Well then, hasn’t Louise Mensch gone and irritated the BBC? How very dare she suggest that the blessed Tom Watson has jumped the gun and compromised the very essence of the Parliamentary Committee system by insisting that Rupert Murdoch is “unfit to run a major news organisation”. Leaving aside the irony of a bunch of MP’S who have run little more than  a bath judging the incredibly commercially successful Murdoch, the BBC wasn’t going to take this lightly. There was a hilarious item on Today at 7.50am. They brought on Tony Wright, (Labour) Chair of the Public Administration Committee, and Paul Farrelly (Labour) member for the DCMS Committee. Farrelly was brought on to counter Mensch’s allegation that the issue of Murdoch’s competency to run a financial institution had NOT been discussed before Monday of this week. After some weaseling, he stated that she was indeed wrong and that the issue HAD been discussed. So, in essence he was calling her a liar. BBC mission accomplished. Wright was more measured but stated he shared the same view on Murdoch as Farrelly and Watson, so natch! Clearly this was a stitch up job and the only thing that gave me a laugh was after this little bit of character assassination on Mensch and Murdoch., the BBC had to report that BSky reported record profits. That said, it is clear the BBC is determined to decouple Murdoch from control of BskyB in order to ruthlessly reinforce it’s monopolistic position over broadcast media in the UK.

Bookmark the permalink.

68 Responses to NAUGHTY LOUISE

  1. DJ says:

    Yep, classic BBC bias, and the only thing that made it even more perfect was the disclaimer at the end that they had invited Mensch to appear but she’d declined…..

    No, wait, it was that they’d invited *Watson* to appear but he’d declined. That’s balance in Beebtopia – having a representative sample of Labour MPs.


    • Mice Height says:

      Yep, having opinions from a ‘Blairite’ and a ‘Brownite’ is the BBC’s idea of balance most of the time.


      • geyza says:

        If you followed Loiuse Mensch’s twitter feed, you would see that despite the fact that she is a conservative MP, she is 100% Blairite and has often tweeted in praise of him. I stopped following her, because she is more of a “Blair Babe” than most of the original Blair Babes. Her tweets in favour of Watson, the BBC and all sorts of politically correct BS and her utter unyielding belief in catastrophic AGW were sickening.

        She is not an MP to be admired.


        • Span Ows says:

          I agree with part of this: yes, she is a babe.


        • Paul says:

          You are correct it’s also worth mentioning that Mensch was a Labour party member at the time of Blair. She is a convenient mouthpiece for Liberal policies, but utterly lacks conviction.


      • Andrew W says:

        I recall some years ago Andrew Marr stating that he and his wife (Jackie Ashley) had very different political views. She was old Labour and he was New Labour.

        The real range of the political spectrum from A to B


    • MD says:

      You couldn’t make it up. I heard it and I couldn’t agree more.


  2. The BBC’s approach on the BSkyB takeover is as scandalous as it gets. It is genuine, bare faced corruption. Yet the spineless, feeble government tolerate it. I just cannot undersdtand it. I loath this tip toeing around the hateful BBC. Mensch on Newsnight lasty night should have simply stated the fact – that the BBC was corruptly using its massive monopoly power to destroy competition, but she chickened out. And there is nothin, NOTHING any of us can do aboutit. Just as there is nothing we can do abotu this pathetic government. The concept of “democracy” in this country is a sham. ANd front and centre of this wham is the truly loathsome, corrupt monolith that is the BBC. We sit here and laugh about Chinese state media, but the BBC is many times worse. A bias, agenda driven cesspit of self interest and left wing smuggery.


    • an ex-tory voter says:

      I beg to differ, we all have the opportunity of refusing to pay the BBC Tax (licence fee). Their agents have no right of entry to determine whether or not a TV receiver is being used, they cannot issue fines, they can only proceed via the courts. What will they and the courts do with a large (lets say 100,000 or so) number of refuseniks? Create criminals of them all, jail them all? I somehow think not, the BBC could not afford the spotlight which would then fall on them and their long standing failure to abide by the terms of their own charter.


      • Roland Deschain says:

        I’m sorry, that’s naive in the extreme. You discount the effect of others in the household being bullied into letting the agents in.

