Well folks, stability seems to have been restored. It’s been very difficult in recent days seeing all that bias pumped out by the rancid BBC and not being able to provide you with a forum. But things look better now so I am providing you with this new Open Thread as the site begins to move up a few gears.
FRIDAY OPEN THREAD..
Bookmark the permalink.
I notice that on Today this morning neither Louise Mensch, MP for Corby and East Northamptonshire and a member of the Commons culture, media and sport committee, nor Chris Blackhurst, editor of The Independent nor Naughtie (?) were insensitive enough to mention the matter of the Mo cartoons. No paper in the UK published these cartoons – there were no polite requests AFAIAA by anyone not to – although they were “published” on the BBC website as a tiny photo of an indistinct newspaper page (ie in reality not published at all).
Thus, in a matter of real public interest, our MSM – including the BBC – buckled to Moslem bullying backed up with threats of violence. OTOH the Sun – which will have paid a fortune for the right to publish the Harry crap – bleats “public interest” and takes a brave stand against the Royals at a cost to itself (apart from the cash) of precisely nothing. It’s all pathetic and shameful but in this matter the BBC is, for once, no worse and no better than its paper colleagues. However, the BBC took the trouble (as usual) to suppress a genuine matter for debate and mount a mock-discussion on press “freedom” instead.
Oh and did you hear the preening patronising by Jonathan Dimbleby as he gave the 20 second commercial for this evening’s Any Questions this morning? According to Dimbleby, having Dellers on the panel proves how mistaken is Dellers’ complaint that the BBC is a nest of liberal lefties opposed to giving any non-right-on argument airtime. As I listened to Dimbleby’s statement and, particularly, the de haut en bas fashion of its delivery, it was proof positive – to me (but there again I am a mite in favour of Dellers’ opinion on this one) – that Dellers has got the BBC bang to rights.
Dellers is the first reason I’ve had in ages to listen to AQ. Just dying to hear the audience reaction. Wonder whether Dimblebore will try to close down any discussion of AGW which would be par for the course.
The question is, is it worthwhile listening to the constant leftist dribble from Dimbleby, the other members of the panel [see below] and the audience in order to hear the occasional pearl of wisdom from Dellers?
The other panel members are:
Joan Smith, columnist on the Independent and guilty of writing this travesty
Lucy Winkett, CoE priestess and perennial contributor to Thought for the Day
Timothy Brain, ex chief constable of Gloucestershire and the ultimate politically correct copper.
Hmmmm. Pity that Joan Smith doesn’t allow any comments on her blog, so that we can’t point out the basic difference between benefit scroungers who want free housing in expensive properties at our expense, and people living in Council-owned property because they work for the Council in a low-paid job.
I wonder if she’ll trot (Trot?) that out in Question Time.
Woman on a Raft in the comments to this posting by Ambush Predator rips Smith’s proletarian – and any other – credentials to pieces.
Woman on a Raft, daft name, pure visceral wonderful writing. Blogs, free, BBC: £145.50 License fee to be lied to by agenda-mongering overpaid professional “talent” with no talent.
Thought to Mark Thompson, why not charter a fleet of jumbos and ship the whole of the BBC News Division with you to the New York Times. I’ll happily give a pound to help you on your way.
Mortuary attendant George Entwistle, 15th DG, don’t waste your breath. Don’t you know, it contains CO2?
I gave up on AQ and QT earlier this year. I have better things to do with my evenings than hear a BBC Dimbleby mouthpiece setting the agenda, supported by a hand picked BBC audience.
And the nail in the coffin was bringing ex-Graun dusky plummy lefty Anand on to censor Any Answers on Saturdays.
I actually feel cleansed by my withdrawal!
Has Delingpole or some other non-Left figure become a regular panelist all of a sudden, or is this a highly-publicized exception attempting to disprove the rule?
Well, that’s it, isn’t it?
When they announce that they will include a Certified Right-Winger on the panel as though they were going to be broadcasting live from orbit or conducting the whole show using the medium of mime, then it kind of rams home just how leftist is their default setting. Only on the BBC could someone who’s sceptical about global warming be considered ‘fringe’.
You’ve hit the nail on the head there….completely impartial….in their genes….. yet inclusion of someone from the right merits a special mention. Rather gives the game away.
See how impartial we are – we’ll even put up with a loathsome right-wing bastard once in a while.
On second thought, I see that Simon Heffer was on last time. Need Craig’s stats on this.
Much as I like Delingpole, and admire his continuing determination to take on the BBC, he has become something of a token ‘rightie’ for them whom they exploit to demonstrate their ‘impartiality’ credentials.
As for AGW, he’s easy fodder for any alarmist because, of course, ‘he’s not a scientist’.
More blatant BBC bias
BBC In “War Crime” Cover-Up Controversy
http://www.prisonplanet.com/bbc-in-war-crime-cover-up-controversy.html
If you look at the Editors’ blog on this subject http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2012/08/hhhh.html you might notice that comment 10 has been ‘referred for further consideration’.
It said:
Jon Williams says
“Some pro-government news agencies in Syria have suggested the BBC and the New York Times have termed the act as a “war crime”. This is not true.”
But in the news item, now withdrawn, BBC reporter Gordon Corera clearly states “Using prisoners as suicide bombers would certainly be considered a war crime.”
Which BBC news person is telling the truth, the reporter or the editor?
Interestingly, the comment was allowed for a few minutes, then censored. Screen shots are available.
Interesting. Then know what they’ve done, and sent it down the memory hole, knowing full well that they’ll get away with it in the end.
‘The Editors’ threads are a rich seam, but sadly not for excellence of editorial process in action.
Interestingly, the comment was allowed for a few minutes, then censored.
Kind of the bookend bedfellow to propaganda if the wrong kind of editors are given free rein without accountability to the airwaves and edit suites.
See how long this one lasts.. ‘Please remember that you are journalists rather than propagandists?’ At least, until yet another early closing, which now seem the hallmark of these threads.
Sadly, as David suggests, they keep on doing it, again and again, because.. they can.
Paddy O’Connell sitting in for Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 introduced Bea Campbell as ‘writer and broadcaster’ rather than ‘extreme left-wing, second home owner in France, communist’, to talk (why?) on the Brevik story.
She was given free range to bang on about the ‘extreme right, misogynist(?), EDL etc.’. Apparently this right-wing terrorism is commonplace, though she struggled to name names.
Paddy concluded the item by calling her ‘a friend of the programme’. The truth of course is that the programme is a friend of hers, frequently giving her a platform for her extreme viewpoint.
Yes, Paddy O’Connell, yet another person employed by BBC Radio for no audible reason except his sexuality.
Add Bea Campbell to the list of BBC leftie ‘regulars’. Doing a bit of rough and ready maths here, given Delingpole seems to be the only right-wing regular (and not very much of a regular at that), the exchange rate in airtime I’d estimate to be around 1 Rightie = 225 Lefties. I know that still gives the Right an unfair advantage intellectually, but Dellers has got to earn a bit of appearance money somehow.
“Political Blonde”???? – The woman is a peroxide blonde – What is it with these dyed blondes that claim to be dumb when they aren’t really that colour at all.
Nice. That made me chuckle.
Another one for the list of Presidential gaffes the BBC won’t be twittering about: He called the top Navy SEAL a General.
No snickering tweets from any Beeboids as of yet. If anyone hears one of the usual Radio 5 suspects having a laugh at His expense, please let me know. Yet, when Sarah Palin – not holding any public office nor running for one – said “refudiate”, the Beeboids couldn’t stop laughing in public.
I’ve found it interesting how, again, the gloves are allowed off uni-directionally if pummeling any who may interfere with the ascendancy of the One.
However folk seem to get quite upset if the spotlight swivels back on an increasingly naked Emperor.
This I found on FaceBook, notable by being from a US poster who claimed no friendship to the Republican cause, but who expressed deep distaste for the hypocrisy of the Democrats and its medias remoras, home and abroad.http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=409436269118567&set=a.406923772703150.97939.406894756039385&type=1&ref=nf
Back to the story of Prince Hal and his crown jewels, whilst other broacasters have reported the SUN’s decision to print the saucy pictures, did anyone hear Emily Maitlis, former autocue jockey and now Newsnight presenter, three times refer to ‘News International’s’ decision to publish, only later adding, ‘News International’s, Sun’?
