It’s been a busy morning attacking the Conservative led Coalition on the BBC Today programme. The focus of attack, of course, is always on the Conservative element of that Coalition.
We were treated to Ed Balls whingeing about changes to welfare which come into effect with the new tax year today. Balls was allowed to bluster and he stuck to his script paying little regard to the gentle questions asked of him. In fairness, Lib-Dem Danny Alexander was permitted to make some replies although James Naughtie seemed determined to leave the impression that the tax and welfare changes can be made without affecting anyone. This is from the Balls school of economics and it is one that the BBC seem at ease with.
However this was merely the warm up act for the main attack of the day. In essence, how dare the Secretary of State for Health Andrew Lansley order spot checks on Abortion clinics? The BBC brought on a Lib Dem (Can’t remember his name) just before 7am to have a ritual sneer at Lansley and this was promptly followed by Andy Burnham joining in the feeding frenzy. The argument pursued was based on the claim by the chair of the Quality Care Commission, Dame Jo Williams, that the request to audit these abortion clinics has cost “one million” pounds (Is that an extra £1m and if so, why?) and may impact of the QCC hitting annual targets. Do you think that Dame Jo might herself be carrying a little political baggage? The reason I ask is that I note the Guardian raises a few concerns about her…
The inference is that Lansley ordered a comprehensive check on mis-practice by Doctors in these abortion clinics to deflect bad headlines he was getting on the NHS Health bill. Burnham agreed that it was suspicious. The fact that 50 out of 300 clinics were found to be breaking procedures was deemed neither here nor there. To other eyes this would be seen as an utter scandal. Not to the BBC.
Then we moved on to a THIRD and prime time interview with some manager from the NHS I think (running order has not been put up at time of me writing, despite the world class technical resources they have at the BBC). This time, Detective Sarah Montague remorselessly pursued the line that the TIMING of the Abortion Clinic inspections was…interesting. She was an echo chamber for what Burnham had said earlier.
Today had one aim this morning – to spear the Conservative Andrew Lansley because he ordered a thorough audit of Abortion Clinics. To my mind, this was the BBC using the guise of the Dame’s report to smear the integrity of Lansley and by extension, the Conservatives. Plus ca change?
As soon as I hear that annoying idiot Balls I switch over. I simply cannot stand his lies and the accompanying palpable desperation to regain political power at any cost. It’s the same as Harriet The PC Priestess and the upper class mummy’s boy Miliband; my blood pressure simply can’t take it. As for our socialist friends the BBC, They are desperate for the reinstatement of Liebore, they ARE desperate I tell you! If Liebore ever get back in then the BBC will get the green light to carry on in haste their socialist plan to destroy England through their continuing bombardment of lies, censorship and propaganda. Little will stand in the way of their turning it into the New Left utopian ‘promised land’ where there is no such thing as race, gender, intelligence, or independence of thought. And where hurting one’s political feelings and sensitivities is a more serious offense than killing someone or perpetrating a violent crime , where Christianity is consigned to the dustbin of history whilst Islam is forced upon the populace…Goodness, it’s only 0944 and I’m on a rant already!
I do the same – does this ever show up on their audience rating?
Me too. Ed ‘actually, actually’ Ballsup is straight off and I still can’t understand how the extremist-Labour likes of him and traitorous as hell Brownshyte aren’t behind bars for deliberately imposing mass immigration on the UK in an attempt to try buying imported votes and keep Labour in power – obviously at any cost! If TWICE as many immigrants let in in the 13 years between 1997 and 2010 as were in the 26 years from 1971 to 1997 isn’t criminally scandalous then I don’t know what is!
– http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
– http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-1250096/Using-immigration-turn-Britain-nation-Labour-voters-shameful-I-hardly-believe-it.html
Labour’s social engineering and votes for them came first, NOT the country!!
If unborn children were being killed unlawfully in these clinics, and Lansley had known about it and done nothing, then that would have been a real scandal.
TODAY, vermin on a plate that they are, would have been more than happy to let him get away with it. For these libertines of the sexual revolution, sacrificing pre-born babies on the altar of sexual freedom is the only type of ‘religion’ they approve of.
What utter scum, and the Tories and any half-decent person with so much attack material to counter their wanton evil.
The Beeb doesn’t mind if people kill their unborn daughters, ’cause it is cultural, naturally, so we can’t complain.
Rueful Red
That is what I also think but Detective Montague had the more pressing issue of timing in her sight…
I’ve also noticed how the bBC uses any story concerning the NHS (National Harpy service) in which to attack the government.
I mean time and time again we hear bad news stories about the NHS (but not from the bBC) you know that NHS which contrary to bBC opinion has seen its budget grow and not as it promotes, contract. For a start the NHS which is for British taxpayers spends over £20 million a year providing translation services to people who don’t speak English.
Which brings me to the issue of how non British tax-payers are allowed to be treated for free in the UK. The NHS opines it is against their mandate to ask people if they are eligible to the NHS, yet what those leftwing wankers don’t mention is that in each and every other country in the world (including socialist paradises such as Russia, China, Cuba and Venezuela) you have to pay to use their medical services and their medical staff have no problem asking you for money, never mind if you have a right to use their services.
