son Zowie – who changed it to the more sensible Duncan. - Fedup2 Dec 23, 13:00
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
Ww – no happy heart attack for me yet – sorry to disappoint you… Anyway – perhaps Hungary will pull… - AsISeeIt Dec 23, 12:58
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
Woman dies after being set on fire on New York subway… He was arrested at Herald Square station – which…
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
Poor old Raymond…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185
Can you clear off the £82 this family of 8 would require to fit into the benefits cap?
Let’s see…
£15 for sky movies (gone)
Shopping at Tesco or Morrisons? Have you tried Aldi?
200 smokes a week? That’d save £50 a week alone
Large bag of bacci? That’s another £10 saving
24 cans of lager? £20 right there folks
£20 night out on a friday? boom… savings!
And the biggest thing that makes me laugh? It doesn’t even mention if they’re paying the bbc tax…
Shouldn’t have had 7 kids between them then.
Couldn’t give a stuff, frankly.
Admittedly only 1 of the kids was born after taking the government shilling.
Re: ’24 cans of lager, 200 cigarettes and a large pouch of tobacco’ –
Why should my taxes be paying for this, particularly when I’m going to have to shell out again when the NHS pays for health problems arising from smoking and excessive alcohol consumption?
Re: ‘The market for my skills dried up 10 years ago’ –
Well learn some new skills then! And I find it hard to believe that there’s no longer a market for computer programmers…
Jeff
Re: ”My wife and I have mobile phones, and so do all of the teenage children. You try telling teenagers they’re going to have to do without their mobiles and there’ll be hell to pay.” –
Right, so to prevent you having to deal with stroppy teenagers, I have to pay for your kids to have mobiles? Is it not possible for them to communicate the old fashioned way, by speaking to people face to face?
Re: ”I go out once a week, on a Friday night. I meet up with my mates in the pub and have three or four pints.’ –
What a fantastic use of my taxes!
Re: – ‘Gas and electricity bills have gone up massively over the last couple of years – two years ago we were paying £20 a week. If they do cut our benefit we are going to have to choose between eating and heating the house properly.’ –
Quit smoking and drinking, and get rid of the mobiles and the Sky TV. Problem solved! You kids might even discover the quaint joy of reading as a result…
Jeff
PS Why is the cost of this family’s TV licence not included in the breakdown?
As they have TV, presumably they have a TV licence…
Jeff
No smoking, drinking, communication or quality TV. I assume trips to Ibiza are out of the question?
I guess the poor (deserving or otherwise) are not entitled to entertainment. I wonder what the consequence of that might be?
Raymond and his wife are not poor. They are idle!
>> And I find it hard to believe that there’s no longer a market for computer programmers
Well, the IT market has been in a downwards spiral ever since Y2K not helped by Brown’s ‘working with computers tax’ IR35 and the undercutting of rates by Jonney Foreigner …
The problem with being a programmer is that sellable skill sets change year on year and, more often than not, employers want more than a years experience with any language. It’s the old Catch-22 you can’t get work without experience and you can’t get experience without work. I sympathise with the guys plight (slightly) but 10 years gone by is 10 years in which to learn something else, non computer related, to do with your life.
Isn’t the TV tax free for the unemployed?
Martin –
Don’t think so.
Wikipedia says:
‘Discounted, free or government-paid licences are available to viewers over 75, blind people and those in residential care.’
Jeff
Comments on the benefits article by the BBC where removed, they have just returned, lets see what the great unwashed public think of this.
Having scoured the forums on this, fact is that the vast majority of the sites agree that the cap is neccessary and that the cap may well be too lenient.
Perhaps a regional cap would be better, 26k for London and less for the rest of the country.
‘Comments on the benefits article by the BBC where removed, ‘
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185
Exkweesme? Why? Anyway, now they are back, they are.. a hoot!!!!
Especially the people of the country telling those who speak for them what they really feel. I predict a closing. Again.
There must by Gaurdian types heading for a Costa right now to drown their sorrows, before heading to a Swiss Cottage establishment for a ‘there there’ cuddle, assuming they have’n’t read the hit list options from the religion of peace brigade.
No, sorry, those 200 smokes per week are necessary because The Man threw the wife out of the course you pay for. They can only quit smoking if they take a course…..
Then there’s the question of lager. 24 cans a week, but that doesn’t include the four pints on a Friday night. So Frank Gallagher and the wife get two cans each per day for the rest of the week. Unless it’s all for him….
And finally, surely somebody in BBC Light Entertainment is displeased that these people pay Rupert Murdoch because the BBC doesn’t provide enough entertainment for them. =-O
The article is totally unbalanced.
They just present the guy’s word as fact, rather than asking probing questions, or looking at how other families with 7 kids get by quite comfortably on 30K per year.
The subtext of the article is ‘Don’t believe those silly Daily Mail stereotypes. There are people who lead a really hard life on 30K per year’.
I’m sure the guy who earns the minimum wage working 60 hours a week, doing a job he hates, really feels for the people who make 30K for doing literally nothing…
Jeff
I think that this guy and his wife have a loser mentality. Handing them more money isn’t going to force them to take responsibility for their lives, and think things like:
‘I need to quit smoking, so I’m going to make it happen, course or no course!’
or
‘My skills might be out of date, so rather than moping around and feeling sorry for myself, I’m going to get out there and acquire some new skills!’.
Jeff
Yes, the self-pitying excuse for her smoking tells you everything you need to know about them. “They” threw her off a course when she didn’t turn up. It’s all someone else’s responsibility.
Its a total joke, can’t believe this is what my taxes pay for I’m fuming!
Ps: i work of a living, wish I could afford SKY TV
James – This guy doesn’t even have to make do with the ordinary Sky package – he’s on the movie package! If he wants cheap entertainment, he need look no further than his local library…
If he and his wife cut out the fags, the booze and the Sky TV, they might not have so much trouble paying the gas and electricity bills.
Oh, and what’s he’s doing shopping at Morrisons and Tesco? He should try out Kwik Save or Lidl! It’s amazing what you can buy for a fiver in those places!
Jeff
Movie package is £16 a month. I know this because I don’t get it because it is too expensive for me!
I suppose I asked for this when I clicked on the entertainment icon:
“‘I go out once a week, on a Friday night. I meet up with my mates in the pub and have three or four pints.'”
And this is on top of his 24 cans of lager, Christ this man (On the dole) spends more on beer in one week, than I do in a year and I don’t even have Sky, I read
Wonder how much license fee money these slobs were paid for being interviewed?
And whether they declared it to the DSS?
Nah, too easy. Choke them on rolls of fresh fifties, mate.
Guido and Old Holborn are all over this Beeb story ..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185
which doesn’t exactly help the Labour/Beeb cause. Expect it to vanish into the memory hole very soon.
A software writer with no market for his skills for a decade? Since when? The industry I worked in for more than a decade barely exists at all in the US anymore. I had to learn new skills in completely new areas just to scrape by. Why is this man forgiven by the BBC?
I work in software, this last year we’ve taken on two new developers and we’re about to take on a 3rd developer.
Sres, unless your company is within a short commuting distance of this council estate, the BBC won’t hear you. It’s immoral to ask this man to get on his bike, no?
The moment the BBC twig it was Labour in power 2001, 2002, 2003 etc all those years he could have retrained and found another job, then yes, they will drop the story. Pathetic effort from the BBC, clearly so desparate to write any old crap as long as it looks like the Tories are always bashing the poor.
Still-at least they didn`t get the family you`d expect the BBC to “flag up”…terminal illnesses, wheelchairs, sending money to Bucharest to save grannys gangrenous leg.
Piles of inhalers and brilliant kids desperately fighting the new virus that combines rickets with scurvy that all the family carry.
I too suffer anxiety disorders I`m sure….and am bipolar, depending on how many pints I have to buy myself-and not scrounge.
Good old BBC eh?…always caring with our money!
Anybody watch the Channel 4 program 15 and counting last night. Most impressed with the The Hamlins, a family of 12, who live off the wages of their father… a care person. Not the best paid job in the world. Even more impressed watching how they shop for food.
Yes I bet they get child credit (which to me should be limited to 2 children) but how they lived was something the rest of these having children for cash families could learn a lot from
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100134365/why-britain-is-stuffed-an-unintentional-masterclass-courtesy-of-the-bbc/
This story has backfired badly for the BBC.
But, has the story been edited? A number of comments above seem to refer to sections of the story that I cannot see.
Is there a way to track changes to these stories?
