182 Responses to OPEN THREAD

←Older Comments
  1. Guest Who says:
    April 29, 2012 at 8:31 am

    Uh-oh. I am not sure I am too keen on the inevitable ‘twitter source to ‘news’ report” from Richard Black on this one…
    EarthMatter ‏ @EarthDefendah
    RT @tonkawrdm RT @sodomy_bot: I love sodomy! RT @sgravn: “Sodomy is eco-friendly, and #abortion is #green.”… http://bit.ly/IegPx9

       0 likes

  2. Guest Who says:
    April 29, 2012 at 9:18 am

    Raymond Snoddy offers many possibilities to those of us who, on a wet Sunday morning with little else to do, have Chinese wives…
    Raymond Snoddy ‏ @RaymondSnoddy
    Fact that both Hunt and Murdoch have Chinese wives would make a wonderful “back channel” – probably nothing in it but someone should ask
    Guessing this was not a tack adopted when Ben Bradshaw was in the driving seat.
    In other news…
    I see Mr. Harrabin has a Twitter page, and though he still claims he’s with the BBC (but on sabbatical), no ‘views are personal so my employer is golden’ disclaimers. So, guessing this is fully signed off…
    ‘roger harrabin ‏ @RogerHarrabin
    Last time a Tory govt relaxed planning it set lots of car trips in concrete. Anyone watching this time?
    No mention of who was watching, other than in watertight oversight, last time a Labour govt needed the spotlight

       0 likes

  3. George R says:
    April 29, 2012 at 9:49 am

    Peter Hitchens :-

    drugs, Russell Brand, greenies, BSkyB, Stephen Fry, and cyclists.

    http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

       1 likes

  4. Guest Who says:
    April 29, 2012 at 10:08 am

    I commend this blog to the house (it just gets funnier):
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldtonight/2012/04/does_murdoch_matter.html

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:
      April 29, 2012 at 8:11 pm

      But Lustig won’t be criticizing the BBC for being the largest media power in the country by far, using its power to quietly monopolize local journalism.

         0 likes

      • Guest Who says:
        April 30, 2012 at 8:52 am

        Things really not going too well for Mr. Lustig and now his belated support team, as they take a nice hole and dig deeper.

           0 likes

  5. noggin says:
    April 29, 2012 at 11:29 am

    the big questions … on halal/kosher meat and labelling
    lack of a certain religion i could mention when it comes to answering even the most rudimentary question??, mind you, did you think any would even get asked???
    😀 … where? are all the “ejector seat” muslim spokesman? … when someone is there with all the hard facts eh! ???
    the biggest,(if you excuse the pun) and only question here seemed inextricably, to be about the (giggle) … rampant erm “unicorn” 😀 of islamophobia ????? ….
    aaahhh! the el beeb/campbell staple.

    nothing, about halal its so called religions insidious
    push to control schools/colleges/councils etc meat intake to conform to islam, the shameful and disgraceful
    throwback mentality, of those behind it, in DIRECT contrast to the kosher meat community, a point that has been made inadvertently on other shows in the series … but (of course 😀 ) not here.

    more sharia bbc

       2 likes

  6. Guest Who says:
    April 29, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    Meanwhile polls show the guys in charge are useless. I knew that. How the guys in the wings who are even worse rise up is more of a worry

       1 likes

  7. Craig says:
    April 29, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    Ed Stourton’s ‘Sunday’ continues to major on stories embarrassing to the Roman Catholic Church.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01gnhry#synopsis

    Today’s main topic was this:
    “Welcome to Sunday. The Catholic Education Service this week urged Catholic schools to get stuck into the Church’s campaign against gay marriage. The CES wants heads to encourage pupils to sign a petition. Was that wise? Was it indeed legal? Do e-mail us at Sunday@bbc.co.uk if you have any thoughts.”

    The issue thus neatly framed against the CES from the very start of the programme, when the issue returned later Ed continued in the same vein, beginning “The Catholic Church’s Education Service has come in for some flak over the last week…” and went on, “According to some of the Church’s opponents in this area what the CES has done may be illegal. For an expert view we turned to David Wolfe, a QC who specialises in education law.”

