Priorities first! Wanted to put up the first NEW open thread on the new site and invite you to share your observations of BBC bias!
OPEN THREAD….
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Guest Who Nov 14, 22:28
Midweek 13th November 2024
https://order-order.com/2024/11/14/guardians-self-deplatforming-post-420-times-more-popular-than-average-tweet/? - non-licence payer Nov 14, 22:01
Midweek 13th November 2024
Zephir, how times are changed. This was the sort of advice that was printed in the Socialist Worker. It is… - vlad Nov 14, 21:58
Midweek 13th November 2024
After woke Welby, next woke Francis maybe? (Any non-Catholics, take it from me: he’s just as bad.) - Nibor Nov 14, 21:56
Midweek 13th November 2024
Taffy, Make friends. I’m a moaner and complainer and haven’t paid the telly tax for 20 years, and other taxes. - vlad Nov 14, 21:55
Midweek 13th November 2024
I’ll be a Socialist for 1 night. Nah, too high a price. - Eddy Booth Nov 14, 21:19
Midweek 13th November 2024
He’s too obsessed with “the genocide in Palestine”. - vlad Nov 14, 20:52
Midweek 13th November 2024
Just now and again, I like Galloway. Here he is taking the p out of Amin Lammy. https://youtu.be/Tkt4aYmYfKM - digg Nov 14, 20:46
Midweek 13th November 2024
There is only so long that this dysfunctional load of twats trying to run the Country can keep on F****ing… - Docmarooned Nov 14, 20:32
Midweek 13th November 2024
What “awards” other than back slapping from her cronies. Awards for telling blatant lies and BBC Verify confirming the nonsense.…
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
Hi lookin good well done xxx
Liking the new site guys well done! I hope my thirty pounds helped to alleviate the stress a wee bit (a few packs of fags and a 12 pack of lager!)
The appeal response was fantastic and my personal thanks to you for getting involved. We’ve saved the site with contributions like yours.
It’s a much better site. Well done all.
Did you know there’s a song about bias in BBC weather reporting? Well sort of. Who knows where the following lyrics come from:
‘Opinionated weather forecasters telling me it’s going to be a miserable day
Miserable to who? I quite like a bit of drizzle, so stick to the facts
‘
You left out the bits about the glories of Celsius and trusting the Met implicitly about Global Warming.
Well as it happens the same song is also critical of new Labour’s spending priorities. Global warming it leaves alone.
R5 weather any time of the day…SCOTLAND…..SCOTLAND….SCOTLAND and now the news.
Submitted complaint
=============
In the article on the Post Office, it was clearly stated that the Post Office Pension debts will be taken on to the government’s books. This is factually incorrect. The pension debts, all of them are not on the government books. They are hidden off the books just like PFI. The BBC constantly and continually pushes the line that debt = deficit, and debt = borrowing, completely ignoring the really massive debts that are pensions, PFI, guarantees and nuclear decommissioning. Since these debts amount to another 6,000 bn in present value, on tax revenues of 550 bn, its clear that the government, any government, will not be able to pay out on these debts. That’s a bias in favour of the state against the interests of the citizen of the UK. The BBC has done this about the deficit and debt repeatedly, and its to the detriment of Joe Public. Stop it.
‘Simon says:
March 28, 2012 at 9:30 pm
A small example of BBC omission –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-17537767
No mention in the BBC report…
Seems very obviously there, so surprised if you missed it.
Always worth taking a full page capture (Safari is easy and great at this) when pointing out an error of omission.
Because stealth ‘evolution’ of a story is always a possibility.
And when used in justification having clear evidence can serve to highlight the original omission and, for extra fun, inspire red faces up the complaints chain with all at the BBC who point at what has been added later.
Oops.
Learning curve time.
Sussed that your one’s first posting doesn’t ‘register’ as a post, but does get you in the system, so it is worth writing a short one first to get into the system.
Now notice that when I thought I had posted I hadn’t, and when I moved to reply to yours the post ported up. Sorry!
The day after Congresswoman Kathy Giffords was shot (8th January 2011) B-BBC reported a tweet from Radio Shropshire’s Jim Hawkins echoing the HuffPo (and others) claim that the act was due in some part to incendiary utterances from among other Sarah Palin. It was later discovered the shooter was a nut job who never listened to talk radio or knew anything about Palin. A rush to judgment I’m sure Jim now regrets.
But here’s a chance to make up for past mistakes. It is now five days since the new Black Panthers put out a bounty on the head of the “white Hispanic” John Zimmerman, who shot and killed Trayvon Martin. They want Zimmerman “DEAD or alive”. Filmmaker Spike Lee tweeted Zimmerman’s address (it turned out to be wrong) while (“the Reverend”) Al Sharpton and (“the Reverend”) Jess Jackson have been shouting their mouths off all over Florida. Here is an opportunity for Jim Hawkins – and other members of the talking class – to once again bemoan hate speech. Perhaps a Radio Shropshire listener could raise the matter on a phone-in?
Perhaps someone could also tell us ex-pats far from home what Nicky Campbell (who used to be a disc jockey) is saying on 5Live? Is the Trayvon affair being reported as a hate crime? Has anyone mentioned that the shooter Mr. Zimmerman is a registered Democrat? Have they asked why President Obama called Trayvon’s mother to offer condolences while there were 100 murders in his own back yard in Chicago last year, many of the victims I’m sure could have been like the son he never had and would have loved to hear from the president. (http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/) Why call Trayvon’s mother? What possible motive could he have?
And finally, is the description “white Hispanic” a sign that the media will give Marco Rubio this moniker when and if he becomes the Republican vice-presidential candidate?
Obama (and his office) has refused to even reply to several contacts from the parents of the English men, (James Cooper, 25, from Warwickshire, and James Kouzaris, 24, from Northampton), shot to death by Shawn Tyson in Florida. Could it be because, not only would the victim in the Zimmerman/Travyon case look like his own son, but so would the murderer, Shawn Tyson? Is Obama simply not interested in the victim of any crime perpetrated by blacks?
The day after Congresswoman Kathy Giffords was shot (8th January 2011) B-BBC reported a tweet from Radio Shropshire’s Jim Hawkins echoing the HuffPo (and others) claim that the act was due in some part to incendiary utterances from among other Sarah Palin. It was later discovered the shooter was a nut job who never listened to talk radio or knew anything about Palin. A rush to judgment I’m sure Jim now regrets.
Excellent !!
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/29/ABC-Zimmerman-Video?
Question: Is ABC perchance a ‘most trusted’ source’ for our ‘most trusted news broasdcaster’ this side of the pond?
There was quite an amazing phone-in on Radio 5 this morning about the report on the riots. For some reason there must have been a cock-up and some real people were allowed to voice their opinion. Let’s just say there were at least two moments of stunned silence from the female presenter when she was faced with what real people say in the works canteen at my place all the time !
It wasn’t all good, though. One lone nutter phoned in to say it was all the fault of Tottenham Hotspurs and their Jewish owners !!!
One thing different is we can’t put ‘likes’ anymore.
I’ll give tht R5L a whirl. I normally find it excellent and impartial.
