Well, the site seems to running a bit better this morning so let me put this new Open Thread up for you. More to follow..!
WEDNESDAY OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- BRISSLES Nov 15, 22:44
Weekend 16th November 2024
Nibor … .Being long retired I generally avoid the ‘old’ generally recognised rush hour on the roads. In more recent… - Nibor Nov 15, 22:36
Weekend 16th November 2024
Economy not doing as well as Rachel Reeves and Labour expecting it to do? Hold on! It should be stratosphering.… - pugnazious Nov 15, 22:17
Weekend 16th November 2024
Odd thing but diving into the swamp that is X, apparently, and I’ve never yet come across any of this… - Emmanuel Goldstein Nov 15, 22:12
Midweek 13th November 2024
My mistake. Each boat stopped saves us about £3 million every year. - Scroblene Nov 15, 22:10
Weekend 16th November 2024
I like the comments on the X piece, Tomo! The bloke really is an idiot! Luckily Vuukle doesn’t apply! - pugnazious Nov 15, 22:10
Weekend 16th November 2024
‘Protests’ not ‘insurrection’ as insurrectionists storm parliament and force leaders to flee…. ‘Pro-Russia bill triggers protests in Georgia breakaway region’… - Scroblene Nov 15, 22:00
Weekend 16th November 2024
Perhaps Vilify, the Beeboid’s big waste of ‘research’, could aso find out where all the pedophiles are getting and sending… - Nibor Nov 15, 21:49
Weekend 16th November 2024
It can be said that the future of mankind could be two steps forward, one step back – or vise… - StewGreen Nov 15, 21:44
Weekend 16th November 2024
Guido has spotted that Rachel Reeves has quietly changed her LinkedIn account’s CV. Instead of admitting that she lied, she… - StewGreen Nov 15, 21:40
Weekend 16th November 2024
ITV’s infinite “Last Chance to save the planet” logos 2021 vs 2024 yesterday on ITV Calendar COP26 vs COP29 #irony…
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
Folks, just wondering if anyone else had the misfortune to watch the last couple of episodes of Newsnight? They were, quite frankly, repulsive in their political correctness and censorship.
For those who didn’t watch the programs, they both included features on female genital mutilation with interviews with Somalis and other immigrants (who could hardly speak the lingo) discussing how the UK is now the place to come for getting this third world practice because authorities turn a blind eye to this foul tradition; OK, I accept the BBC did have the guts to mention that ‘we’ (aka the BBC and the Guardian) are too afraid to say anything for fear of upsetting a particular ‘ethnic community’ – BUT YET AGAIN, IN THE MOST GLARING AND INFURIATING MANNER, THEY REFUSED TO EVEN MENTION ISLAM, ISLAM, ISLAM!!!! Everyone in the discussion was pussyfooting around avoiding saying Islam, as an obvious result of fear of upsetting ‘ethnic communities’. It was utterly pathetic and demonstrated why this country is shackled in chains around the whole topic of immigration. The same feebleness happened with the grooming cases; the BBC decide to highlight a topic behind which Islamic religion is a significant factor, but from the outset they can’t mention Islam! How the hell does that work out? It’s like trying to have a game of football but not being allowed to touch the football! When they were trying to discuss this after the feature you could tell that the minister was sweating like a nun in a cucumber field!
The silly, upper class lefty women who was presenting the feature (and you knew from the first minute where the tone of the debate was heading) was the pinnacle of Knightsbridge trendy/snooty liberalism; she blamed our authorities for not providing literature, and head teachers for not discussing this with particular ethnic communities (as heads don’t have enough on their plates!) and the NHS for not being in a position to deal with this; she implied that this mainly Muslim practice is basically all of our faults NOT the Islamic members of the community who impose this hideous type of abuse.
The feature even had a French lady on who basically said that us Brits are a bunch of lilly livered lefties who unlike the French, are afraid to say anything. And she was right! I’m am sick of the BBC’s political correctness; if I was on that program things would have been different, I can assure you. One of the first questions I would have asked would have been ‘What the hell are they doing in this country anyway?’ And why should our schools and NHS be blamed for barbaric third world practices?
Rant, over, I’m off to the gym.
Ever get the feeling that we’re like Laurence Harvey in the Manchurian Candidate and the BBC/NUJ are our communist brainwashers.
In a word, yes!
Alex, you say “Everyone in the discussion was pussyfooting around avoiding saying Islam, as an obvious result of fear of upsetting ‘ethnic communities’.”
It’s clear by now that this is policy from above. The fear of being branded “Islamophobic”. By the way, here’s the history of that word…a way of shutting people up. It has succeeded.
Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former member of the International Institute for Islamic Thought, says he was present when the word “Islamophobia” was created but now characterizes the concept of Islamophobia this way: “This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.”
In short, in its very origins, “Islamophobia” was a term designed as a weapon to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing critics and silencing them. Looks like its working.
Thanks for that mate, very interesting… but hardly surprising!
I remember reading something along those lines as well, Louis; as merlin says, it’s not surprising considering they are on a quest for total world domination!
They stick ‘phobia’ on the end of any leftie cause to instantly shut down the debate. Phobia is a kind of illness, after all, for which you need to get treatment. And you won’t want to admit to that, will you?
However should you ‘come clean’ two weeks uninterrupted viewing of Question Time repeats, with eyelids clamped open ‘a la Clockwork Orange’ is the usual ‘kill or cure’ I believe.
I still like “Islamonausea” – sick of Islam and what it is doing to this country
Licensefeephobia seems to be at epidemic proportions….
It seems that complaining to the BBC can sometimes have an effect:
The BBC And The ‘Angry Soldier’
The linked article is worth a visit…
“As a media outlet, you have a responsibility to report what is, not what you’d like. What if everyone reported what they wanted?”
“The capital of England is now Fingerhampton.”
http://tinyurl.com/brhojs3
My favourite line from the comments in linked article..
‘I remember that interview when trying to understand the BBC’s interpretation of sense.’
That’s defo one for the long, and growing list started by ‘enhancing the narrative..’
Another day, another call to arms from Comrade Black, this time urging our government to sign up to even higher ’emissions targets’ than the ridiculous figures we have already been signed-up to.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18967010
Citizen Black (for it is he) is naturally smarting over the fact the latest round of fairy-tale ’emissions targets’ agreed in the Durban Kuomintang of last December are not being enforced as a matter of course – he’s fuming that most democratic Governments, quite sensibly, view these completely meaningless and entirely arbitrary ‘targets’ as not only voluntary but also unworkable and potentially very harmful to already struggling economies.