Ben, many of the line items in their ‘budget’ have footnotes.
Click on the highlighted ones and you’ll see for instance the Sky Movies detail.
I see the comments are now closed on the piece. Given the way they’ve gone – very OFF-message – an early close was entirely predictable.
The BBC journalist behind this spectacularly pathetic BBC own goal, Julian Joyce, is a typical Twittering beeboid:
https://twitter.com/#!/jayjay500
From his tweets, re-tweets and links it’s clear he’s a fan of George Monbiot. Most of his links lead to articles in ‘The Guardian’. He recommends several articles attacking bankers and doesn’t mind digs at the ‘Daily Mail’ either. His taste in American writers seems to be limited to those (like Stiglitz) who favour wealth redistribution. He links to an anti-banker petition by a left-wing campaign group and also seems keen on Wikileaks (and articles that link praising Wikileaks with attacking bankers!) as well as the Occupy movement.
Doubtless every clueless bone in his body told him that Raymond, Katherine and the seven kids were helpless victims of Coalition cruelty and that he had a winner on his hands. #yetanotherepicfailbythebbc
An interesting comment in that piece…
‘the ‘BBC black ops’ dept
working overtime just so people like him and the 1000 plus commenters can fall into the trap of
rubbishing the white scroungers and super breeders
while leaving the imported scroungers well alone. Also so the
sheeple can go on thinking we need them to pay our pensions and
keep our thick , lazy, workshy in benefits. ‘
I had thought it so grotesque that Jules was in fact making a point on the discinnect between those who think they are owed benefits, and those who they require to fund them (plus the BBC). Now… an laternative view. Plus, as Craig notices.. why closed within the day?
When it suits them the BBC describe Arab citizens of Israel as “of Palestinian origin” to push the Palestinian narrative. In this case, where there’s nastiness being perpetrated by said Arabs, the BBC makes it clear that they’re ISRAELIS.
Israeli-Arab couple charged with imprisoning daughter
Nasty Israelis, even when they’re Arabs, but the BBC is silent about the inumerable incidents of Palestinians behaving badly!
For example, not a peep about this:
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2012/01/fogel-massacre-postscript-lying-mother.html
The good thing about the BBC having Israel in the headline, despite it having nothing to do with them, is it empowers them to give these details, which if it was only a story about Palestinians would never appear:-
She said her father had threatened to rape her until she became pregnant if she tried to escape, and that he would then have used the pregnancy to accuse her of shaming the family and justify killing her. He regularly beat her with electric cables and sticks, and poured cold water on her when she asked for her mother, she added.
Arabs controlling others by any means, what Muslim refer to as ‘Honour’, and our BBC not delving too deeply into it lest it make us ‘Islamophobic’.
I’ve kept a copy of the webpage just in case this element ‘disappears’ from the story line.
The BBC failed to ask why did the Palestinian Authority hand them, clearly a criminal case, over to Israel?
Got my latest from the nice Newsnight producer about how Paul Mason was just joking (or something) in hius ‘report’. Will share when a moment presents.
Meanwhile, back at the cookie cutter…
Reference CAS-xxx
Thanks for contacting us about ‘Newsnight’ broadcast on 23 January.
We understand you felt the item on benefits was biased against the Government and included a number of comments from those who oppose their benefit reforms.
It may help in these replies in future to quote the complaint in question. Here, allow me:
YOUR COMPLAINT:
Complaint Summary: 3rd party commentary in support of one view
Full Complaint: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01b6700/Newsnight_23_01_2012/ We are treated to a ‘report’ by David Grossman that covers a fair spread on the matter of benefits, and this is ‘seeded’ with contributory ‘vox pops’ carefully selected, one presumes, to address all aspects of the story. 3.10 Paul Johnson – Institute of Fiscal Studies – http://whoslobbying.com/uk/institute_for_fiscal_studies – ‘It is politically independent’ – so one can accommodate there being no qualifier, though I do note: http://www.ifs.org.uk/news/92 – Paul Johnson and Mike Brewer members of Resolution Foundation ‘Commission on Living Standards’, launched on 28 February 2011, as… 5′.00″ We get that Resolution Foundation again, oddly allowed to mirror the sound bites of the Leader of the Opposition. Now these guys do warrant a qualification as to where they may be coming from, surely? It seems pretty packed with ex-Labour strategists who might feel are of a skewed political hue at best. No worthy of mention? We also get treated to bishops and knights, again of a certain view. Oddly, any counter not really offered, other than an airy reference to them by the reporter or a clip from Parliament. Post this rather ‘report’ we do get an interview (well, harangue), but based on a curious strawman argument emphasising executive pay, which is a different issue. I notice Mr. Paxman is less than impressed with Mr. Cable expressing ‘a jocular view’. Why then is this too often used in defence of BBC editors?
We’re committed to honest, unbiased reporting and are determined to remain free from influence by outside parties, whether political or lobbyists. We seek only to provide the information which will enable viewers to make up their own minds; to show the political reality and provide the forum for debate, giving full opportunity for all viewpoints to be heard.
Not sure what this has to do with anything, as it does not address the actual complaint; it is merely a (re)iteration of aims which, sadly, have long since been honoured only in the breach.
In dealing with any controversial matter the BBC is required to give a fair and balanced report.
Required, yes. However, this complaint was about failure in delivery.
Balance cannot simply be judged on the basis of the time allocated to the representatives of either side of an argument however. One spokesperson may make his or her points concisely while another needs rather longer to explain a point of view.
You have obviously not read, or understood the complaint; a common occurrence.
Account also needs to be taken of the way a subject is covered over a period of time; perfect balance is difficult to achieve on every single occasion while overall it is a more achievable goal.
Not sure I quite understand what you are trying to claim here. Surely you are not suggesting that a viewer needs to be aware of the totality of BBC output before the BBc feels one is entitled to be unsatisfied with elements of a single story? That is as farcical a notion as it is possible to imagine; all the more for being committed to print in expectation of being treated seriously as a response.
Nevertheless, we appreciate your feelings on the matter
You are welcome, though I would wish I had more confidence in the sincerity of the claim, given the substance of my complaint was patently paid no attention to in issuing a template attempted dismissal.
and would like to assure you that we’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.
I know what it is, just as I know it is done to tick a compliance box and no one reads it, or at least has the slightest intention of paying any attention, which is why these abuses persist.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Even when elevated to the plural, the value remains the same.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
Kind Regards
xx
NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.
I will, but may one ask, if rhetorically, why this is necessary, other to act as a further hurdle?
Ah, yes, the “You must consider the long-term context of our reporting on this issue” canard….sorry…defense. Yet the overall big picture of BBC reporting is equally biased. As long as they can avoid discussing that, they get away with it.
In the midst of a correspondence, you are suddenly told that you cannot reply to the address from which that person is writing to you! That’s downright rude. Who came up with that one and why did they think it is a polite or acceptable way to deal with people who pay their wages ?
Yes, this infuriates me too. They send you an e-mail completely off-point and then tell you you can’t reply. This means you need to go through the process of re-starting the complaint process to refer back to the previous correspondence. I presume part of the thinking is that a lot of people won’t bother and give up. It’s now almost four weeks since I had a holding acknowledgement of a complaint without a response.
It seems to me that the only response to complaints to the BBC is, essentially, a setting out of how much the BBC values complaints together with a recital of the BBC’s obligation to preserve balance. Addressing the actual complaint is either absent or met with the claim that, in the circumstances, the BBC “got it about right”. As such I have to say how much I admire MS (cte) and his fellow-complainants since they are doomed to wading through treacle to chase their tails while the BBC sails on regardless.
Well, one does on occasion score a real scalp, and cumulatively if they blow you off the archive for the county court looks awesome when I get dragged in for pulling the DD for them pulling my ability to hold them to account.
In many ways I think it does serve as much of a function to take the fight to them as sitting around the campfire here.
My random sampling techniques from the old days may well be needed again.
Have only tuned in to the BBC three times since last night.
1. The parents of some rioter were telling me that his actions were a ” political act”.
He is now at Salford Uni doing something related…a fine defence for the trial I`d guess.
This was followed immediately by Peter Hain from an earlier era, when he was a Young Liberal.
This morning-flicked on the radio and heard Alistair Darling…turned it off, and put it on twenty or so minutes later…blow me, it`s Shirley Williams!
So in a random twenty minute sample of Beeb output-radio and telly, I get wall-to-wall clapped out lefties.
It`s as if it`s forever 1968 or 1997 there at the BBC.