Classic Radio moment Rachel Burden wetting herself as the phone in finally discusses the elephant in the room.
Great quartet in G just started:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/
Strings? meaning the quartet, not the G.
Heh…yes, in G major, rather than G string!
Oh, dear. ObamaCare is not going will in front of the Supreme Court on its final day in front of them, and the US President editor is having a bit of a struggle.
First up is the excuse: it was poorly defended. That’s what the supporters are saying all over the place, with some even suggesting that the Solicitor General was told to throw the game in order to get everyone to move on to single-payer, the real goal here. So even in defeat, He wins brilliantly. Trust the US President editor to lead with what works best for Him. No viewpoint offered that maybe the whole thing was badly written and actually violated the Constitution.
Notice also that Mardell thinks that ObamaCare equals “universal healthcare”, which it doesn’t. Haven’t the Beeboids understood anything? The whole reason the individual mandate was trashed yesterday is because it’s not universal anything and is in fact a law forcing people to buy it themselves. That’s not the Progressive Dream Mardell describes.
The whole post is written from the perspective of a supporter of the President, and how He might find a silver lining in the cloud. At no time does Mardell mention that a top campaign issue for Republicans would be repealing ObamaCare. I’m referring here not just to the Presidential election, but the entire House of Reps and a good chunk of the Senate, who are up for re-election in November. He talks to a Democrat strategist, but not a Republican one.
Amusingly, the news that 70% of voters are against the whole thing anyway was came as such a shock to those who rely on the BBC for their information on US issues that one of his commenters is demanding a citation.
The surest sign your lawyer hasn’t done a good job is when you issue a statement defending his performance.
Filed it under “Epic LOL”.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-obamacare-argument-the-third-and-final-day/
Lets not get too excited…Barry still has his poodle, Sotomyer, in there batting for her master. This thing aint over until the fat lady has sung!
No worries. No overspent illusions here. The quote I gave is still funny however, and eggs (is that a verb?) the al-beeb narrative.
And…”I have total confidence in (fill in the name)” followed by the sack!
I believe lawyers are one of only two professions protected against a negligence suit for their performance on the job.
What will be the consequences of success or failure in the Supreme Court? A charismatic outsider like Obama is a clean slate where everybody draws in what they imagine him to be. Surely for his second term he should be judged on performance?
The other profession protected against negligence suits? Politicians!
So has anybody else noticed after how the bBC got it all wrong over how the cold blooded murderer of Toulouse wasn’t a racist white Christian, but actually a racist brown Muslim. They have gone on the offensive these past few days in which to try and reinvent Islam as a religion of peace.
We had the story of how Muslims in Russia are expanding
We had the story about how French Muslims protected Jews during WW2. (Yet the bBC admit the film they are talking about is around 60% factual.)
We’ve had the story of how Islam respects women’s values in Tatarstan. (Note how the bBC leads with how there is no alcohol on the tables and all the women wear hijab)
There’s the article about how anti-Semitism has risen in France since Mohammed went on his killing spree, but while the bBC don’t inform you just who the attackers are (take a guess) they include this little snippet in their revisionist article:
“Some messages were reportedly signed “real French people”, suggesting the work of extreme nationalists rather than Islamists.”
Then the bBC comes out with this in which to paint the French as the bad guys,
Mohamed Benalel Merah, the gunman’s father, has said he wants to bury his son in Algeria.The family wished “to avoid the grave being desecrated in France”, Mohamed Merah’s maternal uncle, Djamel Aziri, told AFP news agency.
And here’s what the bBC aren’t telling you:
The father of an Islamist gunman, branded a “monster” after he boasted of killing seven people in southern France, is suing a crack French police unit over his son’s death as the family prepares for a funeral in Algeria…. Algerian lawyer Zahia Mokhtari told AFP Wednesday she had been hired by the dead man’s father, Mohamed Benalal Merah, to press charges against French police for shooting him dead. “Mr. Merah thinks that his son was murdered. He has asked us to file a complaint against the French security services,” she said. “We will begin the procedure once the burial is completed.”
But back to the bbC mission statement of remaking Islam as a righteous cause there was the article about the brave Muslim women of Gujarat
Then there was the strange bbC article about how nasty France is for still having nuclear weapons:
France’s enduring nuclear deterrent
The Cold War may have long since ended, but France still maintains a fleet of nuclear-armed submarines and strike planes – and more than 300 warheads. Why? And are the French people still comfortable with being a nuclear power?
The above was written by Jonathan Marcus the BBC Defence and Diplomatic Correspondent who not only thinks he understands modern day weapons, but the French also. Yeah good one.
It seems that the bbC really does want to white wash the crimes of Mohammed Merah out of existence and promote Islam as not only magnanimous, but allocate the blame of Islamic religious intolerance at the hands of others. Which is why the bBC are leading with an article about the rise of Neo Nazis in Germany.
The bBC, the traitors in our Midst.
Who is more responsible for attacks on Jews in Europe, I wonder? Which, naturally, barely register on the BBC radar, if at all.
DP wrote:
Who is more responsible for attacks on Jews in Europe, I wonder? Which, naturally, barely register on the BBC radar, if at all.
Funny you should mention that, as in the bBC article about the Turkish Hitler Shampoo advert the bbC end with this:
“The Jewish community seemed more upset than they were supposed to be,” Beril Mardin, account director with the Istanbul-based advertising firm Marka told the BBC……Around 20,000 Jews live in Turkey, mainly Istanbul, a city of some 14 million Muslims. Most are descendants of Sephardim who escaped the Spanish Inquisition and found refuge in the Ottoman Empire some 500 years ago.
So according to the bbC, the Jews who were given sanctuary by the Turks are crying over getting a bit of shampoo in their eyes. Unlike Muslims who just kill you at the mention of somebody else making fun of them.
The bBC, the traitors in our midst.
“More upset than they were supposed to be…”
I love that! Can we say that about the Mohammedans and the Danish cartoons? The comedy writes itself with this one.
No! It’s clearly attributed as a quote not ‘according to the bbc’. The article is dominated by quotes from people who are disgusted with the advert.
If they chose to advertise with Hitler as a subject, they shouldn’t be subsequently be surprised if some people don’t like it. Says more about Turkish advertisers than the BBC, but it is interesting how the BBC will spin any ‘weft’ or ‘warp’ in a yarn to their own narrative.
I’ll agree with Jim here on that last bit, but I am so stealing that “more upset than they were supposed to be” line.
One couldn’t blame the biggest English news outfit in Europe for the rise of anti-semitism in Europe, couldn’t one?
How bBC finish the story about Sarkozy gaining points over Hollande due to tough handling of the Merah murderer – can’t resist quoting his justification –
“Merah is said to have told police he wanted to avenge Palestinian children and to attack the French army because of its foreign interventions.” Just in case you forgot, bBC always find space to remind you.
You know, like how Anders Breiviks justification got no airtime except links to right wing extremists.
You’re wrong pounce, the same thing happened with the Norway shooter, as soon as he was caught the whole thing stopped being reported.
(whispered aside)
What? weeks and weeks of hyperbole from the left managing to connect the shooter to everyone including Conservative MEPs? Oh.