But then I am talking about the wankers at the NHS who claimed that testing immigrants for Aids,TB and other such exotic delights have seen them become growth industries in the UK. Only the other month they push for and won the right for illegal immigrants to be given free medical care. (As if they didn’t already get it)
The NHS does nothing but bleed money, after each and every expensive mistake they make, we hear the immortal words “We will look into this and take steps in which to see such mistakes are not replicated” but they don’t and weeks later we hear the same the story again.
The NHS if it was managed with common sense would be a world beater, unfortunately I am talking about an org which hired HIV positive nurses from Africa in which to cover a shortfall in British nursing staff, which has resulted in the very nurses brought in to treat patients in the UK, becoming patients themselves.
But to the bBC anybody who tries to sort out the leftwing dogma at the NHS which is basically pissing money down a very large hole is a bad thing.
You are right. It seems the minute you set foot in this country you have the right to use the NHS and even to some degree be ‘British’ if the media is to be believed. My daughter has a long-term illness and I am far from impressed with some aspects of her care at the hands of the ‘wonderful’ NHS. Doctors that you struggle to understand due to their foreign accent and I get the impression they don’t understand where we are coming from either. Mind you I’m not having a pop at all immigrant NHS workers as I can’t speak highly enough of a nurse that used to look after my daughter. Then there’s the boob jobs ffs. The NHS definitely needs some reform, certain non essential treatments need to be ditched, some staff need to go and eligibility of use needs looking at.
I pay to see a dentist and I have for at least 10 years. I cannot find an NHS dentist and there are non around me.
Last week while having a check up (I pay £96 a year for 2 check-ups and two hygienist visits) a eastern European couple turned up, they were not young , showed a letter to the desk and were given lots of forms to fill out. they didn’t even speak english.
FFS I will vote for anybody who ensures that people who are not entitled to british tax payer funder services have to pay the full wack for everything.
Yet in demanding such, the bBC refers to me a a racist. Really? Name me any other country in the world where you are handed everything on a bloody plate
Mrs worker drone 22 works in the NHS. Fifteen years ago on our first date, she mentioned that one of the biggest problems in the NHS was the number of people coming from other countries using the name of a family member who was actually living in the UK and getting treatment. Pregnancy was the number one problem.
Fifteen years later…….still a big problem.
Oops, I have gone and liked my own comment, sorry a mistake (need a sheepish icon:) )
A non-story whipped up into a froth of liberal indignation and accusation…it must be noted that abortion is an issue that Liberals feel very strongly about….being very pro-abortion that is and anything that prevents free access on demand to abortion is an anathema.
This of course was another reason to hate George Bush…how many times did Justin Webb and Co sneer at Bush’s stance on abortion?
This time the BBC in the form of the braying Sarah Montague on the Today programme was struggling to make a story out of the government’s investigation of abortion clinic’s activities. The evolution of the story was enlightening if you had never heard a BBC non-story blossom from nothing into an all out anti-Tory attack before.
However it also reveals that if you listen to the BBC on anyone day your knowledge and views will be wholely distorted because of the BBC’s technique of taking a story in isolation to any context or previous history….unless it is about Israel in which case casualty figures from the 2009 Gaza conflict will be affixed to the bottom of any Middle East story.
Initially Today tried to claim the timing of the investigation was politically driven designed to have some effect on the coverage of the new Health Bill
Where did they go for evidence? To Labour’s Andrew Byrne asking him what he believed were the reasons for the investigation.
Now I’m not saying this is a strange choice of person or of line of questioning….but he’s an opposition politician, secondly does he know what Lansley was thoughts were when he initiated the investigation? No. Therefore anything he says will be, em, ‘politically driven’ drivel….mere opportunistic anti-Tory speculation.
Despite this innovative interview technique of essentially making ‘stuff up’ to suit yourself this line was going nowhere but joy of joy Tory Stephen Dorrell came in and said there is some question as to what are the guidelines for exactly who is responsible for deciding what the CQC does….Montague tried to insist that the government was acting illegally then…Dorrell said this was not so as its actions were perfectly within the law….the story then morphed into the ‘INDEPENDENT CQC being ORDERED to do the health secretaries bidding thereby politicising them.’ The BBC had its new line of attack.
It had another trick up its sleeve though….claiming that the investigation forced the CQC to shelve inspections of hospitals and care homes.
However the Today programme couldn’t be bothered to muster any outrage about this misdirection of resources report a few days earlier……
‘Five times as many police on hacking than chasing paedophiles
More than five times as many police officers are working on the phone hacking investigation than those tracking down paedophiles in London, the Leveson Inquiry was told yesterday.
And more money is likely to be spent on Operation Weeting than the annual budget for investigating child abuse in the capital, Kit Malthouse, the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime said…..‘enough officers to man eight murder squads are expected to be focused on the hacking inquiry by next year’ ….and that ‘there are just 27 police officers tracking down paedophiles in London while 150 officers are working on the hacking investigations.’