    And what is the view of Ed’s voice of authority, his chosen “expert”? That, yes, the CES’s actions are illegal.

    Ed asked him, “What about Equalities legislation, does that come into play at all in this matter?”

    Yes, it does, replied the expert QC. Gays and lesbian rights are being offended against by the CES.

    If you check out David Wolfe’s page at Matrix Solicitors and read who his clients are you might guess why ‘Sunday’ went straight to him for impartial, expert advice. (“Non-Governmental Organisations, such as Friends of the Earth, WWF, the Woodland Trust, Badger Trust, Fish Legal, the British Humanist Association, the National Secular Society, the Cyclists’ Defence Fund, Badger Trust, RSPCA, Guide Dogs, IPSEA (the Independent Panel for Special Educational Advice), Guide Dogs and the Campaign for National Parks, and bodies such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission.”)
    http://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/Members/4/David%20Wolfe.aspx

    Next up, Ed wondered, “So what about the reaction of headteachers?”

    Presumably a couple of heads with contrasting views were ready and waiting? No, just one: “Carol Buchanan is the head at Cardinal Newman School in Coventry and I asked her how she responded to the letter from the CES.”

    She didn’t feel the petition was appropriate and feared it could cause ‘homophobia’.

    So, a chosen expert who thinks it’s illegal and a chosen headteacher who is also against it and fears it could worsen ‘homophobia’.

    Both interviewees so far were not interrupted by Ed even once.

    Thus primed it was time to put up some poor sucker to take all the flak on behalf of the CES: “Well, we did ask the CES if they’d like to put someone forward to discuss all this but they declined our invitation. We are however joined by Jack Valero of the Catholic advocacy group, Catholic Voices. Good morning.”

    Jack Valero, who is against gay marriage, was interrupted four times by an Ed who had suddenly turned from a sleepy English sheepdog into a feisty Jack Russell terrier. On two occasions, Mr. Valero had barely began his defence before being firmly interrupted and contradicted by Ed (once about four seconds into a reply, the other about two seconds in!)

    Late on in this interview, Ed’s call at the start of the programme for listeners’ e-mails bore the inevitable fruit: “Let me put to you an e-mail we’ve had while we’ve been on the air from..I take it from the way the e-mail is written from a Catholic..’I am confident that young people will be quick to dismiss this ridiculous, offensive drivel from the CES. The Catholic Church on gay marriage and women continues to be an embarrassment. It’s difficult for me to find a convincing answer when my child asks me how I can continue to be a member of a sexist, homophobic organisation.'”

    This is an old issue with the BBC: How many e-mails did ‘Sunday’ get while they were on air on this issue? What was the balance of pros and antis? Was this ‘anti’ e-mail representative? Was it the most extremely-worded? Why was it chosen above all others? I think we can at least guess the answer to the last question.

    Whatever your view on the issue at hand, the bias seems to me to be clear here: The issue was consistently framed in a particular way; the guests were loaded (two against one) in the same direction; the guests from the preferred side of the argument were accorded respect while the guest from the other side of the argument was repeatedly interrupted, laughed at and contradicted; one side was represented by voices of authority – an “expert” and a “headteacher” – while the unfavoured side was represented by someone from an “advocacy group”; and, finally, the only e-mail used fiercely backed up the preferred side of the argument.

    Bias.

       6 likes

    • Craig says:
      April 29, 2012 at 1:00 pm

      Oddly, the programme began by discussing the views of a Catholic leader, albeit more favourably. Cardinal O’Brien has accused David Cameron of favouring the rich. The last time the cardinal was politically outspoken – against gay marriage – the BBC reporter (Robert Piggott) told Ed he was known for sometimes expressing “extreme” views. This time there were no such pejorative adjectives & his views were reported straight and made the programme’s lead story.

      That, and a feature on the two Sudans, saw the following classic ‘Sunday’ item dropped from the running order (as shown on the programme’s website):

      “The message for David Cameron from young British Pakistanis at an Oxford conference is that multi-culturalism is working.”
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01gnhry#synopsis

      Such a shame they had to drop that! Bet it will be on next week though!!