Yet not one word of indignation that hundreds of school children were being politically indoctrinated by the Labour/socialist/communists on an island miles from anywhere and from where they could not escape. Has any Labour/socialist/communist been prosecuted for criminal negligence yet? No, well, well, funny that isn’t it?
They can take us to war on a lie, bankrupt the country, sell our countries gold, encourage the invasion of our country by those who would subdue and kill us, turn a blind eye to the indigenous young girls of our country being raped en mass but not one Labour/socialist/communist ever faces justice.
But suggest that we fill up a Gerry can to help ourselves if the Labour/socialist/communists tanker drivers go on strike and there is a hue and cry against the government.
All is fair in love and war by the Labour/socialist/communist BBC.
Never mind fuel, stock up with piano-wire before it too runs out.
I have an enduring memory of Charlie Staytt breathlessly asking an eyewitness from his breakfast sofa (by phone) “what did he look like?” Of course wanting to tease out the description of a blonde haired white man. They aint so quick if he’s not white are they?
No-one has yet speculated how excited newsrooms must have been when the name of the shooter of Trayvon Martin in Florida was called “Zimmerman”. The vision of a 6ft blond blue-eyed Germanic Ubermensch or even a Jewish Right-wing Zionist must have sprung to mind. But Zimmerman turned out to be Hispanic. DAMN!
As I said at the time, there seemed an unusual emphasis placed on the name Zimmerman.
The crime procedurals describe a criminal engaging in a gun battle with police that he couldn’t possibly emerge from alive as suicide by cop. Suicide is forbidden by Islam unless the dead person died as a shaheed – martyr.
I wonder if the BBC will cover Merah’s funeral in Algeria and local reaction.
A small example of BBC omission –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-17537767
vs
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/leeds-stanningley-bypass-death-crash-driver-faces-jail-updated-1-4393888
No mention in the BBC report (or its parent items) of the fact that the offending driver is Moldovan and NOT a UK citizen.
Yes there is: under the sub headline ‘Terrible Crime’ it says he’s Moldovan and will be served with deportation papers.
Ah, the old “rewrite AFTER the news has been up for hours (days sometimes) and the news/link moves down the ‘link-list’ trick.
well done, you’ve introduced jim dandy to that peculiar bbc phenomenon – the stealth edit.
With £3.2 billion of our cash a year plus of course the BBC’s ‘own’ (ie our) commercial earnings you would think the world’s greatest broadcaster would get it right, like, first time
Perhaps it has been rewritten, because it is now there in the report.
I see the bbC has finally got round to reporting the fact that Mohhamed’s father is going to sue the French for killing his son. But i have to admit I love how the bBC excuse
the follower of Islam’s reason behind Mohammed committing murder most foul.
Merah, born in France of Algerian descent, is said to have told police he wanted to avenge Palestinian children and to attack the French army because of its foreign interventions.His half-brother in Algeria, Rachid Merah, said Mohamed had been manipulated by the French intelligence services and did not have any ties to al-Qaeda.
Good old bBC instead of calling a spade a spade, they claim he was a victim standing up for other victims. Nothing about how the violent religious thug, had failed 3 attempts to join the army (hatred for the army?) had split from his wife and how Mohammed is on tape stating that the attack on the Jewish school was an opportune moment as his original target for the day (another soldier) had left for work earlier than he usually did. Hence the attack on the school as he passed by.
Instead as per its pro-Islamic terrorist mantra the bBC blame the jews.
The bBC the traitors in our midst.
They ‘claim’ nothing of the sort. It’s clearly stated to be Merah’s claim, which itself was widely reported across the media.
Dandy wrote:
They ‘claim’ nothing of the sort. It’s clearly stated to be Merah’s claim, which itself was widely reported across the media.
You mean like how the bBC (and the left) reported initially that the shooter was a white Neo-Nazis.
They had to eat humble pie when the murderer happened to be called ‘Mohhamed’ and report the facts. Most media outlets have reported that Mohammed stated that the school was a spur of a moment attack. But the for some strange reason the bBC continue to say it was because of the Jews.
Add the fact (as per my earlier post) how the bBC really has gone to town in which paint Islam as a victim in france, How Islam really is a religion of peace and how only non-Muslims are capable of hate.
BTW have you heard the story about how a Mullah in Nottingham was jailed today for 3 years for shagging 2 little boys. Guess who the so called peaceful Islamic community decided to take their anger on:
1) The Mullah
2) The Mother of the boys.?
CAIR to tell me why the bBC don’t report this story, they do when the kiddy fiddler is a white Christian priest.
Tell you what Dandy, come back with a little something better than smart Alec retorts.
They claimed nothing of the sort. It was a possibility they mooted, as was the possibility of a ‘deranged islamist’.
Come on Jim Dandy, you know full well that the BBC, or anyone, should not repeat evil propaganda and yet you try to explain it away. You are a full blown apologist for what is well known to be an unpatriotic and biased organisation. This blog would not be here and so well supported if that were not the case. Get your head out of the sand and stop talking through the ostrich’s rear orifice.
Dandy wrote:
“They claimed nothing of the sort. It was a possibility they mooted, as was the possibility of a ‘deranged islamist’.”
Good point, then if that is the case why have they omitted how Mohammed the Islamic cold blooded murderer also mentioned it was because of the Hijab ban. Instead of presenting the image of a relgious loon, the bBC present the image of a nice little Muslim boy concerned about how Muslims in far away lands can only be the victims of..Christians.
traitors indeed
Congratulations to DV and friends for getting B-BBC launched on a dedicated server.
One little suggestion if I may, please restore the Title byline:-
‘Exposing the Reporting Bias of the British Broadcasting Corporation’
Great ring to it. Reads good as a mission statement.
Uuf! Just noticed it is still there, but not very noticable.
great new website, the content remains the same.The BBC should go,any one notice Mr Dumblebum on QT last week saying that he didn’t know about the 320 BBC bods that were evading paying tax and said that he didnt work at the BEEB. Turned himself into a LTD company and thus pays less tax…..scum
The BBC remain true to their gutless agenda. There will be no truths or facts related to Islam as affects the values of our society, no matter how pertinent.
One can also apply this observation to every area where the BBC has its own agenda, for whatever the motive.
BBC refuses to screen play about Islamic threat to freedom of speech
Mark Thompson, the BBC’s director-general, says it will not screen the controversial ‘Can We Talk About This?’.
With the next phrase he tries to convince us that it is out of concern for Islam, and not because they’re shit scared:
n the past, Thompson has conceded that there is “a growing nervousness about discussion about Islam”. He claimed that because Muslims were a religious minority in Britain, and also often from ethnic minorities, their faith should be given different coverage to that of more established groups.
BBC= BackBonelessCrap
Thompson is just worried that Mohammedans might get more upset than they’re supposed to.
I can see this line getting a lot of use.
It’s the new “we got it just about right”.
We could assemble a whole host of these quotes to assign to each case of bias.
“We are currently working with the National on various ideas. There are currently no plans to broadcast Can We Talk About This?, but this is not due to the play’s content or themes.”