He said the forecasted spend on Operation Weeting was £40 million, compared with £36 million spent on investigating child abuse annually in London.’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9173800/Five-times-as-many-police-on-hacking-than-chasing-paedophiles.html
Nor did it link to this previous abortion investigation in 2004 when Labour’s John Reid ‘ORDERED’ an investigation after claims that the BPAS was helping women get illegal abortions……‘The chief medical officer (CMO), Sir Liam Donaldson, has been ORDERED to investigate allegations that the British Pregnancy Advisory Service counselled hundreds of women to have a late term abortion in a Spanish clinic.’
“This is quite common, the CMO gets involved in lots of things like this“ ‘.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/oct/18/health.politics?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
‘British Pregnancy Advisory Service helps women get illegal abortions,” the Sunday Telegraph announced this week…..”NHS-funded charity sends hundreds to Spain for terminations of healthy foetuses ‘up to 30 weeks’.”
The BPAS chief executive, Ann Furedi said these were ‘trumped up’ charges….and that ‘The Sunday Telegraph editorial this week claimed that Bpas “views the provision of abortion through crusaders eyes”…I confess: personally, I believe that women should have access to abortion as early as possible and as late as necessary. But Bpas, the organisation that I am privileged to run, is an abortion provider, and not a campaigning organisation.’
The health secretary, John Reid, referred the matter to the chief medical officer, Dr Liam Donaldson, amid claims that government money was being used to encourage abortions that would be banned in this country.’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/aug/31/health.politics?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
What is the background to the latest story on the abortion clinics?
Earlier in the year the Telegraph ran this story…..‘The Daily Telegraph has discovered that women were being granted illegal abortions by doctors based on the sex of their unborn baby.
As well as that doctors routinely sign consent forms for women having abortions without even meeting them, the former medical director of one of Britain’s biggest abortion providers said yesterday.’
‘Last year, the Council of Europe recommended that member states, including Britain, stop telling parents the gender of their baby because of concerns that this was encouraging sex-selection abortions. Many hospitals have stopped giving parents this information.’
‘In the wake of the disclosures, Mr Lansley convened an urgent meeting this morning of his top officials and decided to refer the matter to the police and medical authorities….as well as contacting the CQC to agree an investigation should be carried out……’
‘Three police forces are investigating abortion clinics – Greater Manchester, West Midlands, and the Metropolitan Police. The General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council are also carrying out investigations.’ ….announced 23rd March by Lansley.
Health-Secretary-Andrew-Lansley-to-report-clinics-and-doctors-to-police.html
The Health Department’s response to the claims……
‘The Department of Health said: “The CQC was one of the organisations who warned us of this issue at the time, and agreed with us that a programme of inspections should take place as a proportionate response to the serious allegations being made.
“We would expect the CQC, like any good regulator, to be able to prioritise its inspections and are told that in this case they did so, so that no patients were placed at risk.” ‘
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9100252/Abortion-investigation-
And for further context, especially in relation to the abortion clinic inspections effecting the efficiency of the CQC here is a report from the 30th March on Today which paints a different picture…….it would seem its efficiency is already highly questionable….
‘According to a report by the House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee, the Care Quality Commission, which is the regulator for health and adult social care in England, has failed to perform its role effectively and should not be allowed to take on new responsibilities until it has improved.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9710000/9710002.stm
‘The chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee has said that the body that regulates health and adult social care in England was set up with “an impossible task”.
Margaret Hodge told the Today programme’s Evan Davis that a report into the Care Quality Commission (CQC) found that the body had too much to do with too little money.
On the departure of its chief executive Cynthia Bower, Mrs Hodge said that a lack of “effective leadership” was also part of the problem.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9709000/9709954.stm
‘Danny Alexander was permitted…,’
He was invited on and was given ample opportunity to give the Government’s case!
‘James Naughtie seemed determined…..’
No he didn’t! What idle assertion. It was a perfectly balanced piece.
On the QCC, any reason you have failed to mention that the Government were asked to field a spokesman but failed to? Also any reason you failed to mention that Stephen Dorrel MP ( conservative chair of the Health Committee) was interviewed at length? Does this fail to fit your narrative.
There is a real story here ( the QCC is an independent regulator and Goverment is nit meant to compel it in its investigations). Dorrel said this was the main issue in his interview. It’s a good scoop by tge BBC and in the public interest.
Forgive me Mr Dandy…but Scott and Dez have taught me well!
Your point may yet be worth coming back to in due course…but the fact that it is the CQC and not the QCC rather invalidates your point.
For herein lies an outlier…the prospect of dyslexia or a rival acronym not registered by the Charity Commission?…and until we have full disclosure of the facts, it would be improper of me to comment further on the issues raised by your comments.
Sorry Jim…but this is exactly how the BBC apologists operate, and the nit-pickers like Scott and Dez…and dare I say , yourself…might benefit from being deflected, patronised as those of us who -day in and day out-have to put up with the BBCs naked one-club bias.
Abortion v female infanticide?….Islam v homosexuality?…the tumbleweed is gathering for you all!
Does it invalidate David Vance’s article? He makes the same mistake, which is what I followed.
Not a serious point.
And my posts might be a lot of things, but they’re not pedantic. As with this post, I try to stick to the facts of the issue being discussed.