         6 likes

      • jarwill101 says:
        April 29, 2012 at 9:54 pm

        And the message from a lot of non-Pakistani residents in Oxford is that multiculturalism is an unmitigated disaster. The streets of east Oxford being patrolled by muslim nonces on the lookout for young ‘white meat’ is the sort of ‘enrichment’ the indigenous can well live without.

           3 likes

    • chrisH says:
      April 29, 2012 at 1:40 pm

      But isn`t Keith O Brien the same “prattling prelate” who is now to be lauded by the BBC for sticking it to Cameron in regard of that Robin Hood tax they seem to want?
      Now-he`s against gay marriage(boo…homophobe!) but he`s telling Cameron that he`s immoral for not fighting economic injustice(hurray-Power to the people brother!).
      So if Craig could give me a weighting index on whether I`m to cut him dead or kiss his ring when next we meet him at a Scottish BBC studio…a Beeb Prelate Personality Index for Virtuous Use in making the catholics as redundant and irrelevant at the C of E…then I`d be much obliged.
      Maybe Keith needs to know that getting lauded and puffed up (homophobic maan!) in advance of his BBC Scotland show probably means that he`s being willingly used to shaft the very church he is paid to try and prop up.
      Here`s you reference Rev!…Jn 2:24-5!

         4 likes

    • Millie Tant says:
      April 29, 2012 at 4:52 pm

      Thanks for that detailed report, Craig. It prompted me to listen to the rest of the programme and I was intrigued to see that there was a longish segment about the wranglings within the Anglican Church between factions who oppose or support women as priests or bishops but oddly enough, there was no obvious positioning of the Beeboids or questioning of legality or any mention of public duty of equality or discrimination or phobias etc and no e-mails read out saying how shameful it all is.

         2 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:
      April 29, 2012 at 8:12 pm

      Nice work as usual, Craig.

         1 likes

  8. George R says:
    April 29, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    NIGERIA: another Islamic jihad massacre of Christians.

    Islam Not BBC (INBBC) relegates Islamic perpetrators as much as it can.

    INBBC uses it euphemistic code word ‘militants’ for real words ‘jihadist mass murderers’.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17886143

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17886143

       4 likes

  9. Teddy Bear says:
    April 29, 2012 at 2:09 pm

    It is misleading for The Telegraph to headline its article ‘BBC launches inquiry into payments to MP’s’.
    Since characteristically Thompson first tried to dismiss the complaint about payments to MP’s appearing on their programmes by claiming ridiculously ‘this rule did not apply in Miss Abbott’s case because This Week is “not a traditional political programme”, forcing Lord Laird to take it further, it was this MP that LAUNCHED an inquiry, not the BBC itself.

    It shows the same way the BBC tries to justify their bias, summarily dismissing genuine complaints because they are able to act as their own arbiters – a situation that is completely immoral. For the government to continue to allow this totally slanted media outlet, masquerading as ‘fair and balanced’, to carry on being their own judge, shows how inept they too are.

       7 likes

    • Guest Who says:
      April 29, 2012 at 2:26 pm

      Way, hay… a ‘row’ with people angry..
      Daily Mail Online ‏ @MailOnline
      Anger after £10m private jet deal to fly Eurocrat chiefs to engagements http://bit.ly/Kl56AF
      That’s usually catnip to the BBC.
      And the media have been alerted.
      So let us see.
      Maybe a Richard Black slant on the eco-aspects?

         2 likes

  10. Kevin says:
    April 29, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    Just noticed the scare quotes on the title of this article: “Cuban ‘defector’ actors reappear in Miami, seek asylum” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17884686)

    The article itself refers to “defectors” without scare quotes, so why ‘defector’ in the title… unless you’re a beeboid and can’t quite bring yourself to believe that anyone would really need or want to defect from Cuba…