        In any event I would think that my subscription to Virgin is pretty bloody good evidence that I watch television, whether I let them in or not.


        • Guest Who says:

          Agree totally.
          I am still gunning for an expedited banning and then I go postal and claim my day in court based on withdrawal of full and as advertised impartial service.
          But I am not skulking in the house and trying play daft games pretending this and that.
          They need to be faced down in the open on their terms, showing them up for what they are. And that is a pretty screwed up collection just on this household’s archive.
          I agree on a campaign of civil disobedience being a powerful force, but it needs a focus and coordinating, otherwise divide and rule will pick off individuals as the Capita Stasi drag the law happily away from actual crimes to middle-class fine zones they are much happier abusing.
          The other small thing is getting my missus on board as she has told me in no uncertain terms she doesn’t want us fined, doesn’t want a criminal record and doesn’t intend to hide the SKY dish or lie to anyone on the doorstep.
          Meanwhile my Daily Politics Sofa-addicted Cameron-clone ‘understands the issue’ but feels the BBC is a ‘national treasure that needs to be preserved’.
          To the point, presumably, that their skewed ‘coverage’ gets his rosy-cheeked gurning visage kicked out in favour of an MP that would have me arrested simply for daring to raise the topic.


        • Andrew W says:

          I’m sorry to be naive, but how would they KNOW you have Sky (or Virgin) without breaching the Data Protection Act.

          The presence of a satelitte dish does not prove you still take the service.

          I may have missed someting


          • Roland Deschain says:

            You may be prepared to trust to the integrity of these people. I am not. They would know, and would claim I, or my wife, admitted it.


      • Millie Tant says:

        Most people don’t want the harassment and the intimidating tactics, complete with threats of court action, that are employed against anyone who doesn’t want a TV and also doesn’t want people coming and demanding to snoop around their house. And they could be taken to court. So not much of a choice, is it?


  3. GotItAboutRight says:

    On the Today programme they had their idea of a balanced discussion between a former Labour MP Tony Wright and a Labour MP Paul Farrelly. Given the BBC’s love of full disclosure I was susprised that Tony Wright wasn’t introduced as “and also the father of our political correspondent Ben Wright”


    • #88 says:

      Mensch has been on the Brillo show at lunchtime and was asked to comment on what Farrelly said this morning.

      According to Mensch, she had spoken with him and he had confirmed that Murdoch’s competence had not been discussed until Monday. He admitted that in effect he had mispoke on the Toady programme, having been ‘ambushed’ or being unprepared.


  4. uncle bup says:

    Amazing, now, how the twin venals Keith Vaz and Tom Watson seem with no small help from the BBC to have reinvented themselves as the consciences of our nation.


  5. Uncle Neil says:

    The BBC (which people are forced to subscribe to) may think that it can force Rupert Murdoch out of Sky (which people choose to subscribe to). However, he didn’t get where he is today by surrendering to state-subsidised schoolboys. It will be no surprise if he moves his entire operation to Luxembourg or somewhere else out of the reach of MPs, Ofcom and the BBC.


    • John Anderson says:

      Unfortunately Ofcom would have jurisdiction wherever News Corp or BSkyB was registered.

      It is noteworthy that Murdoch’s email to his newspaper staff in the UK did not attack the wretched Select Committee. He is keeping his powder dry ? Miliband is noticably silent.

      The Guardian / BBC line has always been that Murdoch’s media can swing UK elections – as if the drip-drip-drip of BBC bias itself has nil effect. Wiser heads say that Rupert tends to go with the electoral flow – he swung to Blair’s New Labour because they appeared to be winning anyway. Murdoch did not have any particular animus against Labour per se – he just disagrees with much of what they stand for, especially on Europe., and he correctly judged Foot and Kinnock to be unpoular tossers.

      But it would be surprising if Rupert was not storing up some ammo against Labour now that he has had these run-ins with Brown and now the Tom Watson witchhunt mob. And he’ll just be loving the BBC.


  6. Jez Clarke says:

    Of course, Tom Watson’s claim that Rupert Murdoch is unfit to run a major international business is somewhat ironic given that he believed Gordon Brown was a fit and proper person to be prime minister and actively plotted to oust Tony Blair to make him so.