The real story, which Jim entertainingly ignores, is Detective Montague and the Today gang pursuing a non story whilst ignoring the elephant in the abortion clinic.
I think the ‘some manager’ person you mentioned in your original article was the chief ececutive of the NHS confederation.
The Telegraph reports what was said here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9187866/Andrew-Lansley-was-right-to-ask-CQC-to-inspect-abortion-clinics-says-NHS-confederation.html
Readers will note the interviewee defended Lansley’s actions. So no one sided feeding frenzy.
The point is David if the genuine aim of this blog is to collect examples of BBC bias then you need to do so in a more rigorous and dispassionate way. Otherwise, the whole thing is pointless.
And who are you to lecture anyone on the methodology of collecting BBC bias? CENSORSHIP is the only evidence one needs of BBC left wing bias (the Muslim grooming epidemic cover ups and the refusal to link these appalling crimes with ethnicity is evidence enough). It’s just too bad that your liberal myopia obscures your view! Stop trying to be too clever by half and join the struggle!
Sub judice.
There is no methodology on this site. Craig and David p make a good fist, but the majority of ‘evidence’ is opinion and bluster.
Depends what you want to achieve I suppose.
Sub Judice my arse pal more like political consideration and therefore the prohibiting of all debate in true Stalinist fashion! And if you don’t like the opinions and bluster you can bugger off to the Guardian comments page as I here they like the sound of their own voices there.
JD is an argumentalist. He comes here for an argument. Simple count of his posts per hour, troll-time. Best ignored.
I see he manages to fake a couple of likes on his posts. He has a troll-friend, and at least his mum likes him.
Bless. Jim Dandy says something that runs counter to the Biased BBC groupthink, and the word “troll” comes out in lieu of any reasonable argument.
You’re relatively new around here Jim: what’ll you soon realise is that certain people around these parts have been using these same tactics for years. Their consistency doesn’t make them any more right, of course….
Your right Scez, you’re a troll, Jim definitely isn’t.
‘LondonCalling says:
April 5, 2012 at 9:00 pm’
Like a variety of ill-defined ‘isms’, I am never quite sure when a poster moves from nihilistic contrarian to troll. Even karma’s best mate (‘who makes stuff up a then get all huffy when your completely..’ Bet even Jim winced at that one), so keen to leap in default defence no matter what, and stuffing up (on both coherence AND argument), does not seem to fit the bill.
The aim appears to be simply to counter anything here no matter what, but the result is to highlight the paucity of reasoned argument there actually is when the counters are usually short, petty, silly, or bizarre, seldom more than ‘no, it isn’t’ or ‘wot I fink’ and more often than not with an irresistible need to slap in an ad hom before getting all ‘aw, shucks [sigh]’ when they get better (or the same, but it appears they are different because they are part of the ‘unique’ classes) back than they give.
Hard to ignore because, like their BBC soulmates, if left alone they will spread and by pervasive driving away of reasoned debaters prevail. Like Japanese knotweed in a nicely varied garden, they will dominate, control and, ultimately spoil simply by being loud and frequent, before moving on.
Motivations? Best summed up here:
‘majority of ‘evidence’ is opinion and bluster.
Depends what you want to achieve I suppose.’
Once it sinks in that what they achieve is actually the reverse of what is intended, they may get replaced, or if with no other gig, relegated to box-tickers in support of the new boy.
Fake my likes.? You sir are a bounder.
Oh, the condescension. And what, pray, draws you to lower yourself to come here?
The interest in debate. Of course, the risk is that we buy yet propel like you, who makes stuff up a then get all huffy when your completely
Oops, my apologies: for some reason my mobile device decided to start submitting my comment before I’d finished.
As I was saying, the trail is that we encounter someone like Millie Tant, who thinks nothing of lying about what people he doesn’t like may or may my have said: and, when called out on his lies, gets all huffy as if laziness and stupidity (“how am I expected to know whether what I’ve previously claimed I to be true is actually true or not?”) are excuses…
…and again, I was in suh a rush to complete my last comment that I didn’t check my mobile’s idiosyncratic autocomplete choices. Apologies: hope the meaning is nevertheless clear.
To clarify: my question was addressed to Dandy. Surprise, surprise: an attention-seeking malevolent troll has eagerly seized an opening to repeat his malicious smears, no doubt emboldened by the support of defenders of the indefensible. Naturally, he is as ever quick to show his characteristic spite and venom, neatly negating any argument that he comes here as a bona fide contributor. DV was right in the first place to challenge him on his baseless and malicious allegations against people here. He has repeatedly crossed a line into insult and slander and is as bad as any of the other trolls that have plagued this site in the past.
JD: “Readers will note the interviewee defended Lansley’s actions. So no one sided feeding frenzy”
Yes, noted, despite Montague’s partisan efforts to lead him in the opposite direction.
“any reason you have failed to mention that the Government were asked to field a spokesman but failed to?”
HMG asked to comment at the last minute just to give credibility to what was obviously going to be a well orchestrated hatchet piece.
Pity that for reasons best known to their learned and noble Law Lords, the Courts give immunity to the BBC over FOI requests like the Balen Report.