Clearly there was an editorial decision to describe the Sun’s decision in a way that no other news organisation has. I wonder why that was? Something to do with the BBC being a leading member of the Anti-Murdoch coalition?
Coincidence? Mark Mardell brought up Romney’s Mormon faith a few days ago. Now ABC has a segment planned and NBC is devoting an hour to the subject. It’s almost as if someone is coordinating this blitz on LDS. Surely not!
However, it’s with great amusement these days that I speak to my Democrat friends and hear the same phrase. They lean in confidentially and whisper: “To tell you the truth, I don’t like either party”. This I translate as “I’m not going to humiliate myself by agreeing with you but I’m not going to vote for Obama again, but I can’t – simply can’t,- vote Republican – it’s not in my DNA”.
How interesting that now Mark Mardell echoes this sentiment,” This is a very fluid election, with not a great deal of enthusiasm for either candidate”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19361626
However Mardell’s statement is wrong. While grass roots Democrats do not talk in glowing terms about their man, since the addition of Paul Ryan to the ticket conservatives in the Republican Party are very enthusiastic. Has the BBC reported on the sheer numbers of people at Romney/Ryan rallies? Remember they did mention numbers when reporting on the last election.
Mardell does bring himself to quote the following: “One of the authors,(of a report) Professor Kenneth Bickers of Colorado University, says: “What is striking about our state-level economic indicator forecast is the expectation that Obama will lose almost all of the states currently considered as swing states, including North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.”
But as usual, our gallant knight in shining armour does protect his hero with (a) this is from an “academic report” and not a poll (b) “the past does not predict the future and (C) Mardell cites three polls showing Obama winning and “doing better”.
As a student of Mardell I detect a little worry on his part. Oh, dear, the worst may yet happen, Mark. I look forward to the column you will write on how the American people let Obama down and how they didn’t deserve O.
Yes, I think Mardell is starting to sweat a little bit. We’ve seen that he’s come out swinging for the defense in the last week or so. Of course the BBC has been very, very quiet about the crowds meeting Ryan and Romney. Just like they’ve been equally quiet about the tiny crowds for the President.
What Mardell refuses to admit (if he admits it to himself he has yet to put it online or on the air) is that the President really cannot run on His record, other than being in charge when Bin Laden was killed. Of course, as we’ve seen from his recent output and his infamous appearance at the BBC CoJ last year, the US President editor believes He really did save the world, and really could save the country now if only those awful Republicans would get out of the way and let Him enact His plans for us.
In reality, these personal attacks on Romney – Bain, taxes, wealth (three facets of the same jewel), white, and now his religion – is all they got left. When that runs its course, personal attacks on Ryan will be next. It’s also part of why the Dems are making abortion a top issue, in spite of what the public is telling them.
Hopefully Obama will be like Micheal Foot during the 1983 General election.
Aye, a donkey jacket would suit him a treat. Not sure how he’d emulate the Foot hairstyle, though, without resorting to a Jimmy Savile wig.
Yeah – looking the Cenotaph as if to say “did we build that”?
(looking AT the Cenotaph)
Because we know had this been a Republican incumbent looking for a second term and engaging he in such attacks, Mardell would have reminded the public of such a president failing to live up to his words of his Wisconsin speech, post Giffords shooting of the “need to raise the tone of political discourse in this country”
Yeah, this sounds like a good idea:
Barack Obama asks eurozone to keep Greece in until after election day
US officials are worried that if Greece exits the eurozone, it will damage President’s election hopes
Cue the BBC reports about how it’s vital to keep Greece in the fold.
Spot the message(s) Pascale Harter is putting across in her introduction to a piece on Sierra leone in theis weeks ‘From our own correspondent’:
“Some say we are living through a clash of civilisations between Christianity and Islam – and you only have to listen to the news from time to time to see that there are people all over the world who stridently feel these two religions to be utterly opposed. The inter-communal friction, for example, and sometimes violence, between Christians and Muslims in Nigeria, Pakistan and Indonesia – but in Sierra Leone, Tamasin Ford has found some people who feel that not only are Islam and Christianity utterly compatible – they are even complementary.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00wvmvh/From_Our_Own_Correspondent_Sierra_Leone_and_Croatia/
We are then given a description of a country where religions inter-marry and some people attend mosques on Friday and church on sunday: clearly a happy go lucky lot where the finer, or indeed the elementary and basic elements of faith do not matter too much and they all believe in the same god ( a meme that puts the trinitarian Christianity at an immediate disadvantage). Unfortunately there are radical Christians and Muslims who are beginning to threaten this (untouched by too much literacy, mass media, Saudi mosque money, ex-pat workers from the Gulf, the internet) situation.
You would have thought that with one of the greatest persecutions that Christianity is going through in its history that Beeboids would abandon their offensive addiction to the ‘inter-communal friction’ line (useful because it covers Muslims killing Hindus and Buddhists as well – when they kill Jews the Beeb uses a different vocabulary). As for Sierra Leone being anything but a slightly anachronistic oddity rather than a shining example to us all, some background on the way many backwater societies have assumed Islam is just another religion, one of a happy family, have later been disabused by people who take its teachings slightly more seriously, might have helped. It would have been interesting to know who these radical Christians mentioned at the end of her piece were – perhaps they were just conjured up in the interests of balance. It’s interesting to note, from wiki, that while Sierra Leone is one of the most religiously tolerant societies in the world, that Muslims now constitute the majority in all provinces of the country although formerly the south had been predominantly Christian. A little snippet Beeboid Tamisin did not have time to throw in.
I’m tickled by the phrase “violence between…” which implies some sort of shared responsibility. Presumably the London tube bombings were just “violence between” muslims and commuters.
Excellent point: 9/11 was just violence between New York office workers and 21 glorious Saudi suicide bombers.
It’s all so simple when you swallow the post-modern blue pill. And the BBC cheques follow in the post. Rewarding the unspeakable.
wally
I heard that juvenile report on the World Service. Note the intro – suggesting that Christians are attacking Muslims as much as the other way round. The usual BBC moral equivalence line, as also used in the Middle East, which is usually a lie.
The rest of the report was pretty dumb, I thought. We know that worldwide there are attacks by Muslims on other religions – and internal murderous attacks between various Islamic sects. THAT is what the BBC should be reporting, analysing. What is it that makes Islam so ferocious ?
And in the intro – the “clash of civilisations” is NOT between Christianity and Islam. It is between Western values and the intolerance and ignorance of Islam.
The weekend is coming up; I was hoping to post this comment on Monday but couldn’t.
Subject BBC 10pm News Sunday
Female Newsreader, now I was not initially paying too much attention but I think every single reporter, and there must have been at least six items was female. The usual pointless link to the sports desk for someone to introduce football was female, but we then had two blokes outside sports grounds giving the results.
By now fully awake and counting, BBC Midlands News had a female presenter and four reports all of them from women. One included the opening in Coventry of an early Muslim Indoctrination sorry, Education Centre. Given that the main news had carried an item about Catholic priests in Scotland and the opposition of a majority to gay marriage, and gone to town on prejudice etc. I was a little disappointed that the BBC reporter didn’t subject the Muslims interviewed to the same interrogation. ‘ How do you Muslims feel about gay marriages’ would have been a start.
Anyway my main point here, that good as all the ladies were, had the gender of reporters been reversed, there would be ructions at the BBC with demands for equality in the sex of the presenters….which is my point. Are all the men at home looking after the kids at weekends?
I wonder if the balance will be restored this weekend?
I always think of ‘Womans’ Hour. Could we have ‘Men’s Hour’. Course not. Indeed listen to the pressure on the BBC for women priests, bishops etc…could it be reversed? Towards the end of the Olympics I heard several times how these could be considered the Women’s Olympics (memory lapse but could have been the British women)…would anyone on the BBC dare say it had been the ‘Men’s Olympics’.
“Could we have ‘Men’s Hour’. Course not.”
Er, there is one, though obviously not as prominent as Women’s Hour
Yuck. Oversensitive “new” men pretending to be real men.
‘The programme is well known for offering a man’s perspective on life’s crucial issues such as health, emotional well-being and relationships’.
‘And in next week’s programme, back to sex, violence and football’. Not.