       0 likes

    • Guest Who says:
      April 30, 2012 at 7:47 am

      The whole matter of ‘quotes’, scare or otherwise, throughout the MSM is getting silly, and of course goes beyond ratings shorthand to agenda abuse at the BBC, as several of my complaint currently heading to or in The Trust are highlighting.
      Most running through a few ‘got it about right’ (there, I am at it too – actually, and I am sure there is a rule and written down somewhere, but what is the difference between a single ‘quote’ and a double “quote”? I take the former usually to be a ‘Yeah, right’, and the other to be a more formal “this is what was actually said”) minions and Directors who seem to feel that as the future is bright, the future is mobile screens, getting accuracy on screen takes secondary importance to getting anything on there, quickly and, if possible, skewed to either push the favoured agenda or hurt the non-favoured one.
      Hence, purely in spontaneous example, from the home page now, for mobile users…
      ‘Kercher killer ‘must come clean’
      is, actually,.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17886287
      ‘Meredith Kercher’s father makes plea to her murderer’
      Where what could be an official statement is revealed as no more than a plea from an interested party, ironically then going on in copy…
      ‘The father of Meredith Kercher, who was murdered in Perugia, Italy, has appealed to her killer to finally “come clean” about what happened.’
      … to get the doubles.
      Questions are being asked… but so far the BBC doesn’t seem to know how to answer them and/or is playing dumb as it cannot.
      I’d add that to a raft of dubious activities by our most trusted national broadcaster under the less than complimentary heading of ‘unique’.

         0 likes

  11. George R says:
    April 29, 2012 at 9:04 pm

    Two reports on SARKOZY.

    1.)’Wonkette’:-

    “Nicolas Sarkozy In Bedouin With Gaddafi”

    http://wonkette.com/471245/nicolas-sarkozy-in-bedouin-with-gaddafi

    2.) BBC-NUJ:

    “France President Nicolas Sarkozy snaps at Strauss-Kahn”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-17880369

       0 likes

  12. David Preiser (USA) says:
    April 29, 2012 at 10:42 pm

    Nile Gardiner beat me to it. A concise outlining of how the current Administration has had little more than utter failures on foreign policy, a view you will never hear from a BBC employee:

    Hillary Clinton has become the Secretary of Hubris

       2 likes

    • Guest Who says:
      April 30, 2012 at 7:26 am

      Interestingly I am still in discussion with a BBC Director level employee about a Dateline London where, he ‘believes’ (in trying to close the file), that in having a Dateline London on the Falklands stacked with four non-UK supportive jounrnolists (inc. one from the Indy who was pro-appeasement as a historically sound precedent), the BBC ‘got it about right’. He even offered a transcript and is sending me a DVD to ‘prove’ it.
      Sadly he is not able to comment on editorial policy of stacking guest lists and so can only discuss with me whether what they said was outside guidelines which, being non-BBC employees, they were.
      So the main thing that matters is ‘not his remit’, and he can’t, or won’t tell me whose it is.
      Interesting as I reflect on this in light of overall BBC coverage…
      ‘All this has combined with a sneering approach towards key US allies, including Great Britain and Israel. It should not be forgotten that Mrs Clinton has treated both countries at times with condescension, even going as far as siding with Argentina in calling for a negotiated settlement over the Falklands.

         3 likes

  13. jonuk says:
    April 29, 2012 at 10:54 pm

    the BBC reminds me of Star Trek’s Borg…’resistance is futile’

       2 likes

  14. jonuk says:
    April 29, 2012 at 11:22 pm

    the BBC should do a poll of the British public about the phone hacking thingy, i bet most of the population don’t give a shit. I bet if the BBC were to send a 20 man crew to my place of work and asked the employees about their opinions about the phone hacking farce, most of the employees wouldn’t know what the BBC was talking about

       6 likes

  15. Guest Who says:
    April 30, 2012 at 7:16 am

    ‘wouldn’t know what the BBC was talking about’
    I think the point is that the BBC wants them to ‘know’, and in a very specific way.
    They do not ‘speak for’ as claimed, over and over. They tell, and in a not very balanced way.
    What’s more, as any chink that allows actual exchange is, despite the move to social media (which is usually and meant to be the epitome of free speech and interactivity, but through modding and blocking simply anther hive tunnel output), being shaped to get back to broadcast dissemination only, they are increasing their monopolistic means of doing so, all helped by control of a highly selective edit suite… ‘We asked for your views on Studios guest Diane’s views, and we think Ken of Barking’s views sum up our views best….’