Yeah…right. Bloody cowards. They know exactly what awaits them if they decide to broadcast it, but won’t even admit to that. Nothing to see here…move along.
A couple of good comments on that article…
Perfect example of what the play is about. Can Mr. Thompson not see the irony?
This is conclusive proof that the premise of the play is 100% correct.
We Need To Talk About MohamBANG!
The minorty aspect is fascinating to follow through. What does Mark think will happen if it ever becomes a majority religion? Will it be more possible to air a dusussion then? or would one end up on the wrong end of a death sentence for blasphemy?
What business is of the Beeboids anyway to decide on special treatment for a minority religion? And there are several other minority religions: Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, not to mention various Indian or Asian ones. So why the Beeboids single out this particular one?
Meant to include Jews.
While we here are more aware than most of the nature of the teachings of Islam, particularly in the more extreme version we witness in the world on a daily basis, this is one religion that demands close scrutiny – far more than any other at this time.
For the BBC ‘sentry’of events to bury it’s head for fear of ‘what it might see’, lest it makes itself a target, is the most asinine stance it could possibly make, and makes it truly unfit for purpose.
But criticising Jews is fine. I suppose they one of the ‘more established groups.’. For now they may be but in another 30 years…
The bBC its pro luddite mission statement and half the story.
Bulgaria abandons Belene nuclear plant proposal
Bulgaria has abandoned plans to build a new nuclear power station at Belene, close to the Romanian border. The country’s deputy finance minister says the cabinet wants to build a gas-powered plant on the site instead. A Russian-built reactor, which had been ordered for the facility, could now be installed at an existing nuclear plant at Kozloduy. Environmentalists had opposed the plant, which had first been proposed when Bulgaria was under communist rule. Bulgaria and Russia have been locked in a long-running dispute over rising costs, and the project’s future was thrown into doubt when the German company RWE pulled out in 2009.
So reading the above do you get the impression that the Environmentalists won the day? Here is the same story from Reuters tell me what you think:
Bulgaria abandons Belene nuclear plant plans
SOFIA, March 28 (Reuters) – Bulgaria has abandoned plans to build the 2,000 megawatt Belene nuclear power plant on the Danube River and will construct a new gas power plant instead, Prime Minister Boiko Borisov said on Wednesday. The Belene project has failed to attract serious foreign investors in the past three years after Germany’s RWE pulled out in 2009 due to funding concerns.Borisov had repeatedly said in recent weeks the project might not go ahead if it failed to attract Western investors and that a gas power plant might be built instead. “It was a hard decision to take,” Borisov told reporters.”But we just can’t afford to pay the total cost of the project, which will reach some 10 billion euros. And there is no way we can make future generations pay,” he added.
Bulgaria, the European Union’s poorest country, still plans to pay for a 1,000 MW nuclear reactor, which has already been constructed, and will try to install it at its operational 2,000 MW Kozloduy nuclear plant.”The Belene nuclear power plant was compromised from the beginning, and such things are not welcomed in the European Union,” Borisov said, referring to the fact the location was in a region prone to earthquakes.”That’s why we couldn’t find a self-respecting investor to commit to the project,” he added.
Mark Mardell writes about Obamacare in the Supreme Court: “What an adverse ruling would prove to voters is the limits of presidential power in America, and reinforce a view that Washington is better at stopping things happening, than coming up with solutions.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17540133
No sir. It will show how the system works. The system is set up to stop overreaching government. If it stops the plan Mr Obama lied and cheated onto the statute book by the skin of its teeth in the middle of the night, unread and not fully comprehended, then it is a good thing, isn’t it, Mark?
Like
Congratulations to all concerned for a seemingly seamless transfer to our new home. Would also like to see ‘like’ option restored. Glad to see Comrade Marr’s ‘final answer’ quotation from the NKVD handbook retained; the ‘Beria of Barnes’ giving the game away. Hope this knew phase of Biased-BBC coincides with the dissolution of the state-suckled beeboid empire. Up and at ’em!
Like
Today this week has actually been quite good. Honestly!
Does anyone know where I can find out who the editor is?
iPlayer: in the dying moments of the programme just before the 9 o’clock pips, they say who the editors were for that day’s programme.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9709000/9709700.stm
Looks good, well done.
Nick says:
March 28, 2012 at 7:58 pm
Submitted complaint
=============
Time to test my ITiot abilities, and the system, with the latest complaint exchange which, thanks to the unique way the BBC is configured, is rather long…
—
Thank you for your reply, and within deadline. I have some more promised and expected before month’s end, but am unsure if they are from your desk, as the consistency of the BBC complaints system is rather variable.
And I do concern myself with the vast expense incurred, as I don’t imagine Director time comes cheap, but as a licence fee payer currently I have no option but to pursue the vertical and near inexhaustible hierarchy thrown up in hope of the corporation wearing the individual out.
Especially bearing in mind what is awaiting at the arbitrary end point set up, of course by an internal, unaccountable BBC system.
I was thinking of this when watching a recent Newswatch..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01dbshw
One of the 12 good and true folk somehow selected to be the guardians of our Trust, a top Trust (ex-BBC) executive (coincidentally the one handed the complaints remit) stating that ‘passionate belief that you are right does not make you right’ rather puts most dismissal feedback on this basis from complaints officers with BBC email addresses in stark focus. Or was he only talking of those not within the BBC? That would be a unique way of looking at things.
However, let’s see what transpires.
Credit rating warning: George Osborne v Ed Balls”, BBC News Website
Thank you for your email of 1 March and the clarifications you provided on my summary of
your complaint. I have now completed my investigation and so I am writing, as promised, to
let you know the outcome.
In your email, you said that “My main complaint was that the BBC Political Editor ‘phoned
in’ (in a literal as well as the figurative sense) a ‘report’, when he clearly had no idea what
was actually going on. Then he tried to cover in excuse for the furore that resulted by saying
he was on holiday and hadn’t had a chance to do a proper job… rather than ‘reporting’
dispassionately, from the outset he decided to layer on a now rather too familiar, personal,
skewed ‘view’ that is hard to think of as anything than favouring Mr. Balls when, as many
were again quick to note, he was no better placed than any other to garner bouquets or
brickbats.”.
I have therefore considered whether what Mr Robinson wrote (both initially and in his
update) met the requirements for due accuracy, and whether his comments met the
requirements of due impartiality, on the understanding that you believe the view Mr
Robinson expressed favoured the Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls.
The context for the blog was that one of the major credit rating agencies, Moody’s, had
changed the outlook on the UK’s AAA rating to “negative”.1 This was the subject of
separate interviews on the Today programme on Radio 4 with Mr Balls2 and the Chancellor,
1 http://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-adjusts-ratings-of-9-European-sovereigns-to-capture-downside–
PR_237716
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17021986
http://blogs.news.sky.com/therealeconomy/Post:a1b96258-7135-4f6b-8853-b33d8a30fce8
2 http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9696000/9696119.stm
3 http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9696000/9696134.stm
George Osborne.3 It was in the Today interview that Mr Osborne used the line that was
quoted in part by Mr Robinson: “Well if Britain doesn’t deal with its debts then, of course,
Britain’s economic reputation is on the line”. I think it was clear that Mr Robinson’s
comments were informed by what both men had said in media interviews on the morning of
14 February.
Clarity is a very personal and subjective thing, as evidenced by the qualifier ‘I think’. Richard Ayre has a view on this (see above).