There’s also Professor Amanda Vickery’s 6 part History of Masculinity series chugging along on Radio 4: she’s got to the 18th century seducer this week: Casanova and the members of the Hellfire Club were all callous brutes – who’d have thought?
In her dreams.
Re. the Sun pictures of Prince Harry, the BBC blantantly accused Rupert Murdoch of agreeing to publication of these pictures. Their take on it was that Rupert Murdoch would have given the go ahead.
What rubbish, I phoned the Sun and they told me that the publication of the pictures would have beenthe Editor’s decision and nothing to do with Rupert Murdoch.
The BBC would therefore be prepared to lie to discredit Rupert Murdoch, on behalf of the left.
What else do they bend the truth about? ti appease the left.
‘The BBC would therefore be prepared to lie’
Vis a vis your next comment (below), this would seem a worthy basis for a complaint.
It is, after all, purely factual, and you appear to have solicited confirmation of facts that are at odds with what they opted to ‘claim’.
At the very least, it would be fun to have shared here their explanation of how such an assertion came about and was run.
Be prepared for a few ‘we are comfy in our belief that in this case we got it about right’ hurdles as they first try and ignore what you have challenged upon, and then as you head up the CECUTT greasy pole some Director or other trying to blow it off on the basis that their editors are infallible and professionally incapable of any dodgy spinning.
Ironic given how free they are with such accusations at others.
Another trait of the BBC which is not new and has been going on since the Tories won the election is the favouritism towards the Labour party to be interviewed on the BBC. The BBC regularly (and I have been watching) wheels out a least one person from the opposition to put the ‘correct version’ of whatever happens on their screens from the economy to Assange. Sometimes it is 3 to one and sometimes no Tories at all. If this had been Torieswhen Labour was in power they would have not been allowed anywhere near the news. In fact they got arrested, like Damian Green.
The BBC’s only aim is to help the left get back into power as soon as possible as they know that Conservatism is the exact opposite of Labour and therefore their left wing world will be no more. They will do this on every programme they own and wepay for.
I think people should complain non stop to the BBC about this imbalance.
Plus on the rare occasions they did have the Tories on in opposition, it was always ‘Well it’s easy enough to criticise the government, but what would you do about it?’ The lack of any corresponding challenge to Labour politicians now they are in opposition is not only shameful it is collaborative, as they know damn well they don’t have enough policies to fill the back of a fag packet.
Will this be in the news?
http://www.which.co.uk/news/2012/08/1bn-of-tv-licence-cash-overpaid-293609/
Around £1bn of extra TV licence payments is earning interest in the government’s coffers from millions of UK households forced to keep their TV licence account six months in credit, Which? has uncovered.
New data obtained by Which? under the Freedom of Information Act reveals that people who pay for their TV licence by monthly direct debit are charged double for the first six months, and this additional money stays with the government after that.
With a standard TV licence costing £145.50 a year, millions are constantly more than £70 in credit. Of the 25m TV licences in force at the end of March, around 14.7m were paid by direct debit. A further 1.5m licences were paid under a ‘cash payment plan’ or ‘monthly cash plan’, whereby a customer pays regular payments at PayPoint outlets. This system works on the same ‘six months in advance’ basis.
The additional £1bn is transferred directly into the government’s Consolidated Fund account, from which the BBC receives a monthly payment.
You won’t get your money back until you no longer have to pay for a licence or if you choose another payment method. For many consumers, this means waiting until they turn 75 or passing away.
Re Breivik sentencing,
The BBC have repeatedly been using the verdict today to try to increase hate against nationalists in general (or the ‘far right’ as the BBC always calls ANYone opposed to uncontrolled immigration).
I have particulalry noticed the frequent references to his ‘smirking’ in court. Breivik is undoubtedly a horrible man, to deliberately target youngsters, but so are many criminals, Muslim terrorists and just common criminals, and ‘smirking’ in court and even being disrespectful to the judge is not at all uncommon as an act of defiance, when the accused know they have no hope of getting off. I recall the two black thugs who murdered the innocent lawyer Tom ap Rhys Pryce were similarly defiant in court, however when ethnic minorities are the criminals, the BBC never chooses to dwell on such behaviour and refer to it repeatedly. They are rather more inclined to look at the background and find reasons to excuse their vile behaviour. Why aren’t they looking at the underlying tensions in Norwegian society that led to Breivik’s crazed act? Why isn’t there a programme analysing the changes that have taken place in Norway in recent years that have triggered such anger that led him to this?
Anders Brevik is another great success story for the Frankfurt school. He maybe the first but most definately won’t be the last.
Did anyone hear Evan Davis interviewing Michael Howard this morning? I only tuned in part way through so what prompted the item I don’t know but it was about legislation the Tories introduced in the nineties to bring some control over illegal raves and specifically the impact they had on local communities. The other guy seemed to be someone from the rave scene at the time and he spoke quite well, not seeking to do any political point-scoring.
But whenever Davis asked a question of Howard it was accompanied by the trademark Davis girly giggling, which then continued when Howard answered. And I just thought ‘Why?’ Howard was too polite to ask what he was finding so funny, but I think he should have done. To be quite honest, it was quite bizarre, especially as Davis managed to remain serious when he was talking to the other bloke.
If there are any BBC-ites out there reading this who know this unprofessional buffoon, an explanation would be welcome. Maybe Naughtie was doing Dracula impressions across the desk, I don’t know, though I suspect ‘unprofessional, biased buffoon’ might just cover it.
I heard that. I wouldn’t describe it as girly gigling, more like sneering laughter.
Perhaps he has a nervous anxiety disorder or a neurological disorder which can sometimes cause this seemingly childish giggling to manifest itself, although some forms of tourettes syndrome can also cause giggling outbursts. Generally speaking, this behaviour is prompted by anxiety of some sort so perhaps Davis realised he was talking to some one who was likely to talk in a far more considered, sensible way than he was capable of himself and therefore was becoming anxious. On the other hand, perhaps he’s just a self opinionated prat!
Do you mean “Tinsel Tits” ?
This may explain the girly giggling.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/nov/06/broadcasting.observerreview
“Namely: his in-house nickname at the BBC is Tinsel Tits on account of his – alleged – nipple rings, he never rolls up his sleeves on account of his – alleged – tattoo. And finally, and most rivetingly, according to various gay chatsites on the internet, and my friend in the BBC newsroom, he – allegedly – has a ‘Prince Albert’, so-called because, and I’m quoting Wikipedia here as in my innocence I was forced to Google it, ‘the Prince Consort is said to have had a ring attached to his penis which was then strapped to his thigh in order to maintain the smooth line of the tight trousers that were in fashion at the time’.”
Ewwwwwwwww
Firts line of ther article….
“Beneath the serious exterior of a BBC economics guru, Evan Davis reveals…..”
Really ? ”An economics guru’ ? you’re kidding, right ?
A legend in his own mind is more like it. But then again if we’re talking ‘realtively’ here, and in the context of ‘within the BBC’s perception of things..’ then they might just get away with the statement….
Nah, not even then !
I thought Howard won out in the end, when Davis attempted to make Howard appear an out of date old git who couldn’t possibly understand young people. Howard politely pointed out that at the time of the act in question being passed, his daughter was a regular attender at Glastonbury; Interviewed terminated. I am not quite sure who Even Davis believes he represents, but his interview technique is abonimable, either giggling, gushing, or talking over his interviewee’s responses. Dire.
Yes, this is exactly how I see Evans Davies.
I remember he ‘interviewed’ (using the term loosely) Gordon Brown on the Today program just before the 2010 general election.
It was about the most pathetic, obsequious, worshipping interview I had ever heard. The highlight for me was when Davies asked Brown about the 2008 financial crisis, putting the question something like this: “Well I have to ask you about the 2008 financial crisis, of course none of the experts saw it coming, *I* never saw it coming, how could you be expected to see it coming?”.
This clearly let Brown off the hook and revealed how highly Davies thought of himself as a political and economic genius. His emphasis really was on the *I* never saw it coming – so how could a mere Prime Minister be expected to have half a chance.
It was soon after this I discovered the b-bbc website.
johnnythefish, perhaps you should listen to the interview again.
“But whenever Davis asked a question of Howard it was accompanied by the trademark Davis girly giggling”
Not true.