Comrade Black is quick to go running to his masters in Brussels and the UN (those beacons of democracy) for ‘clarification’ on the issue – sure enough, he finds them both in complete agreement:
“Referring to the Durban Platform as ‘voluntary’ is a misunderstanding of what was agreed last year in Durban,” said Dean Bialek of the diplomatic advisory group Independent Diplomat, an adviser to the Marshall Islands within the UN climate process.
“The Durban Platform is essentially a mandate to negotiate a new legally binding agreement at the international level by 2015, with everyone on board.
Sadly (perhaps inevitably) it looks like our own gutless political leaders here in the UK are already bending over to take their punishment from Brussels as, led by the hilariously titled ‘Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change’, Ed Davey (and, regrettably, being cheerled by Tim Yeo who really ought to know better), this Cameron-led administration is making what can only be described as very pleasing noises to Comrade Black and his jackbooted ‘green’ cohorts about the need to ‘improve’ the already bonkers 20% target for reductions this country was shamefully signed-up to by previous morons masquerading, presumably, as intelligent politicians.
Cameron, for his part, has been mugged good and proper by Comrade Black and his greenshirted NGO pals. That also means UK and European democracy has been mugged. Mostly by bureaucrats in Brussels and the UN who are working to a very different agenda (they don’t like to articulate it too much in public – but we all know it as ‘Agenda 21’ and it is already being quietly implemented all around the world).
The thing is; they couldn’t get away with any of it without the ‘taxes’ (including all the ‘green’ ones) they are stealing every day from you and I. Makes you think, doesn’t it?
Screw your parochial, small-minded national sovereignty. Gaia must be saved at all costs. Black has pushed this totalitarian agenda before.
The Beeboids, and in particular those of the Green variety, don’t understand the need for this country to get back on its feet, which means as few obstacles as possible being put in the way of the wealth creating sectors of the economy.
I suppose having an annual guranteed budget of £4.5 billion and not having to earn your way in the world is one reason they have such a surreal view of things.
Or it could be they are pushing UN Agenda 21 for all they are worth.
Or a combination of the two.
Black is an idiot and his days are numbered, as more and more turn their backs on his stupid views.
He recentlynbanned me from his twitter feed after criticising his attempt to connect (get this) Global warming and ‘the arab spring’.
You can’t really argue with nonsense like that..
He really is barking mad!
A pet hate of mine.
This morning, during a BBC TV report on the 11 year old who boarded a flight to Rome without a passport, ticket or boarding pass, the reporter referred to him as a “geeky kid who liked aeroplanes”, or something like that.
Maybe it’s a generation thing but to me, an 11 year old boy having an interest in ‘planes is not “geeky”, it’s normal. It seems trendy to attach the same stigma to any interest which is outside the BBC’s own narrow obsessions of race, sexuality and certain types of pop.
To me, rap is extremely weird, but there you go.
I can’t agree more Barry. But you see your Beebiod really does believe that your average 11 year old boy watches Strictly Come Dancing and dreams of going to Glastonbury anything else is “geeky”. Of course in 15 years time the same Beebiod will rely on the very same geek to build/service/fly the airliner that takes them their next environmental summit.
Incidentally these days if a boy reads books , likes computers and has an attention span of greater than 5 minutes they are labelled autistic.
Go back a few decades and ALL boys loved planes/car/trains/tanks etc. It was the norm – if you were a boy who wasn’t really into these things you were the odd one out. This was reflected in the programs of the day that were aimed at boys – The A-Team, Knight Rider, Airwolf, Street Hawk – all very male-centred. Now it seems very difficult to determine any difference between boys and girls TV programmmes. It’s all become very ‘inclusive’, with very little ‘boys own’ style TV. With society becoming more and more female-centric (or de-masculinised) particularly in the school environment, there are fewer and fewer spaces for boys to be boys. Even the scouts is no longer a club for boys.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13082946
It’s perfectly possible that boys have simply changed, not just the society around them. Perhaps, rather than wanting to drive tanks and fly helicopters, all boys really want to do now is get on stage and sing show tunes, Glee style. Someone tell me this isn’t true, PLEASE!
Reed – Sadly my family is full of little girls so its all ponies and the like 🙁
However a couple of my friends have boys under 12 and they all seem to enjoy visiting aircraft and train museums so no change there. In addition there is now an entire computer games sub culture which the MSM and the schools seem to want to ignore. From I have seen many of these games involve a lot of planes , cars , tanks etc. I think all that has changed is the technology really. Also they don’t need magazines or the MSM any more as there are no doubt website communities for them.
Good point – modern computer games as interactive versions of those old TV shows. I hadn’t thought of it like that.
It’s not true. And if it had been a GIRL who had boarded that plane, she wouldn’t have been labelled geeky, but liberated from the male dominated world of airport security.
BBC bias can be ever so subtle at times like in the following BBC report on the Scottish Government’s gay marriage bill:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18981287
Two paragraphs were of particular interest to me: the first has been strangely been deleted in haste, probably because it was a cynical mention of a Scottish Archbishop’s comment about a deceased Labour gay minister – they just had to get a wee dig in there against the church, even though the comments had nothing to do with gay marriage. The second mentions that gay marriage is opposed by the big religions such as Christianity, Buddhism and ‘Paganism'(?) – anyone worked out the missing religion yet? The Religion of Peace has been extremely vocal in its views on homosexual relations… rarely mentioned, however, by the BBC; I wonder why?
Is there any religion that supports homosexual marriage? I suspect not.
Probably not, but there is only ONE religion in the UK that gets a grilling over its stance on it though – and that happens to be Christianity… NEVER Islam. When was the last time you heard of Imams voicing their consent and support for two men getting married in the local Mosque?
When was the last time you heard a prominent imam getting a grilling on Today over it? Come on Scott, Dez, redwhiteblue, David G, any other defenders of the indefensible: it’s time to prove us all wrong as usual and show us the evidence.
“When was the last time you heard a prominent imam getting a grilling on Today over it”
When was the last time you heard a prominent imam – or any imam – get a grilling on Today in respect of anything?
Can anybody name a ‘prominent Imam’?
Which I think is part of the problem.
Who is actually prepared to put their head above the parapet and speak on behalf of ‘the peaceful majority’ i.e on programs like Today or even – dare I say it – Question Time?
Any Iman that done would be as dead as a lefty during the Iranian Revolution.
The Church of the Poisoned Mind?
Is there any religion that supports homosexual marriage? I suspect not.
The Quakers have been unequivocal about their support since before the announcement of the Civil Partnerships Bill in 2004, which came into law the following year.