As you may recall, Mr Robinson wrote “As I listened [my emphasis] from afar
on a half-term break – I couldn’t help noticing that this latest news simply led both Messrs
Osborne and Balls to say ‘I told you so’”.
I do recall. What any person browsing the cherry orchards can’t help but notice in isolation is noted, if not really going to make a case on the overall complaint.
I therefore cannot see any basis to conclude that
Mr Robinson “clearly had no idea what was actually going on” or that he was unable to
“do a proper job”.
Equally, what cannot be seen by you is of interest, but rather Nelsonian really. At best.
It may be that he had not read the statement issued by Moody’s the
previous evening, but I think it was reasonable for him to comment on the basis of the public
utterances of the Chancellor and the Shadow Chancellor on this matter.
Just wondering, given this was meant to be an investigation, not that it would make much difference, but ‘might it have been’ a good idea to ask Mr. Robinson before leaping to what you think was reasonable?
I am therefore
satisfied that Mr Robinson met the requirements of the Accuracy guidelines which say
content “must be well sourced [and] based on sound evidence”.
Your satisfaction is noted. Mine, sadly, remains unresolved.
Equally, what you ‘think’, ‘cannot see’, ‘feel may have happened’ or satisfies you is of course noted, of interest, but hardly persuasive.
Or, for the purposes of my concerns on BBC accuracy or impartiality, much use.
In the update he posted at 1.20pm, it appears that Mr Robinson had subsequently read the
Moody’s statement; I note he quoted directly from the section “What Could Move The
Rating Down”. I accept that since the statement had been available for more than 12 hours
one might argue that Mr Robinson could have referred to its detail earlier, but I cannot
conclude that the omission of any specific reference to it led to a lack of due accuracy,
particularly bearing in mind that the subject of the article was clearly labelled as “Credit
rating warning; George Osborne v Ed Balls”.
Again, words/terms such as ‘appears’, ‘might argue’ or ‘could have’ are not entirely convincing in your coming to a conclusion that, in this case, ‘the BBC got it about right’. Again. I am tiring of this approach being deemed enough for bring such matters to an end now.
He at last read the statement he initially was commenting upon others commenting upon, but only after being slated for not doing so before.
I’d now like to turn to your complaint that Mr Robinson’s comments lacked the necessary
due impartiality. The Editorial Guidelines include a section on News, Current Affairs and
Factual Output which says:
4.4.12 News in whatever form must be treated with due impartiality, giving due weight
to events, opinion and main strands of argument. The approach and tone of news
stories must always reflect our editorial values, including our commitment to
impartiality.
4.4.13 Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the public face and voice of the
BBC – they can have a significant impact on perceptions of whether due impartiality
has been achieved. Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC output the
personal prejudices of our journalists or news and current affairs presenters on
matters of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or on ‘controversial
subject’’ in any other area. They may provide professional judgements, rooted in
evidence, but may not express personal views in BBC output, including online, on such
matters.
Uh-huh. Words… vs. deeds.
As you will recall, Mr Robinson offered a summary of the position of both Mr Osborne and
Mr Balls which met the requirement to reflect the main strands of argument. He concluded
by offering a professional judgement based on the interviews he had heard that “It will be
Mr Balls, though, who will feel with some confidence that the arguments are moving his
way”.
The matter of how the ‘professional judgement’ of the BBC and its employees is arrived at going rather to the core of the matter.
I cannot agree that this was evidence of bias; journalists are entitled to use their
knowledge and expertise to offer considered and informed judgements.
I have in the course of previous exchanges been invited to ‘agree to disagree’, at best. I fear this is no longer acceptable. Especially when told of expertise that I can discern little evidence for as deployed.
You cannot agree. I can. You are answerable to the licence fee paying public, of whom I am one. So far, I regret to say that, again, I am looking at a bunch of opinion, and hardly impartial given who you believe you work for (if not ultimately).
I accept that some members of the audience may not agree with such judgements but the guidelines do allow
BBC correspondents to offer analysis on issues within the news.
Quoting BBC guidelines to excuse the BBC and its employees doing pretty much what they like in such context is not helping your case much.
Although I do not feel able to uphold your complaint on this occasion
Forgive me if am am not surprised. There have been few occasions when a complaint is upheld, not just of mine, but the entire viewing public, ever. That this is the case might strike some, of a more curious disposition as odd, even worthy of further consideration. Instead it is trumpeted like a Putin election result.
I hope I have been able to go at least some way to addressing your concerns.
Not at all. You have simply confirmed them, and added a few more.
Pretending things didn’t happen so as not to account for them is becoming somewhat of a BBC hallmark. I do wish you all would desist, from reporters through editors to complaints up to and including senior management.
May I remind you Mr. Robinson was taken to task, if not apart on this on his blog by many, including loyal followers.
Nevertheless, if you are not satisfied with my decision
I am not.
I would be happy to consider any points you might wish to make on my
finding. I would be grateful if you could let me have any comments within ten working days of this letter.
You have them.
You can also ask the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust to review
my finding. Correspondence for the Committee should be addressed to xx,
Complaints Advisor, BBC Trust Unit, 180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ or you
can send an email to trust.editorial@bbc.co.uk. The Trust normally expects to receive an
appeal within four weeks of the date of this letter, or of any further substantive
correspondence between us, and expects complainants to limit the details of their appeal to no
more than one thousand words.
I will see if I need to approach the Trust, and can find it in me to meet their expectations, once I have your next reply.
At which point, if no further progress is evident or possible, I will contact them, but see receipt of your next reply as the point at which the clock starts running, not receipt of this letter.
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
No, it does not.
Another yeoman effort, sadly having no effect on them. But I think the impasse you’ve reached here is the heart of the matter: the opinion-mongering of BBC “editors”.
The Robinsons and Flanders and Mardells and Bowens of the BBC are not really journalists in the objective sense, are they? They’re little more than the same kinds of talking heads any news program brings on for “analysis”. At least Peston gets insider City gossip, which is more than the rest of them do.
When a news show turns to one of these talking heads for a brief on, say, some financial matter, we expect that the analyst is an expert – or at least competent professional – in that field, but we also assume it’s opinion and nothing more. There’s nothing wrong with that. But there is, I think, something wrong with the BBC having their own stable of these people and telling you they’re objective journalists, except when convenience allows them say they’re just giving expert opinion.
With someone like Mardell or “Two Eds”, it’s easy to show a history of one-sided opinion and error. Not so much one-sided stuff from Robinson, though.
But it looks like the BBC can excuse anything Mardell or Flanders or even Jeremy Bowen says with the “expert opinion” card. Is this acceptable?
‘the impasse you’ve reached here is the heart of the matter: the opinion-mongering of BBC “editors”.’
Tx. But it’s only an impasse if I let it stop me.
Watch this space for the next one (Impressed this new system can accommodate them, if with a modding delay), as I have them nailed on outright lies trying to make things go away.
That… is very different to their preferred semantics on opinions.