Surely this murder of old crows have homes to go to-and lots of them…so why the hell are they being hung up like old game and left to go rancid at the BBC?
Has any Tory a view on anything…and are the BBC actually asking them?…or are we past that now!
So many questions-so little time!
More distortions from Toenails, the report into the banking system had stated that the salaries of top bankers should be revealed but only if it’s an EU wide agreement, Red Ed didn’t say that, Toenails knows what the report says, so why didn’t Toenails point out that Red Ed was talking bollocks?
This is what pisses me off about the BBC, it’s shit reporting just so their hacks can keep in with their lefty mates.
Toenails failed to point out that in 13 years of power Labour did nothing on banker bonuses until it all went to rat shit and once again Gordon Brown’s name is MIA.
Toenails should have pointed out WHY Cameron said no, but as usual the BBC cherry pick the bits they like.
Someone having some fun at PennyRed’s expense…
Penny Laurie
BBC didn’t like my pitch for my own talk show…”A Penny For Your Thoughts”: me interviewing socialists. Too right wing for them apparently.
Follow here
It’s Poe’s Law in action folks – Really hard to distinguish between the REAL student Marxist comedy deployed by PennyRed without a hint of humour or irony – and this piss take version.
Tweet by Evan Davis re. an article by socialist Owen Jones (the young Guardianista who took part in the Starkey debate on Newsnight):
I genuinely was going to recommend this @OwenJones84 article even before I got to the bit where he quoted me:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/01/honours-system-britain-better-place?newsfeed=true
—
This charming article says that:
‘Instead of knighthoods for wealthy parasites, let’s have a new honour, which could be called Pillars of Society. The title would be pretty self-explanatory. Establishment types would be barred.’
I wonder if Mr Davis realises that that includes him…
Jeff
Well really what do you expect? Lefties HATE accomplishment. The British Empire – like the Roman – had the good point of introducing ideas like rule of law, representative government and indoor plumbing to people who were living in mud huts and long houses (I of course refer to the Celtic Brits!). As opposed to oh -say the Soviet Empire that exported social and economic ruin and genocide.
If you go round the Museum of London it shows a quite shocking cultural decline once the Romans left Britain. It took about a 1000 years to reach the same level again.
As for the Leftist hatred of achievement, the Left are profoundly sick, as I am sure even the more thoughtful members of the Left now recognise. The damage they have done (and are doing) is so great it is hard not to despair for the future. We are reverting back to baboons.
The bBC and its continuing whitewashing of the evil that Muslims do.
Freed Palestinian prisoners adapt to Qatar exile
As part of the deal to free the captured Israeli soldier Sgt Gilad Shalit last year, more than a 1,000 Palestinian prisoners were released from Israeli jails.The vast majority were allowed back into the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but 40 prisoners were forced to leave the region entirely, deemed by Israel to be a continuing security threat. The releases were enormously controversial in Israel, where some of the prisoners were seen as mass murderers. A two-bed flat not far from the cornice in Qatar’s capital, Doha, is now home for 47-year-old Ibrahim Shammasina from Ramallah.
His new living room is twice as large as the cell in the Israeli jail where he spent 19 years.”A minute of freedom is worth more than all the possessions in the world,” says Shammasina. “Prison, it’s a grave – as if you’re in a grave but still alive.” Shammasina was sentenced to 23 years in jail for his role in the 1990 murder of three Israelis and a further 20 years for planning a kidnapping. Despite spending almost half his life in prison, he does not regret his actions.
“When there is an occupation, you’re forced to,” he says. “It’s your duty, the duty of every Palestinian, to resist the occupation. If I didn’t resist, I would just have surrendered.”
So reading the above whom do you see as the victim?
47 year old Ibrahim Shammasina whom the bBC introduce as living in a house where his living room is twice the size of his cell, the same Ibrahim Shammasina who opines to the bBC that; “Prison, it’s a grave – as if you’re in a grave but still alive.”
The same Ibrahim Shammasina the bBC allows to say: Despite spending almost half his life in prison, he does not regret his actions.
The same Ibrahim Shammasina whom the bBC allow to finish his bitching by saying:“When there is an occupation, you’re forced to,” he says. “It’s your duty, the duty of every Palestinian, to resist the occupation.
According to the bbC this poor man was sentenced to 23 years in jail for his role in the 1990 murder of three Israelis and a further 20 years for planning a kidnapping.
Nice language from the bBC, don’t you think ,23 years for his role in the murder of 3 Israelis and another 20 years for planning a kidnap. Here is what the bBC don’t tell you about nice old Ibrahim Shammasina, taken from the IDF release papers:
Murdered Ronen Karamani, Lior Tubul, Rafi Doron and IDF soldier Yehoshua Friedberg.
4 murders, the bBC say 3. Lets look at the first two of those shall we:
JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir said Monday that Israel is “in an uproar” after the bodies of two Israeli youths, bound, beaten and stabbed, were found earlier in the day in a ravine just north of Jerusalem. The two youths, Ronen Karamani, 18, and Lior Tubul, 17, were last seen Saturday night at the close of the Jewish holy day when friends dropped them off on a main road leading north from Jerusalem. They had said they intended to hitchhike to the home of Tubul’s girlfriend, who lives in the northern suburb of Givat Zeev and was about to leave on vacation in Eilat. When the two youths did not arrive, police were notified, and search parties were organized. Helicopters, trained dogs and professional trackers took part in the search. About 1:30 p.m. Monday, searchers found the bodies about 20 yards apart in a ravine off the road. One bore about 50 stab wounds, witnesses said, and the other’s skull had been bludgeoned.
The third killing was of taxi driver Rafi Doron and the forth killing (which the bBC calls a kidnapping) was the kidnapping and murder of Pvt. Yehoshua Friedberg.
And the bbC has the neck to start this apologetic drival towards a mass murderer by trying to claim:
“The releases were enormously controversial in Israel, where some of the prisoners were seen as mass murderers.”
And then they have the balls to end with:
All the exiles’ costs in Doha are being paid by the Qatari government. Most of the prisoners are learning to drive, and hope to secure jobs and education…. Shammasina is also looking to study as well as resume a fledgling cooking career he had before imprisonment. Both deny that they are a security threat to Israel. Their fervent hope is that the Israelis will one day agree and allow them to return to the West Bank.
Ah nothing like the cries of a mass murderer in which to get the wankers at the bBC shouting out’” Foul Play”
You’re right pounce, this is a bit sick; why do they feel the need to report about this at all, what about an indepth article about the Israeli Sgt Gilad Shalit, which to me would seem far more appropriate. Needless to say the link to ‘Released Palestinian prisoners are heroes’ (note get out of gaol free stealth quotes) tells you all you need to know about the BBC and where their interest lies.
Glad to hear the Analysis programme on Radio 4 is looking into a new condition called “excited delerium”.
Apparently those who die in police cells and locked wards in the USA are getting this as “cause of death”.
Cue general grumpiness from civil rights lobbies and relatives-“cop out”, “not a medical condition”, condones “police-based murder”.
The left don`t like it one bit-unlike ADHD, ODD and all those other fatuous labels that excuse kids assaulting teachers, or rioters wanting a blue badge when they leave school.
Which presumably ARE “scientifically valid”.
How long before any druggie will be able to claim this diagnosis-got a nice ring to it…”E.D”-hasn`t?
I`ll not being alone in being sick of E.D already…another syndrome “imported from the USA”…I blame Obama!
In the BBC article on the Florida election Mitt Romney is described as “a private equity tycoon, Mormon and former Massachusetts governor –“
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16839184
I decided to refresh my memory about what the BBC said about another wealthy presidential candidate – John Kerry. While hinting at privilege (“His father was a diplomat and the family was often on the move. John Kerry went to a boarding school in Switzerland, to a top private school in New Hampshire and then to Yale, where he studied political science…”) in Paul Reynolds profile of John Kerry, his net worth is never mentioned.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3003306.stm
I guess for the BBC, Democrat tycoons (Rep. Jane Harman worth about $244.7 million; Sen. Herb Kohl worth about $214.5 million; Sen. Mark Warner worth about $209.7 million and poor old Kerry is only worth about $208.8 million).don’t count.