Davis and Howard shared some amusement with the legal language used to define “a rave”; and then again because Howard had a teenage daughter at the time. They were both chuckling about it.
What a ridiculous, inconsequential excuse for you to get all irate over nothing.
I heard what I heard. Howard politely went along and chuckled a bit. Too intelligent, too polite, too much of a class act for your leftist bosom buddy to cope with.
Your absence from the Whale thread was noted, by the way. But continue defending the indefensible. Your extreme left wing views and unequivocal defence of all things BBC go hand-in-hand and do more to re-enforce the purpose of this website than you will ever realise.
P.S. I can do ‘irate’, but that wasn’t it.
The BBC’s constant groveling towards and proselytizing for Islam is loathsome. I’m sick of them trying stick these annoying Muslim convert articles up on the website every once in a while… they NEVER do it for any other religion.
Muslims account for approx. 2 million of the UK’s population, so the BBC should shut up and start giving the Christians of this country a fair representation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12075931
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17827016
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11651579
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/conversion/beginner_1.shtml
In the following scribbles, the propaganda is plain for all but the slack-jawed, dribbling buffoon, to see – note the third paragraph:
“Giving things up
It’s not just at Ramadan that Muslims abstain. When you become a Muslim you have to give up certain things like alcohol – khamr – and, of course, drugs for ever.
And Muslims don’t go to places where alcohol is served – so if you want to discuss Islam with a Muslim friend, the pub is not the place to suggest.
You’ll find that Muslims manage to have just as good a time without them as most people do with them – In fact they have a much better time.
Tobacco isn’t banned in the Qur’an, but the Qur’anic principles suggest that smoking is not a good thing.”
“but the Qur’anic principles suggest that smoking is not a good thing.”
but smoking rucksacks, underpants, shoes,
trainstations, embassies, towerblocks,
aeroplanes, even islamic backsides …
all ok
Didn’t Mo the murderer promise his followers rivers of wine in their ‘paradise’ (our hell) when they’re finished on their slaughtering spree on Earth?
‘And Muslims don’t go to places where alcohol is served – so if you want to discuss Islam with a Muslim friend, the pub is not the place to suggest’.
Yet another example of, in your own country, follow their rules. So that great Brtish cultural and social institution – the pub – starting point for millions of friendships (‘we must meet up for a drink sometime’), is out of bounds for those who look for any excuse not to integrate. Quelle surprise.
They seem to have lots of vodka to ply to underage girls though.
And I have just switched on Radio 4 at 5pm Sunday to find a whole programme dedicated to Halal business..it might have been interesting but seems dedicated to telling us how wonderful Islam is. I wouldn’t mind so much if we heard programmes about Hinduism, Janeism, Bahal or Taoism or even here in the UK…how about Christianity…but Islam is the only religion in town.
Right, I see that the BBC have no problem labeling an evil bastard a ‘right-wing extremist’, but refrain from doing the same when such horrific incidences involve extremist Muslim terrorists. Remember all that lilly-livered crap from Thompson about ‘value judgements’? They are a disgrace!
Muslim barbarians, savages, scum.
Prince Harry ..blah blah blah.. photos…blah..blah..blah. Does anyone care? For me I have no desire to look at a picture of a naked man, but hey, that’s just me.
I don’t always agree with his analysis, but there’s no doubting this chap seems very well informed and keeps valuable tabs on the BBC (in complement to this fine site), often holding them to account…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/
I too would be interested in how ‘we’ appear to have ended up carrying two DGs when the function of even one has seldom proven a great contribution to the broadcast function.
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/double-team.html?
Who are they going to employ next? Zaphod Beeblebrox?
ps; The one about the BBC, those it employs and where they can end up politically is fun too…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/
I wonder if Ben Bradshaw is available for comment, as some questions are being asked and he seems as good as any to chip in.
That ‘right wing’ killer Breitvik was not actually referref to on the Today programme as ‘right wing’, he was called a ‘a right wing EXTREMIST’
Strange as Breivik only describes himself as a militant nationalist. Yet another case of false reporting by the bBC.
Nigel Farage is in for a hard time then.
So Breivik is on par with Paul Ryan, then?
Not so much a case of bias, more like a colossal waste of the TV tax.
“Arts editor admits BBC has no ‘arts strategy’ despite employing highly-paid creative director Alan Yentob”
“Branded the board ‘hysterical’ and compared them to bumbling staff on satire Twenty Twelve”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2192879/BBC-arts-editor-admits-corporation-arts-strategy–thats-despite-employing-highly-paid-creative-director-Alan-Yentob.html
…. just spotted that article, was about to hit the button with a comment, and your post popped up. So – simply my accompanying message –
Well, who’d have ever thought that the BBC would have indulged itself and it’s acolytes in wasting tax-payers’ money, to the tune of millions ….
TPO’s link page in the Mail says –
“The BBC’s Arts Board was created in 2009 to coordinate arts commissioning across its radio, TV and online channels. Overseen by ‘arts co-ordinator’ Mark Bell, its members include Mr Yentob, who has built up £6.3million pension pot on top of his total remuneration package of £183,300. Earlier this month, Mr Yentob claimed £1,216.05 for taxis for the period and a total of £722.81 for discussions about ‘projects’ and ‘BBC films’, although executive expenses were down four per cent.”
What the Mail doesn’t mention is the millions Yentob has made through flogging his own film company’s productions to the beeb via the corrupt programme procurement process – ever since Birt decided to “outsource” as many programmes as possible. Can I have a kickback too, Alan?
Watching Sky news special – Jeff Randalls ‘Born Bankrupt’. So far he has not explicity named Labour as the primary cause of our financial problems, But only mentions the years 2000-2010. Wonder who he can be referring to?
We are spending and putting the debt on our children. The programme is stating the stark facts of life, All the problems that Labour definitely did not face. As for the bBC to tell such a truthful story, dream on. The Labour myth they propagate, could be totally exposed.
Credit where due, but with a caveat. This video magazine piece from the BBC’s often biased “Altered States” series of reports is actually fair and balanced. It covers the issue of California’s recently legislated plan to build a high-speed rail line from LA to San Francisco.
Both sides of the issue are given more or less equal time, no sneering or qualifiers or backhanded remarks from the Beeboid. Alastair Leithead and the two girls who produced the piece may be yet more of the legion of Beeboids working the US beat, but at least they turned out a reasonable segment.
Sure, one could quibble that the pro side came from a government mandarin wearing a collar and tie involved in the project while the con side was a scruffy, but articulate farmer. But really, the farmer was just as coherent, probably more so because he was talking about reality while the bureaucrat was talking about what really amounts to little more than a hypothetical. But the negatives were spelled out in text blurbs just as clearly as any potential positives. Why, the Beeboids even acknowledged that California’s extreme debt crisis made it reasonable to wonder how they could be launching yet another massively expensive project. Nobody tell the BBC’s economics editor.
So they can do it. The BBC – even the ones in the US – can produce a balanced piece when it suits them. The caveat, though, is that this is really evidence that the BBC is increasing its focus on US eyeballs. This piece was clearly targeted at a US audience. I don’t think it’s part of the BBC’s support for high-speed rail in the UK or anything like that.
What this means is that it’s no longer a case of me being some US crank whining about a broadcaster in another country which has no affect on me. The BBC is in the US now, actively pursuing our attention and our ad revenue.
Blimey, it seems that the BBC really are the centre of attention up in Edinburgh, but do they really need to plaster it on their website?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19376264
Did anyone see Springwatch – A Guide to Sea Birds on BBC 2 last night?
One issue was the steeply declining bird populations on some island in ther Orkneys (forget which).
The presenter talked to a 30 year RSPB guy who has been working on the Orkneys for that time and a guy introduced as a Professor of Sea Birds from some uni or other.
When asked (prompted) if the decrease in numbers was down to climate change BOTH responded – “We have no idea why this is happening.” The professor said it could be fishing (sand eel decline) or climate change or a mixture of those and other factors, but we DON’T KNOW.
The programme then mentioned another four or five times that the problems were due to the effects of climate change. Good old Beeb.
I think the term which finally got me shouting to the point where her indoors changed channel was “the inexorable rise in sea temperatures….”
I would love to introduce the idiot presenter to the current sea temperatures around these islands by sending him for a long swim in a set of Speedos.
oh and how about the DNC in the US?