    Sorry but this ‘not a fit and proper’ jibe is political dog-whistling by the members of the Select Committee and designed purely to make headlines. And with such a juicy, natty little tidbit, the print and broadcast media (who have no vested interests, oh no) have gone mad.

    Job done, then.


  7. Nick says:

    It will backfire – hopefully.

    With the BBC’s market share, they can’t get Murdoch on media concentration without having to get themselves split.

    As for Watson. What an odious man. Just like McCarthy.


    • Jez Clarke says:

      Watson is a thug and a backroom bully-boy – a typical politic animal, in other words.

      At the same time, hats off to him for pursuing the phone-hacking business with such tenacity. But one senses that, for him, the News Corps business became more of a personal crusade against Murdoch and an attempt at self-aggrandisement than a simple search for truth.

      Moreover, as stated above, this ‘not fit and proper jibe’ at Murdoch is quite laughable. Given his crucial role in steamrollering the woefully inadequate Gordon Brown into Number Ten, Watson is hardly the finest judge of character, is he?


      • Sceptical Steve says:

        I think some context would be helpful. Gordon Brown allegedly threatened to destroy Murdoch when the Dirty Digger revealed he was planning to switch his support over to the Tories at the last election. Watson was one of Brown’s attack dogs and he’s now following through on Brown’s threat.
        None of them had a problem with Murdoch until he changed his allegiance, and the alleged criminality all dates back to the time when Nulab was sucking up to him.


        • Guest Who says:

          ‘one of Brown’s attack dogs and he’s now following through on Brown’s threat.’
          Another being the national broadcaster of this country, and a deeply interest-conflicted rival to NI on both commercial and ideological bases, who are clearly acting in concert with Mr. Watson.
          Not, I humbly suggest, what they are meant to be doing, especially with my money when I’d prefer it be spent on the next Dad’s Army (ie: comedy based on humour) or Walking with Dinosaurs (ie: natural history or science without a Black spot).


    • LondonCalling says:

      Commons culture committee? WTF do any of them know about anything? They are partisan professional politicians not fit to pass judgment on Captain Pugwash, let alone Rupert Murdoch. This is not a “fair trial”, this is a one man vendetta by a bigotted Labour MP Tom Watson aka Mr. Nobody. Who gives a toss what this Guardian hero thinks about anything?

      From The Graun: “Torbay’s Lib Dem MP, Adrian Sanders, voted with the committee’s five Labour MPs against his Tory partners, which may be the most significant breach in coalition solidarity so far”

      FFS these people couldn’t run a bath let alone a country. I despair of Cameron, useless.


    • Andy S. says:

      Senator MacArthy may have been an odious man but, according to the the old K.G.B.’s Mitrovkin Archive released in the early 1990s, he was 100% correct about Communist infiltration in American society during the 1940s/50s. It also confirmed that Hollywood had been infiltrated during that time and left wing writers were including subtle Marxist propaganda in scripts. You get the picture when you see the subtle propaganda inserted into BBC programmes, both fictional entertainment and documentaries. The Beeboid programme producers are the heirs of the Hollywood Ten.


  8. Guest Who says:

    In other news, which actually in spoof seems more like news than what the BBC comes out with as, well, ‘news’:


  9. John Anderson says:

    In covering the story last night on the World Tonight (Radio 4) Robin Lustig took comments from 2 Americans. One was a journalist from NPR – which is obviously an opponent og Fox TV, must be salivating at criticisms of Murdoch. The other was Margaret Heffernan – who has already been a trenchant critic of Murdoch – last night she said that Murdoch simply employed toadies, yes-men, that it was therefore his all fault. Anyone who has ever dealt with News Corp knows that this is an absolute lie. Ask Andrew Neil, for example, if he is a pushover, a weakling.

    So – thanks BBC and Mr Lustig for “impartial comments from across the pond”


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘BBC and Mr Lustig for “impartial comments from across the pond”
      That would be this impartial Mr.. Lustig..?:
      ‘Gordon Brown called his account of a telephone conversation between them “wholly wrong”‘
      And I call Mr. Lustig’s account rather typically edited more for omission than anything of actual objective value, given his colleague, said Mr. Neil’s actual, on-record testimony.
      If the BBC and its employees are going to po-faced make claims that stand up as a well as a MP in a House of Commons bar or Ken’s tax publishing delivery so far, they could at least try and be a tad more subtle in their semantic acrobatics.