And what has “Mormon” got to do with it? Was the BBC’s favorite candidate John Huntsman ever tagged as a Mormon? What about Senators Harry Reid of Nevada; Mike Crapo of Idaho; Mike Lee of Utah; Tom Udall of New Mexico And for the record, Mormons in the House of Representatives include: Rob Bishop of Utah; Jason Chaffetz of Utah; Jeff Flake of Arizona; Dean Heller of Nevada; Wally Herger of California; Raul Labrador of Idaho; Jim Matheson of Utah; Buck McKeon of California; and Mike Simpson of Idaho..
Thr fact that Romney was the former Massachusetts Governor is relevant. It points to a political record to test him on.
(I am not a member of LDS or a Romney supporter. It just galls me to see agenda reporting.)
Next time the BBC tells you you’re a bigot for worrying that an influx of new residents is transforming your neighborhood, remind them of this cute magazine piece:
How gentrification transformed a Brooklyn neighborhood
I looked in Greenpoint for a place to live when I first came to New York, and know what is like before this. Not so safe subway trips, poorly maintained streets, tiny cockroach-infested apartments going for the same rate larger, cleaner places were in northern Manhattan. Now things are cleaner and safer, and more competitively priced, but – oh, the humanity – the ethnics are being overwhelmed, and the BBC scowls. But it’s really about the evil white middle class (the Poles are white, yes, but they’re immigrants so are cool until the second generation) coming in. According to BBC received wisdom, some people are allowed to move into a neighborhood and take it over, while others are not. It all depends on one’s point of view.
I remember an episode of Question Time some years ago, featuring Bonnie Greer. There was a question about the possibility of ‘zero tolerance’ policies being brought to the UK to deal with the growing violence, knife crime and general anti-social behaviour that plagues certain areas of London and other major cities. Of course, Bonnie was horrified at the mere suggestion. She claimed that Mayor Giuliani’s zero tolerance policies had stripped all of the vibrant culture and excitement from parts of New York and replaced it with general blandness and sterility.
If that culture of vibrance and excitement includes rape, prostitution, gangland violence, drug dealing, muggings, graffiti and general urban decay….then I’d happily swap it for the blandness of civility, cleanliness, safe streets, pleasant cafes and restaurants and anything else that would come under the banner of ‘gentrification’.
This further demonstrates the point made in the fantastic article linked to by John Horne Tooke(thanks again) on a previous thread, that explains why the new Liberal Left will ALWAYS end up supporting wrong over right, and that which leads to failure rather than success.
What a great find. Thanks David. Talk about laugh! I especially loved the Polish Delicatessan owner bemoaning the good old days when there were only illegals living there…”now they are all (pause) artists”.
You know, its the sort of place BBC producers would have never gone near – till now. I bet – I bet – I bet the item was made by a Beeboid who has just moved into the area.
The past two weeks or so, the bias has increased and been seen on almost every aspect of the bBC. It is almost as if a secret order has been issued by the bBC masters; Labout HQ. Is it because Militwat is having such a bad time, that deflection tactics are needed. To discredit the coalition on every issue so as to make Militwat look as if he is suceeding.
INBBC’s Crusade for Islam.
Islam Not BBC (INBBC)’s ‘Crusade’ against the the West and Christianity continued tonight in the INBBC 2 hypocritical propaganda series, ‘The Crusades’.
After censoring out the centrality of ISLAMIC IMPERIALISM, which was expanded by Islamic jihad violence and persecution from the 7th century onwards in Asia, Africa and Europe, the propagandist for INBBC and Islam, Mr ASBRIDGE concluded his series tonight by holding ex-President Bush to blame for using the word ‘crusade’ to describe a necessary response to the Islamic jihad murderers of 9/11! This is exactly what many Muslims do.
An interview with Prof Karsh on his book, ‘Islamic Imperialism’
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=4555
Yes I thought that bit was rather pathetic, as if somehow after the murder of 3,000 of it’s citizens George Bush was supposed to be all ‘sympathetic’ to these butchers.
Presumably no one should ever mention Boudica if there are any Italians around either?
A case of BBC ‘Having their cake and eating it too’.
It’s well chronicled here about the BBC blame for all the countries evils on the bankers, which inspires the B-lame B-ankers C-onspiracy epithet for much of their reporting. This of course runs concurrently with the anti-Tory bias, making it B-lame B-ankers and C-onservatives.
So what happens when the Tory’s do something AGAINST the bankers?
I just caught a few minutes of the Today programme on R4 today to hear the drift of the BBC portraying the fact of the former head of RBS, Fred Goodwin, being stripped of his knighhood as an ‘overreaction and negative move by Cameron, done only to vainly appeal to public opinion for the mess the country is in’ – or words to that effect. They even had Jackie Stewart, a friend of Goodwin, to jerk tears from listeners over this act. I read later that Stewart had also been on the BBC last night with a similar theme, so they knew exactly what they were going to get with him.
Sure enough when I read the BBC article on the subject the headline tells exactly the tack that the BBC are following with this story
Fred Goodwin knighthood ‘hysteria’ criticised
I mean they could have highlighted the jubilation that many BBC brainwashed listeners would have felt following YEARS of demonisation that the BBC have instilled in them about it. Not to mention the host of personalities who live to promote any line the BBC wants to follow to pursue their own celebrity status. But the BBC having already achieved a victory on the issue, can use it to attack the Conservatives again.
EGYPT: massacre at Port Said football stadium.
INBBC, of course, acts as propagandist for Muslim Brotherhood on this-
“Egypt football violence leaves many dead in Port Said”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16845841
In contrast, here is ‘Daily Mail’ report:
“‘This is not football, this is a war and people are dying’: More than 70 dead and 1,000 injured after pitch invasion in Egypt”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2095070/Violent-clashes-following-Egyptian-football-match-kill-73-injure-1-000.html#ixzz1lArlHzHX
“The BBC’s distortion of the truth helps Putin suppress his critics”
(by Peter OBORNE)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/9055097/The-BBCs-distortion-of-the-truth-helps-Putin-suppress-his-critics.html
Oborne doesn’t seem to realize that many Beeboids long for the return of the Soviet Union. These modern-day Walter Duranty’s never bought into the idea that Communism is doomed to failure. To them, it’s a beautfiul ideology which has just never been done properly. Putin is no Stalin, see, and he’s going to get it right this time.
The thing is, saying that Putin has resurrected elements of the Soviet Era isn’t necessarily criticism or praise. It’s a fair assessment of what he’s been trying to do, I think. If it makes him look good in the eyes of his supporters, you can’t really say the BBC shouldn’t report things his opponents don’t want to hear.
The only part of Oborne’s piece I think is worth highlighting is the bit at the end where he discusses a classic example of BBC censorship, regarding the political assassination of Litivenko, and claims that Moscow Beeboids don’t like to report bad things about Putin and his government. What a shock, eh? How very much like the behavior of the US bureau. I wonder how many US stories have been suppressed?
To me, that’s far more important than fretting about some documentary rehashing old news at an inopportune moment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/careers/why-join-us/diversity vomit
Barff!!
Incidentally, you need javascript and Flash enabled to enjoy the full benefits of this diversity diatribe 😉
What hypocrisy. The BBC doesn’t worry about diversity when lauding new hires like these and last year’s new media competition winners, not to mention all those hideously white young people they hired for the US.
Why Britain is stuffed: an unintentional masterclass courtesy of the BBC- http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100134365/why-britain-is-stuffed-an-unintentional-masterclass-courtesy-of-the-bbc/
This is a hoot. No car and no annual vacation is the definition of economic hardship is it? Cutting down on the tobacco products and lager and not to mention eliminating the mobiles ought to cover the reduction.
The bBC cry fest for Islam continues:
Muslim America moves away from the minaret
In post 9/11 America the construction of new mosques in the US has sometimes sparked controversy and even confrontation. Is that why some new Muslim houses of worship are being built without the most recognisable features of Islamic architecture – minarets and domes? “It’s a bad time for Islamic architecture,” says Mr Ahmed, former Pakistani ambassador to the UK.If there was some visionary with money who wanted to build the Taj Mahal in the US, he’d be attacked as a stealth Jihadist.”………. Communities need mosques that can provide services to an aging population and offer a welcoming environment to a younger generation of Muslim Americans, particularly women, he says…….When the Prophet Muhammad created his first mosque in Medina, his house was attached to the mosque,” she says. “Women were invited to come and pray in that mosque – men and women together. “When they renovated the Medina mosque they created one space, but women just tended to be shifted out. The same thing happened in Byzantine architecture. In churches they didn’t necessarily include women and if they did, women were up in the balcony area. That vocabulary filtered into Islamic architecture.”……The Muslim community is feeling very much under siege, he says.