US Democrats National Convention and the Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs (BIMA).
Among the events an all-day “Islamic Cultural Fun Fest,” which will include ahem!
A “TownHall Issues Conference” that will address “issues such as Islamaphobia, Anti-Shariah, Middle Eastern Crisis, Patriot Act, National Defense Authorization Act
More of the same from the BBC…an undeclared activist put forward as an ‘ordinary member of the public’ to help promote the anti-Tory agenda. We’ve all seen this before, but it remains utterly dishonest and beneath contempt. Has the BBC ever knowingly smuggled a right-wing activist under the radar to pose as a non-partisan commentator?
———————–
News reaches The Commentator of another inglorious moment for Britain’s state broadcaster.
This week, a Trotskyist campaigner was interviewed by the BBC (38mins), which attempted to pass him off as an ‘ordinary’ unemployed member of the public.
Although Matthew Whale has appeared on BBC programmes before, for what appears to be the sake of having an anti-government, ‘Joe Public’ voice on the show, BBC Radio 5Live conveniently passed over the man’s hard-leftist activist background.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1562/caught_red_handed_bbc_passes_off_socialist_party_activist_as_ordinary_interviewee
They may well have got the story from this site without a hat tip; see the ‘student digs’ and ‘keep the red flags flying’ threads, posted by Alan.
Haven’t seen a BBC report yet on the 19th August arrest of the pussy riot 2 in the Cologne cathedral. Russian media is gleefully pointing out that the perpetrators face three (3) years in prison according to German law more than in Russia!
I guess we won’t be hearing about how Merkel will influence the judge in this case and pleading for a reduced sentence for this misguided demo. I wonder what the Greek media are saying?
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/pussy-riot-nachahmer-stoeren-gottesdienst-im-koelner-dom-a-850881.html
pro islam bbc …. even in chinese cooking show?
ooooo yeah! it IS the bbc
abhorrent halal slaughter, with koran reading, and Ken Hom reverently. standing to attention,(shakes head) … couldn t make it up … oh a right steaming pile of B/S
over the ahem! “poor – dis enfranchised, struggling, ancient” Wegas into the bargain.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01m7tcp/Exploring_China_A_Culinary_Adventure_Episode_3/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01m0pq2/The_Future_Is_Halal/
“the future is halal” R4… don t even start me on it.
Ought to be called “al beebs longed for abhorrent future, killing animals with maximum pain/suffering whilst reciting a fairy story” but it doesn t quite sound as sanitised does it.
Time to think about becoming a vegitarian ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315278/Top-supermarkets-secretly-sell-halal-Sainsburys-Tesco-Waitrose-M-S-dont-tell-meat-ritually-slaughtered.html
or a vegetarian!
Or just stick to pork.
I don’t think them culture changers care about how pigs are killed.
Has anyone noticed the animal rights bunch vigourosly campeigning against ritual slaughter and making it compulsory for supermarkets to properly label Halal meat? No? – didn’t think so, a bit like the feminists ignoring women in burkas and female genital mutilation.
The term for that is cowardice.
It’s indicative of the laziness of the professional protest brigade. The easy targets don’t fight back and, more importantly, present no danger to the safety of those doing the protesting. These left-wing activist groups are also desperate to avoid all those awkward accusations of bigotry that they themselves throw around with such vigour. They’d probably like to protest about this kind of thing, but are hampered by their own ideology.
Like the humanists – but then hey, halal is only about livestock so who cares.
Scrappydoo – that article was dated 2010. Whilst no defender of the ROP I am not sure whether halal meat is like kosher. Jews are forbidden to eat blood and therefore the majority of kosher meat comes from the forequarter where the veins can more easily be stripped out. This leaves the hind quarter where all the best steaks (think sirloin and rump) are to be found which can go into the general meat market. So the general population gets its steaks for the barbeques cheaper and the Jews get their kosher meat.
The science of whether animals killed in the kosher way is cruel is rather more complicated than suggested by the RSPCA and the ‘hug a bunny’ brigade would like to portray. But if you want to go down that route we will probably all be vegetarians in the end. And please don’t tell me that it is more efficient agriculture to all be vegetarians because with the best will in the world agriculture up in the hills of Cumbria will not produce a vegeburger efficiently (but will produce a beautiful lamb chop). Rant over.
with the greatest respect deb,
jewish people do not demand kosher be forced by insidious means on others, or attempt to regulate certain markets to instill kosher on the majority?…. do they?….
big big difference … it is the “demands”
nature, of islam again, plus the underhand tactics to instill it.
noggin,
“…jewish people do not demand kosher be forced by insidious means on others, or attempt to regulate certain markets to instill kosher on the majority?”
And who exactly are these secret muslims controlling the food supply and demanding everyone eat halal food?
Paranoid nonsense.
The vast majority of the halal meat sold in the uk is “New Zealand Lamb” which is halal for nothing other than business reasons (most of it is sold to muslim countries).
No big conspiracy; just abattoirs trying to maximise their profits.
bbrrrrr! an ill wind 😀
aaahhhh! scezz,
do you agree with halal then?
“demanding everyone eat halal food Paranoid nonsense”
how about in schools?
to unsuspecting children?
as one example, there are many more
… you know i m sorry i can t be bothered to extrapolate or placate you … you have fingers … you look it up
you could always ask a “secret muslim” buddy to help you 😀
Even though the technique is basically the same, and we were talking only about the parts of the animals Jews can eat, Halal meat wouldn’t be kosher because the animal wasn’t killed by a proper Jew, end of story.
In halal slaughter the knife wielder has to say “bismillah – allahu akbar” (I begin [the slaughtering] in the name of Allah – Allah is the Greatest) before killing the animal. I think it’s a bit of a cheek supplying meat to the public that has been killed in such a way without telling them. I’m surprised that suppliers carry out the same deception with kosher meat. Some Christians think eating halal meat would be breaking the instruction in Corinthians that they should not eat meat sacrificed to idols and their opinion is as valid as any other religious taboo or ritual.
Pat Condell has a thing or two to say about culture changers in this country.
Halal: the true view…..don’t click on this unless you REALLY want to see it, and strong stomach is essential, it’s dreadful.
A question to anyone who can not watch this video but happily eats meat- iI you really think about what you are eating and how it was produced and slaugtered how can you enjoy eating it ?
The Ecuador Broadcasting Corporation’s NUJ headline:-
“UK can end Julian Assange row – Ecuador’s Rafael Correa.”
-And the Ecuador Broadcasting Corporation’s NUJ has a long article supporting its anti-British, pro-Ecuador political position:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19362299
I can’t find an article by the British Broadcasting Corporation’s NUJ entitled:
“Ecuador can end Julian Assange row – Britain’s David Cameron.”
The Corporation’s National Union of Journalists couldn’t make it clearer that it is politically campaigning for Ecuador and Assange, and against Britain.
In what way, if any, does Ecuador Broadcasting Corporation’s NUJ political campaign AGAINST Britain, and FOR Assange and Ecuador, differ from the current political campaign of Russia?
Liebour are synonymous with censorship, social engineering (aka tyranny) and anarchy. In other words, the Left-wing are destructive SCUM of the highest order and the BBC are their mouthpiece; bring on the revolution.
I hope the next riots are where all this scum live. Let them see how great the country is they have created. They think a multicultural society is great let them see the reality of it.
As i have said before, why not begin around the chipping norton set, wherever they live, and open some madrassas in the cotswolds?
“The BBC has commissioned a Tory drama – what’s going on?”
By NIGEL JONES
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2192906/The-BBC-commissioned-Tory-drama–whats-going-on.html#ixzz24VQXLTIz
On the other hand George they do this regularly: Sunday’s George Gently – Set in 1968 against the backdrop of Martin Luther King’s assassination, Gently investigates the murder of a young black woman. She is a regular attender of the local club’s northern soul all-nighters, events popular with with factory workers across the racial divide. Gently begins to uncover prejudice within the local community and his own police force as he seeks to identify the victims killer. (From The Daily Express)
BBC output is controled by their social engineering agenda. Every program must have “the message” woven into it.
“Radical Islam revives an ancient hatred”
by Damian Thompson.