Their current position is on their website:
https://www.quaker.org.uk/samesexbriefing
Within Christianity, different denominations hold differing views (and, of course, congregations within each denomination vary in their views). A brief glance over Wikipedia’s article on this matter suggests that, although some elements require further editing, it’s broadly fair on the full gamut of opinions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_homosexuality
The Quakers? All two of them.
Dirty buggers them Quakers – always after their oats …
IGMC. 🙂
Oats make you fart as well!
Come in vicar…
http://tinyurl.com/5lkptx
I didn’t realise that Quakerism was still a religion. They seem to have swapped it for Marxism, like most of the clergy in the C of E.
And which one hangs gays?
You’ve got the wrong end of the stick there, Alex.
What it says is “Despite opposition by the big religions, faith groups, including the United Reformed Church, the Quakers, Buddhists and the Pagan Federation back gay marriage.”
In other words “Despite opposition by the big religions (including Christianity, Islam, Judaism, none of which are named)……. faith groups, including the United Reformed Church, the Quakers, Buddhists and the Pagan Federation BACK gay marriage.”
Yep Moritasgus, thanks for that… sloppy reading on my part – apologies! 🙂 But, my fundamental point over the BBC always nailing Christianity concerning gay marriage and never Islam still holds. We never seem to see the gay rights brigade protesting outside mosques for some strange reason lol!
Don’t worry, it’s easy to overlook these things when one is confronted by copious amounts of BBC bias mate… The BBC and the whole Left NEVER EVER bring Islam into this debate because they know what the response will be. Gay rights groups don’t have the guts to protest over ~Islam’s stance on homosexuality, which basically calls for their beheading. It’s a damge limitation exercise I suppose… but a little hypocritical in my humble opinion!
Thats true enough, and I suspect there will be NO Islamic homosexual marriages in Britain or anywhere else – whatever the law may say! Nor will the BBC discuss this ‘problem’.
British gay Muslims seek Islamic weddings
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12486003
The BBC will do anything to portray Islam as peaceful and loving. If gay Muslims lived in an Islamic state they’d be Shish kebab for sure; but fair play and best of luck to ’em!
Ah, we’ll look forward to these two debating their campaign with a British Imam of the beheading variety on ‘Today’ then, rather than a supportive little article tucked away on the BBC News website.
And how many iranian gays seek marriage?
Not many unless they want to end their lifes on cranes.
Woo, kinky.
Buddhists? Have the BBC not heard the Dalai Lama’s view on gay marriage?
Not very “enlightened” by BBC standards, is he? Reckons it’s “sexual misconduct”, and that sex should be for having kids. At this rate the left will drop its rose-tinted image of him and go back to seeing him as a would-be theocratic despot.
There’s an article up now on the BBC News website called ‘Reaction to Scotland gay marriage decision’.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18981288
It says, “Here is a look at what people have been saying about the decision”.
It then gives the reactions of five people:
Nicola Sturgeon, SNP – in favour
Hazel Marzetti, NUS – in favour
Grant Costello, Scottish Youth Parliament – in favour
Tom French, the Equality Network – in favour
LGBT Youth Scotland – in favour
Even by the BBC’s standards, to headline a prominent article ‘Reaction to Scotland gay marriage decision’ and then feature ONLY those in favour of the decision is quite remarkable.
Presumably, they’ll update the article later but it’s been like this (according to the time-stamp 12:11) for an hour and a half now. Has no-one disagreed with the decision yet???
Typical. Just as I publish that comment the BBC updates the article, adding two voices against (the Free Church of Scotland & The Rev Alan Hamilton, Church of Scotland) and another one in favour (Shabnum Mustapha, Amnesty International), making the balance:
6 in favour
2 against
The comments from the 2 antis are also on the short side.
So they had all the pro voices at the ready, and had to work to find the antis, hence the delay in getting them in? Nice. What kind of editor authorizes that? Or is just classic website churnalism and they simply push stuff out, ready or not, the story will “evolve”, who cares how it affects the reader?
Even so, this draws attention to the bias of their newsgathering.
As a matter of interest have you ever worked in a newsroom?
Well, nicked emus; I can tell from your poor grasp of punctuation that you definitely haven’t.
I work in a news environment, and can tell you that you can’t predict any such thing based on punctuation. Most of the time, all the copy goes through a subeditor who will make the necessary corrections.
That’s happening less and less now, with online publishing tools requiring writers to be their own subs. But particularly in comments boxes, where edit functionality is lacking, don’t be too hard on anyone who makes grammatical mistakes and doesn’t spot them before they hit “Post Comment”…
“Most of the time, all the copy goes through a subeditor who will make the necessary corrections.”
So you’re not at the Guardian, Scott.
No, at the Guardian the subs introduce spelling mistakes if you haven’t reached your quota 😉
Sounds a little like you’re trying reassure yourself Scott(?) That’s nonsense; if you’re in the profession of writing then your grammar and punctuation must be excellent, unless of course you write for a crappy old regional… which is what I suspect you do lol :-).
Really Berty? Are we seriously going to have a debate about punctuation? Is that the level of pedantry to which you wish to descend?
Merlin — if you saw raw copy it would make your eyes bleed. There are plenty of successful Fleet St hacks who can’t spell and wouldn’t know a dangling modifier from a gerund — and nor should they. They land great stories. You can always find some down-table sub to argue the toss over Oxford commas (Berty appears to have the right mindset), but if you don’t have the story in the first place…
So, back to the matter in hand. Have you, David Preiser (USA), ever worked in a newsroom?
I’ll take that as a no.
Sorry for the lack of immediate response, Nicked, I’m not monitoring the blog for my name 24/7. No, of course I haven’t worked in a news room. But nor am I stupid. So how about explaining where I’ve gone wrong. Shouldn’t be that difficult, right?
And since you’ve claimed authority here, can we assume you don’t work for the “Tory Press”? I believe you’ve stated that you don’t work for the BBC, and since the majority of the rest of the media in the UK has been lumped together by the BBC and by defenders of the indefensible here as the “Tory Press”, that limits the possibilities, doesn’t it?
You may assume whatever you like.
And I never said you were wrong; I was simply establishing the bounds of your knowledge.
Good catch mate! Unbelievable but highly typical from Beeb. The Bias can be truly overwhelming.
‘Presumably, they’ll update the article later..
It’s that ‘watertight oversight meets evolving the story’ thing they are so good at.
Have to laugh at the subsequent hole-digging by our coterie of professionally-proud, ‘do you not know who we are?’ cherry vultures, hewn from the Woodward & Berstein moulds of ‘news’ ‘environments’ (hey, this BBC ‘quotes’ thing is fun) for sure.