“I understand why Muslims would be very reluctant or hesitant to make a mosque that looks like a traditional mosque, which they could have done comfortably in the USA a few decades ago,” he says………But I would resist encouraging Muslim communities to dispense with them from fear, but to do it because it’s good design to come up with modern forms. I would advance the notion of designing new and modern mosques without these two elements, but not to conceal their identity.”
So according to the bBC, Muslims fear about knocking out traditinal moosques becasue they are the new jews. You know those mosques which are open to all communities (really>) and do read about how the reason why Women get a raw deal inside mosgues is simply down those nasty christians did it first…Wow. and they end with it is a sin for Muslims to hide.
Maybe the bBC should walk down any high st in the western world where ninjas and men with baggy trousers walk down the street. Funny enough Muslims have a much easier time in Western countries than non-muslims do in Islamic ones.
Perhaps the more intelligent muslims are getting the message the beeboids can’t/won’t accept: us Infidels are sick to the back teeth of Islamic encroachment, & its attendant, sycophantic, media handjobs, & would be delighted to see it, not only stopped in its tracks, but turned back to where it belongs: the harsh, unforgiving, mind-numbing, intellectual desert of the 7th century. ‘British’ muslims can have all the traditional mosques they want – providing they’re underwater. The deepest regions of the North Sea come to mind. They can take all ‘Allah’s little helpers’ with them for company. That would deal with BBC overstaffing. Glug, glug.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9055183/BBC-admits-receiving-millions-in-grants-from-EU-and-councils.html
Newsnight & Panorama’s production meeting choices will be interesting, if mainly for what they don’t choose to cover vs. what they suddenly get obsessed about in distraction.
Yes, BBC-NUJ-Labour is in bed with the European Union, as ‘Biased-BBC’ has correctly said many, many times.
[Excerpt from ‘Telegraph’ piece]:
“The news comes after questions have been raised about the uncritical tone of the BBC’s coverage of the EU. In 2010, Jonathan Charles, the BBC’s former Brussels correspondent, admitted he and the BBC had got carried away by the launch of the Euro currency in 2002.
“He said: ‘Even now, I can remember the great air of excitement. It did seem like the start of a new era… for a few brief days, I suppose I and everyone else suspended their scepticism and got caught up in that euphoria.”
“An analysis by Eurosceptic thinktank Global Britain found that over the past six years, just 0.04 per cent of the coverage on Radio Four’s flagship Today programme was devoted to the potential benefits of withdrawing from the EU.”
So the BBC trust tells Radio 5 to put more news into their shows and I turn on the radio and hear the god awful Rachel Burden prattling on about her ‘partner’s underpants and game show Nikki getting rather aroused on air continually talking about Beckham’s underwear.
Now the phone in is about homophobia in football or something. Yet why didn’t they make the phone in about Pikey’s smuggling men to Europe as slaves? Is that NOT a real news story? I notice Radio 5 spent more time saying sorry and that most travellers (Pikeys to you and me) are not like this at all.
Any decent news organisation would treat this as a serious story but instead we get Beckham’s underwear instead
Yes hardcore news from Radio 5….not.
From the US, Ace of Spades notices that Spooks is just a little biased – also, terrible:
Episode one is apparently about an arch-Christian American fundamentalist who smuggles twenty bombs into England to blow up “family planning” offices.
This one has an awesome title which someone really s t r e t c h e d his writerly craft for– Thou Shalt Not Kill.
This is where someone at the writer’s table is supposed to say “Bit on the nose, isn’t it?” but didn’t.
http://minx.cc/?post=326338
They’re coming up with possible future episodes in the comments, like this:
Evil capitalist junk-food corporation coordinates bombing campaign against crusading journalist/lawyers seeking to expose their evil obesity-causing non-organic treats.
Title: A Fridge Too Far
“This is where someone at the writer’s table is supposed to say “Bit on the nose, isn’t it?” but didn’t.”
Probably because none of the Spooks episodes ever had titles assigned to them by the UK production team – see the BBC’s old Spooks website, which was retired in 2009 but goes up to series 6.
It’s possible that somebody responsible for overseas marketing assigned episode titles to each story – but that person would have been a long way away from the writers’ table.
Blimey, amazing the paucity of what can tempt an ex-bunker outing.
Noticing more and more the number of times there appears a ‘gap’ in communication between what authors wish and what gets added by subs.
Rarely does this end with both agreeing they didn’t communicate and/or fell down on serving the public, rather one pointing at the other and airily inferring that makes it all about right.
Not sure that is always the case, or an excuse.
Happens a lot, mind, especially on the Graun and… related media.
Thank-you for putting us right Scott.
Now get back in your box !
Ace forgot to mention that they changed the title to MI-5 because in the 1950s “spooks” was a derogatory term for black people. Hardly anybody involved in the show was even born then, never mind grew up hearing the term used regularly, but presumably the people at Discovery Communications (BBC Worldwide’s distribution partner) saw one of the bad white guys call the good black man that in “Back to the Future”.
Unfortunately the acronyms of the CIA and FBI are, how can I put it, less than flattering ?
‘Spooks’ is a new one on me… and doesn’t make a lot of sense at that since ‘spooks’ are traditionally invisibly or mistily white. I’ve seen ‘Darkies’, ‘Tarbabies’, ‘Mud People’, ‘Apes’, ‘Monkeys’ and of course the infamous ‘N-word’ which is so poisonous it can’t even be written but ‘Spooks’? Never.
“Ace forgot to mention that they changed the title to MI-5 because in the 1950s “spooks” was a derogatory term for black people.”
David Preiser is being is accurate as ever – not at all, in other words.
Spooks was renamed in the States because it was felt the term was more closely assoicated with the CIA.
“Spooks was renamed in the States because it was felt the term was more closely assoicated with the CIA.”
errr…because CIA are US spooks they think the audience won’t understand the series is about UK spooks? Really? Can you back that up Scott?
From http://www.bbcentertainment.com/asia/programmes/spooks/spooks-facts/
“In the UK, it’s called Spooks but in America, where the word ‘spooks’ is more readily associated with the CIA, the series was renamed MI5. Also, the hour-long episodes were re-edited to fit a 45-minute time-slot.”
Is there a single metaphor for low-hanging fruit being flogged to death?
And Scott, why is it that when reading your input into this cerebral exchange can I not get the image of Gareth from The Office out of my head?
And that’s the UK version of The Office btw, before you tell me that Gareth was changed to Hank or something for the US audience.
“Is there a single metaphor for low-hanging fruit being flogged to death?”
Ah, the “low-hanging fruit” cliche – always the first thing tripped out by slow-witted Biased BBC commenters whenever they don’t like anybody disagreeing with them. Bless.
Reality Radio? Dame Nicky has now found his vocation leading the BBC’s relentless quest for Britain’s first gay footballer.
As a refugee from Radio 4’s descent to across the board leftism (from news to drama to the weather forcast) I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
What really bothers me is Campbell’s attitude and open bias. There is absolutely no question in his mind that this is the burning question of the day and that the role of his phone-in is not debate but education. When his contributors make approved comments we get “….correct answer….” and “….well you’ve got a very good record on this….’
It is a basic tenet of unwritten BBC PC policy that all institutions are ‘homophobic’ and ‘institutionally racist’ and need to be constantly challenged and pushed into a different shape.
There are no convincing arguments and the uniform fall back answer to criticism of the latest PC posturing is ‘well this is 2012!’ As if all that is required to establish truth is reference to the latest shared groupthink. And of course that is exactly what is going on here.
Stop the BBC before we are dragged further down into this madness.
Dame Nikita should take his pro-gay crusade into the real bastions of homophobia. There’s still an excellent A&E in Tower Hamlets. Don’t know if they can stick heads back on shoulders though.
Until a gay player does come out, can I produce a shortlist of players given to either “dressing flamboyantly” or for grabbing bits of other blokes.
1. Vinne Jones
2. Neil Ruddock
3. Keith Weller
4. Dwight Yorke
5. Mark Bosnich.
Do you think that the BBC could allow us a vote on who best might serve Fashanus niece in getting another show ,revealing Gay Player of the Year.
No women on the Sports Personality of the Year eh?…no gays or sex-changes yet either…any player died in Egypt who might wish for BBC Immortality I wonder?
Doesn`t have to be true of course…it IS the BBC after all!
Saw this young lady on SKY, who are equally slow news in bigging up her single-handed mission to trash her family and ‘expose’ any poor sod out there who may not feel like coming out, for whatever personal, private, reasons, no matter how they might feel about it.