Because, in answer to your last question, the answer is a resounding ‘No!’.
I can’t remember when journalists began interviewing journalists about the news. I can’t remember when journalists became opinion (let’s out it politely) gatherers. There was a memo I remember from John Birt saying that the BBC would henceforth be “explaining” the news not “simply reporting it” – I made a note of the “simply reporting it”. I think it was Birt, or it might have been some other suit with white hair, rimless glasses and a view of himself so high he had permanent nosebleed from the altitude.
You may be interested to learn when I first did a “Q&A” “down the line” from Radio Cambridgeshire with a BBC national correspondent in Parliament, I thought I could ask him one or two questions on the topic no one else had asked, only to be told that I would get from him a list of questions and sure enough, there before me were “my” questions and also his answers in note form. The whole “talking to” thing was a charade. It was a device to save him time from writing a script and making a local radio “interviewer” seem important and relevant. I was bummed – so I asked him a question he wasn’t expecting and he (not listening) simply went on to the next scheduled answer. Tee hee. I think there was even an “I’m glad you asked me that” or “That’s a really good question” response from him. By the way, everything he said was speculation, demonstrating no doubt how he had earned his expenses by talking to people in the loop at Westminster. (They all had a liking for Chablis)
Seriously, the real tragedy is how few facts we now get. Count them as they go by.
How revealing!
Good debate on the Toady program just now re: Mark Duggan, the Mother Teresa of Tottenham. On the one side, they had the aunt of the deceased martyr, on the other a lawyer who participated in the Ian Tomlinson witch hunt.
Yep, it’s a debate between someone who thinks the Filth have got something to hide, and someone who thinks the Filth have got something to hide. And all aired without irony on the Balen Broadcasting Corporation.
The BBC is now in process of active censorship of free speech without restraint:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2012/03/bbc_news_mobile_site_refresh.html
I am having legitimate questions and comment obliterated by institutional policy now, yet am faced with being forced to pay for a ‘service’ I consider little more that propaganda when it is not simply inaccurate.
This is my latest appeal:
Blog Title: BBC News on mobile: site refresh
Blog Core Message: The new-look site is designed to work on a range of mobile devices and screen sizes,.. at the moment mobile users are accessing BBC News in different ways – via the mobile site, the PC/desktop site and via our iPhone and Android apps.
Including, with the shut down of BBC blogs, a demand to move to such as twitter and FaceBook.
The featured article refers to this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2012/03/news_mobile_responsive_design.html
Which has as its main image… a TWITTER thread.
My Comment, citing only a BBC URL:
—
Quick question.
The headline to this makes no sense:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2012/03/this_blog_is_now_closed_-_foll.html
‘This blog is now closed – follow us Twitter and Facebook’
Were the words removed to make it nonsensical simply because they would not fit the new formats, including mobile, as I have already had ‘explained’ in response to a few complaints about accuracy?
And if so, just how long do you think your ‘most trusted’ ‘news’ reputation will last, if not already blown?
—
The reason for removal:
“We reserve the right to fail comments which…
Are considered to be off-topic for the discussion.”
DO NOT BE RIDICULOUS.
Having to appeal, constantly, and seeing you apologise, constantly, for censoring posts WITH NO JUSTIFICATION, is getting beyond a joke.
I know this is merely part of the deliberate policy of attrition to wear down and out legitimate comment in concern at the BBC’s editorial policies in support of flawed new media obsessions but, trust me, I will not give up and such behaviour just makes me angry. Which can be unlikeable.
—
Most of those I make are restored, with profuse apologies, of course months later when the issue is out of the public eye.
It is cynical and wrong.
Great new site. Has anyone heard from Martin lately, I miss his brilliant observations on the revolting BBC bias!
I’ve been wondering too, Roger. I miss his nightly scornful reviews of Newsnight.
Good to see a ‘like’ option is now available. Nice work, ASE!
‘I miss his nightly scornful reviews of Newsnight.’
Along with the Newsnight blog, coincidentally.
It’s still with us, though, just less troubled by feedback now, so they can get back to how they prefer broadcast audiences to be: at only.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/29/news-corp-bbc-pay-tv?CMP=twt_fd
Of course, the only reply in counter is, I guess.. ‘they get it about right’
PS How do you put up an avatar on the new site? The old site displayed mine happily.
Roger – if you go to wordpress.com and click ‘sign up’ a the top of the page you can create a profile with an Avatar etc.
Thank you Reed, most helpful!
No problem, Roger. Thank ASE – who gave me the same advice on a previous thread.
Thanks if this works
Anybody know why events on Sark (pop 600) commanded 14 minutes in the prime 8:10 slot yesterday? It was either a nice day out for the reporter, or could it be the first shot in a campaign against the Barclay brothers, owners of the Daily Telegraph? Just wondering. Sark isn’t normally top of the news agenda.
Congratulations on the new site – even I can work the comments function!
I answered this yesterday on the old blog:
“chrisH, I have an inkling that Sarah Montague hails from Guernsey, so the Today programme has one of their own with an in to Sark and its troubles. So a nice little jaunt over the sea to Sark for Sarah and pop in to see the folks on neighbouring islands while in the vicinity. And why not? – to quote Barry Norman.”
Does anybody know where the increasingly part-time economics editor of the BBC has gone. Has Stephanie Flanders retired for Easter already or is she on yet another long-weekend?
I hope that she isnt paid a full time wage…..
Perhaps she might reply to the article on Naked Capitalist which described one of her recent efforts as the worst economic article in 50 years!
“Last Friday the BBC’s economics editor Stephanie Flanders ran one of the most terrible economics articles I’ve ever read: ‘The Truth About UK Debt.’ The problem is that it contains very little truth.”
I read the paragraph of Flounders’ article where she cut ‘n’ pasted Mervyn ‘Collapse Of The UK Banking System On My Watch’ King’s hopeless bootstrap argument that the UK trillion quid of personal debt doesn’t matter because we own three trillion quid’s worth of houses.
By extension, let’s borrow another trillion and we’d have 6 trillion quid’s worth of houses.
Nice one Steph, maybe god forbid if her two darlings get back to power they’ll give her the Treasury.
BBC Horizon ‘Weird Weather’. In fact it was a rearguard action for AGW. Like medeival divination the hand of climate change was seen everywhere. Is it hot? Is it cold? – that’s global warming. Is it windy? Is it calm? Is it wet? Is it dry? You guessed it – global warming!
Britain is just so out of step with the world! Our weather bucks the world trends!
Of course we don’t have much mobile phone footage of the little ice age and university research funding just didn’t work in the same way back in the medeival warm period. Perhaps if someone had told King John about Green Taxes? Or if this justification for world government had occured to Philip II of Spain?
So because the weather appears to be ‘weird’ the BBC thinks there must be a guiding hand of AGW behind it.
Now suppose one were to suggest to Richard Dawkins that an argument that proved the existence of God were that old chestnut, ‘The Lord moves in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform’. We see strange things so there must be a guiding hand. Wouldn’t cut much ice would it?
Two weeks ago the BBC reported the arrest of two Anglican paedophile priests. But they have been very quite about this paedophile Iman. Some animals are more equal than others.