Lefties have subverted all strands of British public life and we need a political party that will clean them out.
“The fact that 50 out of 300 clinics were found to be breaking procedures was deemed neither here nor there.”
It’s worth noting that the figure of 50 comes from reporting by the Telegraph of CQC inspections of 329 clinics, and includes any non-compliance issues, no matter how minor – and not 50 instances of forms being pre-signed.
From a FoI request:
The FoI request can’t go into more detail, but the full breakdown would have been available to Lansley. So he would know that the illegal presigning of forms was not as widespread as the public newspaper reports suggested, and could have taken action that was less disruptive.
A non-story whipped up into a froth of liberal indignation and accusation…it must be noted that abortion is an issue that Liberals feel very strongly about….being very pro-abortion that is and anything that prevents free access on demand to abortion is an anathema.
This of course was another reason to hate the not so Gorgeous George Bush…how many times did Justin Webb and Co sneer at Bush’s stance on abortion?
This time the BBC in the form of the braying Sarah Montague on the Today programme was struggling to make a story out of the government’s investigation of abortion clinic’s activities. The evolution of the story was enlightening if you had never heard a BBC non-story blossom from nothing into an all out anti-Tory attack before.
However it also reveals that if you listen to the BBC on anyone day your knowledge and views will be wholely distorted because of the BBC’s technique of taking a story in isolation to any context or previous history….unless it is about Israel in which case casualty figures from the 2009 Gaza conflict will be affixed to the bottom of any Middle East story.
Initially Today tried to claim the timing of the investigation was politically driven designed to have some effect on the coverage of the new Health Bill
Where did they go for evidence? To Labour’s Andrew Byrne asking him what he believed were the reasons for the investigation.
Now I’m not saying this is a strange choice of person or of line of questioning….but he’s an opposition politician, secondly does he know what Lansley was thoughts were when he initiated the investigation? No. Therefore anything he says will be, em, ‘politically driven’ drivel….mere opportunistic anti-Tory speculation.
Despite this innovative interview technique of essentially making ‘stuff up’ to suit yourself this line was going nowhere but joy of joy Tory Stephen Dorrell came in and said there is some question as to what are the guidelines for exactly who is responsible for deciding what the CQC does….Montague tried to insist that the government was acting illegally then…Dorrell said this was not so as its actions were perfectly within the law….the story then morphed into the ‘INDEPENDENT CQC being ORDERED to do the health secretaries bidding thereby politicising them.’ The BBC had its new line of attack.
It had another trick up its sleeve though….claiming that the investigation forced the CQC to shelve inspections of hospitals and care homes.
However the Today programme couldn’t be bothered to muster any outrage about this misdirection of resources report a few days earlier……
‘Five times as many police on hacking than chasing paedophiles
More than five times as many police officers are working on the phone hacking investigation than those tracking down paedophiles in London, the Leveson Inquiry was told yesterday.
And more money is likely to be spent on Operation Weeting than the annual budget for investigating child abuse in the capital, Kit Malthouse, the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime said…..‘enough officers to man eight murder squads are expected to be focused on the hacking inquiry by next year’ ….and that ‘there are just 27 police officers tracking down paedophiles in London while 150 officers are working on the hacking investigations.’
He said the forecasted spend on Operation Weeting was £40 million, compared with £36 million spent on investigating child abuse annually in London.’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9173800/Five-times-as-many-police-on-hacking-than-chasing-paedophiles.html
Nor did it link to this previous abortion investigation in 2004 when Labour’s John Reid ‘ORDERED’ an investigation after claims that the BPAS was helping women get illegal abortions……‘The chief medical officer (CMO), Sir Liam Donaldson, has been ORDERED to investigate allegations that the British Pregnancy Advisory Service counselled hundreds of women to have a late term abortion in a Spanish clinic.’
“This is quite common, the CMO gets involved in lots of things like this“ ‘.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/oct/18/health.politics?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
‘British Pregnancy Advisory Service helps women get illegal abortions,” the Sunday Telegraph announced this week…..”NHS-funded charity sends hundreds to Spain for terminations of healthy foetuses ‘up to 30 weeks’.”
The BPAS chief executive, Ann Furedi said these were ‘trumped up’ charges….and that ‘The Sunday Telegraph editorial this week claimed that Bpas “views the provision of abortion through crusaders eyes”…I confess: personally, I believe that women should have access to abortion as early as possible and as late as necessary. But Bpas, the organisation that I am privileged to run, is an abortion provider, and not a campaigning organisation.’
The health secretary, John Reid, referred the matter to the chief medical officer, Dr Liam Donaldson, amid claims that government money was being used to encourage abortions that would be banned in this country.’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/aug/31/health.politics?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
What is the background to the latest story on the abortion clinics?
Earlier in the year the Telegraph ran this story…..‘The Daily Telegraph has discovered that women were being granted illegal abortions by doctors based on the sex of their unborn baby.
As well as that doctors routinely sign consent forms for women having abortions without even meeting them, the former medical director of one of Britain’s biggest abortion providers said yesterday.’