I see this silly bint like the Sutherland character at the end of ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’, walking around Sportsperson of the Year pointing at folk and screeching ‘(Possibly) gay!!!!!!’ as Laurie Penny covers the butch end of the room.
Winner of most closet exposures gets a full timer on Newsnight mentored by Paul Mason.
Who… flippin’… cares?
I notice this link has been posted above but it is a good one…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/9055097/The-BBCs-distortion-of-the-truth-helps-Putin-suppress-his-critics.html
“As The Guardian correspondent Luke Harding records in his recent book, Mafia State, “the BBC Moscow bureau in particular is extremely reluctant to report on stories that might offend the Kremlin”.
No change there then.
Fearless BBC reporters pandering to dictators? That’s unpossible:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/may/02/broadcasting.thetimes
Unpossible indeed:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidblair/3631361/The_BBCs_Gaddafi_lovein/
Just flicked in and out of some Beeb girlie out in Vienna telling us about where her money goes….into Viennese cafes!
So we get the old Nancy Mitford stuff about the right kind of coffee shop.
Are we all to be elitist now again?
Still we pay for her “melanges”-and it keeps Kate Adie from having to get back out and see something that might be newsworthy….need only get an Oystercard that covers Tower Hamlets Kate!
But my point?…well Bethany in Vienna tells me there`s a favourite cafe she goes to that “Leon Trotsky” used to drink in…how spiffing, how rebellious…you go girl!
She didn`t say where Jorge Heider goes for his coffees…but he has not killed as many people, has he Beth old girl?
Still- maybe she can tell us where Hitler went to keep warm when HE was planning his worst…or is that the “wrong kind of rebel yell” as decreed Bethany and her dumb waiters that keep her gabbing?
What are the odds, huh?
Jeremy Whine show is featuring a segment about gay footballers.
Kind of like Dame Nikki did.
And that show with St Justin the Martyr’s niece.
Clearly, anyone who senses an agenda is a right-wing wacko.
This gay footballer lark is really getting beyond a joke. Of course it is a win-win situation for the happy Beeboids – when some poor sap does eventually respond to their encouragements and put his head over the parapet, then our licence paid stormtroopers for PC can get all up in arms about the inevitable banter their new hero will get from rival footie crowds and rival players. Then the FA/PC Plod can be shamed into action against these ‘hate crimes’. Social engineering all at the tax payer’s expense.
Next the BBC will be telling us that this “gay” thing has been going on for some time in synchronised swimming.
And for once they might be onto something, so long as they leave ladies beach volley ball to the imagination.
I thought it was interesting that there was a bloke who called in to Dame Nikki this morning say he had a problem sharing showers with a gay man, of course Dame Nikki and his other lefty guest didn’t like this one bit, what gets me is why the BBC seem to think there is no debate to be had on this, why do so many gay people feel the need to tell us of their homosexuality? I know I work with gay people but I’m not bothered, but I really don’t want to hear about their sexual exsploits just as I’m not interested in hearing some straight bloke go on about how many ‘birds’ he shagged at the weekend.
The fact a straight man might have an issue sharing a shower with a gay man is a reasonable issue, just as expecting a woman to share the same showers as men is a reasonable objection.
The problem with the BBC is homosexuality is the norm, almost everyone seems to be gay, yet in the general population homosexuality is probably under 1%.
I know that the average gay beeboids utlimate wet dream is to shower with aq load of other men, but do we really need this crap thrown at us 24/7? What next a gay BBC channel?
that HE might be uncomfortable showering with gay footballers/intimidated if it was a gay football team, and what about HIS possible intimidation, his perceived upset,
your right mart, surprise surprise he was completely vilified, but you know …
who has to have paramount acceptance?
virtually the number, on deegree of upset?
whose intimidation/upset has to take precedence?
who plays god so to speak?
oh the slippery slope of the offence/phobia industry eh
el beeb – anyone but joe ordinary again
The BBC are also having a go at the current government over this bloke employed to administer student fees and his ‘tax scam’.
Now the BBC’s attitude has been interesting, most people who are self employed or work for more than one company will not be on PAYE, instead they will be on a contract and often put money through a company and then sort out thier tax from then, that makes it easier to administer.
Also, in the case of this bloke he doesn’t get the benefits that a permanent employee woulde if he’s on a short term contact, like say pension rights,
What I find interesting is how many beeboids are in the same position? For example we know that Clarkson and co are but they won’t be the only ones, lots of beeboids work for other broadcasters so I suspect many of them do exactly the same.
Be interesting to do a FOI to find out, I also notice the BBC don’t seem interested in finding out if this went on under Labour, which of course it will have done.
But hey as we know the Tories have been in power since 1979 and Labour never did hold power for 13 years.
One of the DGs was outed for doing similar, I think. Was it Birt who had a contract for services rather than a contract of employment? Not sure but I have a feeling of deja vu about this, involving some DG.
Some of the Beeboid presenters are definitely not employees. Jonathan Dimbleby is one such who is freelance.
It was indeed, the droids’ droid, John Birt.
But give The jeremy Paxman Show a break, someone you’ve never heard of in charge of a department you’ve never heard of with a *gasp* service contract: it’s the nearest they’re going to get to a scoop all year.
I don’t suppose Beeb favourite, Mad Jock McMad, was featured. I believe his earnings from his Very Important Overseas Speeches go straight into ‘The Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown’ without troubling the taxman.
I can’t see how this guy wouldn’t be caught under IR35. In which case he would be paying tax and NIC. So what’s the fuss?
Typical lefty beeboid twat reporting on Radio 5. Some bell end was reporting from a gypsy site where the local residents had also set up a camp.
Camp beeboid was very sneering st protesters (obviously white and middle class) “you’ve been told to get rid of your camp” sneered beeboid.
But same beeboid went on to defend pikey scum by saying that “they need somewhere to live” and hinted that protesters were not being fair.
All I can say to the gypsy community is the BBC own lots of land, Radio 5 clearly believe you have a right to live where you like so go see what the BBC will offer you.
I too am dismayed and outraged that no gay footballers dare show their faces.
MOTD have a duty then to accredit at least half their talking heads as “gay friendly”, if they won`t actually let Tatchell “out them”-which is both necessary and cathartic.
And until the FA/League declare themselves to be “gay compliant”…maybe a lace wristband or trim on shorts…I ,for one,
want to remove football coverage from the BBC; until the affirmative quotes for gay players and pundits has been achieved.
And if this homophobic footy isn`t enough in itself-the Egyptian match provides us with our excuse to ban football from telly and Olympiad until suitable health and safety/risk assessments have been carried out.
Well worth a few months silence as we think of all those members of the UEFA family who died for this homophobic and violent game.
Come on Beeb…show a lead,eh?
Could it just be gay footballers don’t want their sexuality paraded around by the BBC and lefty media?
It never occurs to the BBC that some homosexuals are just not interested in using their sexuality as a battering ram on the views of society, we know the BBC love to wheel out anyone who comes out as gay to speak on any subject, Owen Jones for example who is just another useless left wing prick, but a homosexual, so for some reason the BBC feel his opinions are more worthy.
Islamic Republic of PAKISTAN, enemy of the West.
Islam Not BBC (INBBC) makes no connection between two of its reports:
1.)
“Pakistan helping Afghan Taliban – Nato”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16821218
2.)
“Pakistan gets trade waiver for European Union markets”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16848556
“Downton Abbey” we are told by the BBC has become a cult hit in the US.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16731254
Strange, I thought. The BBC plugging an ITV show? What could be the reason for this?
The sources for this article are the left wing website Salon, the left wing TV channel MSNBC, the left wing “US-based British historian” Simon Sharma writing in the left wing Daily Beast, and the TV critic of left wing Washington Post. Schama attacked it for “glossing over the harsher realities of life in Edwardian times and pandering to a clichéd view of the English upper classes, but this may translate into easy escapism for some fans.”
I think the BBC’s sniffy response to the success of ‘Downton Abbey” are rooted in two impulses: jealousy (Downton crushed their own “Upstairs Downstairs” revival) and politics.
But here’s the little sentence hidden away in the article that reveals the real agenda of this story. It’s a quote from Los Angeles-based comedian and actor Mike Still: “The Occupy movement and President Obama’s attacks on income inequality have made many Americans think about the wealth gap for the first time, I think people really commiserate and identify with the Downton Abbey staff, because I think everybody feels like is this where we are going, in terms of an economy where the rich are this much richer than the poor.”
