Remind me, what exactly is John Pienaar for, asks Biased BBC contributor Alan?  What does his ‘insights’ and ‘analysis’ bring to the picture?

His impressions are consistently either of an entirely bland stream of consciousness with little thought or a surprisingly different angle on a subject that hadn’t occurred to me as I listened to whatever he was later to dissect so incisively….and probably a take that no one outside the Labour party would think was based on reality.

Let’s cut out the middle man and have Balls or Miliband(whoever he was) present BBC politics.

Today’s effort was scrutinising Vince Cable’s performance at Leveson with a fine-tooth  comb….unfortunately it was a comb as effective as one  might be on Vince’s own follicly challenged pate out of which came the flood of excuses for his indiscrete declaration of war on Murdoch. Cable, rather than just shrug and say ‘yeah you caught me, and I meant every word’ shamelessly and pathetically squirmed like a schoolboy up in front of the Head.

Bluster and backtracking, excuses coming thick and fast and all accepted by Leveson as Moses accepted the 10 Commandments.

What was Pienaar’s analysis….’Well there you go….he’s innocent…under pressure, grumpy and being blackmailed by News of the World journalists who would seek to destroy the Lib Dems if he went against the BSkyB merger……who can blame him for an immoderate outburst?’

Of course none of these claims were investigated or substantiated….the word of the sainted Vince was good enough.

Just what use is Pienaar to anyone?  Just what use is Leveson when Blair and Campbell are cast as victims rather than the villains they were? Don’t you just love indepth, rigorous, challenging political scrutiny?

That’s why I watch ‘The Simpsons’.

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Robin Rose says:

    I too have often wondered what the point of John Piennar is. I have come to the conclusion that he ticks a diversity box.


  2. London Calling says:

    John Pinner, err Penier, Pie in ear, Peiniere, a man whose name you can’t spell from memory. It can only be done tracing each letter with your finger.


  3. #88 says:

    So, to use St Vince words, let’s ‘deconstruct’ the bit that’s got the BBC into a lather.

    VC: … ‘And secondly, and actually more seriously, I had heard directly and indirectly from colleagues that there had been veiled threat that if I made the wrong decision from their point of view of the company, my party would be — I think somebody used the phrase “done over” in the News International press…,

    This is an odd turn of phrase, what on earth does it mean?. ‘Heard directly and indirectly from colleagues’ (but not actually from NI). So the source might be the same source? Who was it? Vince refuses to say.
    Veiled? What was actually said? We don’t know – Vince hasn’t said.

    VC: …and I took those things seriously, I was very concerned…

    Just how ‘very concerned? So what did you do? Report this at the time? Escalate it to the Cabinet immediately? Leak it to the media (via your usual route) straight away? Isn’t it said that Vince has a track record for leaking…and given his opposition to NI surely he would never have missed an opportunity to do so.

    VC: …I had myself tried to deal with the process entirely properly and impartially, and I discovered that this was happening in the background. I frankly stored up my anger at what was taking place, but in that very special and tense situation, I rather offloaded my feelings.’

    This sounds a bit like post event rationalisation to me. Again due process would require Vince to speak up…not ‘store up’.

    Over to you Mr Pienaar – just a few things for you to probe or at the very least caveat in your next attempt at an analysis.


    • johnnythefish says:

      Saint Vince is a soldier-hero of the B-BBC/Left in the battle against the invading fascist News International. Notwithstanding, he has consistently maintained an independent and professional approach in his pursuit of a fair evaluation of the BSkyB bid and has spoken nothing but the pure truth, citing undisputable sources whilst giving evidence.
      Do I get the job, Helen?


    • John Anderson says:

      Wouldn’t a normal Counsel – or a normal judge – smack down much of Cable’s evidence as hearsay evidence – which is debarred in a court.

      “Someone told me this, someone else told me that they had heard this” ALL hearsay.


      The more I see of this Leveson crap, the more Rupert Murdoch’s evidence looks like the evidence of an honest and straightforward man.


  4. London Calling says:

    It is not so much Murdoch they hate, but the people who buy his newspapers. Move over Munchausen. This is the latest political derangement syndrome: class war by proxy.


  5. lojolondon says:

    Like the rest of the BBBC, his purpose is not to investigate and report news, his function is to broadcast Labour propaganda.