‘Last year, the Council of Europe recommended that member states, including Britain, stop telling parents the gender of their baby because of concerns that this was encouraging sex-selection abortions. Many hospitals have stopped giving parents this information.’
‘In the wake of the disclosures, Mr Lansley convened an urgent meeting this morning of his top officials and decided to refer the matter to the police and medical authorities….as well as contacting the CQC to agree an investigation should be carried out……’
‘Three police forces are investigating abortion clinics – Greater Manchester, West Midlands, and the Metropolitan Police. The General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council are also carrying out investigations.’ ….announced 23rd March by Lansley.
Health-Secretary-Andrew-Lansley-to-report-clinics-and-doctors-to-police.html
The Health Department’s response to the claims……
‘The Department of Health said: “The CQC was one of the organisations who warned us of this issue at the time, and agreed with us that a programme of inspections should take place as a proportionate response to the serious allegations being made.
“We would expect the CQC, like any good regulator, to be able to prioritise its inspections and are told that in this case they did so, so that no patients were placed at risk.” ‘
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9100252/Abortion-investigation-
And for further context, especially in relation to the abortion clinic inspections effecting the efficiency of the CQC here is a report from the 30th March on Today which paints a different picture…….it would seem its efficiency is already highly questionable….
‘According to a report by the House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee, the Care Quality Commission, which is the regulator for health and adult social care in England, has failed to perform its role effectively and should not be allowed to take on new responsibilities until it has improved.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9710000/9710002.stm
‘The chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee has said that the body that regulates health and adult social care in England was set up with “an impossible task”.
Margaret Hodge told the Today programme’s Evan Davis that a report into the Care Quality Commission (CQC) found that the body had too much to do with too little money.
On the departure of its chief executive Cynthia Bower, Mrs Hodge said that a lack of “effective leadership” was also part of the problem.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9709000/9709954.stm
Dorrell said that Lansley was perfectly within his rights to instigate an investigation.
It is questionable that an opposition politician like Byrne should be asked to speculate on the mindset of the government when making decisions…He is hardly likely to say anything good….it is mere specualtion and politically driven if not malicious drivel….Maybe I should check Lansley’s horoscope in the paper today to see what he’s up to?
And where is the BBC outrage at the enormous police resources being diverted towards investigating the Labour Lovie’s phones being hacked?…..
‘Five times as many police on hacking than chasing paedophiles.
More than five times as many police officers are working on the phone hacking investigation than those tracking down paedophiles in London, the Leveson Inquiry was told yesterday.
And more money is likely to be spent on Operation Weeting than the annual budget for investigating child abuse in the capital, Kit Malthouse, the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime said…..‘enough officers to man eight murder squads are expected to be focused on the hacking inquiry by next year’ ….and that ‘there are just 27 police officers tracking down paedophiles in London while 150 officers are working on the hacking investigations.’
He said the forecasted spend on Operation Weeting was £40 million, compared with £36 million spent on investigating child abuse annually in London.’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9173800/Five-times-as-many-police-on-hacking-than-chasing-paedophiles.html
Nothing like a politically driven investigation to bring down a poltically powerful media baron?…one that is ideologically and commercially set against the BBC.
last comment….should be Andrew Burnham not Byrne. Too early.
We, the readers of this blog, hear these non-stories for what they are and get information that gets us nearer the truth from other commentators. But I guess that many others will hear this blatent blowing up of nothing into something for what it is… and they will question the BBC’s version of things more (I hope).
Heard a bit of this-and that`s all I needed to hear.
Also heard the usual anti-Academy crap at the end of this apology of a show…just a tawdry rag bag of a Trojan Horse that the BBC think we`ll allow back in a few years.
Certainly the BBC are doing their bit…but they are hated as much as Labour, would that they knew this..
Didn`t inspections into scandals and wilful lawbreaking used to be a “virtuous cause” up there in Beebland?
Oh …I forgot…when it comes to abortion clinics or bog standard herding pens for the chavs and their kids….ours not to reason why, let alone question!
So female infanticide doesn`t even raise the hackles of the Radio 4 wimmin…unless there`s a chance of an Occupy or Slutwalk spin off with Laura Penney or Polly Toynbee.
There are things that the BBC will hound unto death…legal or not…and there are things that the BBC would rather we not bother to look at, for fear of letting daylight in on the magic.
F666 the f666`in BBC-and this latest episode of breathtaking hypocrisy and double standards only stores the hatred up for the dam to burst one day.
As for Balls and Miliband…Tom Bowers book on Gordon Brown shows the calibre of willy warmers that aspire to leading the country into hell….”no, no, no” to quote the Blessed Margaret of Grantham
Is it just me or did anyone else hearing this report get a starnge urge to put on a Dr Evil voice every time the BBC hacks quoted the shocking figure of 1 Millllllllion pounds?
Is that more or less than the BBC spends on Glastonbury?
How about US election coverage?
Which is it anyway? Is the BBC angry that these inspections wasted public money or that they prevented something else being inspected? The inspections were going to cost £1 million whoever they inspected. The only way not to incur the costs was not to have the inspections.
The problem with BBC News and the Today programme is that they present reports as if they were tabloid headlines….but not just as eye catching headlines but throughout the body of the reports.