    • I think it might be coming. As I posted in the open thread US outfit CREW have jumped on the fit & proper persons commentary and have decided that because it stands in Britain ergo it applies in the US. On that basis they have begun lobbying to have his 27 Fox news broadcast licences revoked.

      Key players at CREW have history and connections to senior Democrats with one of its most senior personnel having once worked for Joe Biden. In addition it is reputed that lots of its funding comes from key Left wing players such as the SEIU and George Soros.

      The progressives in the US have wanted to take Fox News out of the equation because they’re probably the most powerful way of holding the administration to account. This is a beauty for them

      That CREW are basing their lobbying on an aspect of the findings that did not have unanimous agreement is neither here nor there for them.

      It’s got stitch up written all over it.


  10. Dave s says:

    Louise Mensch is hardly a BBC favourite. Did she not upbraid them for their non reporting of the Fogel massacre?
    Long memories these beeboids.


    • George R says:

      Yes; she wrote as Louise Bagshawe, until recently.


      “MP Louise Bagshawe attacks BBC bias for Fogel coverage ‘failures'”


    • chrisH says:

      Well said Dave.
      I was at a Jewish support group last year, and they gave her an honourable mention for having the courage to mention the medias wicked dismissal of the murder of the Fogel family.
      So-despite her being pretty venal and hardly the kind that Regev needs in the camp…she showed courage over this one.
      Christ-mentioning the Fogels or Balen takes COURAGE did I say?…how low are our expectations for the BBC?
      Noted too that Mensch got under the HIGNFY lot by saying that Occupy aren`t SO bothered about world capitalism that they forgo Starbucks, Ipod touchphones and , of course the ability to charge their laptops at Costa etc…this seemed to hit the mark, and the likes of Danny Baker turn out to be as shallow and cretinous in mocking Mensch for stating this truth.
      Mensch is not Wertzl or Ben Gurion…but she`s not Hurd or Clark either, so be grateful for small mercies…


  11. bodo says:

    The left have never forgiven Murdoch for tackling the criminally corrupt print unions in the 80s.


  12. George R says:

    At least the ‘Daily Mail’ has grace enough to say this, and to make explicit its vested interests, unlike the BBC-NUJ-Labour:

    “DAILY MAIL COMMENT: A partisan report that demeans Parliament”


    “The Mail, in alliance with the BBC, the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian, the Daily Mirror, BT and Channel 4, opposed News Corporation taking total control of BSkyB and creating a monopolistic behemoth.

    “But that should not detract from the contribution which Sky TV – along with the film and publishing parts of Mr Murdoch’s empire – has already made to the entertainment industry or the pleasure it has given to millions.
    “If vengeful Labour MPs drove him out of business, the public would be left with a barren media world dominated by the state-subsidised BBC and the Guardian.
    “Is that the kind of Britain we really want?”

    Read more:


  13. ltwf 1964 says:

    where are the cherry vultures?



    • Demon says:

      They have been exceedingly quiet lately. One of Dot or Scez has recently made a stupid comment about something, but the rather more reasonable Jim Dandy appears to have disappeared off Planet Beeboid.


      • Guest Who says:

        Effect ‘appears to have disappeared off Planet Beeboid.’

        Cause ‘rather more reasonable’

        One presumes a certain amount of reprogamming is underway and normal service will be resumed as soon as possible. ‘We are the BBCorg’


  14. Guest Who says:

    Love the media luvvie self-feeding delusion that propagates itself on twitter…
    ian burrell ‏ @iburrell
    Even Bob Hoskins is attacking @rupertmurdoch “I sided with the printers”. Talks about Wapping 1986 film @OutsideBetFilm

    A media luvvie jumps the media luvvie bandwagon for career brownie points with the commissioning sector and a media luvvie from the Indy sees this as an ‘even’.
    I am surprised Billy Bragg hasn’t got a a cover of Dylan with Tom Watson out with Radio 1 airing a live, free (well on the licence fee tab) gig by now.
    The already over-dominant broadcast monopoly gangs up with the Graun, Indy, Mirror, New Statesman (and a bunch of NI competitors too thick or self-interested to recall their Pastor Neimoller) to demand a tribal media bloc that only thinks one way, and no one sees this as a bit of a threat to democracy and free speech?
    With all pulling for politics ruled by such as Ken Livingstone, Abbott, Bryant, Vaz, Watson, etc?
    These are very sick puppies, and times indeed.