(His blog piece also contains an item on BBC bias and Orwell.)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100177915/radical-islam-revives-an-ancient-hatred/
Spencer takes issue with the way that Thompson blames the west for the persecution of Christians because of their removal, or connivance in the removal, of the ‘strong men’ rulers who had hitherto protected them. Somehow Thompson implies that it is natural for ‘Islamists’ ( Spencer prefers the term ‘Islamic sharia supremacists’) to behave the way they have since the lid came off, virtually exonerating them of any responsibility, and it is all our fault for giving them the chance.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/08/telegraphs-damian-thompson-blames-west-for-muslim-persecution-of-middle-eastern-christians.html
If anyone is interested there is some ill feeling between the two over Thompson feeling that he was misinformed by Jihadwatch about a ‘hospital rage’ incident in Australia some years ago: Spencer contends that the MSM refutation of an eye witness account was not particularly convincing.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/07/anders-breivik-and-the-echo-chamber.html
Romney’s ‘birther’ jibe upsets Obama campaign One must never ridicule the One.
While I do not believe Obama was born outside the United States surely it is a valid criticism of his management style that he took so long to defuse the issue? even though Mr Obama has released several copies of his birth certificate and Hawaiian officials have confirmed he was born there. But how long did it take him to do so? The day after the accusations were made the most transparent administration in America’s history could have released the copies and authorised the Hawaiian authorities to make his file public.
Could it be that the BBC doesn’t want to open another can of worms if it inquires too deeply about Obama’s honesty? Did he allow people to believe he was foreign born when if suited his purposes? As in the booklet of author biographies distributed by his publisher? Was this a mistake by the publishers or was Obama misleading to make himself more exotic and therefore more marketable as an author? Why is there no record of him correcting this ‘mistake’? One must never examine the One too closely. I would have thought that was precisely the BBC’s job.
“Carry on borrowing? Mr Davis of the BBC fails to question the IMF”
By JOHN REDWOOD.
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2012/08/25/carry-on-borrowing/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JohnRedwoodsDiary+%28John+Redwood%27s+Diary%29
Surely if the BBC regards such a person as an expert they should be asked tougher questions about their research, what numbers they have produced, and why they think it is right?
Evidently the BBC is comfortable in the belief that if certain folk are comfortable in their beliefs, that is all that is needed to confirm bubble rectitude without need for anything silly like facts and balanced discussion.
Invite on those who you agree with, agree with them, and edit it agreeably… no real surprise if the end result is simply propaganda.
Evan Davis, Leftie Labour Lackey. The proof is now piled high as a mountain of stinking shite.
Ecuador Broadcasting Corporation’s ‘TODAY’:
-extends its anti-Britain political propaganda this morning with this biased item:-
08:10 am –
“The diplomatic row over Julian Assange ‘could be ended tomorrow’ if Britain gave him safe passage to Ecuador, the country’s president, Rafael Correa, has told the BBC. The BBC’s diplomatic correspondent, Bridget Kendall and professor Victor Bulmer-Thomas, former director of Chatham House, question whether there are there key strategic and trading relationships at stake if the UK pushes the issue too far.”
-Note the NUJ’s anti-Britain political propaganda classic at the end of the above quote:-
“if the UK pushes the issue too far.” NOT –
‘if Ecuador pushes the issue too far.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9746000/9746767.stm
The BBC is out this morning shilling for the teachers union. Mr Grove and the exam boards are wascist because teachers don’t teach children how to read, write and spell properly.
Disgraceful no balance, now according to the BBC it is a human right to get an GCSE.
Wow, just saw this on SKY (BBC ‘news’ being so dire now it is not worth even watching) too.
Only they seem to be going with the Union of Head Teachers ‘considering’ (usually code for no hope in hell in reality, but well worth a punt for a headline) hitting the courts for discrimination on the basis, as far as I can gather, that not giving an A* to a person who can’t read, write or speak English is ruining their self-esteem and chances of being fast-tracked to being an inner city head teacher (if the barely comprehensible bloke wheeled out yesterday was any guide).
I am truly getting fed up with all media running their reports for maximum ratings or pushing agendas.
SKY also seems to have given up on any sense of objectivity on Syria.
The sainted Alex Crawford is on now in a report that seems extraordinary in how blatant her sympathies are.
I am pretty certain the Syrian Government is behaving in a pretty scummy way, but some of the carefully-editted images, vox pops and hyperbole she was coming out with solely from one perspective made her dispatch useless.
I wish the MSM, and especially the BBC, would get its head round the fact that only inviting on one side, be it head teacher, or approved combatant, or their PR/research mouthpieces, and letting them mouth of so uncritically and without challenge, seldom results in much more than effective propaganda.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19374339
‘The Association of School and College Leaders, which represents most secondary head teachers, is reported to be considering legal action against exam boards over the late grading system on the grounds that it could hit ethnic minority pupils and disadvantaged youngsters hardest.
Mind you, I wonder how the BBC will proceed given this reply which, when they deploy it, is usually deemed enough for them to kill any further discussion when they don’t fancy it.
“We are confident that standards have been maintained and that the grades awarded are right.”
So, that pretty much puts the whole issue to bed, then, Aunty?
If not, why is it considered the last word by your own Complaints system.
There is a limit to how much ‘unique’ you can get away with.
Bloody hell, I dread to imagine what BBC is up to, but SKY has lost the plot on this, as it now has ‘anger’ to spin.
So they are now soliciting ‘views’ via twitter, and punting out highly selective, emotive opinion from ‘a’ teacher who wrote an open letter to Mr. Gove that suits the heat over light narrative.
Now they have some bloke on a very dodgy Skype feed I first thought was the janitor but turned out to be a deputy ‘Ed.
Seems his beef is he’d promised his lads ‘n lasses a C but they’d ended up with D’s, and this was ‘barassing.
To be fair to the anchor, he did seem to be having some trouble grasping why grades get doled out on measures other than actually being competent in the subject.
The calibre of teaching profession spokespersons, one presumes chosen because of better comms abilities than most, paints a worrying picture.
Why can’t we, the viewing public, get presented with objective experts rather than raving activists all the time?
The BBC responded by hosting a discussion on Today between Former Education Secretary, Charles Clarke and Baroness Pauline Perry, speaker on education in the Lords, former Chief Inspector of Schools & Co-Chairman of the Conservative Party’s review of education in opposition. Fair enough I hear you say. Indeed it is fair enough except that Clarke let fall an avalanche of mendacious lies not only uninterrupted by our Evan but, and this is the point, hardly contested by the baroness.
Yes, she made the point about not squeezing non-academic gallons into academic pint pots but, basically, gave over the discussion to Clarke. The BBC is not blameless here. Evan let Clarke rant on and then turned to Perry and (effectively) said “there are the facts, now defend yourself” and did not give her the clear run given to Clarke.
I assume either Perry was put up by Gove to represent Conservative policy or the BBC sought an obvious candidate (which she appears to be) to turn up in the studio and defend Gove against the political slurs of Labour and the teachers’ unions. The slurs are to the effect that the results of this year’s GCSE’s have been fiddled. The unions, the apparatchiks in the Department for “Education” and the education academics know all about fiddling. After all they fiddled the results by introducing GCSEs in the first place (under a Conservative government – what was Mrs T thinking?) and corrupting the system thereafter but in a different direction.
As a defender of the government Perry was crap: she was worse than crap. Instead of taking the fight to the enemy she invited him into the tent and played nice. When will the Conservatives learn that not only are they not necessarily, by definition, the “nasty” party but that, in reality, Labour is very nasty indeed and is not only prepared to continue to sacrifice, but has actually succeeded in destroying, our children’s education on the altar of spurious “all must have prizes” crapola?
Perry should have – could have – eviscerated Clarke (not, of course, that Evan would have permitted this – this is the BBC after all) but she decided not to or, more likely, she is not capable of the low politics which the opposition always plays. So not only do we have the spectacle of a liar and charlatan like Clarke getting away with educational murder, we see the representative of the government (which isn’t perfect either, just less awful than its predecessors) conniving in the fiction that teaching and genuine educational attainment have improved over the last 50 years.
I would tell them both to come here to north London and interview – with me – some of the products of our state “educational” system for a real job in the real economy. They would not be surprised at the anger of those of us who have to deal with the results of the comprehensive “education” experiment. Anger, I would say, not aimed at the product but the manufacturers (Labour, the teaching unions and the parasites in education academia) whose policies have failed, so far, at least two generations of schoolchildren and aim at ruining the next one.