They are often shallow, without a broader perspective, with no reference to previous similar events or to stories with a relevant link that would greatly improve the understanding and insight into any given story.
Of course this you might suspect is deliberate…..’If you control the past you control the future; if you control the present you control the past. ‘…..you may suspect that they fully intend that you don’t get the full picture and present you with the News in the most damaging way possible to the Tory Party.
Perhaps not…..after all…..
‘The BBC’s editorial values:
Truth and accuracy.
We strive to be accurate and establish the truth of what has happened. Accuracy is more important than speed and it is often more than a question of getting the facts right. We will weigh all relevant facts and information to get at the truth. Our output will be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language…’
‘They are often shallow, without a broader perspective’
They are also, too often, plain inaccurate, and the excuse being trialled is that the demands of the new media commitment won’t let accuracy fit.
Something I feel ill-disposed to let pass, hence tying the ECU and Trust in ‘can we ban him yet?’ knots by simply not taking ‘but we think we’re right’ as an answer. Polite. Persistent. Firm.
And when what they strive for is what they miss totally, then… and I savour this… ‘questions will need to be asked’.
That the answers from BBC Director level make Mr. ‘It’s worse than that it’s dead wrong’ Dandy’s apologist misfires seem coherent is merely a cherry (from orchards of my own) on top.
Burnham. He who signed off the recommendation that Stafford District General ‘Hospital’ be given Foundation Status. He who went on to blame this on his officials and the failings up there on the people of Stafford for not speaking up.
Burnham claims that Lansley needed a distraction. So why this story this morning? Not that Labour need to smokescreen Ken Livinstone’s tax affairs.
I wonder if the BBC will pursue Livingstone over the non publication of his tax and earnings, something that he promised to do on Newsnight last night.
On one news bulletin I heard this morning, the lead item started off by letting us know that Labour had criticised the Health Secretary…
I wondered at the time why that was the “story”, rather than the CQC’s comments or findings being the story. They were mentioned only later.
Beeboids love to talk about the “story”when defining or defending their journalism. (I’ll resist putting the last word there in inverted commas too!) Seems they like to create a “story” out of a matter of substance and public interest. Their “story” however will be one designed to create drama, sensation and a party political contest in which it can play a part and play up or play down the “story” to suit. Beeboidery is so predictable.
This morning Sheila Fogarty dragged in Dr Evan Harris….or Dr Death as the Daily Mail calls him for his “radical views on abortion, voluntary euthanasia, immigration and gay rights”. to talk about the abortion investigation.
Dr Evan Harris is vice chair of the Lib Dems’ federal policy committee. He has a Guardian political science blog…surprise surprise….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-science
Note no mention of this was made in the interest of balance…..Mike Farrar, chief executive of the NHS Confederation “I think it is entirely legitimate that a Secretary of State faced with a particular issue … might take a view that he would want the independent regulator to look into something as serious as this.” .
Fogarty is normally quite fair and did her best but was fighting a losing battle against a pretty incoherent Harris who kept claiming the government had a secret agenda…but refused to say why he thought that…as he admitted he didn’t actually know.
Amusingly as the interview went on he picked up and any comment Fogarty made and used that to accuse the Tories of numerous sins.
Harris two such claims being in the ‘conspiracy theory’ territory.
First he claimed that Lansley was guilty of political motives because he announced the investigation before it happened…apparently this has never been done before…er…except it has and on the same subject…..
‘The Health Secretary, Dr John Reid, has promised to investigate claims that the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) is helping women obtain abortions after the 24 week limit.
Responding to the Telegraph’s investigation, Dr Reid said: “After long and anguished debate on this, the view of Parliament is absolutely clear, as is the British law. If there is evidence that the will of Parliament is being thwarted and that the law of a fellow European country is being broken by an organisation in receipt of public money, this would be a very serious situation indeed.”’
The second claim was that was the Tories attempt to garner the right wing Christian vote.
Or it could have been a response to extremely serious allegations that babies were being aborted on the basis of their sex and that abortions were being routinely signed off by doctors without even seeing the patients.
It could be noted that such abortions on the basis of gender….girls in particular…are a feature of certain cultures…not British.
The BBC may be reluctant to mention this for some reason.
‘er, except it has’
That wasn’t the regulator, it was the cmo.
Good to hear this programme had a balance of views.
I fear there are a number of cultures where there is pressure to abort on a gender basis. India is particularly bad. And China too of course. Chilling.
I would love to take a huge shit on Ed Balls sickly face.
Oooh Betty!!!
Charming – not!
Try not to M/s Swollocks. It would be awfully bad manners and you could get arrested for it.
Has lwtf1964 found another pseudonym by which to deposit his own unique brand of contributions? The lack of substance and high swear-word-to-relevance ratio would at least suggest he’s got a possible soulmate…
Odone’s view on the Today programme’s coverage.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100149449/how-the-pro-choice-today-programme-distorted-lansleys-inquiry-into-the-abuse-of-the-abortion-act/#disqus_thread
Jim Dandy…point in question was whether the Health Minister had ordered an investigation and then announced it….Reid did….Harris lied, or is incompetent…or both.
and yes, let’s have a look at what Odone has to say….it’s hardly pro-BBC Jimmy….