Aha!
WOW! That last bit by Mr. Still is about as desperate and tenuous a link to an agenda as I’ve seen. So viewers aren’t captivated by Downton Abbey because its just a well crafted, escapist period drama, but are actually drawn to it as a commentary on the parallels they see in modern America in regard to the 1% vs 99% narrative and the call for ̶a̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶o̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶e̶r̶m̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶O̶b̶a̶m̶a̶ greater social justice.
As you imply, Louis, it’s all thoroughly contrived.
The show is marketed here as being about a family in the twilight of the landed gentry era, so it probably was written with class war in mind. But the audience doesn’t necessarily have to identify with the poor and downtrodden for them to enjoy it. I think Misfits is hilarious, and watch it regularly, but not because I identify with any of the silly characters.
But class war is a BBC obsession.
“That last bit by Mr. Still is about as desperate and tenuous a link to an agenda as I’ve seen”
By Louis, you mean? Yes. After all, he describes the whole as a “sniffy response” when it’s anything but. And singles out that comment, when the piece also includes far more that suggest people are enjoying the portrayal of upper class English life for what it is.
Nt exactly atypical for Biased BBC to misrepresent an article so blatantly, really…
Christ Scott, I thought I had told you to go back in your box.
If that’s the best you can do when I’m not looking, then I will have to consider paying for you to be put down.
Bring Dez along, I might get a discount.
As you can see in my comment, the bit you copied and pasted, I referred specifically to a particular part of the article, not the article as a whole. I maintain that it’s a ‘desperate and tenuous‘ link to the Occupiers by Mr. Still, which of course the BBC couldn’t help but include in their article, such is their ongoing obsession with this dying movement.
I think you’ve rather misrepresented my comment.
…and which you used to portray the article as if it pointed in a direction you didn’t agree with, ignoring the fact that it’s just one of a wide range of views. It’s a common tactic on Biased BBC, because it appeals to the limited intelligence of the average commenter on here.
Nope – I just pointed to the contrived nature of that one particular part of the article. I didn’t make any reference to the overall direction of the article as a whole. You imagined I did.
“I didn’t make any reference to the overall direction of the article as a whole. You imagined I did.”
Forgive me – when you said that that particular quote “reveals the real agenda of this story”, I should have known you’d dispute that very shortly afterwards.
@Scott – No, again you’ve read into my comment what you wished to see. From my original post :
WOW! That last bit by Mr. Still is about as desperate and tenuous a link to an agenda as I’ve seen.
That refers not to the agenda of the article, but to the agenda that is the Occupy movement. This is fairly clear, as is the fact that I was referring only to one part of the story, not the whole. Nowhere did I claim that anything “reveals the real agenda of this story“. If you’re going to refute our claims on this blog, at least do it on the basis of what we actually post.
I try to keep it civil, no need for the ad homs.
Reed – my apologies: I did indeed conflate your and Louis’ attitudes last night, partly because they are so similar.
And nice to know you care about “ad homs”. Bit surprising that you don’t seem so concerned about such things when they’re flung at other people. But then, if you applied the same standard across the board you’d stick out like a sore thumb on Biased BBC, where hypocrisy is worn as a badge of honour.
Scott – No problem. Apology accepted, anyway.
As far as the ‘ad homs’ go, I do try to refrain from abuse when referring to an individual poster, and hope that respondents return in kind. Not that I mind the robust language often on display here, I just prefer not to offend my fellow commenters. It’s just my approach, others have their own.
However, when not referring directly to posters on this blog, there’s far less need for PC niceties.
Reed… tx for that entertaining, and satisfying start to my Friday.
A wee while ago there was a thread devoted to one of the cherry vulture flock’s latest outings, which I at first thought was simply feeding the troll, but now would suggest is perfect location to move all subsequent birds of a feather masterpieces of foot-shooting and other repetitive pain self-inflicted injuries.
I’m not surprised with you Scott M – but –
“..limited intelligence of the average commenter on here.”
Once again your wrong, however :
Would you be so kind as to tell us, apart fom myself, who is the most stupid ?
Would you be so kind as to tell us who is the most wise ?
And will you share with us when your obsession with trivia finally comes to a satisfactory conclusion ?
“Would you be so kind as to tell us, apart fom myself, who is the most stupid ?”
Nice for you to take yourself out of the equation: I realise there’d be no competition if you were included.
Thicko here,
And I await with bated breath for you to answer my last two points sweetheart.
EGYPT, Port Said massacre: INBBC supports Muslim Brotherhood still-
“Egypt football riot: Port Said officials sacked”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16848473
Mark Mardell is pushing the latest White House line of defense (actually it’s a retread of one we hear every presidential election year, but this is his first one, so it’s new to him):
Can you buy an election in the US
The US President editor is regurgitating the argument he’s learned from his fellow travellers in the far-Left media that it’s bad for democracy if so many people are allowed to spend money on election ads. The line is that only the rich (read: Koch Bros., but do NOT mention Soros) can afford this, and the little guy doesn’t get a say.
It’s of course a load of BS, because the President has nearly the entire national US media in His pocket. Except for Fox News and a few radio talking heads, they’re all going to support Him again, just like they did in 2008. The Left also controls Hollywood, and no amount of Koch Bros. cash can make up for the amount of partisanship we’re going to get from every late night talk show and Saturday Night Live and St. Jon Stewart and the New York Times and the Posts Washington and Huffington and NPR and every celebutard given a minute of air time.
But never mind that, Mardell has an angle to push, to make you question whether or not his beloved Obamessiah will be getting a fair shake in November. That’s all he and his cohorts are really interested in. The latest crap I’m hearing is that the election will be really close and that the President might win the popular vote but lose the actual electoral vote. Which means stand by for yet another round of Stolen Election nonsense.
Of course, Mardell forgot to tell you that Candidate Obamessiah had raised more money in 2008 than anyone in history. Was the BBC worrying about rich people buying elections then? Funny how Mardell is acting as if this is all new.
What’s really galling about Mardell’s piece, though, is the way he wrings his hands over how nasty it’s going to get. As if the President hasn’t been striking a vicious partisan attack tone since He took office. Of course, Mardell and his colleagues have never told you about President “I won”, or how the Republicans “want to turn back the clock” on women’s rights, or “punish our enemies”. And they always seemed to report on His class war attacks on “millionaires and billionaires” as if it’s a good thing.
Anybody following BBC hacks on Twitter will know that
the super PAC/negative ad narrative is going to be the BBC’s big thing this year – unless, of course, Obama’s negative ads help him in the polls more than Romney’s, in which case that side of things will drop way down the editorial agenda. Yesterday when Joe Scarborough pointed out that Obama ’08 ran more 30-second negative ads than any other presidential candidate in history, and that the media covered for him over it, one of his Obama-supporting guests suddenly decided he didn’t like the term “negative ads”. Likewise the BBC won’t be so keen on highlighting super PACs, campaign money and negative ads if the polls show Obama is winning that battle; if Romney leads in the polls then you can guarantee that the BBC’s Obama-supporting journalists will be moaning about little else.
“3. Scott0962
1ST FEBRUARY 2012 – 22:55
Can you buy an election in the U.S.? Shall we talk about candidate Obama’s unprecedented level of campaign spending, his refusal to take Federal matching funds which freed him from campaign spending limits, or that he broke another precedent by having a full time campaign staff the entire four years he’s been in office? Apparently someone believes an election can be bought.”
Currently on -3 votes!
Clearly worried by new spending so needs to hamstring the GOP candidates( see image)
Intrestingly, the New Statesman is on the BBC’s case, with quite the opposite complaint often seen here. Although the posters there agree on how difficult it is to complain to the BBC.
I think it’s fair to say the Beeb are not very good at this impartiality lark. Maybe it is as much journalistic incompetance as it is the number of Guardian-readers being hired.
Complaints from the left on BBC bias tend to come from far-left groups accusing them of being too close to the establishment, so this breaks the pattern
Which is perfect fodder for the BBC to claim that they get it about right because they get complaints from both sides. Without qualifying and quantifying those complaints, though, it’s impossible to tell.
That’s right, the BBC get 100 complaints 99 from people saying the BBC is biased to the left and one from a lefty loon spaced out on smack accusing the BBC of being full of Tories.
The BBC then claim that as they get complaints from both sides that means they are fair and balanced.
The BBC must think we’re dumb.
I am afraid the ‘we must be getting about right’ average is not credible.