Well said.
Useless government.
Useless spokespersons.
But worse predecessors, who basically caused the mess the new crop of lightweights are incapable of addressing.
And will only make worse if let loose again.
Yet to get them back in asap, for purely self-interested reasons, the BBC rigs (sorry, ‘fiddles’, only uniquely acceptable when they do it) any discussion at any opportunity to engineer the society they want.
If I was a schoolchild or parent of any in the state state system (mine mercifully now independently-educated) I’d be angry all right.
If with a very different set of targets.
Your last paragraph is the crux of the matter, Umbongo. Masses of young kids are coming out of school who are totally unfit for work, both in terms of education and attitude. You hear the story time and again (and sometimes read it in the papers) yet somehow it hasn’t reached planet Beeb. If the BBC had any sense of the real world they would have someone like Mason shadow an employer like yourself whilst you go through the recruitment process so they could understand what you are actually up against. The trouble is it doesn’t fit the world view they like to promote, so they will never do it.
It was not that long ago when it was reported that something like 75% of bursars at English universities were having to introduce remedial classes in literacy and numeracy for first year university students to enable them to be able to simply cope with entering a higher education establishment. This, of course, basically delayed their introduction, for a significant element of their first year, to their main-line studies in a 3-year degree course.
Dumbing down…. ? Move on, nothing to see here…
City schools fill up with pupils whose primary language is NOT English. And they wonder why English results go down?
just saying!
More sloppy journalism on last night’s evening news on the Brevik sentencing. They described him once again as giving a nazi salute before being led from court after his sentencing.
Despite the fact Nazi’s are still socialist, they know the clenched fist is not a nazi salute, but a socialist / revolutionary one. The BBC know this, or at least they did when they ran the piece on the black power salute during the olympics. They need to keep up Che knew it, Mandella knew it, Hanoi Jane knew it so why the sudden case of amnesia?
The SWP’s slogan is that very salute, so at least they’re exposing their friend’s extremism.
I seem to recall when Abbott had her most recent racist rant there were a few screen grabs from Lee ‘Grasper’ Jasper’s Twitter account doing the rounds, and his profile pic was of him dressed as a member of The Village People, making the very same salute.
Talking of Jasper, has anyone else seen his Twitter remarks regarding the black woman’s racist rant that was caught on video?
He’s been spouting his often repeated lie that blacks in Britain can’t be racist!?
What does Britvic call himself? Left or Right?
Does he understand the distinction between Left and Right?
Is he another statist monster who sees fear as the only way of controlling people?
All questions not asked never mind answered on the genetically impartial BBC.
Hey, when you have control of the edit, it can be fun!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100177754/why-not-try-plan-a-for-austerity/
‘The argument over ‘the cuts’ has now become wholly detached from reality. Listen to the BBC’
However, fun though that is, quite why I am compelled to pay £142.50pa for delusion, especially dangerous ones, remains unclear to me.
Newsnight still getting its priorities right..
Anna Adams @AnnaAdamsBBC
Tabloid editors told me they were furious about Sun’s decision to break ranks. One said: ‘They’ve handed Leveson a loaded gun.’ #Newsnight
Retweeted by BBC Newsnight
Anna, she tells me, is a ‘reporter’.
Any chance of an on-record source for this assertion?
The fury seems more from those who liked Leveson and liked their media kept in its place.
BBC Radio Manchester has devoted this morning and afternoon to Manchester (gay) Pride festival. Is anyone outside the BBC (or the botting community) interested in this shit? The way they are going on about it you’d never think a 14 year old boy was raped in Debenhams (Manchester) the other day.
“Two arrests over rape of boy in Manchester shopping centre”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/two-arrests-over-rape-of-boy-in-manchester-shopping-centre-8079561.html
The Indy seems pretty graphic and comprehensive on which ‘man’ did what. Though there may again be a few Chinese, etc a wee bit unimpressed at the all-purpose demographic shorthand on display still.
Will the argument be that, now The Sun has opened the flood gates via Harry’s todger, watertight oversight no longer applies?
Or will the BBC remain the last beacon of caution on matters legal… except all cases when the perps are not on their rather unique ‘approved list’; the one that gets spared much in the way of being sensibly reported upon.
When… if it appears on the BBC radar I’ll be interested if we learn much more than ‘something happened somewhere, sometime or other in Manchester. But, in other news, did you hear about white single muvva Trace who had a few too many Breezers and said some intemperate things on the tram…. burn her!!!!!’
Decided to check… and it has been covered… if hard not to given the.. tardy… release of pix… http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-19341711
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19375369
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19331202
I’d be hard-pressed to say who was who from those pix mind… the guy on the left may even actually be of Oriental extraction (though the beard on the right doesn’t suggest a train spotter or scout master). Oddly the media seem still keen to avoid such possibly useful labelling.
Still.. it seems they may have been nabbed, if a bit late.
I wonder if we’ll ever discover what it was about one toilet that didn’t serve that those in Debenhams did.
Any expert guests’ input on such choices would surely be easy enough to solicit.
The trouble is the BBC and the entertainment industry in general has a very large proportion of its employees who are homsexual. People always want to promote their own lifestyles over others. Thats just human nature.
If i was a homosexual I would be more worried about Islam wanting to kill me than having a party with my homosexual brothers and sisters.
Live and let live, I suppose. However it’s the pressure (and the brainwashing that accompanies it) to not just approve but ‘celebrate’ what is on display at the parade that I object to. Couples taking their young kids along to watch is beyond my comprehension.
‘Couples taking their young kids along to watch’
Mind you, have you seen what’s on TV these days?
JTF – I don’t have any problems with the gay community either, in fact, I prefer them to certain other communities who shall not be named. At least they’re not trying to blow us to smithereens. However, I do object to the constant brainwashing, I don’t want it forced down my throat all the time (if you’ll pardon the pun). The BBC constantly present us a picture of a virtuous gay community but they’re just like us – they lie, cheat, steal, they have prejudice and yes, they rape too. Knowing this country, it’ll soon be mandatory to take part in and enjoy the Pride festival or you’ll be presented with the black spot as a warning followed by Emma West type re-education.
Oh … and they murder too -http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2189815/Attila-Ban-trial-Hotel-receptionist-jailed-26-years-murdering-colleagues-hiding-bed-days.html – although this one wasn’t one of ours.
My first post – first of all I want to say what a great site this is, have been reading for a while and like a lot of people on here I used to have respect for the BBC but have become to think of them as a dangerous threat to our democracy. One thing I have noticed is that the seems to be little appetite amongst the general public to get rid of the license fee, demonstrable from the lack of interest in on-line petitions (personally I think it is ridiculous in this day and age to have to pay a poll tax to own a TV). So is a it time to consider the big picture and and change the vector of attack? Perhaps rather than focus on abolishing the license we should focus on getting the money distributed amongst more smaller public broadcasters…. achieves the same goal? With all the furore around NOWT and Leverson the BBC itself has said that large media groups are a bad thing…
Perhaps rather than focus on abolishing the license we should focus on getting the money distributed amongst more smaller public broadcasters…. achieves the same goal?
———————————————————————-
an argument often advanced by those self-same ‘smaller public broadcasters’.
As the recession continues to bite the general public may take a bit more convincing that ‘Auntie’ is ‘a national treasure’ and ‘the envy of the world’. The usual fallback arguments for the pretrendy left whenever they can’t find any other argument.
cf NHS
perhaps start by splitting the BBC into 3 separate entities each with a remit to do one of : educate, inform and entertain….
Good idea. This just might begin to address most people’s mental block about the BBC, where they can’t separate in their minds the biased news division from the nature documentaries, costume dramas, orchestras, and treasured old sitcoms.
‘..a remit to do one of : educate, inform and entertain
At least.
‘the BBC itself has said that large media groups are a bad thing…
Nice debut. Welcome.
Noting the above however, what the BBC says is often not a great measure of what it has done, does or is likely to do, sadly.
On BBC-Democrat, Obama-twitterer, Katty KAY’s remark:-
“Remember 4 yrs into his Presidency 17% of Americans still think Obama is Muslim. This is what makes birth certificate talk dangerous.”