This was a hatchet job by the BBC against the new Archbishop, wanting to get their (ever so impartial!) retaliation in before he spoke up against announcement of the gay marriage proposals. Why did they wait till now; after all, he made the speech some weeks ago? They know he is an articulate and erudite spokesman. Even though he may have got the details wrong in the case he cited, the substantive point he made – about the media’s complete lack of interest in the association between homosexual activity and ill-health/early death is very well made and one that the BBC/Guardian will never address. Furthermore, he was speaking out of regret of the early death of a relatively young man – how that can be cast as “anti-gay” is beyond me!
The BBC have no integrity whatsoever.
MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD.
For INBBC-Obama-Clinton supplicants:-
Glenn Beck supports Michele Bachmann –
(17 min video):
http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=23297591&source=GBTV
Shelagh Fogarty’s programme currently on Five Live has just been gloating over our contracting economy, with Ed Balls invited on to comment and slag of George Osbourne. Well, well, how very unbiased.
Wonder if the BBC will be reporting this?
http://www.mohabatnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4923:iran-seeks-to-legalise-marriage-for-girls-under-10&catid=35:inside-iran&Itemid=278
How appalling can it get? Disgusting! Might go some way to explaining the mindset behind the grooming epidemic though, which the UK government and MSM are so desperate to censor and hide.
It’s only a matter of time before the ECHR demnds we give these animals their ‘Uman Rites. The ones they would have if they lived in Iran, but those which are denied them while they live here.
In fact, it could be a good move if the ECHR realises they would be better off in Iran it would demand paying their fares home>
If they do, Dez will find you a link for it.
What is the matter with this government and its inability to see the bias at the BBC? Is it really that they don’t see it or is that they dare not see it? Do they not see the harm it is causing to the nation’s economic and social well-being?
The fact that there is bias, stupidity and a bizarre anti British bent (no pun intended) at the BBC is now undeniable, everyone I speak to is now very critical of the BBC. Not only friends in the same age group (retired), but friends and family of other generations and of all political parties, (yes even the Labour party) are now critical of the demise in the BBC’s credibility.
It is now past the stage where the truth is omitted to favour the BBC opinion of the day. It is now past the point where distortion could be seen occasionally by an over ventilated presenter. The BBC’s behaviour is now so blatantly wrong and bloody obvious that our Members of Parliament, headed up by the terrible Cameron/Clegg/Milliband triplets, must have their heads buried very, very deeply in rows of buckets filled with Chipping Norton horse manure not to see it.
The message from this web site and many, many others, including the comment sections of newspapers is crammed full of critical comments about the BBC, so come on you lasses and lads in Westminster, earn your keep and DO SOMETHING!
The problem is that you have to get them to separate the biased news division from the classic sitcoms, orchestras, Dr. Who, David Attenborough, the famous costume dramas, and the legacy of generations past.
Even though the bias is evident at times even in things like Dr. Who and The Archers, it’s the News which is the real problem. Every time some comedian or luvvie goes on a brief crusade to champion the BBC and defend it from critics, they list all of the above. And so it is with the Tory politicians, even those who are well aware of the bias in BBC News broadcasting (and shows like Today).
You have to get them to separate in their minds the News from the rest of it. Not gonna happen any time soon, so I think you’re stuck with it.
“it’s the News which is the real problem”
But don’t you think that bias in programmes like Dr Who is more insidious, particularly in the targetting of children?
No, that would be Newsround.
Barry is quite right. A few years ago I occasionally posted on here the plotline synopses from R4’s afternoon plays as evidence of this.
The BBC has always used drama as a propaganda tool and used it very effectively. People absorb prescribed attitudes and opinions far more easily when they are slipped into the mental water supply and the BBC’s legion of Guardian readers knows it.
Dr Who has become, in fact, one of the more obvious examples but it is just as true of the Archers.
Barry and GCooper are correct, and the propaganda in the Archers is appalling (don’t get me started) so much so that when mixed race Amy’s all too perfect black boyfriend Karl turned out to be married, I was utterly shocked – the first *negative* ever about any ethnic minority character! Of course said boyfriend still had a ‘high flying’ job and his black wife (guessing from her name) was a super- lawyer outstripping Annabel and even Usha.
Yes this kind of propaganda IS insideous, because the BBC has built up so much *trust capital* that people don’t have the healthy cynicism that the people of China Russia and other media censored countries do.
Aren’t there any straight whites in that series about country life any more? They could at least have a wife-beating hillbilly farmer with a shotgun license.
The worst Left-wing message deliberately stuck into Dr. Who (since the revival) was during RT Davies’ run. It got really bad a couple times, to be sure.
I honestly haven’t noticed much under Moffatt.
But whatever bias that creeps into the dramas and light entertainment is nowhere near as dangerous as what goes in the News. Because the BBC has so many channels broadcasting at so many, shall we say, levels of intellectual focus, they have a number of topical programmes all across the spectrum. In “topical”, I include all the official news ones as well as the self-important talkie ones such as Bacon and Derbyshire and Campbell and Nolan, as well as special investigative features on BBC 1 or whatever.
If, as they claim, Today sets the agenda for the rest of them, then not only the story being discussed but the perspective from which it is approached can become ubiquitous. It has a much more pronounced affect on the audience that way. You don’t see that kind of pervasive bias coming from the non-news shows. I mean, it’s not like you’ll get the same bias on the same topic from five different light entertainment shows on the same day like you do with the topical ones.
That’s why I think the News stuff is the real problem, and needs to be the focus.
What I don’t understand is why the BBC touches politics at all. Why does it need to, as a state broadcaster, swim in the mire?
everyone I speak to is now very critical of the BBC. Not only friends in the same age group (retired), but friends and family of other generations and of all political parties, (yes even the Labour party) are now critical of the demise in the BBC’s credibility.
A classic case of observer bias (as if we needed more cases on this site).
Get them to sign your petition, get some facts and not endless tendentious anecdata (the best so far was the one about female athletes — that was priceless), and then maybe you can build a case.
At the moment all you have is a lot of old farts shouting on websites for a decade and achieving precisely nothing.
‘… a lot of old farts shouting on websites… ‘ – I hope you include yourself in that most erudite of slurs!
Ah, the delicious sound of a Beeboid whistling in the dark!
I will admit to being an old fart, the rest is poor grammar and partisan.
Meanwhile here are two reporters from the BBC interviewing each other for ten minutes and agreeing wholeheartedly on the fact that the sky is blue and that is therefore unfair and biased against the Labour party.
Old farts…or older and wiser.