Nottingham Imam jailed for sex attack on two boys
http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/Nottingham-Imam-jailed-sex-attack-boys/story-15644396-detail/story.html
Just starting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/bbc_radio_three
Sean Rafferty introduces a performance of one of Schubert’s best loved masterpieces, the Octet in F, D803.
In 1824 Count Ferdinand Troyer, a talented amateur clarinettist proposed to Schubert that he write a follow-up to Beethoven’s immensely successful Septet. Schubert duly obliged, adding a second violin to the line-up and creating a work that was quintessentially his own.
Acclaimed Clarinettist Michael Collins is joined by the young Doric Quartet, as well as horn player Richard Watkins, bassoonist Robin O’Neill and Double Bassist Lynda Houghton to play this enduringly popular work.
Schubert: Octet in F, D803
Michael Collins (clarinet)
Doric Quartet
Richard Watkins (horn)
Robin O’Neill (bassoon)
Lynda Houghton (double bass).
And next up we have Fiona Millar, a writer and journalist specialising in education ishoos.
(She’s also the partner of BBC regular ‘Bad’ Alastair Campbell but we’re not going to mention that in case you think that’s the only reason we give her the run of the place)
Sorry, I subsequently found out they didn’t mention her relationship with ‘Bad’ Alastair Campbell purely because she is anindependentwomaninherownright.
My bad
‘anindependentwomaninherownright’
Like that ‘just another Mum’ Newsnight wheels out to speak for the nation’s ladies who have progeny, if from a rather posh part of Islington?
And who just happens to be married into Guardian royalty with all sorts of interesting dinner party guests, one is sure.
Here’s irony. Allison Pearson has written an article in the Telegraph about internet trolls. She’s had a nasty Twitter encounter with Doug Stanhope. Then halfway through she suddenly cites Richard Bacon. But she’s obviously unaware of Richard Bacon’s admiration for Stanhope. LOL as they say on the interweb
”…….on BBC Three last week. Bacon, who has his own horrible Twitter stalker, tracked down one troll whose alleged hobby is adding stomach-churning comments to tribute websites dedicated to young people who have lost their lives “.
‘LOL as they say on the interweb’
Well, certainly as this peroxide sink does.
Such lack of awareness does however set her up for a BBC job as an investigative reporter, though.
So Bacon’s darling is a sick troll just like the kind he got license fee cash to talk about? LOL indeed. I bet it won’t change his opinion one bit.
So once again the vile Stanhope courts attention by his particularly virulent form of woman-hating spite. Such a sad and ugly specimen of a man to stoop so low. But it seems to be everywhere on the internet, unfortunately, and as we know, admired by at least one of the stupid little smartarses of the Beeboid Corporation.
So Mr. Stanhope reveals himself yet again to be nasty piece of work. After reading his hilarious ‘Palin baby’ routine, I’m really not surprised. I expect that Mr. Bacon considers his friend’s new venture into nasty trolling territory as something completely different. It’s probably some sort of digital comedy revolution – ‘the use of new media for real-time comedic performance’ – or some such shite.
Probably thinks it’s some kind of edgy art.
Yes I spotted that too, especially as I had blogged about Richard Bacon’s sychophantic interview of Doug Stanhope previously. I did Tweet Allison but received no reply.
If a car mowed down 8 people in the Uk would it be headline news?
If a car driven by a whiteman had mowed down 8 coloured people in the Uk would it be headline news
So why is the story about how Majid Rehman drove his taxis into 8 workers in Cardiff yesterday not front page news? Here is how the bBCleads with that story: A taxi driver has appeared in court following a collision involving eight pedestrians in the centre of Cardiff.
Here is how Wales online report the same story:
A taxi driver has appeared in court today charged with multiple GBH offences after eight pedestrians were allegedly mowed down by a taxi in Cardiff.
The bBC, the traitors in our Midst.
If he’d done it while atop a horse (plus a few other ‘unique’ criteria), it may have been headline news and the talk of Newsnight all week.
Ton of metal? Nothing to report.
Novel how, when the term ‘with intent’ is used, it is with the word ‘collision’.
I sense some PC types have been at that ‘special’ thesaurus again.
The BBC are definitely seem to be downplaying this incident. The case may derive greater significance from the fact that when Harry’s Place decided it was time to demonise Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller (at the time of the Brevik killings) one of their lines of attack was to ridicule
“….. Spencer’s claims about various car accidents being part of a low-level jihadist plot. …..Spencer has collected stories of Muslims involved in hit-and-run incidents and built a bizarre narrative around them.”
It will be interesting to see whether the circumstances of this incident fit the pattern which Jihadwatch claims to exist and which Harry’s Place is anxious to discredit.
http://hurryupharry.org/2011/04/03/the-edl-and-yet-another-lunatic-muslim-conspiracy-theory/
http://hurryupharry.org/2011/08/17/the-problem-with-jihad-watch-addendum/
(last five paras)
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/12/muslim-shuttle-driver-charged-in-series-of-hit-and-run-attacks-near-dulles-airport.html
5 live – Bacon and guest …
a tahir square/gadaffi “party atmosphere” drone
utter utter dross
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2012/03/this_blog_is_now_closed_-_foll.html?postId=112120294#comment_112120294
The comment after this one suggest that Aunty’s finest don’t ‘do’ irony, really (along with free speech)
Today’s ‘nothing to do with Islam’ bulletin…
Afghan woman is killed ‘for giving birth to a girl’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16787534
The only mention of ‘Islam’ in the story is…
“Local religious and tribal elders in the district also condemned the killing, saying it was an act of ignorance, and calling it a crime against Islam, humanity and women. ”
Hat-tip – http://vladtepesblog.com/
R4- PM: As a commentator of the proposed strike, they had in Lance Price, Labour PR spin Meister. No other balancing view given.
Missing points being: Labour’s paymasters Unite has set up a contrived strike. Their aim using the cover of elf and safty is locking in 40hour £50k a year job. They are currently under threat from lower cost hauliers. Will the public be told this; well not from the bBC.
I notice how little is being mentioned on the BBC the reasons for the tanker drivers’ strike. So I just know they must be ones that the great British public would not sympathise with – hence I know that the real reasons must be union versus the Conservative (OK Coalition) government. BBC bias by ommission (again).
Have to say I think they are trying to get me to lose my rag, and I am steering close to an ‘expedited sending to Coventry’, but hope my getting the bad faith accusation in first will serve to make them ponder…
—
On 29 Mar 2012, at 16:31, Central Communities Team wrote:
Your comments have been removed as off topic by the host as grammatical errors on the Newsnight blog and articles on the BBC News magazine relating to Twitter bear no relevance to the subject of the entry on the Internet Blog, ‘BBC News on mobile: site refresh’.
BBC News across its entire media estate is now being squeezed to ‘fit’ the rush to mobile and how it carries such as twitter summaries has EVERY relevance to the topic at hand. The error was critical to the sense of what is conveyed. ECU is already mis-handling other complaints I have on this very topic. So it IS on-topic, much as you are trying to distract from that hard fact, and the author of that blog would wish such home truths to be removed as they tarnish a shiny new toy the BBC has committed so much to, if without working through the consequences.