  15. RichYork says:

    The BBC needs a knockout blow against New International or it will invite reprisals, I don’t think that anything that has happened so far is capable of that. I imagine that Ropert Murdoch will not get BskyB for the forseeable future but he can play a patient game. Long term, Gordon Brown, Labour and the BBC will rue the day they took on one of the worlds biggest media moguls.


  16. chrisH says:

    I noted that the Times or Sky News…even under the sainted Jeff Randall…don`t bother to go to war with the BBC and the Guardian over all this either.
    Let no-one say that Murdoch interferes with the editorial content of his outlets-they are bloody supine as far as I can tell.
    The BBC own 70% of all news outlets as far as I`m told…so why the hell do they worry about the 30% that remains.
    Is it because it`s not the Guardian-or doesn`t have the likes of Alibiah-Brown or Hari working for it?
    Get up off your knees Sky…if you can`t disembowel the likes of Farrelly, Watson, Bryant or Brown…maybe you`re NOT now a fit and proper person to run things.
    Send for Quentin Letts Douglas Murray, James Delingpole…ANYONE who will stick the BBC to its pinko mast. once and for all!


  17. David Preiser (USA) says:

    The Daily Politics blurb on this says that Mensch “failed to impress” the panel. But I just watched it and it sure seemed like most of them agreed with the substance of her point that local councils should not be spending so much tax money in competition with local papers. The disagreement was with whether or not the Government should tell the local councils what to do.

    The only person actually unimpressed was Andrew Neil.


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘The only person actually unimpressed was ..’ from the BBC, ergo the BBC can therefore command the airwaves to support the BBC’s view that ‘the panel’ was unimpressed even when all bar the BBC representative were?
      Unique… if hardly exceptional.
      And near impossible to debate and hence prove via the BBC system.
      Score another to them.


  18. Wayne X says:

    If this government can survive the fallout from these turbulent times and the Levison Inquiry and I think it will, there will be even more interesting times to come. David Cameron gave just a hint of this on Marr Sunday morning when he was questioned aggressively about Murdoch. He stated early on in the interview that he fully supported the BBC, (magnanimous I thought but not very believable). However whilst trying to explain that he had sort support from all news and media outlets, as well as News Int., prior to the election, he said that, “some of the toughest lobbying I have had is with the BBC”, of course Marr was doing his full on attack dog act and did not want to hear let alone see the implication of that remark. I did!

    We must remember that it is Cameron, The Prime Minister, that has set the ball rolling and started this enquiry by Leveson and I think there is more than Rupert Murdoch in the cross hairs. He is trying, and I believe honestly, to sort this country out after the decade and a half of financial and social destruction by the Labour clowns. He is however pretty fed up with the unreasonable and biased negativity from the media and the BBC is right at the top of that particular pile of excrement. His mood in the Commons this week also made it clear that he is sick of these political point scoring shenanigans from the hypocrites in the failed party opposite, who the BBC believe right down to their soft leather shoes, are the rightful party of power in the land.

    We will have to be patient but this nonsense cannot go on with the BBC and there is only one man that has the power to sort it out. At the moment I believe Cameron’s strategy is to give them enough rope, wait for the game to play out with Levison and then act to cut the head off of the snake. We shall see.


    • Span Ows says:

      I hope so Wayne X. I thought this too but am slowly losing patience; mind you he has got a yellow albatross around his neck.


    • Alfie Pacino says:

      Let’s hope so, Cameron did suggest last year in the HOC that the BBC weren’t exempt from this kind of scrutiny and reprisals; though I’ve sadly heard very little rhetoric since to suggest that this threat has any teeth.