…and I’m not sure it’s all oldies here, anyway. Assumptions and prejudices.
Prejudice against right-wingers, especially if you’re old and white, isn’t yet under the remit of Trevor Phillips’ quango, apparently, so must be fair game.
But it’s great entertainment having these ‘youngsters’ give us the benefit of their experience and wisdom.
As he gets more and more vituperative ( and increasing like a scratched gramophone record) I can’t help wondering if Emus has a dog in this fight that he is keeping quiet about.
And yet here you are trolling like a little girl desperate for Daddy’s attention.
Was it a sad childhood sweetie or are you still in it – a frustrated teenager perhaps?
‘..a lot of old..’
Tsk. Ageism on top of an interesting piece of projection based on… what now… not prejudice colouring opinion, surely?
Well, one supposes that if the hypocrisy levels are not maintained there is a disturbance in the hive.
Much more foot shooting of this calibre and the corporate flip-flops will serve as excellent colanders.
” earn your keep and DO SOMETHING! ”
They won’t.
Sleepwalking into oblivion. Clueless, Gutless, totally fucked.
Heads in sand, or standing in the same corner as the feminists who are ignoring Islam. fingers in ears singing lalalalalala cant hear you, go away.
Gutless hopeless, think i said that.
just saying
Memo to David P, over there is Gods great nation-Obama notwithstanding!
The poor farmers and folk of Indiana may well think that the metropolitan States haters like BBC editors somehow still carry “authority”, dispassionate impartiality”-that the BBC give a flying fig for US agriculture or the poor.
Tell them that they don`t David-they really don`t.
Witness Justin Webb on the Today show this morning….apparently Indiana only has itself to blame for the droughts there…because it`s all about climate change/global warming…and the States is the problem, you see.
Yes Webb tried to get a farmers rep/politician to say it was climate change/global boilup…but he was polite and …er “agnostic” about the causes.
No-wrong soundbite Yankee!
So our Indiana chum says no more-and we get the lager top to this story from some Uni Climate Change and Energy(but not nuclear, you pig!)…from one of our puffed-up Ploys of old.
Now this lady KNOWS what she`s talking about-she`ll not have farmed anything but insurance claims, but never mind-and she tells Justin exactly what the BBC want to hear, like to hear…for Gaias sake, HAVE to hear..get it?
Webb of course gets his result…back of the net!
So David P…tell them all out there-if a Beeber comes cold calling around Denver, Indiana, Coliumbine, Virginia Tech or New Orleans….tell them that the BBC want bodies, need to have their every prejudiced and toxic agenda confirmed…and will step gaily over dead and hurting Americans to continue clubbing the British saps with the “narrative”
The BBC’s Obama Re-election campaign continues:
“US auditors say the Supreme Court ruling upholding President Barack Obama’s health law will save the government $84bn (£54bn) over 11 years” – The BBC quotes triumphantly from the Congressional Budget Report.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/18977189
But here’s the next paragraph in the CBO report:
“The projected net savings to the federal government resulting from the Supreme Court’s decision arise because the reductions in spending from lower Medicaid enrollment are expected to more than offset the increase in costs from greater participation in the newly established exchanges.”
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43472
The BBC also says, “Although the federal government would pick up the initial cost of that expansion, many states would have to open Medicaid to low-income childless adults for the first time.”
So the saving is made by fewer people on Medicaid? And the financial burden is transferred from federal government to the states. Not quite an overall “saving”. More like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
Nice to have the full picture, isn’t it, BBC?
Presented as a victory for Obama, this is a much more complex issue than the BBC leads you to believe.
Also, Roberts’ majority opinion allows States to opt out of expanding their Medicaid rolls. I think that’s where the “savings” is going to be. That is, money that won’t be spent because Republican governors and State legislatures won’t spend it.
But for the BBC, almost everything is a victory for Him. That’s easy to do since the censor news that makes Him look bad. Notice the silence about the whole “you didn’t build that” fiasco.
I would have thought Republicans would be grateful for the silence. If that silence were broken, it would make Romney look much worse – since his campaign has gone all out to knowingly, and selectively, quote Obama to try and twist his words – see Greg Sargent in the Washington Post.
And of course, in 2002’s Winter Olympics, Romney used much the same “it takes a village” style argument that Obama was using:
Edited or unedited – the meaning is the same. The implication of O’s unscripted (silly boy!) remarks have the same meaning. Individuals depend on government for their success. The collective is all.
So here’s a scenario: two businesses, located on the same road, two bosses – educated by the same teachers – both the same skin colour, same capitalisation etc. One business succeeds and the other fails.
What’s the difference? The quality of the product, the management and the hard work involved.
So the failed businessman declares bankruptcy, goes into debt, lives of unemployment and food stamps – all paid for by the successful businessman – who through HIS EFFORTS AND HIS STAFFS is still in business.
If the latter’s success is now taken to be the result of good teachers and benevolent government, why does the failed businessman not blame bad teachers and bad government.
But bad teachers? no such thing.
Bad government? No such thing.
The fact, Scott, is that not since his encounter with Joe the plumber (spread the wealth around) has O let his guard down and revealed his real ideas.
In his world, good stuff simply happens. This is because he, Himself, has not achieved anything. It has all happened to him.
Finally, who financed through taxes the infrastructure?
People here in the US who have heard the WHOLE speech know exactly what O meant. And small business do not like what they heard.
“Selectively’???? No, Scott, you are mistaken. You’re either lying or have as usual been misinformed by White House propaganda.
Do yourself a favor and check out the whole quote as seen on the White House website. I’ll reproduce it here to save everyone else the time. Since you, Scott, like to make things up and tell lies about me, I expect you to click through that link and read it yourself so you cannot accuse me of lying or selectively quoting the President and twisting His words to suit my own agenda.
For those who don’t tell lies about people like Scott does, here’s the relevant section in full context:
But you know what, I’m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who don’t need them. So I’m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more. (Applause.) And, by the way, we’ve tried that before — a guy named Bill Clinton did it. We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine. We created a lot of millionaires.
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
The President apparently doesn’t know that the Defense Dept. created the precursor to what we now have as the Internet for their own military intelligence purposes. Nothing to do with making corporations rich. The President also seems to think that no business is ever created without the Collective. This is Socialist, neo-Marxist, Collectivist talk. Spoken directly from His heart, He meant what He said. There is no mistake what He believes here. Romney didn’t misquote or twist or take anything out of context. In fact, even the WaPo guy can’t make them something they’re not. The “It Takes a Village” theme is Collectivist.
It’s been a massive story for days now, and the BBC has been silent. If, as Scott claims, it would make Romney and the Republicans look bad, then it’s an even greater failure on the BBC’s part not to report it.