In her typically cryptic non-analysis, she doesn’t say why such talk is “Dangerous”. Does she merely mean ‘dangerous’ to her Obamessiah’s electoral chances? Or does she mean it would be ‘dangerous’ if the American people got the truth on Obama and Islam?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/us_and_canada/
Pamela GELLER:
“Why So Many People Think Obama Is a Muslim”
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/why_so_many_people_think_obama_is_a_muslim.html#ixzz24Ye3uf6R
Of course Katty wants to claim it’s “dangerous”. She really thinks that Romney’s joke just might turn someone into a birther. That’s how partisan and deluded she is. It was a joke about the fact that the President doesn’t seem to represent what most people consider to be classic American values. Plus, in His earlier years, He got a lot of mileage out of playing up the foreigner themes: that exotic middle name, He spent formative years living abroad in a specially-religioned country, etc. We were told by our betters that this stuff made Him more worldly, better able to relate to the rest of the world. Until it backfired, that is.
Maybe if The Obamessiah and promoted Himself to a publisher as having been born in Kenya, people wouldn’t get the wrong idea…..
if Obama was muslim would his policy toward Islam/jihad/middle east be any different …. or Israel … would he shill any differently …
how far have the termites got?
Goodness only knows how low the ratings are for Gavin Essler’s Dateline London.
The BBC describe this cosy and secluded dogging spot for bon pensants thus – ‘Foreign correspondents based in London give an outsider’s view of events in the UK’
Actually that is quite a misnomer since a lot of time is spent debating the Beeb’s favourite international issues such as how weird everyone agrees the US Republicans to be.
25/8/2012
The guests today are:
Anthony Faiola, The Washington Post.
This paper was once known to conservatives as ‘The Pravda on the Potomac’. More recently ‘In a November 19, 2008 column, The Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell stated: “I’ll bet that most Post journalists voted for Obama. I did. There are centrists at The Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don’t even want to be quoted by name in a memo”. Responding to criticism of the newspaper’s coverage during the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, Howell wrote: “The opinion pages have strong conservative voices; the editorial board includes centrists and conservatives; and there were editorials critical of Obama. Yet opinion was still weighted toward Obama. It’s not hard to see why conservatives feel disrespected”. Shades of the BBC there, I think.
Maria Margaronis, The Nation
This publication happily declares itself ‘The Flagship of the Left’
Mina Al Oraibi, Asharq Alawsat.
A London-based Arab newspaper, owned and in the pocket of the Saudi Royal family. Enough said.
Ned Temko, The Observer.
Sister paper to the Guardian.
Actually there is alittle more to add here. Ned is an American-born liberal Jew who once edited the Jewish Chronicle and says that he now is happy to be considered as a Brit.
Apart from the fact that this show appears too often to stray outside of its own declared remit (I would really like to hear what foreigners think about the UK), the lack of any real debate or indeed points of difference demonstates again and again that the international liberal elite to which the BBC aspire really do think exactly alike.
‘Actually that is quite a misnomer since a lot of time is spent debating the Beeb’s favourite international issues’
Certainly true of my (possibly expired in the ‘quick, he’s on holiday… whack out a daft reply and short deadline so we can close it*’) complaint on the one where all journos (UK represented by… The Indy!) and host decided that everyone in South America had every right to despise the British over their Malvinas colonial aggression.
I guess they’ve moved across the continent to Ecuador now to do the same thing?
*By saying the guy who assesses whose invited on can’t comment on what they say, and the guy who assesses what is said can’t comment on who is invited on, and they for sure can’t talk to each other, so ‘let’s call the whole thing off!’.
Somebody tell Jonathan Dimbleby.
What, no millionaire, race-hate hustler Yasmin Alibhi-Brown? Shame…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/25/alex-salmond-bbc-harriet-harman?newsfeed=true
Labour’s deputy leader, Harriet Harman, has accused Scotland’s first minister Alex Salmond of espousing unrealistic plans to break up the BBC – and that it would be better for the nation to keep the public service broadcaster even if it became independent.
Sadly, that last word ‘independent’ refers to Scotland, not the BBC.
News just in – *all* alex salmond plans are unrealistic.
Frankly, what Oor Alex has to say on most things seldom impresses much.
I’m simply shocked, shocked I tell you that the rebuttal is by a Labour ShadCab in the Graun.
I so like this quote from a Beeboid:
“The BBC executive went on to compare a potential Scottish broadcaster to Irish public broadcaster, RTE – held up by Salmond as one model for an independent Scottish public service broadcaster. “I do a lot of work with RTE, they are rather envious of the financial standing of the BBC,” Klein said.”
Never a truer word, just about the whole planet is envious of the Labour Party’s propaganda arm’s “financial standing”
No wonder Harman looks as if she’s about to burst into tears.
This might interest some of you.
That’s quite some powerful avoiding being held to account.
‘Despite this public funding, the BBC does not have to comply with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 with regard to actual information held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature.’
So many uniques, so many excuses, so much hypocrisy.
According to that report … the figure represented by the legal costs associated with the Balen Report (£332,780) could indeed provide for dozens of staff salaries at the BBC …
Or, more likely, the annual payment to one Director of Obfuscation and Avoiding Accountability.
Or about half Mr. Byford’s index-linked for the rest of his life?
Drop in the ocean really…when you are uniquely funded, at least.
‘Or, more likely, the annual payment to one Director of Obfuscation and Avoiding Accountability’. Recruited from the Climate Research Unit at the UEA, presumably.
Well it interested me, so I tweeted it, and promptly got asked to delete it by commentator as it wasn’t yet released?
WTF?
Breivik is first up on “any questions” just listen in from
2 mins … utter, utter bilge, we “ought to have treated 9/11 the same way”, as Norway, those were just fantasist erm “criminals” 😀 too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b01m19p5/
At least Delingpole was able to criticise the attempts of various commentators to blame bloggers like Mark Steyn.
you know wally, if you google mark steyn breivik trial, you won t get anything, any comment from steyn at all ….. just a line up of the same pap! about he inspiring breivik, the manifesto, from all the usual suspects
you MUST give this a listen …
a beebot from bbc newshour, given very short thrift and a few home truths over the Breivik Manifesto, by Robert Spencer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00hz34g
the interview is 8 mins in
Thanks for the link. Classic hyperbolic emotional thinking. The Beeboid actually thought that Spencer says all Mohammedan immigrants are dangerous and violent.
That’s the same view held by defenders of the indefensible about people here, by the way.
Lumme, Mr. Marshall just got pwnd by Mr. Spencer.
What… on earth… did he think he was trying to do with his line of questioning, which he merely shifted slightly to approach from a different direction each time he had his @rse handed him.
Nuts will do what nuts will do, and in a free speaking society if they are triggered by anything from a song lyric to a workplace grudge, what any person ‘out there’ they happen to come across who pushes their buttons or pisses ’em off, there are probably a bazillion triggers a day to do so.
I’m only surprised the cretin didn’t try the ‘what would you say to the relatives..’ technique.
The sound quality was also odd. Mr. Spencer I’m guessing was on Skype and hence sounded like a robot, but the BBC finest… sounded… like… someone… was… typing… in… what… to.. say…. Maybe Turing has seen his test almost met. However this was more Kasparov vs. Big Blue. Yes the Beeboid had his attack strategy all plotted out, but the human just stuck with gut and honesty and wiped his plate.
Frankly I am more concerned about who is getting ‘inspired’ daily by BBC broadcasts that are ‘shaped’ from pre-pro to edit in getting folk to think the way the BBC thinks they should vs. simply laying out facts.
Syria being simply the latest in an ignoble line…http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2012/08/hhhh.html
Julian Marshall’s frosty, semi-accusatory tone of voice and persistent re-phrasing of the same question gave away what he personally believed of Robert Spencer.
Presumably in his next programme
he’ll be interviewing a Norwegian government spokesman about how their imposition of multiculturalism and a refusal to debate its impact led Breivik to carry out his slaughter of innocent, brainwashed kids. Not.
mr spencer has to deal with self important, lefty airheads like marshall all of the time … but i think even his patience was tried, i would have liked it to carry on just a little further 😀
Islamic destruction of Christian communities. Enough material for a Panorama special, surely, or an extended Today feature? What about PM?
Away you go, BBC – great opportunity to demonstrate some ‘balance’.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/damianthompson/