‘The Today programme obviously reckons it is the highest authority in the land – the Supreme Court, Government and General Synod all in one. Today sets the agenda and the priorities – and woe betide any hapless minister who dares challenge their liberal orthodoxy.
Throughout, Today attacked Lansley for betraying public interest; in fact the programme will only defend the interest of those members of the public who share its own moral compass.
The charge of politicising should be levelled at the supposedly apolitical BBC rather than on the elected Lansley. Both the news report and the discussions this morning betrayed a political and social agenda hostile to any restriction whatsoever on abortion on demand.
And for this bias, we pay through the nose….for the Today programme’s ‘manufactured scoop!’
‘it’s hardly pro-BBC Jimmy’
Indeed not. Thought i’d post in the interests of open debate.
I’ve noticed you often do this to be fair. You set out your pro-BBC position then you come across an article from somewhere else that is more anti-BBC and you bring it here, but obviously not to support your own position. Fair play to you.
Thanks for this Jim.
All I seek is some intellectual coherence and consistency from the BBC.
Female infanticide was supposed to be the sorry scandals of places like rural India, China or Mali…not Britain in 2012.
Do I blame immigration?…Muslims?…or the likes of Womans Hour that choose to condone it by not making any issue out of the scandal?
I don`t know-but as long as the BBC agenda trumps my right to know what the facts are, I will rage at the BBC who have form in selecting when to go all KD Lang on me…and when to do a Tessa Jowell when the mortgage bills don`t come.
That doctors have been pre-signing permission forms to abort in clear violation of the law is truly evil-but the BBC prefer to think it all as anti-vulnerable women, Tory-led and therefore sexist maan!
Let`s hear no more crap about us all being equal under the law, for some laws(smoking) are to be enforced whereas others(abortions) are moveable and flexible feasts.
Only the liberal elite would choose to jail a smoker or burger salesman…and let a killer of female foetuses go without any consequences.
That the Telegraph did this to abortionists…not the Times stitching up a Tory blowhard…seems to make it “irrelevant”.
So says the BBC…f666 `em!
I couldn’t believe the Andy Burnham interview. Burnham is hardly going to give an objective view and so it just becomes a party political broadcast. Full of claims and commentary without challenge.
They failed to consider the alternative outcome that would have had the media find out about the illegal abortions without Lansley being aware. Imagine the media and Labour Party outrage!
They failed to recognise that there was a lot of concern when the Health Bill sought to remove responsibility for the NHS from the Health Secretary. The bill was changed and the Health Secretary maintained his traditional role. So is it surprising that he then gets the CQC to investigate potential wrong doing?
They tried to suggest that Lansley had made the instruction to the CQC because the Health Bill was having a rough time in parliament. In fact the instruction was given to the CQC the day after the bill was finally passed by the Commons.
Today’s report on this was wrong in so many ways. Utterly biased.
I dont know if anyone has posted the links that weren’t up before DV ‘went to press’, but here they are:-
First, Sanchia Berg’s report, who is BBC Bent on legs. Note the marked absence of any balancing comment from the Rt Hon Andrew Lansley’s Dept:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9711000/9711222.stm
With their new fandangled ‘running order’, TODAY only carries snippets, but on iplayer below, the TODAY ‘coverage’ can be heard in all its tawdriness.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/b006qj9z/console
Hear the BBC baby killers in full flow. They’ll never forgive the Daily Telgraph and Andrew Lansley for reminding them that the abortion laws do place some restraint on their sexual license to kill.
“The timing rather interesting”. Sheesh. They’d love us to go back to Roman pagan times, just knocking off the elderly, sick and unwanted babies if they threaten to cramp their self-centredness.
on iplayer from 2:10.
What about the NHS federation chap and Dorrel? Both provided a different emphasis on the issue. Plus the BBC said at least three times during the hour i listened that they’d asked for DoH to field someone but had been refused.
Don’t let your antipathy to abortion cloud your judgement. The issue at hand here is different.
Jim, Sarah Montague (how appropriate her initials) did lead with ‘Andy Burnham asks, as he has too, about the timing’. ‘He has too’? How much of a partisan comment is that?
This is clearly a well contrived propaganda piece by the TODAY programme (they admit they made the FOI request, suspiciously knowing where to look to serve their purposes), no doubt worked on over some Islington dinner party to protect the vested interests of the abortion lobby and all the 60’s revolutionary, narcissistic baggage that comes in its train.
I love R5L, but listening to Radio 4 N&CA is like listening to political pornography. R5L is such a relief compared to this evil garbage.
Oh, I caught the female presenter on 5Live Drive interview Andy Burnham on the matter and to my mind she proved yet again what a blessed contrast 5Live is to Radio 4. Rather than being part of a propaganda double act like TODAY, she was questioning his position.
Strewth, this contempt for the life of pre-born babies really does show what a cup of cold sick the TODAY programme is.
Hi to every , since I am actually keen of reading this web site’s post to be updated on a regular basis. It includes fastidious information.