Don’t trust Scott on US issues, and don’t bother looking to the BBC for this one, because they’ve censored all news of it as far as I can tell.
1. Don’t trust Scott on US issues..
2. Don’t trust..
Having been so thoroughly pwnd here, and so often before, our ‘news environment’ hero’s ‘thoughts’ on most things really seldom warrant much consideration.
His ongoing presence seems more borne of masochism.
David Preiser telling people not to trust other people on US issues? What utter hypocrisy, coming from someone who clearly can’t cope with someone who actually follows US issues rather than relying on him as a partisan, inaccurate filter.
I’ve seen the whole quote. I’ve seen what the Romney campaign did to distort his point. And I’ve seen all the examples where Romney has made the same point – that corporations, and individuals, do not achieve success on their own.
Beebophile is also an Obama shill – well knock me down with a feather: such an unlikely combination of views conjures up visions of that woman who did the wiggly dance at the beginning of Tales of the Unexpected.
Scott: “I’ve seen….I’ve seen…I’ve seen.” You offer nothing substantive at all. Please explain how exactly Romney distorted his point. Also provide proof that Romney also believes that corporations and individuals do not achieve success on their own. Then please demonstrate how that is NOT a Collectivist or Socialist viewpoint.
I can cope with bullies like you, Scott. Provide something of substance for a change. You call me a hypocrite but have yet to prove one single example of where I got my facts wrong.
I’m sorry you think that people disagreeing with you are all bullies, David. You must get “bullied” an awful lot. Here’s a link to what you’ll probably regard as a professional bully: Politifact completely demolishing Romney’s claims.
” Also provide proof that Romney also believes that corporations and individuals do not achieve success on their own”
“There are a lot of people in government who help us and allow us to have an economy that works and allow entrepreneurs and business leaders of various kinds to start businesses and create jobs. We all recognize that. That’s an important thing…. I know that you recognize that a lot of people help you in a business. Perhaps the banks, the investors. There’s no question your mom and dad. Your school teachers. The people that provide roads, the fire, and the police. A lot of people help.”
Mitt Romney, July 18, 2012.
And you could do worse than scroll up and see Romney’s quote from 2002. Or is asking you to read something that’s on this very page also bullying?
First of all, Scott, you’re wrong about why I called you a bully. There’s plenty of evidence on this blog of my ability to discuss things with people who disagree with me. Once again you denigrate and pretend years of evidence doesn’t exist.
It’s not simply that you disagree with me. It’s that – until this very comment – you’ve basically done nothing more than jump in and call me (and others) names, make personal insults, and taunt, over and over, turning to the crowd and pointing at your target, just like a schoolyard bully. You rarely engage in substantive debate with me. You don’t provide evidence of my errors when you claim I have a history of being wrong, but instead call me a whiner or, like now, speak condescendingly. I can’t recall. You’re a bully. If you drop the name-calling and personal remarks in favor of reasonable debate, I’ll change my opinion.
As for your attempt to compare Romney’s remarks with the President’s, there’s only a partial parallel there. Romney’s statement doesn’t go anything like as far as “You didn’t build that”. Acknowledging that people can help you along the way is a Mormon, Christian thing as well. The Mormons often talk about community and family in this way. But the President’s statement took it further.
Perhaps we’re going to end up in a dance over semantics here. I could easily play your game of shooting the messenger, and dismissing the argument presented by playing the man and not the ball. I could play your game of not engaging in debate by saying, “That’s just from a Journolista (Greg Sargent at the WaPo)”. But instead, I’ve read the whole PolitiFact thing and found it wanting.
The President’s statement went beyond acknowledging what Romney did and went into Collectivist territory. There’s a difference between saying that there are people in government who help us and saying that the people in government actually did it, and not you. There’s a difference between saying that and what Romney said on July 18.
Speaking of which, oh, dear, Scott. Romney made that speech the day after the President’s Roanoke speech. You didn’t take Romney’s words out of context and twist them to your own ends, did you? I think you did.
Here’s the video. Everyone can judge for themselves if Romney, after acknowledging that people in government do help us, he went to say that the government didn’t invent them out of thin air: we pay for them with our taxes.
Everyone watch this video and decide for yourselves if Scott got it right or wrong here:
Ah, bless. It’s always fun see when David Preiser (HELPMAMAHELP) realises he’s in a condenser, because logic fails him.
you’re wrong about why I called you a bully. There’s plenty of evidence on this blog of my ability to discuss things with people who disagree with me
Oh really? I’m not the first person on .this site who you’ve called a bully, and I’m sure I won’t be the last. It’s an easy out for you. And you don’t care whether it’s inaccurate or not. Is that, I wonder, is it because you genuinely want to lie to the people you think are too stupid to understand your mendacity, or because you’re too stupid to understand it yourself?
when IOS decided I typed “in a corner” and meant “in a condenser”, at least it didn’t translate it into the real world and admit that David Preiser was living in a fantasy world.
I think Preiser is either very, very stupid, or is completely unaware of how much of a hypocrite he’s being when he accuses others of being condescending. I suppose we should add “condescend” to the long list of words that he don’t understand.
Acknowledging that people can help you along the way is a Mormon, Christian thing as well. The Mormons often talk about community and family in this way. But the President’s statement took it further.
No, it really didn’t. And quite frankly, anybody that cared can see that it doesn’t.
I have to say, i wish that standn up to genuine bullies was as easy as standing up to idiots who can’t cope with people to standing up to their own idiocy. You can call me a bully, but it’s about as effective as David Vance accusing somebody else of being an unelectable dinosaur.
Your seeminly endless rambling is beginning to resemble the Mouse’s Tale from Alice in Wonderland:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/TheMousesTale.svg
Islam in Indonesia
How did this sneak in? Indonesia may not gain much attention from the BBC but it is still the the world’s most populous Muslim country. Things are not all hunky-dory there if you happen to be Christian, Amadi or just a secular Indonesian. Beatings, church burning and a scared establishment does that remind you of somewhere?
Karishma Vaswani, our own correspondent, who grew up in Indonesia, is a Hindu so the BBC may excuse her for not knowing the drill or assume no one is listening. They may quietly assume Hindu bias. On the other hand her next gig might be serving halal burgers in Jakarta or even London.
In keeping with BBC standard practise when someone breaks the rules there is no links to this piece from the World or Asia pages. You have to know where to look for it before it fades into the ether.
What is it with BBC sub-titles? They are run by Red Bee Media Ltd (which used to be part of the BBC so interesting name there) and are a law unto themselves.