       1 likes

  16. Guest Who says:
    April 30, 2012 at 8:08 am

    The ‘SAM on your roof’ ‘row’ rumbles on…
    http://www.channel4.com/news/londoners-shocked-by-prospect-of-missiles-on-their-rooftop
    Had to love this…
    “London’s fears over Olympic Missiles Plan”
    London’s? There’s that ‘resident’ Brian Whelan again, who seems the only ‘resident’ making a fuss, and not really placed in the context of his day job.
    Why let that spoil a good twitter ‘row’?
    SKY ‘discussed’ it in the paper review just now and the luvvies liked the idea, but just not on their roof. The host, surprisingly, could not see what the fuss was all about.
    The main thing the antis are focussing on are becoming ‘targets’.
    Now, as a Die Hard fan, and even recalling the odd past flight path attempt in real life, I am presuming they are much happier at the notion of no military around and will be happy to bump into those nice multi-culti-roofers in the stairwell taking long tubes upstairs to set-up a ‘vantage point’ to enjoy the spectacle.

       3 likes

    • Guest Who says:
      April 30, 2012 at 9:48 am

      Hilariously rigged poll in the Graun today:
      Comment is free ‏ @commentisfree
      Would you feel safe with a missile launcher on your roof? Vote in the Cif Poll http://gu.com/p/37824/tw
      So far not going the luvvies’ way. Expect twitter to rectify soon.

         1 likes

      • Roland Deschain says:
        April 30, 2012 at 10:26 am

        Well, a damn site safer than I’d feel with a terrorist on my roof.

           2 likes

        • Roland Deschain says:
          April 30, 2012 at 10:27 am

          Site? Dearie me, I must be thinking of your old login.

             1 likes

          • Guest Who says:
            April 30, 2012 at 11:57 am

            🙂
            Actually, back to my ‘roots’, as this is what I embraced with the previous system (it called me Guest and when a troll with a ‘real’ name got silly I added a ‘Who’ to show how sensible that tack is).
            The MS(cte) suddenly appeared and I could do naff all to change it.

               1 likes

  17. Lunchtime Loather says:
    April 30, 2012 at 10:00 am

    I really don’t need to write anything, do I? From Twitter, and Chuck Finlay gets it right…

    tom_watson ‏ @tom_watson
    If you worked at NoTW and don’t believe @rupertmurdoch’s account, please contact me: “Rupert Murdoch betrayed us”: http://gu.com/p/377yx/tf
    28 Apr

    Jeremy Vine ‏ @theJeremyVine
    @tom_watson Your book title is best so far this year, T. We’re ready for you in the studio whenever you want to come on @BBCRadio2
    28 Apr

    tom_watson ‏ @tom_watson
    @theJeremyVine thank you. I’d be delighted.

    Jeremy Vine ‏ @theJeremyVine
    @tom_watson Have emailed producer to remind him to fix date. Know you’re busy. Have good weekend.
    7:59 AM – 28 Apr 12

    Chuck Finlay ‏ @ChuckFinlay
    @theJeremyVine @tom_watson Jeremy, get a room…this snivelling in public is embarrassing!
    28 Apr

       2 likes

    • Guest Who says:
      April 30, 2012 at 12:00 pm

      Chuck… a new star.
      If you haven’t, worth porting to any new thread imminent as the BBC>twitterchums>’story’ process laid bare for all to see, and the lie about how their personal accounts are nothing to do with the BBC’s professional output.
      They don’t even try and hide how in the tank they are.

         0 likes

    • Guest Who says:
      April 30, 2012 at 12:01 pm

      Also, if that exchange isn’t worth throwing at the Trust in your ‘expedited’ (for showing them up) appeal, I don’t know what is.

      I’d love to hear the ‘getting about right’ excuse for that one.

         0 likes

  18. Richard Davis says:
    June 28, 2012 at 7:58 am

    I am happy to visit here. I hope you continue to do the sharing through the post to the reader. and good luck for the members site.
    http://www.pharmaexpressrx.net/

       0 likes

←Older Comments