It is like having your feet blackening of frostbite in the freezer and your head in the oven and claiming all is healthy in between.
Liked the first comment on the BBC’s odd priority sets:
‘correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t ‘burn a fed’ mean kill a policeman?
Maybe that would be a better line to censor?’
Janet Daly isn’t impressed by Question Time, including the ‘utrageous biases of the audiences which tend to be packed with quasi-professional activists’:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/janetdaley/100134609/why-women-including-me-say-no-to-question-time/
Daley’s always pretty crap when she’s on anyway, so no loss.
Janet Daley links to a Guardian article :
David Dimbleby defends Question Time against ‘token women’ charge
One of the comments is beyond delusional…
blowtorch
What is more of a concern is the lack of diversity on the show. Most panals are made up from people from the same or similar background. Mostly middle class, from either politics, journalism or management. The odd one or two from the entertainment world and thats it. Never anyone from the factory floor, the class room or the hospital ward. What about a pensioner, a trade union member, a lone parent, a disabled person. Its as if the only opinions that count are those from the middle class, who are in politics, journalism or management. It is so predictable with the present makeup.
Do these people watch the same version we do?!?!?!
He’s got a point about the lack of non-nomenklatura panelists, though.
We’ll know tomorrow…bet Guido’s ready!
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7623368/cps-to-announce-tomorrow-whether-itll-charge-chris-huhne.thtml
US Atty. General Holder is getting grilled by Congress again about whether or not he knew about Fast & Furious. He still claims he didn’t know, and now has to explain why nobody’s been punished for it yet.
Of course, Holder did know about it for at least a year, and one of his top minions even called it “a terrific idea”. There’s a cover-up going on about what the top Justice Dept. bosses knew and when.
BBC: Look – Facebook! ZZzzzzzzzzz
The BBC continues to censor news of this major story.
But the BBC can find time to show Obama’s wife on TV
Not when she’s taking a lavish Spanish holiday, though.
Another historical tidbit. Obits of Stuart Hood (BBC TV controller in the 60s) have appeared recently, although he died about a year ago..Here from the Times:
“Like many young intellectuals in the 30s, he joined the Communist party. He later described this as a ‘youthful aberration’, but he never lost his Marxist leanings”
We could start a list here, including the producers of QT and newsnight I think.
When Hugh (three divorces) Greene became director-general in 1960, Stuart (three divorces) Hood was promoted to controller of programmes, television. This grusome twosome (even their wives could not stand them) set about shredding the BBC’s reputation as “Auntie” with pro-Labour political satire [such as “This is the Week that Was”] and Leftist agitprop drama. If only Britain could be more progressive like the Soviet Union C.P.Snow wondered aloud in his Two Cultures lecture.
1960 – the beginning of the end.
Questions won’t be answered…
http://order-order.com/2012/02/02/ed-peston-and-the-iranians/
‘Are these comments really appropriate from the neutral Business Editor of our state broadcaster?’
Ther anti-government narrative continues even pon the BBC’s local news programmes. Tonight’s “Look North”, which covers Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, led with a story about the increase in people needing Salation Army food parcels because of government cuts in benefits. They showed a mother of FIVE children going to the local Salvation Army food parcel store and obtaing a bagful of food. She said she spent £150 per week on food and wouldn’t be able tomanage without her weekly food parcel. Then they interviewed the Labour M.P. for Wakefield who castigated government policy over benefit cuts. It was one long opposition diatribe. No one from the government was interviewed to put their side.
The final picture was of a region suffering from starvation because of an uncaring government. It seemed like a vehicle for special pleading. Balanced it certainly wasn’t, but this type of report has become commonplace on “Look North” since the last general election.
I wonder if this is in one of those areas with a Labour run council that is deliberately sitting on huge cash reserves and watching the cuts in local services go ahead to spite the local population in order to make their political point.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8980729/Councils-hoarding-more-cash-despite-spending-cuts.html
-“The new figures show that some of the biggest increases in reserves came from Labour-led Wakefield Council, which is expected to have more than doubled its cash pile from £21 million to £51 million by March.”
I was watching this story with some interest (and difficulty as Mrs 1327 was yelling at the telly again). At no point did the interviewer ask where the families benefit money was going if it wasn’t on food. Also the “starving” Mother was managing to afford to bleach her hair 🙂
What really got Mrs 1327 yelling though was the shot of the food banks stock. Nice big bags of basmati rice (no plain rice for the underclass) and lots of tins of branded food including the most expensive brand of chopped tomatoes out there. The entire piece had the feel of fake specially produced for a gullable TV crew.
No father(s) in sight I suppose?
Silly question.
BBC 10 o’clock news tells me confidently that the prosecution of Chris Huhne would be ‘….very damaging for the coalition’.
Really? Or is that BBC wishful thinking?
So a left leaning Lib Dem is toast. How does that hurt Cameron?
Could it just be that Chris Huhne’s politics are more approved by the Beeb?
And before the BBC go all Argentinian on us, I am reminded of a lovely ditty on a popular song the last time around :
“Para’s to the right of me, Royal Marines to the right, and the Gurka’s coming right into the middle of me.”
I believe this is played more often in Buenos Aries than it is at Wood Street.
I think the BBC version “Para coming up behind me” 🙂
For balance…
Just sent this to SKY:
http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affairs-news-analysis/176608-professor-guillermo-makin.html
Why, other than ratings, is this man continually on our screens, this time alone, being ‘interviewed’ by no one other than a less than challenging anchor?
This is not responsible journalism.
Especially for a UK medium.
He needs a Simon Weston to show him for what he is.
—
Is he by chance ever gracing the BBC’s screens?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3746379.stm
Maybe not, as he was ‘wrong’ before, so maybe the BBC is being responsible this timne?
Bloody hell, Newsnight have got Giles Fraser on YET AGAIN, does this twat live at the BBC now? You just know he’s going to be in favour of homosexuals ‘marrying’ in church, probably why the beeboids have him.
Someone here had a running total of how many times this twat has been on the BBC, anyone got an update on the total now?
He must have been on holiday for a week or two!
DB’s list can now be updated:
19/12/11 Start The Week with guest Giles Fraser.
23/12/11 Thought For The Day with Giles Fraser.
24/12/11 Saturday Review with guest Giles Fraser.
25/12/11 Constantine – the man who invented Christmas presented by Giles Fraser
1/1/12 Sunday with guest Giles Fraser.
5/1/12 Newsnight with guest Giles Fraser.
6/1/12 Thought For The Day with Giles Fraser
13/1/12 Thought For The Day with Giles Fraser
2/2/12 Newsnight with guest Giles Fraser
and coming up (according to the ‘Radio Times’)…
4/2/12 Thought For The Day with Giles Fraser
Radio 4 has best be avoided tomorrow morning. After Giles Fraser on ‘Today’, there’s going to be Alastair Campbell on Saturday Live.
And Alastair Campbell was on This Week last night.
It’s a bad omen: Can Livingstone be far behind?
Oh god rent a twat Owen Jones is on Newsnight as well. I bet Richard Bacon and Nikki Campbell are excited.
BBC 10 o’clock news celebrates Charles Dickens. Nice. There’s some new research on how he created his characters. Interesting.
Comment from the creator of TV show Shameless. Plug for Channel 4 and a bold comparison – but ok.
We are told that Dickens shone a light on the contemporary ‘underclass’. Ok, fair comment.
‘…..that is as relevant now as it was then’. Wait a minute! No it’s not, mate! We have a pretty generous Welfare State now. I know it may suit some people’s and, apparently, the Beeb’s political agenda to suggest that we are revisiting Dickensian poverty but acrtually we are not.
And here ends the BBC 10 o’clock left wing propaganda.
Indeed we are not. Dickens’s father – and the family! – spent time in debtors’ prison while Charles had to leave school to work in a boot-blacking factory at the age of 12 to keep himself and help the family. And they weren’t even the really poor of the time. They had been relatively privileged.
Someone needs to remind these nitwits that the ‘savage cuts’ will take us back to the spending limits of 2004.
I remember it well : the harshness, the destitution, the starvation…old ladies begging for crumbs in the street to feed their malnourished urchins. I’m surprised we all lived to tell the tale.
In addition, there will not actually be a decrease in spending, just a reduction in the increase.
This is the problem we face. How many people, if asked, would know any of this, and how many will just have absorbed the tone of much of the reporting and commentary on this issue and repeat the lazy consensus that the cuts are ‘savage’.