If you happen to be deaf then the sub-titles on programmes are a help or at least they are supposed to be. Half the time they are indecipherable or so stupidly incorrect that it makes you wonder whether they are taking the piss.
Just spend half an hour on News 24 with the sound off and sub-titles on and you’ll see what I mean.
What gets me is that most of the programmes that are subititled are not live so they have time to get it right, they don’t but WTF, it’s close. On News 24 you’d forgive the odd slip-up but often its on the same reports that are shown over and over yet the text is different everytime. And wrong.
4 Billion a year and they can’t afford a system that works?
i thoght you folks might like this the video has been pulled from utube copywrite reasons yea.http://www.theblaze.com/stories/egyptian-actor-attacks-female-show-host-after-being-told-he-is-on-israeli-tv-in-prank-gone-wrong/
INBBC reports, via INBBC Arabic:
“Egypt launches first full Islamic veil TV channel”
(1 min 50 video clip)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18932212
Then there’s this as well:
Egyptian Actors Pranked, Told They Are on Israeli TV Station. Then Freak Out
Needless to say, the Egyptian actors are not pleased to be with the Israelis. The video is courtesy of MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute and is titled, “Egyptian Actors Pranked on Candid Camera Turn Violent When Told TV Channel Is Israeli.”
One of them smacks the female presenter around a bit before he’s restrained by the crew. All of them declare hatred for Jews. Once all is revealed, they apparently start taking calls and emails from the viewers, one of whom declares delight over the “patriotism” on display. Israel hatred = Egyptian patriotism. How’s that Arab Spring workin’ out for ya now, BBC? Ree-sult, eh? The inevitable result of decades of Israeli aggression and payoffs to US politicians, right?
Make no mistake: the Beeboids know all about this stuff. They’re just keeping very quiet about it because they don’t want to appear sympathetic to, or to be controlled by, Jews. Such is the power of Islamic complaints to the BBC. Not to mention the power of the visceral anti-Israel attitude endemic in many sections of the BBC. Although the BBC disputes this.
See for yourself
http://youtu.be/CFSDTyygeKs
…and yet we’re supposed to believe that ‘The West’ is uniquely racist and bigoted.
It’s delightful to realise that they’re willing to spout all this jolly hatred believing they’re broadcasting on a GERMAN station, presumably to a receptive audience in das Vaterland. What fun the future looks.
The first chap (the ‘comedian’ without any discernable sense of humour) is a card, huh ? Knocks a woman about, then ‘apologises’ by telling her she “brought it on herself”, and then tries to pick her up by offering to rub lotion on her. No doubt he’s lined up for “Mock The Week” even as we speak.
Proper charmer, wasn’t he.
The equivalent here would be a BNP version of ‘Game For A Laugh’, where we all enjoy the sight of the guest taking swings at the hosts as he hurls racist abuse at full volume. Oh the patriotism.
All together now…
Spring time,
For Arabs,
And jihadis….
Winter
For every
One else
“Huffington Post, MSM Facilitate Destruction of Egypt’s Pyramids”
by Raymond Ibrahim.
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/12037/huffington-post-msm-facilitate-destruction
The Beeb aren’t covering the story at all and the Egyptian media are dismissing it as a hoax – but their top religious authority caused a scare 6 years ago when he issued a fatwa against statues.
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/todaysfeatures/2006/April/todaysfeatures_April5.xml§ion=todaysfeatures
and Muslims have a hell of a lot of form on his kind of vandalism, both regarding the pyramids and un-Islamic art practically everywhere else.
Timbuktu this month being just the latest example…
A nice article about BBC Bias and censorship
BBC bias from Cuba
http://www.getreligion.org/2012/07/bbc-bias-from-cuba/
What’s this? An article about BBC bias from another source? How can this be possible? I thought we were a microscopically tiny minority opinion, deluded that anyone outside of this most miniscule of bubbles agreed with us. Somebody tell Nicked emus.
Nobody tells him anything.
It’s like the BBC and speaking for the nation, only in miniature.
Just, don’t try his patience, you young breath of fresh air, you.
The BBC story is a news story. The LA Times piece is an obit. Of course they are different in tone and focus. One is about an event, the other is about his life.
Some more anti-Israeli Bias
BBC: Jerusalem Does Not Exist
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/bbcjerusalemisraelolympicsislamicjihadhamasarafatpropagandaincitementjewishhistorybiasgovernmentpressofficegpo48072412.html
The boy would have been a hero when I was at school certainly not a geek or weirdo for getting on the flight to Rome. These days you never see children out playing football and cricket, or playing army or cops and robbers. What do they do? They watch x factor and big brother. It is true that the country has become too feminine no wonder our national football team is crap!
Sorry if it’s mentioned elsewhere on the site but yesterday Cranmer registered his disgust at the BBC complaints dept, concerning the controversy over the capital of Israel and he Olympic country profile:
http://www.archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/
“His Grace is loath to ask his readers and communicants to complain to the BBC about this matter, because it appears that those who believe in and proclaim Israel’s sovereignty over its destiny and eternal capital city are held in contempt. A viewer who did complain received a response which included the distasteful line: ‘…we feel it is worth explaining that a considerable number of complaints have been generated by online lobby activity’.
Media Guido asks ‘Which “lobby” could they possibly be referring to?’ “
http://order-order.com/2012/07/23/beeb-blames-israel-cock-up-on-lobby-activity/#comments
The comments are not very BBC-friendly.
I remember back when a contract producer for the BBC used to debate with us here under the name of “John Reith”. He accused a couple staunch defenders of Israel here of being paid by the Mossad or the Israel Lobby.
We see now that the BBC still has people who believe that the nasty Jews pay people to complain on their behalf, while all complaints from the Palestinian or otherwise anti-Israel perspective must be pure as the driven snow.
Come see the bias inherent in the system.
‘a response which included the distasteful line’
Seems the kapos are busy with others, as I await the BBC CECUTT response on how they appear to have connected me the licence fee paying complainant with a blog forum nickname for the purposes of attempting a banning as if association with anything they have internally deemed proscribed actually has any basis in fact.
As a hole-digger, they seem to have drafted in the cherry vultures from here for their ‘expertise’ in this area.
That line is not just distasteful, it is a deranged, paranoid delusional lashing out by a corporate entity whose mindset no Downfall spoof could really capture.
Hence I am pleased to bookmark it for my next exchanges with them on matters of complaint ‘procedure’ as I have a feeling this may be a festering sore point they will come to regret putting in public view.