  19. chrisH says:

    Paul Farrelly- attacks somebody in the House of Commons after a drunken brawl.
    Tom Watson-done for creaming off thousands in the MPs expenses-and as you look at him, you`ll not be surprised to know that it was his supermarket sweeps that we were funding…his pizza bill and the like.
    Jim Sheridan-serial sycophant of the worst Speaker Parliament has known…even Bercow may yet be better, for Gods sake. Backed Michael Martin until he had to be prised from the gravy train, he rode for years.

    Now if I were Rupert-to be told I`m not fit and proper for anything, from the likes of these three oiled, grasping greasers-I myself would put it at the top of my papers and send these three to jail…there must be plenty to convict their like…are they all asleep in Wapping at the moment?


    • John Anderson says:

      Revenge is a dish best savoured when cold.

      But I would imagine Murdoch is too contemptuous of these creeps to bother hounding them.


  20. John Smith says:

    Louise Mensch is a horrible little twerp who likes to play the sex discrimination card and defends the McCann child neglectors


  21. Craig says:

    Yesterday’s ‘Today’ website made a lot of Labour MP Paul Farrelly’s statement that ‘fit and proper’ was discussed by the Media Select Committee. The permanent audio link in the archive still shows that:

    “Paul Farrelly MP: Fit and proper person was discussed.”

    Louise Mensch was invited on this morning to discuss abuse on Twitter. At the end of that discussion, Justin Webb asked her about what Paul Farrelly said and she said that Farrelly had admitted that it wasn’t discussed. If you blinked you’d have missed this exchange, as it lasted less than a minute and was placed at the end of a discussion about another topic.

    Check out today’s ‘Today’ running order and there’s nothing to draw listeners’ attention to Louise Mensch’s statement that ‘fit and proper’ WASN’T discussed by the Media Select Committee after all:


    • John Anderson says:


      It sounded as though Farrelly was lying at the time – even when he confirmed his lie. But the BBC would rather have his version than the Louise Mensch version. So it is natural for them to play down Farrelly’s admission that he was lying – to mislead the BBC’s audience.


      Harriet Harman trailed the “unfit” line on Sunday. Sounds as though this was leaked to her – by Tom Watson – before the Committee’s last meeting. Another abuse of process ?

      But overall – Louise Mensch did her best to shoot Labour and the BBC’s fox. Pity that other Tory members of the Committee have failed to back her side of the story – against Farrelly’s outright lie.


    • Millie Tant says:

      Aha! Good work, Craig.


  22. matthew says:

    They are clearly annoyed with her.

    Witness this headline:

    “Mensch berates ‘immoral’ Twitter users over abuse”

    ‘Immoral’ is a dirty word for BBC types, it’s associated with Christians and right wingers, and is very much loaded terminology.

    Note that the usual BBC words here would be ‘sexist’, ‘race’, ‘racial’ or ‘racist’, as appropriate. Never ‘immoral’.

    In the sidebar it’s shortened to ‘Mensch berates immoral tweets’

    Ah, so merely ‘tweets’.

    Because obviously ‘abuse’ wouldn’t fit in there.

    Note also how they detail the Twitter abuse in copious detail, whereas yesterday’s ‘Woy’ Hodgson story was deemed to shocking to report. (They changed ‘R’ to ‘W’, shock horror.) Note that it is not normal BBC practice to report these Tweets, they just say ‘offensive’, or ‘racist’, and we are supposed to guess at what might be wrong.

    BBC bias is pervasive, insidious, and it works subtly, under the skin, rather than


    • John Anderson says:

      Even the Indy said that Louise Mensch describe the Twitter attacks as mysoginistic.

      But Hey – BBC editing allows you to alter what a person actually said.

      Elsewhere in journalism – that could be a sackable offence.


      • Guest Who says:

        BBC editing allows you to alter what a person actually said.
        That would be £4Bpa most-trusted news media monopoly without any fear of accountability allows them to alter anything to suit.
        When accuracy doesn’t suit, the BBC will find a better way to make the narrative ‘fit’.


    • Dave s says:

      Mensch is very Jewish sounding so the abuse Louise is getting is hardly surprising. The left is this country is now virulently anti Semitic. A disgrace to us all.