‘Comments that are unrelated to the subject of the blog entry to which you are contributing are considered ‘off-topic’.’
In this instance we believe that the host was correct to remove your comments as being off topic, in line with the above house rule that you agreed to abide by on creating your account, and so we will be unable to uphold your appeals.
Your belief is noted. In this regard I direct you to the views of Trust member Richard Ayres who, on a recent Newswatch, said ‘just because [someone] passionately believes they are right does not mean that they are’.
Now direct me to the next level, please. As you are evidently incapable of handling this in this department in an acceptable manner. This is not closed.
As has now been explained on several occasions, links to your removed comments are included in the moderation emails you are sent informing you that your comments have been removed under the heading ‘URL of content now removed’.
And as has been explained on several occasions, I simply cut and paste back what I get. My failing to meet your convoluted hoops because you make them obscure, or can’t explain your codes and procedures properly, is hardly a reasonable rationale for getting on a high horse.
If in future you fail to include these links when making appeals you will not receive a response.
You are now in danger of showing even worse faith than before, which in future will result in actions as opposed to responses. I will also require via FoI act the file you hold on me and my communications to assess how you come to such judgements.
The BBC is a public servant. It is failing across the board. In the rush to embrace new media, established blogs that allow proper interaction are, incredibly, being shut off in an effort to dumb down and return to a broadcast-only culture fed by trivial sound bites that cannot by space limitation be made relevant or effective. The corporation is, by being self-policing, essentially unaccountable and, considering it is co-funded by such as me via compulsion, in no position to tell a compelled customer that they will not get a response in future when it is in error. Which is, now, daily, if not by the hour.
Especially when trying to bluster and bully out of an already deep hole.
I trust that is clear.
Now, please provide the details I require to escalate this to a level that can discuss the issues rationally and with an appreciation of the full, substantive context of what is going on here. And without trying weasel out by citing semantic and petty procedural get-out attempts that may work for some but are really now simply starting to vex me.
I know these superiors exist as I just had the latest apology from one and a reinstatement, as there was NO JUSTIFICATION for the moderation, by any rule, especially the house I happen to be a public contributor to. I also had to demand access to them, as the labyrinthine joke you call a complaints system tried to pretend it did not exist in hope of closing out another embarrassment.
And what is with this variable typeface/size? Along with every aspect of the BBC complaint system, there is NO CONSISTENCY, so trying to berate licence fee payers for not adhering to an already uncoordinated system internally is plain silly.
Will this be on the BBC ? I cannot find it on their news site.
http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/Nottingham-Imam-jailed-sex-attack-boys/story-15644396-detail/story.html
David and Co – have noticed that we now have ‘likes’ and I am getting to grips with this new site – thanks to you all for your amazing efforts
Excellent and good to hear your voice again!
Climate sceptic James Delingpole pwns Richard Bacon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZFPttc1VH0&feature=relmfu
Exquisite!
Jeff
On the economics section on Newsnight tonight when the broker Terry Smith criticised Gordon Brown’s policies Emily Maitliss immediately talked over him…
Whereas Ann Pattifor was encouraged to waffle on about how we could apparently monetise our debt!
So much for even handedness and Maitliss confirmed herself as being out of her depth.
You can understand why the BBC would be in awe of Ann Pettifor. From her wiki
“In the 1980s she held several posts as adviser to the leader of the Greater London Council, Ken Livingstone, and the leader of the Inner London Education Authority, Frances Morrell.[2] She also advised the Right Hon. Margaret Beckett MP who went on to serve in the 1997 Labour government. Pettifor also worked as a lobbyist for Ian Greer Associates.
Pettifor co-founded the Jubilee 2000 worldwide campaign for the cancellation of the debts of the poorest countries.[1] In 1998, Jubilee 2000 organized a human chain of approximately 70,000 people, which surrounded the 1998 G8 summit in Birmingham, United Kingdom.[2] In 1999 at the Cologne G8 Summit, the G8 agreed to write off approximately $100 billion in third world debt, in large part due to the campaign, which had supporters such as Pope John Paul II, Muhammed Ali, Bono, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Bill Clinton.[3]”
So can we not do replies? Guido does and that’s the same format, isn’t it?
I think we can… 🙂
OT
Here’s an article for Sue – and others
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/03/29/Allen-West-J-Street
Brillo’s show is possibly even worse than QT. Who else would call on Millie Tant dressed as Carmen Miranda to exonerate rioters?
Brillo (and Johnson) asked their looney guest some very searching questions.
You watchit, mate…if I go on the rampage, look out!
“Shambles & Chaos”.
Perhaps the BBC should ask Ed Milliband to use the same descriptive observations about his Party’s performance in this mornings Bradford by-election.
I’ve just heard the BBC24 presenter refer to Galloway as ‘the anti-war Respect Party candidate.
If the BBC can refer (rightly) to the EDL as ‘far right’, they can certainly refer to Galloway as ‘the far left/Islamist Respect Party candidate’.
Sounds like Gramsci ultra is typing the auto-cue tonight.
Listening to Chris Mason reporting Galloway’s by-election victory. According to him Galloway has split the left vote. Nothing about Bradford’s huge Muslim population supporting a champion of Muslim terrorism and tyranny.
Yes, it wouldn’t have anything to do with Galloway’s own messages to the local Mohammedans to reject the Labour candidate as a traitor to Islam, would it, BBC? Anti-war, or religious war, BBC?
If you describe the 20% Asian population in Bradford as “huge”; I wonder how you would describe the other 80% of the non-Asian population?
Four times as huge?
Well-groomed.
20% eh, so who did the counting?
Did they go into every attic and every garden shed?
Did they go into the mosques?
Do illegal immigrants stand up to be counted?
There are lies, dammed lies and then ..… statistics.
Dez, do you have the percentages for the constituency in question?
He doesn’t know Bradford. He wouldn’t be seen dead there. Actually he probably would.
As usual, you are wrong Dez.
The Muslim % of voting age in Bradford-West is 38.
Or put another way for you to understand –
NOT 20% BUT 38%
On Sky they just interviewed Ms. Harperson.
The term ‘lessons need to be learned’ came up… a lot.
I think she needs to get to a BBC studio pronto to stop the nasty questions being asked… along with the snort when such a facile reply is offered.
Mind you, they screened Galloway’s victory speech without comment, but then again I really didn’t need any. What a total…
His constituents have the candidate they deserve.
Be funny watching the BBC get its head round Respect vs. Labour, especially as the Conservatives seem chilled on their inevitable whupping anyway.
When does the BBC suddenly start showing interest in incidents of violence against Jews in Europe? Why, when they can pin it on white nationalists, of course.
I guess the only way they’ll ever report what’s happened to the Jews in Malmö is if the two guys from ABBA start beating up a few.
It’s happening in Chicago too, by the way. I doubt you’ll ever see Jonny Dymond do a report on the rising anti-Jewish sentiment in the US, or the continuing trend to tolerate violence against all Jews everywhere in retaliation for Israel’s sins.
Dez – ref your 20% vs. 80%: context is important .