I wonder…when the BBC received hundreds of complaints about the ‘infamous’ appearance of David Starkey on Newsnight, did they dismiss their validity because many of them were derived from ‘online lobby activity’ (ie – the many anti-racism internet forums and groups) ????
Mardell, stokes his idea of ‘racism’, by criticising Romney advisor for apparently saying:
“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he [Romney] feels that the special relationship is special.”
In contrast, for Mardell, he feels wonderful for Obama to extol ‘blackness’!
Is there some anti-white, anti-Anglo Saxon racism going on here? Sounds like it.
Is BBC-Democratic going to increasingly use the ‘race’ card in its political desperation for Obamessiah over the next few months?
What can be more pleasant for Mardell, the Obama supplicant, than a free trip back to London and free criticism of Romney before he arrives?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18990989
You knew this was coming. The President starts slipping in the polls, chances not looking so great, and out come the cries of “racism”. That’s Mardell all over. He simply refuses to accept that there’s any legitimate reason to oppose the President’s policies. Opponents of His Plan For Us must be racist.
Did The Obamessiah send back that Churchill bust because He doesn’t like that Anglo-Saxon heritage? Which, of course, He shares.
I guess I better resign myself to being called a racist for the next four months.
Next stop Poland, then Israel. What happens when somebody from the Romney campaign says something about a shared Judeo-Christian heritage? Is that going to be code for calling Him a Muslim?
I also note that, while Mardell mentions some lame-ass attack on Romney for outsourcing jobs a long time ago, but refuses to mention the much, much bigger “you didn’t build that” story. Seeing as how the other stuff Mardell brings up are about attempts to portray Romney negatives, how curious that he’s silent about that. If, as Scott and the Obamessiah-supporting Washington Post allege, it makes Romney look bad, surely it would have been a must for the BBC’s US President editor in this context?
‘The President starts slipping in the polls, chances not looking so great, and out come the cries of “racism”. ‘
Must be a ‘lobby’ thing, wheeled out rather selectively when criticism is of BBC sacred cows.
Again, Aunty’s finest market rates have handed any who may be called to account by BBC inquisitors a rather nifty counter in deflection…
Beeboid: ‘So, X, critics are saying…’
X, interrupting, ‘Actually Beeboid, ‘… I feel it is worth explaining that a considerable number of such commnts appear have been generated by online lobby activity from a unique direction inhabited by the BBC and fellow ideological travellers..’
Did The Obamessiah send back that Churchill bust because He doesn’t like that Anglo-Saxon heritage? Which, of course, He shares.
This subject was covered by Glen Beck in the last week. He had as a guest, an anti-colonial young Indian writer, who I think is doing a movie on Obama and analysed “Dreams from My Father”
Also refer;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama,_Sr.
Obama has been strongly influenced by his father who had an intense loathing of the British as a result of mistreatment at the hands of the security services.
So typical leftie interpretation it’s their fault not mine. No mention of connections to Mau Mau and a rather brutal war. Then comes the communist connection because the commies opposed the West at that time.
The bust of Winston Churchill, presented to the nation of the USA, (not Obama) was shipped back to the UK on the instructions of Obama. Not moved somewhere else, or put into storage but deliberately sent back to the UK. This is a demonstrative insult to this nation.
Why; because Winston said he would see de-colinisation over his dead body. Obama will not have that effigy in his presence and has made a public gesture on behalf of the American People as their elected President that Churchill and Britain during this period were evil and he will not have reminders present in the US of A.
Obama’s HUGE gaffe on “You did not build that” has been headlines for 10 days now in the US, lots of TV discussions, articles, campaign ads. And it looks like running and running.
The BBC has totally failed to bring us proper news about it. The biggest story of the campaign so far – and the BBC sidesteps it, so British audiences cannot see what a fool Obama is.
100 million Americans now receive some sort of Government aid – and that excludes Social Security and Medicaid. That is 35% of the population – compared to 5% some 50 years ago.
50% of American workers now pay no income tax.
Well over 40 million Americans are now on Food Stamps – Obama is the Food Stamp President, he WANTS more and more people to be dependent on Big Government. If that means taxing small businesses heavily and killing off job growth, if it means increasing the $5 trillion he has already borrowed – what does Obama care ? He is after transformation of society to a socialist model.
“Obama’s HUGE gaffe on “You did not build that”” – Go and tell Scott, one of the resident pro-Beeb greenfly, that – he’s proved, to his own satisfaction, on the open thread, that the whole thing is a tissue of Republican fantasy and misrepresentation and launched a personal attack on David Preiser into the bargain .
After giving plenty of coverage to Miliblunt’s scathing remarks about G4S, I wonder if the BBC will mention that the Labour party don’t seem to be that concerned about out-sourcing their conference security to the same firm. Surely giving a contract to a company is a form of endorsement.
——————————
Addressing a gathering of his party’s candidates to be the first elected police and crime commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales, Mr Miliband said the G4S story “raises wider questions about the outsourcing of policing services all over the country”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18894565
——————————
http://order-order.com/2012/07/26/labour-confirm-g4s-will-guard-their-conference/
The excellent Douglas Murray at The Spectator…
If Islam were Christianity this would have been dealt with. Not because of anything innate in the religion, but because people would not have feared to make this case. If this were Christianity, the pressures of criticism and critical inquiry — from within but also, essentially, from without — would press in such a way that many people would probably rejoice in taking up the cause. But very few people are keen to do this when it involves Islam. Most people from within the religion are either unaware of these aspects, or ignore them, or believe they should not air what they recognise is dirty linen in public. Simultaneously, most people outside are unwilling to point such things out because they fear everything from accusations of bad manners to a perception that they are not in fact critics of an ideology, or aspects of a religion, but racists or other varieties of bigot.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2012/07/tackling-a-very-real-problem/
the BBC, like Hollywood, is stuffed full of homosexuals (male and female), so it’s no wonder it’s biased
The Beeboids are going to love this one. White House mouthpiece (and personal friend and husband of the business partner of BBC Washington correspondent and anchor of BBC World News America, Katty Ka<,/a>), refuses to identify the capital of Israel during a presser:
The Beeboids are going to love this one. White House mouthpiece (and personal friend and husband of the business partner of BBC Washington correspondent and anchor of BBC World News America, Katty Kay<,/a>) Jay Carney refuses to identify the capitol of Israel during a presser:
They’re in synch in so many ways…..
Wonder how much the BBC Breakfast Olympic studio cost? Why are they not broadcasting it from Salford. Does anyone know if you get paid expenses for “working away” at the Beeb?
Today would be a very good day to bury bad news. I’ve just half watched the 13:00 hours news. Olympics olympics olympics. Ooh and a small article about Syria.